| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
More Nuanced Ban Decisions
00:02:17
|
||
| There are more factors that take into account before a country has been put on the ban list and many exceptions that will allow some people still to come despite the ban, therefore more nuanced, more layered. | ||
| And is that what the courts were looking for, something more nuanced, more layered? | ||
| Is that what you mean when you say a narrower ban? | ||
| The courts, Supreme Court, this was, to be clear to our viewers, this is a five to four decision. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And then the opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts himself. | |
| And he said, look, in admission of people, unlike deporting people from the country, the president has a lot of leeway. | ||
|
unidentified
|
There's a lot of deference to be shown to the president as to who is allowed in. | |
| And as long as there is a connection, a rational connection to a national security or a public interest, it passes the test. | ||
| And he also said, look, there are world conditions that change all the time, and the judiciary cannot second-guess the administration. | ||
| So in that regard, as long as there is rational justification provided, that would, to me, seem is what the Supreme Court was saying in the last travel ban case. | ||
|
unidentified
|
When you say that Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts was saying it passed the test, is this a test that the House has been in recess, but is now gaveling back into session. | |
| We take you there live here on C-SPAN. | ||
| House calendar number 32, House Resolution 489. | ||
| Resolution providing for consideration of 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. | ||
| Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2056, to require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws. | ||
| Providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2096, to restore the right to negotiate matters pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement officers of the District of Columbia through collective bargaining. | ||
|
Caucus Stands Firm
00:08:55
|
||
| To restore the statute of limitations for bringing disciplinary cases against members or civilian employees of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and for other purposes. | ||
| And providing for consideration of the bill, Senate 331, to amend the Control Substances Act with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances and for other purposes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The question is on adoption of the resolution. | |
| Members will record their votes by electronic device. | ||
| This is a five-minute vote. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So lawmakers are voting now on the rules for debate on four bills. | |
| Three of those measures would repeal laws here in the District of Columbia, including one that allows non-citizens to vote, a law designating D.C. as a sanctuary city, and preventing collective bargaining for D.C. police in disciplinary issues. | ||
| The other measure is a Senate-passed piece of legislation that permanently classifies fentanyl with the highest penalties and controls. | ||
| After this vote, members will continue debate on two of those D.C. law repeal bills. | ||
| And as the vote continues, we'll hear from House Democrats on President Trump and the Los Angeles immigration raid protests. | ||
| Good morning, and thank you all for joining us. | ||
| I'm Congresswoman Yvette Dee Clark, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and proud representative of New York's 9th Congressional District, that's central and southwest Brooklyn. | ||
| I want to thank my Tri-Caucus colleagues, CHC Chair Adriano Aspayat and KPAC Chair Grace Main, for their leadership and presence here today. | ||
| We are gathered here today because, like so many Americans, we are outraged by what we are witnessing in the streets of Los Angeles and in communities across our nation. | ||
| President Trump's unlawful decision to deploy the National Guard onto the streets of Los Angeles is a reckless and inflammatory escalation, one designed not to restore calm, but to provoke chaos. | ||
| Let's be clear about how this began. | ||
| With peaceful protests, peaceful protests sparked by the unlawful and inhumane targeting, detention, and deportation of our immigrant neighbors. | ||
| And David Warta, a California union president arrested and injured during an immigration and customs enforcement raid last week, perpetrated by the Trump administration. | ||
| The Los Angeles Police Department had largely stabilized the situation, but instead of de-escalating, President Trump seized control of the National Guard forces in defiance of constitutional norms and poured gasoline on an already volatile moment. | ||
| Now, under the false guise of restoring order to a crisis of his own making, the president has deployed hundreds of active duty Marines to engage in domestic law enforcement, something they do not have the legal authority to do. | ||
| Don't fall for the lie. | ||
| This is not about protecting public safety. | ||
| It's about stoking fear and silencing peaceful dissent. | ||
| It's about turning us one against one another. | ||
| This is a direct attack on civil rights, due process, and our democratic norms targeting black and communities of color. | ||
| Perhaps the most sobering truth is this. | ||
| For Donald Trump, Los Angeles is only the beginning. | ||
| If this president is willing to send military troops into an American city over peaceful dissent, we must ask what happens next. | ||
| What American community will be next. | ||
| In a matter of weeks, maybe days, another contrived crisis could bring the armed forces to more of our communities. | ||
| This presence won't be to defend our freedoms, but to instill fear. | ||
| That has always been his goal, to make every black, Latino, Asian, and immigrant community, or any American who would dare to speak out against him afraid. | ||
| From threatening to arrest a sitting governor to hinting at martial force against civilians, Trump is not acting like a leader. | ||
| He is posturing as a strong man, desperate, dangerous, and utterly detached from the principles of democracy. | ||
| This president has crossed the line, and we must all understand what that means. | ||
| We still don't know the full consequences of this unprecedented authoritarian overreach. | ||
| But let me be clear: Congressional Democrats stand in full solidarity with the residents of Los Angeles, with our immigrant sisters and brothers, and with the peaceful protesters who dare to speak out and who will support every effort to oppose this president's abuse of power. | ||
| And I want to thank Governor Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass for their resolve and leadership. | ||
| To those who choose to peacefully protest, peacefully protest, stay strong, and remain peaceful, rise above his chaos. | ||
| The right to protest, to speak out against injustice, is fundamental to our democracy. | ||
| It is protected by our Constitution. | ||
| It is part of the American story. | ||
| Trump wants violence, not to stop it, but to justify his own. | ||
| Do not give him what he wants. | ||
| Having said that, it's my honor now to turn the podium over to the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressman Adriano Esbayat. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Chair Clark, Chairmen. | |
| Together we make up the Tri-Caucus, a strong voice in the House of Representatives, once that represents many districts that are being impacted by this aggressive action from the White House. | ||
| So let's turn back and figure out how we got here. | ||
| President Trump says that he's going to arrest violent criminals and deport them. | ||
| The fact is, he's going after working people. | ||
| He's going after moms. | ||
| He's going after folks that are trying to make ends meet. | ||
| He's going into a Home Depot to arrest day laborers. | ||
| He's stopping families on their way to a Houston hospital where four children, U.S.-born children, were deported to Mexico with their parents, including a 10-year-old little girl with a cancerous brain tumor that now has no access to the health care that she needs to save her life. | ||
| That's who he's going after. | ||
| And he's doing this in an aggressive way. | ||
| And so that's what got us to this moment, where hundreds of people showed up to an ICE facility to protest because they've heard, they got accounts, that over 200 people, just like the ones that I described, were being held there. | ||
| Four of our members went there and were not allowed in. | ||
| In fact, chemicals were spilled on the floor. | ||
| We're asking for a full investigation of that action. | ||
| And some of them suffering from asthma were impacted by that. | ||
| I myself was at 26 Federal Plaza on Sunday as people were calling for court dates on a Sunday, were dismissed. | ||
| Their cases were dismissed only to find out that ICE was waiting for them outside in the hallways where they were cuffed, kept in the building process for hours upon hours to be sent to a detention center where they were await. | ||
|
Let Me Know When You're Ready
00:03:19
|
||
|
unidentified
|
The resolution is adopted. | |
| Objection. | ||
| Motion to reconsider is laid on the table. | ||
| Okay, you | ||
| take your time. | ||
| You let me know when you're ready. | ||
| Just tell me what I'm going to say. | ||
| I'm a no. | ||
| The house will be in order. | ||
| For what purpose is the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, seek recognition? | ||
| Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 489, I call up the bill H.R. 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, and ask for its immediate consideration. | ||
|
H.R. 2096: Discipline Debate
00:15:53
|
||
| The clerk will report the title of the bill. | ||
| Union calendar number 107, H.R. 2096. | ||
| A bill to restore the right to negotiate matters pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement officers of the District of Columbia through collective bargaining to restore the statute of limitations for bringing disciplinary cases against members or civilian employees of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and for other purposes 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 red. | ||
| The bill as amended shall be debatable for one 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 Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, each will control 30 minutes. | ||
| The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I ask you to ask consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. | ||
| Without objection. | ||
| I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| The House will be in order, and the gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Chair. | ||
| I rise in support of H.R. 2096, sponsored by Mr. Gabarino, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act. | ||
| The men and women of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department serve the community every day to keep this district safe and secure. | ||
| On January 4, 2023, the D.C. Council passed a Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. | ||
| The act stripped D.C. police officers of certain employee protections, making their job more difficult despite rising crime in the district. | ||
| When the D.C. Council passed this law, Congress acted swiftly in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to overturn it. | ||
| The House and Senate passed HJ Resolution 42, which would have overturned the entire D.C. law, with 14 House Democrats and six Senate Democrats joining Republicans in support of the resolution. | ||
| However, then President Biden vetoed the bipartisan resolution of disapproval, allowing the harmful policies of the D.C. Council to remain in effect today. | ||
| In another attempt to protect the D.C. police, Representative Gabarino introduced this bill to repeal certain provisions of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act. | ||
| That bill passed through the Oversight Committee last Congress in 2024 and was reintroduced this Congress and again favorably reported out of the Oversight Committee, but now with the full support of the White House. | ||
| H.R. 2096 restores D.C. police officers' right to collectively bargain over disciplinary matters and reinstates clear timeliness timelines for disciplinary investigations. | ||
| H.R. 2096 also repeals the D.C. Council's requirement that the time and place of some adverse action hearings be posted to a public website. | ||
| This public posting requirement enables anti-police activists to harass officers attempting to pursue their due process in the workplace. | ||
| In summary, this legislation is necessary to support the recruitment and retention of the Metropolitan Police Department. | ||
| Washington, D.C. cannot afford to continue to lose police officers during the ongoing crime crisis in the nation's capital city. | ||
| My colleagues recognize the importance of supporting the law enforcement officers who risk their lives to protect our communities. | ||
| By restoring employee protections, this legislation gives the Metropolitan Police Department officers the due process they need to confidently do their job. | ||
| I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| Gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. | ||
| Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I am strongly opposed to H.R. 2096, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia because D.C. deserves the right to govern itself, plain and simple. | ||
| The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate full legislative authority to the District of Columbia for local matters. | ||
| However, Republicans choose not to do so. | ||
| Police officers are entrusted with extraordinary authority to protect public safety. | ||
| The vast majority of officers exercise it honorably and bravely. | ||
| However, there must be accountability and transparency for instances in which officers violate their oath of office. | ||
| H.R. 2096 would repeal provisions of a 2023 D.C. law that made it easier for the police department to discipline officers for crimes and serious misconduct. | ||
| Before that law, the department had been forced to rehire a significant number of officers it had fired for crimes and official misconduct. | ||
| Let me provide examples of the types of officers the department had to rehire. | ||
| Officers convicted or arrested for child abuse, sexual assault, indecent exposure, drunk driving, causing injuries, domestic violence, and assault while off duty. | ||
| D.C. also had to provide millions of dollars in back pay to those officers it was forced to rehire, and D.C. paid millions of dollars to resolve police officer misconduct lawsuits. | ||
| Before the 2023 D.C. law, every single D.C. police chief for at least the prior 25 years has requested more authority to discipline officers. | ||
| H.R. 2096 would inexplicably revoke this authority. | ||
| By bringing H.R. 2096 to the floor, Republicans are declaring they know better than the D.C. police chief how to run the department. | ||
| Let's hear what some of these D.C. police chiefs have had to say about this authority. | ||
| Let's start with former Chief Peter Newsom, said he had to allow, quote, very bad police officers back into our department, close quote. | ||
| Former Chief Charles Ramsey said, quote, it is demoralizing to the rank and file police officers who really do not want to have those kinds of people in their ranks. | ||
| It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public. | ||
| Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen, close quote. | ||
| And former Chief Robert Conte said that this authority would, quote, help reduce the risk of returning poor performers to the police force, close quote. | ||
| Following the devastating murder of George Floyd, D.C. enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which in pertinent part made it easier for the Police Department to discipline officers. | ||
| H.R. 2096 would repeal that discipline provision in that law. | ||
| H.R. 2096, as introduced, includes a purpose section. | ||
| The purpose is to, and I quote, combat the rise in violent crime in our nation's capital by eliminating policies which place law enforcement personnel of the District of Columbia at risk and discourage them from serving and ensuring such personnel will be treated equitably and fairly, and the recruitment and retention of such personnel shall be increased. | ||
| Close quote. | ||
| We are not surprised that the version of H.R. 2096 on the floor today does not include that purpose section, since it is inaccurate. | ||
| Violent crime here is not rising in D.C. In 2025, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period in 2024. | ||
| In 2024, violent crime in D.C. was the lowest in over 30 years. | ||
| Let me repeat, violent crime is falling in D.C., and it is at a 30-year low in the District of Columbia. | ||
| The D.C. Police Department is not alone in having difficulty recruiting and retaining police officers. | ||
| Police departments of all sizes across the country have had this difficulty for many years. | ||
| A survey conducted in 2019 before jurisdictions across the country enacted police accountability and transparency legislation after the murder of George Floyd found that, quote, the difficulty in recruiting law enforcement officers and employees is not due to one particular cause. | ||
| Rather, multiple social, political, and economic forces are all simultaneously at play, close quote. | ||
| H.R. 2096 would repeal four discipline provisions. | ||
| First, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that removes police officers disciplined for collective bargaining. | ||
| Several states, including states represented by Republicans, prohibit collective bargaining by police officers. | ||
| The 2023 D.C. law maintained that right of police officers to collectively bargain, except over discipline and maintained the civil service protections and due process rights of officers. | ||
| Collective bargaining by police officers has been widely criticized for protecting police officers from discipline. | ||
| A Republican staff report for the Joint Economic Committee said that, quote, collective bargaining plays a significant role in shielding police officers from the consequences of their misconduct, close quote. | ||
| Second, H.R. 2096 would reinstitute a 90-day statute of limitations on the police department to commence discipline. | ||
| The 2023 D.C. law repealed that provision because 90 days was not enough time in some cases to commence discipline. | ||
| Adjudicators had overturned discipline because the department had exceeded the 90-day statute of limitations, and there is no statute of limitation for most D.C. employees. | ||
| The home state of the sponsor of H.R. 2096 has an 18-month statute of limitations to commence discipline against police officers. | ||
| Thirdly, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that gave the police chief the authority to increase the discipline proposed by a police trial board, which consists of police officers. | ||
| Before the 2023 D.C. law, the police chief could only impose or reduce the proposed discipline or order a new trial. | ||
| The D.C. law increased the discipline power of the chief and reduced the discipline power of the trial board, which may be more inclined to protect their fellow officers from discipline. | ||
| Fourth, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that required the police department to publish on a public website a schedule of officer discipline hearings which are open to the public. | ||
| The House of Representatives itself publishes on a public website a schedule of its committee hearings. | ||
| I want to close with a question and a plea. | ||
| If Republicans support police officers, why hasn't Speaker Johnson installed the plaque honoring the brave police officers, including D.C. officers, who defended this Capitol on January 6? | ||
| Federal law requires its installation by March 15, 2023, more than two years ago. | ||
| That plaque, in honor of officers who were killed defending the members of this Congress, defending this institution, is apparently sitting in a closet. | ||
| The families of those officers who were killed and beaten that day are waiting for the due respect that is owed to their husbands, sons, and fathers. | ||
| The more than 700,000 D.C. residents who have all the obligations of citizenship, including paying federal taxes and serving in our nation's wars, deserve voting representation in Congress and full home rule. | ||
| I call on the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 51, the D.C. statehood bill. | ||
| I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| The gentleman reserves and the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gabbarino. | ||
| Or three minutes, three minutes. | ||
| The gentleman from New York is recognized with three minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 2096, the protecting our nation's Capital Emergency Act. | |
| Washington, D.C., is facing a public safety crisis. | ||
| Last month alone, 20 people were shot and killed in the District of Columbia. | ||
| And in recent years, D.C. was rated the fifth deadliest city in America. | ||
| At the core of the problem is a dangerously understaffed police force brought about reckless policies. | ||
| Law enforcement in D.C. has been left without basic bargaining rights or procedural protections, something my colleagues on the other side usually support, but for some reason here they're against it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This guts MPD's ability to recruit, retain, and respond. | |
| The result? | ||
| Consistently high crime rates and a staffing shortfall of about 800 officers that puts both police and residents at risk. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I mean, I don't know if people forget, just under two years ago, one of our own colleagues was mugged at gunpoint several blocks from the Capitol. | |
| That might not have happened if we weren't understaffed by about 800 officers in Washington, D.C. When we undermine law enforcement, we embolden the criminals. | ||
| Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure the MPD can effectively combat crime and keep Washingtonians safe. | ||
| This legislation restores fairness and support for the men and women who risk their lives to keep our Capitol secure. | ||
|
unidentified
|
If Washington, D.C. won't fix this problem, it's our job to. | |
| I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a clear message. | ||
| We stand with the law enforcement and will not allow D.C. to spiral further into lawlessness. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman Reserves, the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| At this time, I'd like to yield seven minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton. | ||
| The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is recognized for seven minutes. | ||
| I thank the gentleman. | ||
| I strongly oppose this anti-democratic bill, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia government. | ||
| The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of local self-government. | ||
| I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from D.C.'s locally elected chief executive, Mayor Muriel Bowser, opposing this bill. | ||
| I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from every member of D.C.'s locally elected legislature, the Council, opposing this bill. | ||
| Without objection? | ||
|
D.C. Police Authority Override
00:04:49
|
||
| I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from D.C.'s locally elected Attorney General, Brian Schwab, opposing this bill. | ||
| Without objection? | ||
| The Republicans regularly introduce legislation to repeal local D.C. laws. | ||
| What is different about this bill is it also overrides long-standing wishes of the D.C. Police Department. | ||
| For at least a quarter of a century, the D.C. Police Department has requested increased authority to discipline officers for misconduct. | ||
| The Council gave the Department this authority after the murder of George Floyd. | ||
| This bill would take away this authority. | ||
| I will discuss this justification, the justification and timing of this bill, though it is always wrong and never the right time for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. | ||
| This bill says it is necessary to combat rising violent crime in D.C. and to improve the retention and recruitment of D.C. police officers. | ||
| This bill has its facts wrong. | ||
| Last year, violent crime in D.C. reached a more than 30-year low. | ||
| This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period last year. | ||
| Police departments throughout the country in both red and blue states are struggling to retain and recruit officers, and they have been so for many years. | ||
| The timing of the introduction and consideration of this bill is stunning. | ||
| It was introduced the same bill. | ||
| Congress cut the local D.C. budget by more than $1 billion. | ||
| This fiscal sabotage did not save the federal government any money since the local D.C. budget consists entirely of locally raised revenue. | ||
| The Senate immediately passed the D.C. Local Funds Act to reverse this cut. | ||
| Although President Trump and the National Fraternity Order of Police called for the House to immediately pass the D.C. Local Funds Act, the D.C. Local Funds Act has been sitting in this House for three months. | ||
| I close by discussing democracy or lack thereof in D.C. | ||
| 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 of the action taken by Congress, whether on local or federal matters, and they pay full federal taxes while being denied voting representation in Congress. | ||
| If Republicans cared about D.C. residents or democracy, they would take up H.R. 51, the D.C. statehood bill. | ||
| H.R. 51 would admit the residential and commercial areas of D.C. as a state, giving D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government. | ||
| Congress has the authority to admit the new state. | ||
| The admissions clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit the new states. | ||
| All 37 new states were admitted by an act of Congress. | ||
| The district clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to reduce the size of the federal district, which it has previously done. | ||
| I urge the House to vote no on H.R. 296 and to pass the D.C. Statehood Bill and the D.C. Local Funds Act. | ||
| I yield. | ||
| The gentleman in reserves, the gentleman from Kentucky, is recognized. | ||
| Gentleman Reserves. | ||
| Gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I now yield to the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, for six minutes. | ||
| the lady is recognized thank you madam speaker Today I rise to oppose this attack on our nation's capital. | ||
|
Washington D.C. Home Rule Debate
00:15:09
|
||
| I want to remind everyone that one week ago today, Donald Trump was in the most epic breakup of probably a generation. | ||
| He and Elon Musk were fighting it out on Twitter and True Social, going back and forth. | ||
| And what was Donald Trump's response? | ||
| Was it an in earnest response to the actual attacks that were coming towards him? | ||
| As his actual agenda was sinking here in the House, as Elon Musk was taking to Twitter for days, trying to take down his signature bill, his big abomination of a bill that would strip health care away from millions of Americans, Medicaid and Medicare, that would take food out of the mouths of millions of American children, | ||
| that would cut programs that people across this country use to advance their education, and that would blow a hole through the United States deficit on a scale we have never seen before. | ||
| Just a week ago, Elon Musk was tweeting, kill the bill, and in the days after was posting incriminating tweets, not only about the President, but about the GOP and their ability to win and hold this House. | ||
| And what was the President's response? | ||
| Did he respond to these allegations? | ||
| Did he rush to stop Republicans from trying to cover their tracks who had been lying for weeks about the nature of this bill and how it would gut our health care to millions of Americans and how it would cause our nation to spend generations of debt on the backs of the American people so that billionaires could get another small tax break? | ||
| No. | ||
| What he did was deploy ICE to make mass arrests and terrorize families in Los Angeles. | ||
| And when people went to go exercise their First Amendment rights, he deployed the National Guard and then the United States Marines against the American people. | ||
| This is not only a distraction, this is a direct abuse of power. | ||
| Because the reality of what was actually going on in this chamber a week ago is that these people were trying to take away Americans' health care and food assistance, and Donald Trump was getting heat from his ex-boyfriend. | ||
| So what did he do? | ||
| He deployed the United States military against Americans. | ||
| And what's the GOP doing this week on this House floor? | ||
| They're attacking the sovereignty and home rule of the people of the city of Washington, D.C. | ||
| And I think it should not take anyone by surprise as Donald Trump is preparing to have the largest military parade on his birthday in generations here in this city, | ||
| that the three bills they're trying to pass on this House floor are directly attacking the city that is the capital of this great nation, that is attacking policing and attacking home rule of this city. | ||
| That is what these bills are all about. | ||
| They are a distraction. | ||
| They are about taking over the self-governance of the city of Washington, D.C. | ||
| And they are about taking away the power of the people. | ||
| And I think it's important to understand that as Representative of Washington, D.C. Norton just said, this is also about stripping the people of D.C. of vital reforms that came in the wake of George Floyd's death. | ||
| So what is this all really about? | ||
| What is this in service of? | ||
| Is this really about making the capital city more safe? | ||
| No. | ||
| It's not. | ||
| In fact, it's about making it less safe for the people of Washington, D.C., who live here, who work here every day of their lives, and frankly, who take care of the rest of us who come here to work on behalf of our people. | ||
| This is not about public safety. | ||
| This is about taking away vital reforms. | ||
| It's about taking away home rule of Washington, D.C., and it's about taking away once again the rights of the people of this city. | ||
| So I am proud to stand with the people of D.C. in opposing all three of these bills and to get us refocused on the real issues of this country and what is actually happening in this chamber right now, which is that all of these guys sitting around here today are trying to take away your health care. | ||
| And with that, I yield back. | ||
| Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President. | ||
| Gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, before I reserve, I just want to make sure my colleagues across the aisle know what bill we're actually debating on the floor, that the bill that pertains to law enforcement in Washington, D.C. has nothing to do with their quest to continue to defend the rioters and the illegals in California. | ||
| With that, I reserve. | ||
| Gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to offer a letter from Deirdre Schieffling, Anthony Romero, and Deborah Archer of the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to H.R. 2096. | ||
| Without objection. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. I'm prepared to close. | |
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| I have no further speakers prepared to close. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Chair. | ||
| In closing, I would note that H.R. 2096 is endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police. | ||
| I strongly encourage each of my House colleagues to support this bill, which will help strengthen law and order in our nation's capital city, which is the responsibility of Congress and the House Oversight Committee. | ||
| With that, again, I encourage passage of H.R. 2096, and I yield back the balance of my time. | ||
| The gentleman yields back, and 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 engrossment and third reading of the bill. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Aye. | |
| Those opposed, no. | ||
| The ayes have it. | ||
| Third reading. | ||
| A bill to restore the right to negotiate matters pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement officers of the District of Columbia through collective bargaining to restore the statute of limitations for bringing disciplinary cases against members or civilian employees of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and for other purposes. | ||
| The question is on passage of the bill. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| I can vote. | ||
| Those opposed, no. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| If I vote. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Of the chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is request a recorded vote. | |
| The gentleman's yays and nays the yays and nays are requested. | ||
| Those favoring a vote by the yays and nays will rise. | ||
| A sufficient number have risen. | ||
| The yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20. | ||
| Further proceedings on this question will be postponed. | ||
| For what purposes, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, seek recognition. | ||
| 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 Act Amendment of 2022 and ask for its immediate consideration. | ||
| The clerk will report the title of the bill. | ||
| Union calendar number 106, H.R. 884, a bill 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. | ||
| 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 amendment is considered read. | ||
| The bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee of 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. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I ask Unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. | ||
| Without objection. | ||
| Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Chair. | ||
| 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 21st, 2022, the D.C. government enacted the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act permitting non-citizen 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. | ||
| In 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 common sense 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 non-citizens, whether here legally or illegally, undermines the voice of Washington, D.C. residents. | ||
| Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the nation's capital. | ||
| And the House Oversight Committee is charged with ensuring responsible governance in the district, including its election laws. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to support Representative August Fluger's bill to restore common sense protection and ensure that only United States citizens have the right to vote in local D.C. elections. | ||
| I reserve the ballot to my top. | ||
| The gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from Florida is recognized. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I yield myself as much time as I consume. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| 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 D.C. 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, quote, grant the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government and, quote, to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local D.C. matters, end quote. | ||
| H.R. 884 contravenes the purpose of the Home Rule Act. | ||
| D.C.'s Local Residence Voting Amendment Act of 2022 allows D.C. residents who are not yet U.S. citizens to vote only in local elections, 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 non-citizens to vote in federal elections, which is a crime under federal law. | ||
| Regardless of your views on the merits of non-citizen 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 human history or throughout American history, Congress in 40 states have allowed non-citizens to vote in local state territorial elections, including the home state of the sponsor of this bill. | ||
| Congress did not prohibit non-citizens from voting in federal elections until 1996. | ||
| And today, about 20 municipalities allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. | ||
|
D.C.'s Case for Universal Suffrage
00:15:33
|
||
| I also want to address very specific concerns that we're hearing from our Republican colleagues. | ||
| Number one, they're concerned that foreign diplomats might vote in local D.C. elections. | ||
| We believe, number one, that that's 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 voting for voter fraud includes imprisonment for up to five 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, quote, effectively renounce their right to vote in their country of origin, end quote. | ||
| The Board noted that a foreign diplomat would have to, swear under penalty of law through the D.C. registration application that the person is not claiming voting residence in another country, end quote. | ||
| The board also noted that an embassy address cannot be used to register to vote since it is considered a commercial or business address, and 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're aware that the United States, 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's 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's highly unlikely because the D.C. voter roll is public record, and undocumented immigrants likely would not want to identify themselves, including their address. | ||
| 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 the privilege of American citizenship. | ||
| And not only is that historically incorrect, but I described earlier, it's also hypercritical. | ||
| 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 the Senate. | ||
| We, of course, continue to push for D.C. statehood, and I urge the House to reject H.R. 884, and instead to pass H.R. 51. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman reserves. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| The gentleman reserves and the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I yield three minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fluger. | ||
| The gentleman from Texas is recognized for three minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Madam Speaker. | |
| And I thank the Chair, Mr. Comer, a good friend from Kentucky. | ||
| 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 common sense bill. | ||
| I'm going to start with a question that's posed: why, 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's the purpose? | ||
| So let's just pose that question of why. | ||
| And I ask the American public to ask your representative where they stand on this issue, because it's a bipartisan issue, with over two-thirds of this body having voted for it last year. | ||
| 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 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. | ||
| On November 21st, 2022, the D.C. City Council made a radical decision to allow non-citizens, including illegal aliens, and those who are aligned with embassies of foreign countries to vote in local D.C. elections. | ||
| After the non-citizen voting law went into effect, the district actively encouraged non-citizens to vote for mayor, attorney general, members of the State Board of Education, and more. | ||
| And some may wrongly dismiss these as merely local elections. | ||
| However, the reality is that local elections are a vital part to 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's also important to acknowledge that many local elections are decided by razor-thin margins, underscoring their significance and the importance of active participation. | ||
| And 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 non-citizens 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. | ||
| And I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look beyond 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. | ||
| And let's restore that sanctity. | ||
| And I go back to the question. | ||
| This is common sense. | ||
| But you have to ask yourself: why would you want a foreign agent? | ||
| Why would you want an illegal immigrant? | ||
| Why would you want somebody else that's not a citizen voting in local elections in D.C.? | ||
| For what nefarious purpose are you pushing? | ||
| As I mentioned last Congress, the House passed this bill with bipartisan support. | ||
| All Republicans and one-third of Democrats supported this common sense measure, and I'm asking everybody in the House of Representatives to stand up and do the right thing, vote for this bill, and I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman reserves and the gentleman from Florida is recognized. | ||
| You know, it's interesting because the gentleman just asked our constituents to ask us what we think about this issue. | ||
| But I think the better thing would be for the gentleman to ask his constituents what they care about. | ||
| And I promise you, this issue will not be in the top three nor 10 of the things that they want us to focus on. | ||
| And at the same time, they're pushing a bill to take away health care 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, taxation, and must register for selective service. | ||
| D.C. believes they deserve a say in the local, again, 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. | ||
| And I promise the gentleman, if he spoke with his own constituents, they don't give a damn. | ||
| I yield seven minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He is recognized. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from every member of D.C.'s locally elected legislature, the council, opposing this bill. | ||
| I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from D.C.'s locally elected Attorney General, Brian Schwab, opposing this bill. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Without objection. | |
| Last Congress, Republicans introduced 26 bills or amendments to change local D.C. election laws, including 14 to prohibit non-citizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify, or prohibit the carrying out of the local D.C. law that allows non-citizens to vote in local elections. | ||
| Yet Republicans refuse 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 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents, quote, a municipal legislature for local purposes derived of their own suffrages will, of course, be allowed them, end quote. | ||
| In 1953, the Supreme Court held that, quote, there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia to full legislative power, close. | ||
| 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 selective service, 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 any jurisdiction for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. | ||
| However, I will briefly discuss it. | ||
| D.C. allows non-citizens to vote in local elections because it believes that all adult residents deserve a say in their local government. | ||
| While D.C. law allows non-citizens to vote only in local elections, 40 states and the federal government allow non-citizens to vote in local, state, territorial, and federal elections at various points, including the founding. | ||
| The federal government first prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections only 29 years ago. | ||
| Today, nearly 20 citizens allow non-citizens 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, pursuant to the admissions and district clauses 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, it would also give D.C. full local self-government. | ||
| I urge members to respect the will of D.C. residents by voting no on H.R. 884. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman reserves. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Malatakis. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlelady from New York is recognized for five minutes. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I rise to ask the question: why are the Democrats so obsessed with allowing non-citizens to vote in our election? | ||
| Why do they go so 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, triple down on giving rights to people who are not citizens of this country at taxpayer American citizen expense. | ||
| The lead debater on the other side of the aisle said that it's not just this Washington, D.C. that is looking to allow non-citizens to vote in our elections. | ||
| Twenty municipalities, and guess what? | ||
| They're all Democrat-run. | ||
| Now, in New York City, we had the same problem where the New York City Council passed legislation to allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. | ||
| We had to sue to stop it, and we successfully did. | ||
| But it took not just one round in court, not just two rounds in court, 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, in the New York State Court of Appeals, Appellate Court, and lastly, in the New York Court of Appeals, which, by the way, all Democrat appointees on that panel of judges, | ||
| and we still won because it is illegal. | ||
| It is not constitutional for non-citizens to vote in our elections. | ||
| And so, just like we fought this in New York City and we prevailed, we will do the same here in Washington, D.C. and make sure that they stop allowing and they don't allow non-citizens to vote in their municipal elections because we are exercising our constitutional responsibility to protect our elections. | ||
|
Protecting Citizen Voting Rights
00:15:57
|
||
| So, 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. | ||
| 52 Democrats sided with Republicans. | ||
| But those who continue to push for non-citizens to vote in our elections to dilute citizenship and dilute the voice of citizens in our elections should be ashamed of themselves and they should think about who actually elected them to represent their interests here today and why they continue to push the contrary. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| Gentlemen Yields, General Kentucky Reserves, and the gentleman for the Speaker of the Speaker. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I yield as much time as I might consume. | ||
| You know, I think it's interesting. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman is recognized. | |
| Oh, thank you. | ||
| I think it's interesting because the gentlelady who just spoke said something. | ||
| She said this is about preserving our elections, quote, our elections. | ||
| This is not about our elections. | ||
| It's not about my election. | ||
| It's not about her election being from New York. | ||
| It's about the elections, the local elections of residents of D.C. Not hers, not mine, theirs. | ||
| Their local election. | ||
| And I think it's interesting because I don't know what happened. | ||
| My Republican colleagues always like to talk about limited federal government. | ||
| My Republican colleagues like to always talk about giving or local governance, how important that is, and yet they want to rip it away from the people in this city. | ||
| My question is: how many doors have they knocked in D.C.? | ||
| Have you knocked a single door? | ||
| Have you spoken with a single resident, a person who lives here about what they care about? | ||
| No. | ||
| You're using this chamber, you're using these bills to score national political points on local issues. | ||
| The other thing the gentlewoman said, the gentlelady said, is it's about protecting the sanity of citizen voting. | ||
| And 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's how we protect the sanity of voting for citizens. | ||
| We have to take something away from D.C. that they voted for. | ||
| When right in front of us, if you want to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in D.C., then we know what we have to do: 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, have full representation in this country. | ||
| That's what we do to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in Washington, D.C. Not encroach on decisions that the people here have made locally. | ||
| So I don't want to hear about our elections. | ||
| Local D.C. elections are not my elections. | ||
| They're not your elections unless you live here. | ||
| The local D.C. elections are about the residents of this area. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| All right, I reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman reserve, General from Kentucky, is recognized. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill. | ||
| The gentleman from Texas is recognized for two minutes. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| 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% 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, and they certainly should not be influencing our political system in any respect. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, every single one of them needs to be deported, and thankfully, we have a president who is actually doing that. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, for so long, Democrats have called conservatives conspiracy theorists. | ||
| They've slandered us for saying that the Democrat 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. | ||
| And, Mr. Speaker, they are doing that right now. | ||
| That's exactly what they're doing, and they're 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
They shouldn't be voting. | |
| And they need to be deported. | ||
| With that said, I yield back. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I think I yield myself as much time as I may consume. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You're recognized? | |
| Well, you know, once again, my Republican colleagues want to deflect on this issue, focus in on undocumented immigrants. | ||
| Undocumented immigrants are unlikely to vote in local D.C. elections. | ||
| Again, why? | ||
| 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. | ||
| Non-citizen voting, again, this consists a lot, a lot of jurisdictions across the entire country. | ||
| We talked about 20 municipalities. | ||
| Do this to allow universal adult suffrage, the ability for people to take part in local elections. | ||
| The other thing, real quick, that one of my Republican colleagues brought up is the purpose of this bill is: quote, you know, we want to stop the diluting, diluting the voices of American citizens, diluting the voices of American citizens. | ||
| What's really diluting the voices of American citizens are voter suppression laws, like we see in the South, like we see in Florida, where I'm from, poll taxes, voter roll purges, voter intimidation. | ||
| That is what's diluting the voices of American citizens. | ||
| I haven't heard a single Republican in this debate talk about ensuring that citizens that live in D.C. can have full representation in Congress. | ||
| Where's that? | ||
| I bring it up again. | ||
| Every issue, Republicans want to talk about protecting us by taking away stuff from other people and never want to talk about giving citizens what we deserve. | ||
| And the citizens of D.C. deserve to have full representation in the United States Congress. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| The gentleman reserves, the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains? | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Kentucky has 20 and a half minutes remaining. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Stile. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Gentleman's recognized. | |
| I thank the Chairman. | ||
| I thank the Chairman for his good work. | ||
| I thank my colleague August Fluger for bringing forward today's legislation. | ||
| U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only. | ||
| A simple premise. | ||
| When I began my work on trying to stop non-citizens from voting in the United States, I was often told by people that they didn't believe that this was actually the case. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's how radical of a provision 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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. | |
| So let's walk through that. | ||
| So 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, because Washington, D.C. does not even have photo ID, would not need to pull out their Russian passport out of their pocket, | ||
|
unidentified
|
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 non-citizens to vote across the country. | ||
| The arguments that are being made fail on the merits when you recognize that the law, in fact, the law today allows non-citizens who've 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, alderman. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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'm 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
My colleague across the aisle referenced legislation that Republicans are working for. | |
| Well, 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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. | ||
| Well, 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We should look at the empirical data of what took place when those reforms were implemented. | |
| And what we saw was people increasing their confidence in our elections. | ||
| That is a good thing. | ||
| That is a good thing. | ||
| And the University of Georgia or Georgia State put forward a robust, a robust survey of how elections were conducted in the state of Georgia. | ||
| And what they saw was high voter participation and people actually having a positive view of how election results were conducted. | ||
|
unidentified
|
If I recall correctly, it was 0% statistically of blacks that had a poor or negative voting experience. | |
| We should champion that. | ||
| We should work to instill election integrity provisions across the board. | ||
| Because when people increase their confidence in our elections, they're more likely to participate. | ||
| And that's a good thing. | ||
| What we want is U.S. citizens participating in our election. | ||
| But what we see from my colleagues on the left is a whole host of policies that actually weaken election integrity. | ||
| We've held debates as it relates to photo identification. | ||
| Again, another provision that should be in Washington, D.C. law. | ||
| Photo identification is almost the rockstone of what is election integrity. | ||
| It's making sure people are who they say they are, a simple provision. | ||
| I'm often reminded of a time when I was driving home in Wisconsin, heading back home, and I walked in to grab a six-pack of beer. | ||
| The clerk recognized me and said, hey, Brian, how are you doing? | ||
| I said, good, it's good to see you. | ||
| I set my six-pack of beer on the counter and she said, Brian, 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's absolutely nuts that we protect our beer more than we protect our ballots in our nation's capital. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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, that as the Democrats will say that we should allow non-citizens 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. | ||
| And what I believe we will see is exactly what we saw in Georgia. | ||
| Despite the hyperbolic statements being made by past President Joe Biden, by my colleagues on the left, what we'll actually see is an increase in confidence in our elections. | ||
| We'll see growing participation. | ||
| We'll see a strengthening of our democracy. | ||
| It's 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's relevant to also note that last Congress this bill came before us. | ||
|
unidentified
|
52 of our Democratic colleagues voted with every Republican in the House. | |
| It'll be interesting today, Mr. Speaker, to see how many of my colleagues across the aisle have the courage to stand up and to say U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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, I'm excited about the opportunity to stand there when President Trump signs this bill into law, because this is an opportunity for a major step forward in election integrity here in our nation's capital, but also a statement across the country. | ||
| Because as 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 non-citizens voting in my home state of Wisconsin, small communities, big communities all across this country to drive forward and assist them in advancing a radical agenda. | ||
| It's why making sure that we pass this law today is so important to make sure that we're standing up for common sense, to make sure we're standing up for election integrity, to make sure that we're making only U.S. citizens having a voice in U.S. elections. | ||
| This legislation should be straightforward, to my colleagues on the left, although I'm 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, because it's the Republican Party, it's my colleagues of common sense, that believe we need election integrity in our nation's capital. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But more importantly, we need election integrity across the country. | |
| And as we begin this effort, I think we have an opportunity as Americans to see increased confidence in our elections. | ||
| And once again, when we increase confidence, we increase participation. | ||
| Our principle should be U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only. | ||
|
Why We Yield 30 Seconds
00:05:08
|
||
| This legislation does that, and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I yield back. | |
| Gentlemen Reserves, the Chair will receive a message. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, a message from the President of the United States. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm directed by the President of the United States to deliver to the House of Representatives a message in writing. | |
| The gentleman from Florida is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Chair. | ||
| 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. | ||
| But I would yield 30 seconds to the chair if he could let me know who voted for those laws that were enacted in Georgia. | ||
| I yield 30 seconds to the chair. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Gentlemen, in the state of Georgia by the governor of the state of Georgia. | |
| I guess my question is curious what body wrote the legislation, voted on the legislation, and sent it to the governor's desk. | ||
| I yield 30 seconds to the chair. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman is recognized. | |
| I assume the Assembly and Senate of the State of Georgia prior to signature by the Governor. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I reclaimed my time. | ||
| The reason I asked the gentleman is he brings up a law in Georgia that was written by the elected representatives of the legislature, voted in the office by the people of Georgia. | ||
| See, my Republican colleagues would have us believe that today Democrats are, a lot of Democrats, are going to vote for a bill to give non-citizens the ability to vote in D.C. That's not what we're voting on. | ||
| We're not voting on a bill to do something. | ||
| We're 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's what we're doing here today. | ||
| We're not voting to give non-citizens the ability to vote. | ||
| We're just saying let D.C. make their own local laws, just like they did in Georgia, just like the esteemed chair brought up earlier. | ||
| And the other thing I want to bring up 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 oversight 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. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman in reserves, the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. | |
| Reserve. | ||
| Excuse me? | ||
| Reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman in reserves? | |
| Prepare to close. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| The gentleman in reserves? | ||
| The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sorry? | |
| Chairman from Florida is recognized. | ||
| Well, thank you. | ||
| Like we 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 non-citizens vote in D.C. today. | ||
| What we are voting to do is allow D.C. to make their own decisions, something my Republican colleagues used to talk a lot about. | ||
| Home rule, the ability for localities and people to elect a representative to a body and those representatives to do something. | ||
| If you have a problem with local D.C. laws, pick up a damn clipboard, go and knock some doors and try to change it in D.C. | ||
| But to do it from this institution, I think is shameful. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| And I want to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle: U.S. Congress has a constitutional role to oversee Washington, D.C. law and intervene as necessary. | ||
| D.C.'s non-citizen 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. | ||
| I yield back the balance of my time. | ||
| All time for debate has expired. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The question is on engrossment in the third reading of the bill. | |
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| Those opposed, no. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The ayes have it. | |
| Third reading. | ||
| A bill 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. | ||
| The question is on passage of the bill. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Those in favor say aye. | |
|
Notice Of Extended Emergency
00:03:08
|
||
| Those opposed, no. | ||
|
unidentified
|
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. | |
| The bill is passed. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, what purpose does the gentleman from Florida rise? | ||
| I ask for the yays and nays. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The yeas and nays are requested. | |
| Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. | ||
| A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. | ||
| Pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20. | ||
| Further proceedings on this question will be postponed. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Chair lays before the House of Communication. | |
| To the Congress of the United States, Section 202D of the National Emergency Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622D, provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of his declaration. | ||
| The President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. | ||
| In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to Belarus that was declared in Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, which was expended in scope in Executive Order 14038 of August 9th, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond June 16th, 2025. | ||
| The actions and policies of certain members of the government of Belarus and other persons and the Belarusian regime's harmful activities and long-standing abuses continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. | ||
| Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13405 with respect to Belarus. | ||
| Signed sincerely, Donald J. Trump, the White House, June 9th, 2025. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered printed. | |
| Pursuant to clause 12A of Rule 1, the Chair declares the House in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The House is considering a couple of bills to repeal laws in the District of Columbia, including one that allows non-citizens to vote. | |
| Still expected this week, debate on Senate pass legislation permanently classifying fentanyl as a drug with the highest penalties and controls, and a vote on cutting $9.4 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. | ||
| Watch live coverage when the House returns here on C-SPAN. | ||
| Democracy. | ||
| It isn't just an idea. | ||
| It's a process, a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles. | ||
|
Pentagon Budget Hearing
00:00:54
|
||
|
unidentified
|
It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted. | |
| Democracy in real time. | ||
| This is your government at work. | ||
| This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered. | ||
| Earlier today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine, testified on the President's 2025 budget request for the Pentagon before a House Appropriations Subcommittee. | ||
| Other topics included ongoing civilian job cuts at the Pentagon and the Golden Dome Missile Defense Program. | ||
| You can watch the hearing tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN. | ||
| C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at C-SPAN.org. | ||