Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in very strong support of H.R. 6750, and I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis) for any remarks he may choose to make.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1823. On July 24, 2009, during his first tour of duty with the U.S. Army, Specialist Justin Dean Coleman of Hernando County, Florida, was killed in action while patrolling a residential area of Nuristan Province in Afghanistan. He was only 21. He earned the Bronze Star for his actions that day and will forever be remembered for his bravery and valor. I encourage my colleagues to honor the ultimate sacrifice he made by joining us in honoring the life of Mr. Coleman by naming a post office in Brooksville, Florida, after him. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5640. Sergeant Weninger joined the Marines in 2015. Tragically, on June 16, 2020, he passed away at the age of only 28 years due to an accident during a parachute training jump exercise. Madam Speaker, I encourage all of our colleagues to join us in honoring the life of Sergeant Weninger by naming a post office in Chesterland, Ohio, after him. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing forward the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in very strong support of H.R. 6073. I would be delighted at this point to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) for any remarks he might choose to make.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, we urge everyone to support H.R. 6073. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania for his thoughtful remarks. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 7180. Johnny Cash was born in Kingsland, Arkansas, and spent his early years working with his family on a farm. In 1950, he joined the Air Force and found time while stationed in Landsberg, West Germany, to learn the guitar, to begin writing songs, and to perform in live shows. When he was discharged in 1954, he began his extraordinary and dazzling career in music, including releasing his debut album in 1957. He ended up with two Grammy Awards, published a best-selling autobiography, and was the youngest living person inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. He inspired many generations of musicians of all different genres. I encourage all of our colleagues to join us in honoring the life of the great Johnny Cash by naming the post office in Kingsland, Arkansas, after him. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 7199, which recognizes Hans Christian Heg, a Norwegian immigrant to Muskego, Wisconsin, who fought for the Union as colonel of the 15th Wisconsin Infantry in the Civil War against the Confederate secessionists. Colonel Heg was a staunch abolitionist and pro-Union crusader who led a brave effort to protect enslaved African Americans from being tracked down by militia groups and forced back to their enslavers. Colonel Heg was the highest ranking officer from the State of Wisconsin killed in action during the Civil War. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of our colleagues to join us in honoring the life of this great American hero by naming a post office in Muskego, Wisconsin, after Colonel Heg, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 1687. I thank the gentleman from California for his moving remarks. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1687, and I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 5985. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), my good friend, for any remarks he may choose to make.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 1098, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 7192, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) for any remarks he may have.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 6983. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for introducing it. The dedicated public servant and community member, Nell Patten Roquemore, was born and raised in Lakeland, Georgia. Ms. Roquemore heralded the titles of Lakeland postmaster, mayor pro- tem, secretary to Generals at Moody Air Force Base, and she was also a schoolteacher. I encourage my colleagues to join me in appropriately honoring the life of Ms. Roquemore by naming the post office in Lakeland, Georgia, after her. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for a very substantive and dignified debate on this subject, which I know attracts strong views across the aisle. I want to restate some essential points for people to keep in mind. One is that what we are talking about is local elections in the District of Columbia, so the question is who will get to vote for the school board members and the councilmembers and who will get to vote for the neighborhood advisory commissioners. That is an institution that I think is unique to the District of Columbia, where neighborhoods have elected representatives who get to weigh in on things like the times that bars close, restaurant licenses, and stuff like that. That is really what we are talking about here. The people in D.C. have only one nonvoting Delegate for the District of Columbia, no voting representation here, no voting representation in the Senate, so the noncitizens, the 500 or so who are registered today, can't even vote for Eleanor Holmes Norton. It goes to the question of local elections. I am certain that most Members of Congress and most Americans certainly didn't expect that the House of Representatives would be spending so much time debating this relatively minute matter and, I daresay, trivial matter in the context of all the national emergencies and crises we are facing today, but it does seem to be part of an election year assault on the District of Columbia. It is a lot easier to kick D.C. around a little bit than to solve the gun crisis, which has gotten to the point where gun violence is now the leading cause of death in America for young people under the age of 18. It is a lot easier to kick D.C. around a little bit than to confront the climate crisis, which is bearing down on all of us across the country. The gentleman has made one very powerful point, which is, constitutionally, we have the authority to do this because the people in D.C. are still under the authority of Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. That is why they want out. They want us to use our power over the District in all cases whatsoever to modify the boundaries of the District of Columbia and to yield the residential areas to the creation of a new State. The power of Congress to do that was established in 1846 when Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County were retroceded to Virginia. We have the power to redraw it. We can redraw it, and D.C. would actually be larger populationwise than two other States in the Union. They want to exist on a plane of political equality. They want to be able to have the right to go through the same political experience the gentleman talked about in Texas. At one point, they wanted to grant noncitizens the right to vote in local elections. At another point, they didn't. That is all they are asking for, the right to make their own decisions for themselves. I daresay, no matter how benevolently motivated the gentleman from Louisiana is, or I am as a Representative from Maryland, no one is more interested in the welfare of the people in the District of Columbia than the people who actually live there. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Robert Garcia).

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I quote Justice Scalia on what the very distinguished gentleman from California just described as a radical practice: In general, noncitizen voting ``has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic.'' What my Republican colleagues would like to portray as some kind of outlandish practice is one that has been used at various points in our history by a majority of the States, certainly at the local level. It was the Republican Party, again, I reemphasize, which was the great champion of noncitizen voting and stood up for it against the States that ended up seceding from the Union in the Civil War. We were debating the very point that the gentleman fastened upon when we talked about the Census. The Supreme Court has been emphatic repeatedly that the Census counts everyone in America, citizens and noncitizens alike. Now, we know Republicans don't like that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been trying to get around it in a dozen different ways, but the Supreme Court has been perfectly clear that everyone is counted in the Census, even if they don't have the right to vote and even if they are not a citizen. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to oppose H.R. 192, yet another attack on home rule in the District of Columbia. I wish we were here today talking about climate change, which is a dagger at the throat of humanity. We have seen record drought in the Midwest, record forest fires in the West, record flooding in the East, hurricanes of record velocity in the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana's beloved Gulf Coast. There were mosquitoes in the north pole last summer. The sea levels are rising everywhere. However, we are not here to talk about that emergency. I do have a book for my friend, Mr. Higgins, called ``Bayou Farewell'' written by one of my constituents about what has been taking place on the Louisiana coast that I am going to offer to him today. We are not talking about climate change, and we are not talking about gun violence, despite the fact that America now has rates of gun violence and gun-related mortality 20 times higher than the nations of the European Union. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children and young people under 18 in America. It is out of control. However, we are not talking about that. We are exercising our constitutional authority, as my distinguished colleague from Louisiana says, to oversee the District of Columbia. Here today what has caught our eye is that they have legislation which passed and has become law in the District of Columbia which allows permanent residents and other noncitizens to register to vote. As a result, they have nearly a half million registered voters in the District of Columbia. Madam Speaker, 512 of them are noncitizens. A little bit more than one-tenth of 1 percent of registered voters are noncitizens. Their primary election in 2024 has already begun. The D.C. voters received their ballots or began receiving ballots in the mail on April 29, and the District has already begun accepting ballots. The D.C. Council had transmitted the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 to Congress for the required review period on January 10, 2023. The House passed a disapproval resolution, as my friend mentioned, on February 9, 2023. The Senate did not pass the disapproval resolution. The act became law in March of 2023. What we are talking about now is passing legislation to overturn a practice that is literally taking place as we speak within the District of Columbia. Now the critical point everybody needs to understand is that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in the House of Representatives, nor does the District of Columbia have any voting representation in the United States Senate. Their legislation doesn't apply even to their nonvoting delegate in the House, nor does it apply, of course, to Presidential elections. What we are talking about is should these 500 or so people in the District of Columbia be allowed to vote for advisory neighborhood commission, school board, and members of the D.C. Council and mayoral elections. The practice of noncitizen voting, my friend may be interested to learn, is one that actually was adopted in the vast majority of American States at different points in American history, including, I checked, in Louisiana, where it existed for around a decade. It started, as far as I could tell, with this basic premise, that when the country began, there was a race qualification, a gender qualification, and property, wealth, and religion qualifications in different places, but the basic logic of it was that if you are a White male property owner, it doesn't make any difference what your citizenship status is. That lasted really up until the Civil War. The practice of alien suffrage at the local level was one that became hotly contested before the Civil War. The Southern States opposed it because they said that the immigrants who were coming in who were being given the right to vote were antislavery, abolitionists. The Northern States, specifically the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln, defended the practice of noncitizen voting. This was a major bone of contention geographically, sectionally, in the country with legislation like the Kansas-Nebraska Act and other statehood admission struggles. When the South seceded from the Union and wrote their own constitution, the very first article of the Confederate Constitution banned the practice, which we are discussing in a very modified form today. They banned anybody from voting in the Confederacy who was not a citizen of the Confederacy. When the Union won the war, and secession was put down, alien suffrage spread across the country. Again, the Republican Party championed it, and they championed it in the form of something called declarant alien suffrage, which is, for people who were permanent residents of the country who were on the pathway to citizenship, they were given the right to vote, especially in a lot of the Western States, as those States tried to attract population westward. The practice appears to have been diminished and eliminated in a lot of places around the turn of 20th century and before World War I. It survives today in the form that the District of Columbia has fastened onto it for local voting on the theory that you want people at the local level to be involved in their kids' schools and you want people to be engaged in local government. We ban noncitizen voting at the Federal level, which means we also ban it at the State level because they are linked constitutionally in Article I. So, what we are talking about is noncitizen voting chosen by a local government at the local level simply for municipal elections. The basic logic of it there, as I understand it from just trying to read up on what the people in D.C. did, was that they saw that while noncitizens from Canada or Mexico, for example, shouldn't be able to vote in national elections because the interests of the United States and Canada and Mexico may diverge, at the local level, everybody presumably has the same basic interests in efficient garbage collection, excellent public schools, and so on. That is why they have done it. It affects a relative handful of people. I am not quite certain why we would be engaging in legislative action to overturn it, except for the purposes of sending some kind of message about it. The gentleman also mentioned diplomatic personnel and undocumented people. As for the diplomatic personnel, a foreign passport may not be used to register to vote in the District of Columbia. The person has to have a residential address in the District of Columbia, and it cannot be an embassy or another diplomatic site because you can't register at your place of work. I don't know whether the gentleman has actually any evidence of this happening. I think, if there were, that would be something we would be interested in. The same thing with undocumented people. It would, of course, be crazy for an undocumented person to attach their name to a public and transparent document like a voter registration document. I don't know if they have any evidence that this has happened, but we were not able to find any evidence that there were any undocumented people doing so. In other words, the District's use of this practice for local elections and local government functions appears to be in accord with the way it has always been used, which is for permanent residents who are part of the community who are on the pathway to citizenship. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman from New Jersey has left the Chamber because I could reassure and console him very quickly. It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections. That is embodied in Federal statute, and it is a crime for someone to attempt to do that. That is not what is on the table here today. What is on the table is whether a locality, in this case, the District of Columbia, should be permitted to allow noncitizens to participate in local elections for things like school board and city council and advisory neighborhood commissions. The gentleman from New Jersey should be apprised at some point that the great State of New Jersey allowed noncitizen voting between 1776 when the country began and 1820. For a half century, it was allowed in his State and obviously did not lead to the downfall of the Republic. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her trenchant remarks. She makes an excellent point. Washington, D.C., is the only National Capital on the planet Earth disenfranchised in its own legislature, which is the vulnerability that is being exploited today by our colleagues. Can you imagine if they told the people of Paris that they could not be represented in L'Assemblee nationale simply because they breathed the same air as representatives coming from other parts of France? You would have another French Revolution on your hands. I will thank the people of Washington that Ms. Norton represents, who have a valid bona fide political grievance and yet did not come down here and beat the daylights out of our police officers, wounding and brutalizing and hospitalizing nearly 150 of them. They have gone about it the right way. They have petitioned for statehood, and they are trying to defend their rights to govern themselves. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing. Madam Speaker, I urge everybody to support this fine legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of the Federal Prison Oversight Act, which would strengthen oversight of our prisons and improve conditions for the people who work and live inside them. I thank the bill's House leaders, my friends and colleagues Representatives Lucy McBath and Kelly Armstrong, as well as Senators Jon Ossoff and Mike Braun and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, for their strong bipartisan work on this legislation. The bill has the support of a wide array of groups across the spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Prosperity, the Conservative Political Action Committee, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Justice Action Network, Right on Crime, the Due Process Institute, and the Council of Prison Locals, which represents 30,000 correctional officers. Federal prisons have long experienced systemic problems that threaten the health, safety, and civil rights of incarcerated people and also the staff who work there. For example, last year, NPR reported that more than 4,950 incarcerated people had died in facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in the last 10 years. Many of the incarcerated either experienced delayed care or postponed care for serious medical problems. This February, the DOJ inspector general issued a scathing report on BOP prisons, which found that systemic policy violations and operational failures contributed significantly to the problem of inmate suicide. Bureau of Prisons facilities are responsible for more than 158,000 incarcerated people and more than 34,000 correctional officers and staff. As documented by GAO in our hearings, BOP has consistently struggled with the problem of staffing shortages. According to the Council of Prison Locals, BOP has lost 20 percent of its employees since 2016 and only employs around 13,000 correctional staff officers today, despite receiving appropriations to fund more than 20,000. As of 2023, staffing levels for healthcare workers at BOP facilities were only 69 percent, and nearly 20 percent of the facilities do not have a healthcare program onsite to provide even routine and preventative healthcare. Staffing shortages have contributed to often disturbing and, at times, fatal delays in rendering healthcare services for the incarcerated. GAO has also reported on BOP challenges in upholding its responsibilities to help inmates prepare for a successful release and reintegration, including implementation of important requirements of the First Step Act of 2018 to lower the risk of recidivism. Additionally, BOP has systemically struggled to make prudent use of resources due to a failure to effectively monitor and evaluate its programs. Taken together, these challenges led GAO to add the management of the prison system to its 2023 high-risk list, indicating the severity and magnitude of these problems. H.R. 3019 would take important steps to address these concerns by requiring the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General to periodically inspect, evaluate, and report on policies, procedures, and activities at BOP prisons, with higher risk facilities required to undergo even more frequent inspection. Such inspections may include reviews of inmate confinement conditions; working conditions and staffing capabilities; policies and procedures related to housing, confinement, and other restrictive housing; healthcare programs and services; and complaints of violence and abuse made against incarcerated people and staff. The bill would also establish an ombudsman within DOJ that would be charged with receiving such complaints that go to problems threatening the health, safety, welfare, and rights of incarcerated people and staff. Institutionalized misconduct, mismanagement, abuse, and negligence have no place in the Federal Government, especially in operations dealing with vulnerable people who are most in need of a pathway back to personal health and responsibility and to society. To make our communities safer, uphold our values, and reduce recidivism, it is imperative that we bring increased transparency, accountability, and humanity to our prisons. The Federal Prison Oversight Act is an important step forward on these goals, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the author of the legislation and a real leader on criminal justice reform.