H.Res. 1243

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4763, which I am calling the not fit for purpose act.

This bill would deregulate a substantial portion of the crypto industry, taking them out of the purview of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. It would allow them to operate either under a lighter touch regulatory regime under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or in what I have called a regulatory no-man's-land, with no primary regulator and virtually no regulations. For crypto that would remain under the SEC's purview, this bill still provides major exemptions from critical securities laws.

If this wasn't bad enough, this bill is not just about crypto. Language was added to the bill after it was marked up by the committees of jurisdiction that would allow even some traditional securities to also exist in this regulatory no-man's-land.

Specifically, I am referring to title II of the bill that defines the term ``investment contract asset.'' Assets that fall under this definition are explicitly deemed not to be securities and, therefore, not under the SEC's purview, but the bill doesn't provide an alternative legal framework for these assets.

This represents an extreme MAGA, libertarian approach where companies can operate without regulatory scrutiny, and consumers and investors are on their own in detecting and avoiding fraudulent schemes.

While Republican defenders of this bill have argued that this definition of investment contract asset is limited to digital assets under the bill, this is disputed by legal experts and SEC Chair Gary Gensler himself, who confirmed in a recent statement regarding this bill that it would have a broader impact on traditional securities.

Interestingly, I didn't hear any arguments from the Republicans at the Rules Committee hearing disputing that this would, in fact, be a regulatory no-man's-land, even if they insist it is just for crypto.

Even for crypto that would be transferred over to the CFTC, I have serious concerns about the loss of protections for consumers and investors. The CFTC is generally designed to deal with sophisticated institutional investors and traders. It doesn't have the same kind of protections that the SEC has for retail investors and consumers.

Under all three avenues provided for crypto under this bill: The CFTC's lighter touch regulatory regime, SEC's weaker regulatory regime for restricted digital assets, or the regulatory no-man's-land, these are just a few examples of protections that would be stripped away: the right of an investor to sue, gone; protections against conflicts of interest, gone; the right to critical disclosures that help investors make informed choices, gone; and enforcement by States against fraud; and enforcement by the SEC for all of the above protections, including antifraud.

H.R. 4763 would also upend more than 170 enforcement cases the SEC has brought related to crypto violations. These actions have been brought by both Democratic and Republican administrations to protect investors against crypto bad actors.

The SEC is the Federal agency on the front lines of enforcing our existing securities laws on crypto firms that have willfully chosen to ignore the law and defrauded consumers out of billions of dollars with these get-rich-quick schemes. Giving this industry a free pass to avoid most all regulations cannot be the answer to the serious concerns that Members have raised about crypto fraud.

I have seen many efforts by Republicans, acting at the behest of the industry to pass deregulatory regulation, but this is perhaps the worst, most harmful proposal I have seen in a long time. This bill would deregulate crypto and certain traditional securities to the extent that I and other experts have expressed serious concerns about this bill causing a potential market crash and recession.

I am also reminded of how, over the warnings of regulators, Congress moved to deregulate the over-the-counter derivatives. Remember the derivatives market back in 2000? The resulting financial crisis triggered the implosion of financial institutions, a wave of foreclosures, and trillions of dollars in lost wealth.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues not to forget. They should not repeat history with this bill.

The Biden administration has released a Statement of Administration Policy opposing this bill. The bill is also opposed by a long list of investors and consumer advocates, State securities administrators concerned about State preemption, labor organizations worried about the retirement funds of their members, environmental groups concerned about the undisclosed risk of crypto mining, civic organizations worried about the undue influence of the financial and crypto industry over Congress' actions, academics, legal experts, and technologists.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand up and to not be afraid of Big Crypto, to stand up for everyday investors and consumers.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is no mystery why the crypto industry prefers to be regulated by the CFTC rather than the SEC. Let's start with the substantial differences in funding and staff for the CFTC compared to SEC.

In 2023, the CFTC employed roughly 680 full-time employees with an annual budget of $365 million. Wow. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, employed over 4,500 employees and had a budget of over $2 billion.

Even with the limited funding provided to the CFTC under this bill, which is capped at $40 million and set to expire after 4 years, the CFTC's funding would be only one-fifth of the SEC's budget. Mr. Chair, $40 billion is not sufficient to oversee more than 16,000 cryptocurrencies.

Let's not forget that the same Republicans who are bringing this bill to the floor are the same ones who proposed cutting CFTC's budget last year. Moreover, the CFTC is designed to deal mostly with sophisticated institutional investors and traders rather than retail investors and consumers. Therefore, the CFTC does not have the same level of protections for retail investors and consumers.

Mr. Chair, I would simply say that we should look at this example. The CFTC has no mandate like the SEC that requires entities to act in the best interests of the investors or to put their clients' interests first. This is just another reason why I am very concerned about the light-touch regulatory regime under the CFTC.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following statements:

The Statement of Administration Policy from the Biden administration opposing this bill;

The statement from SEC Chair Gensler raising serious concerns about this bill;

A letter from the Treasury Department to me, dated July 20, 2023, expressing serious concerns about this bill;

A letter from the North American Securities Administrators Association opposing this bill; and

A letter from 48 stakeholders opposing this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4763--Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century

Act--Rep. Thompson, R-PA, and 11 cosponsors

The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 4763, which

would affect the regulatory structure for digital assets in

the United States. The Administration is eager to work with

Congress to ensure a comprehensive and balanced regulatory

framework for digital assets, building on existing

authorities, which will promote the responsible development

of digital assets and payment innovation and help reinforce

United States leadership in the global financial system. H.R.

4763 in its current form lacks sufficient protections for

consumers and investors who engage in certain digital asset

transactions. The Administration looks forward to continued

collaboration with Congress on developing legislation for

digital assets that includes adequate guardrails for

consumers and investors while creating the conditions needed

for innovation, and further time will be needed for such

collaboration.

Mr. Chair, I also include an excerpt from Coinbase's Form S-1 filing acknowledging the risk that Coinbase could be found to be illegally acting outside of securities laws, excerpts from the SEC's complaint against Coinbase alleging that Coinbase was illegally acting outside of securities laws; and a summary of, and key excerpt from, the decision in the case of SEC v. Coinbase, finding that Coinbase was indeed acting illegally by failing to comply with existing laws.

SEC v. Coinbase

Excerpt from Coinbase S-1 Filing on ``Risk Factors''

As indicated in the above complaint, in its Form S-1 filing

with the SEC Coinbase acknowledged the risks that the crypto

assets it makes available on its platform could be deemed

securities, and therefore Coinbase could be found to be

engaging in unregistered brokerage, exchange, and/or

clearing-agency activity:

``A particular crypto asset's status as a ``security'' in

any relevant jurisdiction is subject to a high degree of

uncertainty and if we are unable to properly characterize a

crypto asset, we may be subject to regulatory scrutiny,

investigations, fines, and other penalties, which may

adversely affect our business, operating results, and

financial condition. The SEC and its staff have taken the

position that certain crypto assets fall within the

definition of a ``security'' under the U.S. federal

securities laws. The legal test for determining whether any

given crypto asset is a security is a highly complex, fact-

driven analysis that evolves over time, and the outcome is

difficult to predict. The SEC generally does not provide

advance guidance or confirmation on the status of any

particular crypto asset as a security. Furthermore, the SEC's

views in this area have evolved over time and it is difficult

to predict the direction or timing of any continuing

evolution. It is also possible that a change in the governing

administration or the appointment of new SEC commissioners

could substantially impact the views of the SEC and its staff

. . . With respect to all other crypto assets, there is

currently no certainty under the applicable legal test that

such assets are not securities, notwithstanding the

conclusions we may draw based on our risk-based assessment

regarding the likelihood that a particular crypto asset could

be deemed a ``security'' under applicable laws.

The classification of a crypto asset as a security under

applicable law has wide-ranging implications for the

regulatory obligations that flow from the offer, sale,

trading, and clearing of such assets. Persons that effect

transactions in crypto assets that are securities in the

United States may be subject to registration with the SEC as

a ``broker'' or ``dealer.'' Platforms that bring together

purchasers and sellers to trade crypto assets that are

securities in the United States are generally subject to

registration as national securities exchanges, or must

qualify for an exemption, such as by being operated by a

registered broker-dealer as an alternative trading system, or

ATS, in compliance with rules for ATSs. Persons facilitating

clearing and settlement of securities may be subject to

registration with the SEC as a clearing agency.

Summary and excerpt from opinion of the judge from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, denying Coinbase's Motion

to Dismiss in the case of SEC v. Coinbase

In March 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Polk

Failla of the Southern District of New York made a

preliminary ruling in the Coinbase case, holding that because

at least some crypto trades on the Coinbase platform met the

longstanding definition of an investment contract, the SEC

can move ahead with claims that Coinbase improperly operated

as a securities exchange, broker and clearing agency. She

also said the SEC adequately alleged that Coinbase sold

unregistered securities through its staking program. In an

84-page opinion, the judge asserted, among other things, that

``the `crypto' nomenclature may be of recent vintage, but the

challenged transactions fall comfortably within the framework

that courts have used to identify securities for nearly

eighty years.''

excerpts from the sec's complaint filed against coinbase in june 2023

``In September 2019, Coinbase released a framework for

analyzing crypto assets that assigned to the crypto asset a

score ranging from 1 to 5, with a score of 1 indicating that

an ``asset has few or no characteristics consistent with

treatment as an investment contract,'' and a score of 5

meaning that an ``asset has many characteristics strongly

consistent with treatment as a security.'' Meanwhile, between

2019 and 2020, Coinbase more than doubled the number of

crypto assets available for trading on its platform, and it

more than doubled that number again in 2021. During this

period, Coinbase made available on its platform crypto assets

with high ``risk'' scores under the CRC framework it had

adopted. In other words, to realize exponential growth of the

Coinbase Platform and boost its own trading profits, Coinbase

made the strategic business decision to add crypto assets to

the Coinbase Platform even where it recognized the crypto

assets had the characteristics of securities.''

Coinbase generates most of its revenue from transaction

fees collected on crypto asset trades made through the

Coinbase Platform, Prime, and Wallet. Fox example, in 2021,

Coinbase generated $6.8 billion in ``transaction revenue,''

out of a total net revenue of $7.4 billion. Likewise, in

2022, Coinbase generated over $2.2 billion in transaction

revenue out of a total net revenue of $3.1 billion.

``Coinbase also worked closely with issuers of crypto

assets who sought to have their crypto assets listed on

Coinbase. Coinbase's ``Listings Team'' engaged in a dialogue

with issuers focused on identifying potential ``roadblocks''

under Howey. For example, on one occasion, Coinbase

identified ``problematic statements'' by an issuer that

described its crypto asset ``with language traditionally

associated with securities,'' ``implying that the asset is an

investment or way to earn profit,'' ``emphasizing the

profitability of a project and/or the historic or potential

appreciation of the value of the assets,'' and ``using terms

referring to the assets that are commonly associated with

securities such as `dividend,' `interest,' `investment' or

`investors.' '' As ``possible mitigation,'' Coinbase

suggested that the issuer ``remove any existing problematic

statements, and refrain from making problematic statements in

the future.'' Coinbase was thus aware of the risk that it

could be making available for trading on the Coinbase

Platform crypto assets that were being offered and sold as

securities. Indeed, Coinbase touted to the investing public

its familiarity with the relevant legal analysis governing

the offer and sale of securities.

Mr. Chair, if the gentleman has no more speakers, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as we have heard today, the entities that stand to benefit from this bill are not ordinary investors trying to build wealth but rather the crypto firms that have chosen not to register with the SEC or otherwise comply with the securities laws.

They have already made billions of dollars unlawfully issuing or facilitating the buying and selling of crypto securities, and Republicans are now proposing to reward these illegal activities by making these activities legal. This is truly preposterous.

Mr. Lynch, when he spoke, said this was one of the worst pieces of legislation he has experienced during his entire career. I understood why when I examined this bill and I saw that the Republicans created this new definition. This new definition is known as the investment contract assets.

We have talked about this, but even in the Rules Committee, while they were talking about how this bill was going to protect consumers, they did not debate us about this investment contract asset because they know that it created a void. It created a no-man's-land. This was created basically so that the crypto companies could be in a space without regulation, but it goes further than that.

It also covers traditional securities so they can be in a space without regulations.

It is not enough to say this is a bad bill. This is not only a bad bill, this is a bill where the crypto companies decided they didn't like the SEC, they do not want to be regulated, and they were going to come to the Congress of the United States. They were going to use their power, they were going to use their influence to change the rules of the game, and they were going to now go to where the commodities are regulated, and they are going to take the securities over there.

I explained to you that the CFTC is a small agency. I explained to you that they don't have a lot of money. I explained to you how much smaller they are than the SEC.

The SEC are the experts. They have been developing regulations for this country for 90 years. The SEC is 90 years old, and it is respected all over the world. We are the envy of the world because we have an

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for attempting this amendment. As a matter of fact, there have been any number of Members from this side of the aisle who have been attempting to amend this bill to try and make it better. While I have great respect for all of those attempts, if my friends had listened, if they had accepted, perhaps they could have made this a better bill. Unfortunately, at this point in time, no, with all the work that this gentleman has done, Mr. Casar and others, my friends will not accept any amendments. They are not going to accept his amendment. They don't think that the bill can be made better, and unfortunately, the bill is so bad, I don't think it can be made better either.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, while I do not oppose this amendment, I will emphasize that the broad deregulatory nature of the not fit for purpose act is such that it would severely weaken our capital markets and make us more vulnerable to bad actors, both domestic and foreign.

This amendment and the underlying bill do not protect consumers and investors. This amendment only requires a study on whether or not foreign adversaries are operating as digital asset registrants under the bill and collecting data on the U.S. consumer or investors.

We should not just be studying this issue; we should be legislating strong data privacy protections that apply all across the board.

Moreover, if TikTok was the inspiration for this bill, I will note that TikTok is not directly owned by the Chinese Government. The concern was that it was vulnerable to being unduly influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. If a China-based company was operating as a digital asset registrant under this bill, it would not fall within this study unless it was directly owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It would be easy for our adversaries to simply stand up proxy companies that appear to have no direct affiliation with them to evade the scrutiny of the study in the bill.

While I plan to support this amendment, I don't think it provides any meaningful safeguards on consumer privacy and it certainly does nothing to fix the underlying problems of the not fit for purpose act.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill's supporters have claimed that this bill is necessary to provide legal clarity as to when a digital asset is considered a security and when it is considered a commodity, but this bill is anything but clear. It is 253 pages of highly convoluted and poorly defined language.

At the Rules Committee hearing yesterday, the Republicans testifying on the panel in defense of the bill could not answer a simple question from a fellow Republican as to whether dogecoin would qualify as a security or a commodity under this bill.

They pointed to their five-part decentralization test in the bill, which is, again, anything but clear. The current test for determining whether something is a security is called the Howey Test. It has stood the test of time, with guidance from the SEC clarifying its application, in addition to decades of case law expounding on how it applies to a variety of different assets. Even the courts have agreed with SEC's interpretation of the Howey Test, classifying digital assets as securities in a strikingly consistent manner.

The five-part decentralization test in this bill has not been tested, and it would create a slew of new litigation trying to decipher how it applies. Instead of a study, we should remember the fact that Members of Congress and legal experts struggling to agree on basic facts about what this bill would do foreshadows the mountains of litigation that this bill would result in to figure that out.

This bill provides the opposite of legal clarity, as the bill supporters claim. Instead, it provides several more convoluted and untested definitions to replace the time-tested Howey Test in place today.

The only thing clear about this 253-page bill is that it results in the substantial deregulation of crypto, just as the crypto industry has asked for.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, under H.R. 4763, crypto that is deemed to be a digital commodity would come under the CFTC's purview, which would include a new explicit authority for the CFTC to regulate crypto spot markets. However, this amendment would ensure that this new authority for the CFTC to regulate crypto spot markets does not include traditional commodity spot markets.

It is already bad enough that this bill would result in mass deregulation of crypto and even some traditional securities, too. This amendment takes the bill to the next level by trying to preemptively block the CFTC to oversee non-crypto spot markets.

The bill's supporters continue to insist that this bill is only about crypto, but it has serious implications for traditional securities. With this amendment, it would now appear to have serious implications for traditional commodities also.

It is wholly unclear why Republicans, who have placed so much faith in the CFTC to police the spot markets of digital commodities, think that this agency is unable to oversee the spot markets of everyday commodities they currently regulate, like oil, wheat, and livestock. Excessive speculation in spot markets of tangible commodities is a real problem that can harm working families' budgets.

For this reason, Democratic CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero has called on the CFTC to study excessive and harmful speculations in the commodities markets. Specifically, she has stated: ``The CFTC has an impressive surveillance program and an equally impressive cadre of commodity markets experts to rely upon as it seeks to understand these pressures of working families, farmers, and producers. We should use them more, and more publicly.'' I agree with her.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working families and farmers by leaving the CFTC's existing authority to protect them from speculation in the traditional securities market fully intact.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at the Rules Committee hearing, Republicans revealed their true intentions with this bill. My friend, Mr. Norman, stated, regarding the investors who were defrauded by FTX:

I blame the investor. I mean, would I get on an airplane

with two wheels missing and one wing? They should have done

their homework.

Representative Austin Scott of Georgia on the Rules Committee doubled down on this kind of victim blaming, saying that he believed we should use a buyer-beware approach.

This is entirely offensive to consumers to simply say that they should have known better than to get defrauded. The very definition of fraud implies that the consumer could not have been expected to know or understand some facet of a contract.

I would venture to say that this bill is even worse than just a buyer-beware approach. This bill creates a facade of regulation that is designed to make ordinary investors and consumers think they are protected and that the investments are safe. In reality, this bill would facilitate and legitimize fraud rather than warning consumers to beware of the risk.

In addition to blaming millions of defrauded investors, Republicans continue to move forward with a bill that exempts the same crypto firms that were unlawfully issuing or facilitating crypto securities, giving them a get-out-of-jail-free card.

This is what Republicans love to do. They blame consumers and investors who have been defrauded while also advancing bills to protect those same firms that are ripping off consumers and investors.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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).

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

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).

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).

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.

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

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

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill (H.R. 4763).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, Congress will establish a new high-water mark for digital asset policy. To be clear, this joint effort between the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee did not come together overnight. Far from it. We formed subcommittees, convened working groups, heard from countless stakeholders, and received input from Members across the ideological spectrum in the House of Representatives.

Last July, we passed the bipartisan Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, FIT21, out of our respective committees. Each step in this process has created a new high-water mark.

The next step will be a broad bipartisan vote today to finally provide the robust consumer protections and clear regulatory framework established by this bill. FIT21 will cement the United States' global leadership in technological innovation, invention, and adoption.

Unfortunately, our current regulatory framework is preventing digital assets innovation from reaching its full potential. The SEC and the CFTC are currently in a food fight for control of these asset classes. They have created an impossible situation where the same firms are subject to competing and contradictory enforcement actions by the two different agencies, leaving consumers behind, leaving innovators behind.

FIT21 fixes this by creating a regulatory framework that will provide clear rules of the road and strong guardrails for Americans engaging with the digital asset ecosystem.

At its core, FIT21 applies time-tested consumer protections to ensure that the 20 percent of Americans who engage in the digital asset ecosystem can do so safely and so more Americans can engage, as well.

Today, we have the opportunity to answer the calls of consumers, digital asset innovators, and the Biden administration. We can establish the next

high-water mark for digital assets here in the United States.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support consumer protection, innovation, and American leadership by voting for FIT21, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chair of the Agriculture Committee and partner in FIT21.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, who has shepherded this bill along very well.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend and the chair of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Nickel), my colleague and friend who has been a great leader on digital assets and pragmatic policy here in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is a great leader for digital assets, cryptocurrency, and innovation.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Caraveo), who has been a fantastic leader on the Agriculture Committee on digital assets.

Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from California has indeed been a great advocate for consumer protection.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro), who is a leader on the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who is the vice chair of the Individual Assets and Financial Technology Subcommittee and the OG, as they say, in the crypto space.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), a great legislator in the innovation space.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), a great leader on the Agriculture and Financial Services Committees.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a leader on the Agriculture Committee, a former chair of the Agriculture Committee, a great leader on the Financial Services Committee, and also the chair of the Science Committee, before I forget.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, does the gentlewoman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), the chair of the House Administration Committee and a great member of the Financial Services Committee on innovation policy.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me speak to this. The void is the lack of a definition of what is a digital asset in Federal law. We have none. This bill establishes it. We have no consumer protections for crypto today. This bill establishes it both at the CFTC with a robust oversight of this industry and the SEC with real clarity. That is what this bill does is provide clarity for investors and consumers and innovators.

We are falling behind Europe. This bill catches us up so that we do not lose out on innovation policy to the Europeans, to the folks in the U.K., to Singapore, to Japan, to Hong Kong that all have regimes similar to what we are doing in this bill.

This is an important bill. It is bipartisan work. Hundreds of hours have been put into developing this bill with Members and staff.

I thank the great partnership I have had with French Hill of the Financial Services Committee and Chairman GT Thompson on the Ag Committee and Dusty Johnson on the Ag Committee. I also thank the great staff on the House Financial Services Committee, Allison Behuniak, who has shepherded this bill to this point and Paul Balzano on the Ag Committee. They have worked in great partnership and friendship and worked through major issues. I thank them for this important legislative product.

We can promote American innovation, consumer protection, and leadership with a clear regulatory framework for digital assets. The next generation of internet technology is being written. It should be written by American innovators here in the United States. We can allow that innovation to pass us by, or we can seize the opportunity and pass this bill to provide real clarity for innovation policy here in the United States.

Regulatory clarity and consumer protection, that is FIT21.

Let's vote ``yes'' on this bill and establish bipartisan support for crypto in America. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to this amendment. Today, digital asset issuers rely on exemptions under the current securities regime. Each exemption includes its own requirements under traditional securities law. What we provide in this act is purpose built for digital assets. What this does today is if you are raising money for a digital asset offering, the exemption is built for those other types of securities in the space.

The SEC's disclosure regime is supposed to give investors the information they need to make informed decisions, but it is not built for digital assets.

What we do in this act is provide certain disclosures for investors in digital assets, such as source code, token supply, government mechanisms, and other aspects unique to crypto. That is what this bill does.

What the gentleman from Texas is proposing to do is limit that aperture from $75 million to $5 million of those folks that can invest in these early-stage innovations. What he is doing is restricting the opportunity for average, everyday investors to get options like high- wealth investors get today under securities law.

The original exemption for regulation crowdfunding was something we put in law with bipartisan support. Maxine Waters was my cosponsor on the regulation crowdfunding, this very exemption.

I have enhanced this. I put additional requirements here to make sure there are more disclosures, and we open up the aperture to $75 million so more folks can participate and so those blockchains can develop. When you make it $5 million, it makes it impossible for you to actually scale up, especially with these inflationary times that our people are facing.

What I would urge is the House reject this amendment. The gentleman's arguments against this exemption have nothing to do with the exemption but have everything to do with opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me close with this, Mr. Chairman. We have this push and pull on the Financial Services Committee. Generally speaking, we have elected officials that say the American people's hard-earned savings are their hard-earned savings. Then we have paternalistic amendments like the one before us today that say: No, you are not smart enough to invest your own money. We have to put in these safeguards to protect you from yourself.

Well, I think that goes way too far.

What we have done with securities laws is take average, everyday investors and disintermediate them from the greater economy so average, everyday Americans don't get the benefit of economic growth, of Wall Street doing great, and earnings going up in corporate America. We have separated it because we have made it harder for average, everyday folks to invest in companies and have ownership of companies.

What we are trying to do is open that up a little bit from $5 million of an exemption when you are raising money to $75 million. In the scope of our economy, in the scope of our capital markets, in the scope of economic opportunity and innovation, which is a very small aperture we are opening here. We have done that. We have constructed this provision with a lot of Democratic input and Republican input, and that is how we came to the number of $75 million.

It is already a compromise.

What the gentleman offers with this amendment is nothing more than saying: I am paternalistic, and I am, therefore, going to restrict your opportunity to invest your money as you see fit.

Reject the amendment. Vote ``no'' on this amendment, and vote ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

I think it is important that as we establish a new comprehensive regulatory framework for the digital asset markets, we also have to ensure that we have a consistent application of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering provisions in existing law. These requirements on the digital asset intermediaries and exchanges are necessary so that bad actors don't exploit these markets for nefarious purposes.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her work on this amendment. She has been focused on AML/BSA-related issues in the build up to us writing FIT21 during the markup process in the Financial Services Committee and then the process through the Rules Committee. I appreciate her sincere engagement on this matter and for coming up with a very good amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chair of the Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, again, I will echo what Congressman Hill just stated for the Record.

The gentlewoman from Colorado has been a sterling advocate for enhanced BSA-AML protections, ensuring that we work against illicit finance. I thank her for the efforts, and I am willing to accept the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1243 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1243, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti- Surveillance State Act. H.R. 5403 would be considered under a structured rule, and it also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a bill which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the District of Columbia, to be considered under a closed rule. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation beginning with H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the rule provides for consideration of this legislation. As a member of the Financial Service Committee, we have spent countless hours trying to develop a responsible regulatory structure for blockchain technology and digital assets.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary as regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission have failed. Instead of developing a targeted and purposeful framework that would promote innovation and protect consumers, they have led with regulation by enforcement action.

This approach threatens the United States' leadership in the future of digital assets, a future that could better protect privacy, reduce business costs, and empower more Americans.

This flawed approach by the SEC has required congressional action, and FIT21 is the joint response of the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. FIT21 establishes a framework consistent with existing law but also appropriate for the digital assets in question and their unique characteristics.

First, there is no current clear market structure for the regulation of digital assets in the United States. The SEC has merely been regulating by enforcement action.

This leaves digital asset innovators and consumers to play a guessing game. This not only stifles innovation but lends itself to the SEC picking winners and losers.

Meanwhile, there is currently no way for digital asset commodities to be registered or regulated by the CFTC. Chair Gensler has repeatedly said most digital assets are securities. However, by his own admission, we know that not all digital are securities. In fact, it is estimated that 70 percent or more are commodities.

This is among the most important reasons for the passage of FIT21. The SEC does not regulate commodities. It regulates securities. The CFTC does not regulate securities. It regulates commodities. The advent of digital assets, which can be either securities or commodities, has created a regulatory black hole that FIT21 seeks to remedy.

By defining digital asset commodities and securities and creating a clear regulatory market structure, FIT21 protects consumers and provides the regulatory clarity for digital asset developers to innovate.

The framework offered by FIT21 will give clear guidance to regulators and thus allow consumers to better judge digital assets for themselves, avoid scams, reduce instances of data theft, and lessen the potential for market manipulation.

FIT21 is good for our constituents and good for the country. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of us to support this important legislation.

Moving on to H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, I am proud of H.R. 5403 because I share the concerns of many of my colleagues about the consequences of a Federal Reserve Bank digital currency and what that could mean for our constituents and their privacy.

If issued, a government-controlled CBDC, central bank digital currency, would give Federal bureaucrats the ability to track every transaction Americans make, as well as the ability to block any transaction they so choose. This would be an unprecedented level of surveillance on the daily lives of everyday Americans, and we should all be concerned about the potential threats to individual rights and privacy.

A CBDC would give the government the power to shut off access to payments and freeze the bank accounts of law-abiding citizens and institutions for political reasons, just like we saw with the Canadian trucker protest or with Operation Choke Point.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in standing against the creation of a central bank digital currency by supporting this bill.

Finally, this rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a bill which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the District of Columbia.

Americans are rightly concerned with election integrity. Free and fair elections are essential to any democracy. We all agree on that.

What we should also agree on is that noncitizens voting in elections undermines confidence in elections.

That is why the District of Columbia's Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act is so objectionable. It allows noncitizens to vote in D.C. elections, including illegal immigrants and foreign agents.

It goes without saying that these individuals, in particular, have interests that are at odds with our own. They literally represent the interests of other countries, including countries hostile to the United States. Why would we want to allow Russia or China or any foreign agent to vote on policies that impact the U.S. Capital? It defies logic, but that is exactly what D.C. has aspired to do.

My colleagues might ask why we even have an interest in the affairs of local laws in this respect. The answer is quite simple: D.C. has a unique and constitutional relationship with the United States Congress.

A lack of confidence in American elections anywhere threatens the confidence in American elections everywhere. It is incumbent upon us to protect the integrity of D.C. elections when the District's elected officials fail to do so and when they allow noncitizens and people with loyalty to other countries to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these three important pieces of legislation and urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the bury- the-head-in-the-sand approach is the very approach that Chairman Gensler has been taking with regard to the regulation of digital assets.

Our colleagues seem to be less concerned about getting a regulatory framework for consumer protection and are hurrying to put in a central bank digital currency for digital surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Americans have always been a leader in innovation and technology, particularly in financial services. In order for this to remain the case, we must support regulatory structures that continue to foster that same innovative spirit without sacrificing privacy while providing necessary consumer protections and preserving market integrity.

Before us is the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans.

H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century or FIT21, is a bill that delivers on all of these fronts for the future of digital assets here in the United States.

Speaking of protecting Americans, H.R. 5403, the Central Bank Digital Currency Anti-Surveillance State Act ensures that the government is never in a position to weaponize the financial system against the American people.

Innovation cannot come at the cost of sacrificing individual liberties. The issuance of a CBDC would only work to compromise Americans' rights and privacy.

Finally, H.R. 192 protects the integrity of American elections here in the District of Columbia, and we must prevent it. Congress must step in when local officials in the District fail to protect election integrity in this most basic sense. Noncitizens, including illegal immigrants and agents of foreign governments, must not have the ability to vote in American elections at any level anywhere. This is a basic issue of responsible governance.

To ensure government is responsive to and protective of the people it serves, elections must not include noncitizens or foreign actors.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 192, an act to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital.

In reporting out H.R. 192, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability holds that Congress must act to exert its constitutional responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia and make certain necessary amendments to the District's law.

Since the voters entrusted Republicans with control of the House in the 118th Congress, the Oversight Committee has conducted long overdue oversight of our Nation's Capital City, including holding hearings on the District of Columbia.

Specifically, to the topic we are discussing today, the Oversight Committee held a joint hearing with the Committee on House Administration on election integrity in the District.

At that hearing, the committees examined the District government's Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which allowed noncitizen residents to vote in D.C. local elections.

This act includes illegal immigrants and even foreign diplomats, whose interests may be opposed to the interests of Americans. This radical change to our election laws upset lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Madam Speaker.

D.C. Mayor Bowser withheld her signature on the Act, something she had done only a handful of times in her tenure.

On February 9, 2023, 260 Members of this House voted to overturn the D.C. act through a resolution of disapproval.

In that vote, 42 House Democrats voted to block the D.C. law.

However, the bipartisan resolution of disapproval was not considered in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so D.C.'s noncitizen voting law went into effect. This, in my opinion, and the opinion of many Americans across the country, is unacceptable.

The primary factor that differentiates American citizens from noncitizens is the right to vote.

D.C. residents should be confident that their local government vote is not being diluted by noncitizen residents or illegal immigrants casting votes.

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the Nation's Capital, and the rules of the U.S. House charge the Committee on Oversight and Accountability with a duty to oversee the municipal affairs of the District of Columbia.

I urge my colleagues to support Representative Pfluger's commonsense bill to ensure that only United States citizens have the right to vote in local D.C. elections and to support the repeal of D.C.'s radical law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague has mentioned in his opening statement that 500 noncitizens are registered to vote in D.C. My colleague is clever to point this out, but I am quite sure he is also aware that it has been estimated that 50,000 noncitizens are eligible to vote. As the election cycles move forward, they will no doubt consider registering and casting their vote should we not turn this law.

My colleague also mentioned the topic of representation in our Nation's Capital. As a constitutional scholar and professor, he is well aware that our Founders envisioned our Nation's Capital would necessarily develop a robust citizenry and that those residents would enjoy unique access to the Republic's elected and appointed highest officials, equaling a form of representation that no other citizenry in any other city of sovereign States would enjoy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of this bill that we are considering today.

Madam Speaker, I have not heard my Democratic colleagues address the fact that even one noncitizen's vote will, in fact, dilute the votes of American citizens.

The gentlewoman mentioned Republicans' efforts to disrupt D.C. elections. Quite to the contrary, Madam Speaker. We seek to restore the integrity of D.C. elections. We stood in support of an American's right to have their vote fully counted, including, most certainly, in our Nation's Capital. When there are 50,000 potential noncitizen voters in the Nation's Capital poised to cast a vote, that is the disruption of the D.C. voting process for the American citizens of D.C., whom we do indeed care for, love, and hope to represent.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to speak on this bill.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my colleague.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 192, quite simply, prohibits noncitizens from voting in D.C. local elections and repeals the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act. This is common sense.

Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee our Nation's Capital and H.R. 192 represents the exact role Congress should take in regard to the matters of the District's governance.

Under the United States Constitution, Congress is granted exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever regarding our Nation's Capital. We recognize, as my colleagues have stated, the jurisdictional authority within the municipality and the local elected officials of our Nation's Capital, but when those local elected officials take actions which are injurious to the operations of our Nation's Capital, then we have constitutional authority and, indeed, duty to respond. Hence, why in February of last year, 260 Members of this House voted to overturn the D.C. act in question as being repealed through this bill and in that vote, 42 House Democrats did, indeed, vote to overturn that D.C. law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague has mentioned that it is already against the law for an illegal to cast a vote.

We understand this, but surely the gentleman knows that corruption is borne in the heart of man, not the mechanisms of man.

We have a duty and a responsibility as Members of this Congress to oversee the actions of the Nation's Capital City and it is our duty to mitigate against the violation of law.

We recognize that it is against the law for an illegal to cast a vote in a Federal election. We know this, but we also know that burglary is against the law, yet we have fences and gates and doors and locks. We mitigate against the actions of man, though, we know that some of those actions may be, indeed, against the law.

The existence of the statute itself does not overcome the corruption born in the heart of man. We have an obligation as a body to exercise our constitutional jurisdictional authority in the one municipality in the entire country that falls under that constitutional jurisdictional authority; that is, our Nation's Capital as the city whose laws we address today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I express my sincere gratitude to my friend and colleague, Representative Raskin, for conducting this debate in a vigorous yet respectful manner. I am certain that he will agree that this is the manner in which our Founders envisioned we may debate.

The subject of congressional interaction, exercising constitutional authority within the parameters of our Nation's Capital municipality, is a legitimate discussion. It is part of our Nation's narrative and broad debate, and this is the body, Madam Speaker, wherein such debate should take place. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle may engage in this as we move forward in the spirit with which we have discussed and debated today.

Madam Speaker, D.C.'s noncitizen voting law does, indeed, disenfranchise American citizens. It is a dangerous policy that undermines the ability of the citizens of D.C. to have a free and fair election. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to prohibit those who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.