    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE, AND
                               FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                               FEBRUARY 26, 2019

                                   ----------

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Available on the Internet:
             http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration

      MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE,

                             AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE, AND
                               FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    =======================================================================

                                   MARKUP

                                 BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 26, 2019

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Available on the Internet:
             http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration

                                ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    38-256 PDF             WASHINGTON : 2019

    MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE, AND
                               FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in Room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
    (Chairperson of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Zoe Lofgren, Jamie Raskin, Susan
    Davis of California, G.K. Butterfield, Marcia L. Fudge, Pete
    Aguilar, Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mark Walker, and Barry
    Loudermilk.
        Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Majority Staff Director; Eddie
    Flaherty, Director of Operations; Sean Jones, Legislative
    Clerk; David Tucker, Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian;
    Elizabeth Hira, Elections Counsel; Stephen Spaulding, Elections
    Counsel; Khalil Abboud, Chief Elections Counsel; Veleter
    Mazyck, Chief of Staff, Office of Representative Fudge; Mariam
    Malik, Staff Assistant; and Jen Daulby, Minority Staff
    Director.
        The Chairperson. A quorum being present, the Committee will
    come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time, and we know that we have a couple of
    members on their way, but the Ranking Member assures me it is
    fine to begin.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 4 and clause 2(h)(4) of House
    Rule XI, the Chair announces that she may postpone further
    proceedings today when a recorded vote is ordered on the
    question of approving a measure or a matter or on adopting an
    amendment and so let us begin.
        The Committee meets today to consider H.R. 1, The For the
    People Act. I would like to thank the members for their
    participation in our hearing two weeks ago. I would like to
    also thank our colleague from Maryland, Representative John
    Sarbanes, for his work on developing these reforms to our
    democracy.
        H.R. 1 makes it easier, not harder, to vote. It ends the
    dominance of big money interests in our politics and it ensures
    public officials work in the public interest. Today, the
    Committee will consider just areas of the proposal that are
    within the jurisdiction of this Committee.
        I have consulted with the Office of the House
    Parliamentarian on making these determinations and believe, and
    they concur, that my amendment in the nature of a substitute
    fairly reflects the jurisdictional limits that are provided for
    in House Rules.
        We will consider automatic voter registration. That could
    add up to 50 million new voters to the polls. We will consider
    same-day registration and protection against improper voting
    purging. We will also consider improvements to ballot access
    for voters with disabilities as well as overseas and military
    voters.
        H.R. 1 will also require States to use voter-verified,
    paper ballots, and we authorize grants to States to do so. We
    will require early voting for at least 15 days and prohibit any
    condition on absentee voting. Furthermore, we will give States
    additional resources to train poll workers.
        H.R. 1 establishes new disclosure requirements so that the
    American people know who is trying to influence their
    elections. We also establish new requirements to make sure
    people know who is paying for political advertisements, whether
    on television or online. And we make those funders stand by
    their ads.
        We also establish a completely voluntary system of public
    financing for Congressional and Presidential campaigns, and as
    my amendment makes clear, no appropriated--in other words,
    taxpayer--funds will be used to support political campaigns.
        We will fix the Federal Elections Commission. It is no
    secret that the FEC is one of the most dysfunctional agencies
    of our government. By changing the composition of the
    Commission and establishing a blue-ribbon advisory panel to
    recommend Commissioners, we will put a cop back on the campaign
    finance enforcement beat.
        H.R. 1 was introduced on January 3rd, 55 days ago. The
    House has had five hearings on H.R. 1 in five different
    Committees with over 15 hours of testimony from bipartisan
    experts.
        I hope today's markup will be fruitful and we will consider
    amendments on matters within our jurisdiction. It is my
    intention to keep the process moving along cordially and
    fairly, and I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for
    any opening statement he may have.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren. It
    is great to serve with you. I appreciate the process,
    appreciate my colleagues on both sides of this dais.
        The greatest threat to our Nation's election system is
    partisanship. H.R. 1 was drafted to serve the special interest
    of Democrats and the outside organizations that support the
    Democratic Party. It was created without any input from even
    just us three Republican Members of Congress on this Committee,
    let alone any other Republicans that represent districts from
    across this Nation in the House of Representatives and also
    without the consultation of officials or election
    administrators.
        In fact, there isn't a single Republican cosponsor. H.R. 1
    is a prime example of the Democratic Party telling States that
    the Federal Government knows better than they do, and the
    Washington, D.C., swamp is taking over the country's election
    system.
        This legislation overreaches our Constitution. It violates
    a citizen's basic free speech rights under the First Amendment,
    such as expressing displeasure with the electoral process by
    not participating.
        H.R. 1 also overreaches our Constitution by taking the
    power away from States to decide how their elections should be
    administered, States that know their residents' elections needs
    much better than a Federal bureaucracy does.
        H.R. 1 forces a nationwide approach that will be costly and
    ineffective. H.R. 1 will weaken our voting system by
    centralizing the voting process, creating unsurmountable
    vulnerabilities. This bill disregards safeguards upon
    implementing many new registration requirements and voting
    practices.
        We should absolutely--absolutely--be in favor of increasing
    access to polls, but without adding the necessary checks and
    balances to ensure these practices are protected, we are
    opening the door for fraud in our election system. A few
    fraudulent votes can change the outcome of a single election,
    something I can personally attest to. Out of everyone here on
    this Committee, I had the closest election results in the 2018
    election and probably every other election in my career since I
    represent a much more bipartisan district than everyone on this
    Committee. In the 2018 election, I won by 0.8 points, 2,058
    votes. Almost got me. It is okay.
        There is not as much room for error in my district as there
    are for some of you. I know my good friend Congresswoman Fudge
    won by 64 points. I don't know what that is like.
        Ms. Fudge. Is that all?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. That was it. Chairperson Lofgren won
    by 48 points. When you live in a competitive district, every
    single vote makes a difference between winning and losing. If
    we pass these new voter registration practices in H.R. 1
    without creating safeguards around the practices to ensure we
    eliminate the possibility of fraudulent voting, we risk taking
    away the choice of the American people who voted fairly. If we
    leave any room for fraud in the system, we take away the voice
    of each American voter.
        American voters have the Constitutional right to choose
    their Representative. In the case of Reynolds v. Sims, the
    Supreme Court stated the right of suffrage can be denied by a
    debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just
    as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of
    the franchise.
        Democrats boast that H.R. 1 is for the people. Yet they are
    failing the people by not doing their due diligence to ensure
    that H.R. 1 will protect each American's vote. When H.R. 1 was
    introduced, it was referred to 10 House Committees who were
    each designated to have jurisdiction over areas of this bill
    and out of those 10, only 5 committees have held hearings on
    H.R. 1, and out of those 5, this Committee is the only one to
    hold a markup.
        Speaker Pelosi has made it clear that they want to advance
    H.R. 1 as soon as possible, even sending out a Dear Colleague
    letter declaring it would advance to the Floor this month. It
    is not a leap year. I doubt it is going to happen.
        My colleagues across the aisle insist that H.R. 1 is their
    serious effort for election reform but they are imprudently
    rushing to get this 571-page bill to the Floor without ensuring
    the Committees of jurisdiction have time to properly review and
    amend it.
        This process of review on H.R. 1 has been so rushed; we
    still have no CBO score to determine how much this mammoth
    legislation is going to cost. We don't even have a preliminary
    estimate. H.R. 1's campaign match provisional loan will be an
    outrageous mandatory cost to the American taxpayers.
        H.R. 1 is creating public subsidies through the 6-to-1
    government match on small-dollar contributions of up to $200.
    For every $200, the Federal Government will pay $1,200 of
    taxpayer money to a political campaign.
        The Democratic Members of this Committee received roughly
    $800,000 in small-dollar contributions this last election
    cycle. That would be $5 million taxpayer dollars going to their
    campaigns. Imagine if every Member of Congress, not counting
    all the candidates in each race, just the 435 Members, received
    a million dollars in matched funds from the Federal Government.
    That is a half a billion dollars that are going to subsidize
    political campaigns. Welcome to campaign-finance socialism.
        Election reform should be bipartisan. I hope my colleagues
    on this panel will consider voting in favor of the amendments
    we are introducing today so that we may put forth legislation
    that is meant to serve the people and not serve the interest of
    one party.
        Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time that I
    don't have.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I
    will just note, for the record, that we certainly welcome the
    minority to participate in finalizing this bill. That is why we
    are having this markup today. The bill has been posted online
    and available for review for 55 days, and I have read it three
    times. I don't have a photographic memory, but I certainly am
    aware at this point of the outlines of it.
        I would now ask that the opening statements of all other
    Members be included in the record without objection and would
    like to call up H.R. 1. The clerk shall report the title of the
    legislation.
        The Clerk. H.R. 1, To expand Americans' access to the
    ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and
    strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other
    purposes.
        The Chairperson. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with, and without objection, the bill is
    considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
        [The bill follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       The Chairperson. The Chair now recognizes herself to offer
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment has
    been made available in advance and is in front of each member,
    and the clerk shall designate the amendment.
        The Clerk. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to
    H.R. 1, offered by Ms. Lofgren of California. Strike all after
    the enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1, short
    title----
        The Chairperson. Without objection, the amendment will be
    considered as read and be considered as original text for
    purposes of amendment and shall be open for amendment at any
    point.
        [The amendment of The Chairperson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         The Chairperson. I would now recognize myself for the
    purpose of offering an amendment. This amendment has been made
    available in advance and is in front of each Member. The clerk
    shall designate the amendment.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Ms. Lofgren of California.
    In section 5----
        The Chairperson. Without objection, the further reading of
    the amendment will be dispensed with.
        [The amendment of The Chairperson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. This amendment is technical in nature. It
    fixes a drafting error.
        It simply changes one word, changing the word ``subtitle''
    to ``section'' and, in doing so, fixes an inadvertent drafting
    error. I hope that we can adopt this unanimously, even if you
    are opposed to the measure, at least it should be accurate.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, this is clearly a
    drafting error, and it is an example of bipartisanship. I
    intend to vote for this amendment but this is what happens when
    a bill is rushed through to the floor. There are numerous areas
    of this bill that suffer other drafting errors, and we hope to
    address those in our amendments as we move forward today, and I
    support this amendment.
        The Chairperson. Thank you.
        Is there any further debate on the amendment?
        If not, the question is on this technical amendment.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        Opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
    amendment is agreed to.
        Does any Member wish to be heard, seek recognition?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Madam Chairperson, I reserve a
    point of order.
        The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved, and
    Mr. Davis is recognized to introduce his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. This amendment----
        The Chairperson. First, we should have the clerk report the
    amendment and distribute it. The clerk will read the title.
        Mr. Jones, you can read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis----
        The Chairperson. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized on behalf of
    your amendment.
        Before doing so, does Mrs. Davis insist on her point of
    order?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Proceed.
        The Chairperson. Okay. Mrs. Davis withdraws her point of
    order.
        Mr. Davis, proceed.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. This Davis thing will get
    confusing. I apologize if I answer to the wrong Davis.
        The Chairperson. Oh, that is right.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. That is okay, that is okay.
        I don't want anybody to be offended if we start to talk
    over each other a little bit.
        This amendment strikes Section 1001. This provision of H.R.
    1 requires every State to implement online voter registration
    to Federal standards. I am all for States providing online
    voter registration, but I am against federalizing online voter
    registration.
        At least 37 States have already implemented some type of
    online voter registration and by mandating a new Federal
    standard, it takes power away from State and local election
    officials, as well as State legislatures. Many officials from
    States that have implemented online voter registration will
    tell you that a huge obstacle in rolling this out is the
    cybersecurity challenges that come with it.
        Any time parts of the voting process are connected to the
    internet it invites hacking attempts. The process of developing
    and testing proper safeguards takes time and money and that
    process cannot be rushed without unnecessary risk. This
    provision would also allow for voters to provide a signature
    electronically without any validation through a DMV database,
    serving to weaken the overall integrity of online voter
    registration.
        I support this--I support the passage of this amendment,
    and I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. You know,
    internet voting registration is really a commonsense, 21st
    century measure to increase participation in the polls, and far
    from leaving systems open to irreversible and rampant hacking,
    online voter registration has been adopted by 37 States and the
    District of Columbia. These registrations supplement, but do
    not replace, other methods of voter registration, and as with
    all other registrations provided by H.R. 1, online voter
    registration will allow election officials to review
    registrations for eligibility and voters to cure any
    discrepancies in their registration at the time of requesting a
    ballot in an election as provided by Section 1001, titled
    Requiring Availability of Internet Voter Registration.
        Now, internet registration provides valuable cost savings
    as well. According to the 2010 report, ``Online Voter
    Registration: Case Studies in Arizona and Washington,'' Arizona
    experienced a reduction in per-registration costs from 83 cents
    per paper registration to 3 cents per online registration.
        Other States have experienced significant cost savings as
    well. I would just note that I understand the gentleman's
    objection to federalizing Federal election eligibility, but
    that is really what this bill is about. Under Article I,
    Section 4, Congress has the ability to make every voter have
    equivalent access to the polls and that is what we are doing
    here. I would urge that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
        And, with that, are there other Members who wish to be
    heard on the amendment?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I believe that if
    you look at some of the writings of the colleagues who served
    before us in creating this great Nation, they will say that--
    Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Papers would say that
    specific provisions were left out of the article that you
    mentioned of our Constitution because many at the time were
    afraid that States would go ahead and decide to not have
    elections and, therefore, diminish the ability of the
    government that we have today.
        I disagree with the assessment that Article I gives us, in
    Congress, the ability to tell election officials nationwide how
    to run their elections. As a matter of fact, the Federal
    Government, Madam Chairperson, does not have a good history of
    providing cost-effective internet access to many programs--such
    as the Affordable Care Act, for example--to be able to then
    provide how States should run online voter registration.
        We have States that have already implemented these programs
    that will now have to bear the cost to change them if the
    Federal Government takes over and H.R. 1 becomes the law of the
    land. That is why this amendment is so important. That is why
    this amendment is in order, and I certainly hope we can get
    many of our colleagues to support it today.
        The Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
        We are operating under the five minute rule. I did not want
    to interrupt your statement, but ordinarily we need other
    Members to get time. I am not going to let other Democratic
    Members speak more than once either, but I didn't want to
    interrupt you and be rude.
        Are there other Members that wish to be heard on the
    amendment? The gentlelady from California has withdrawn her
    point of order already.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
        The Chairperson. All those in favor of the amendment will
    say aye.
        All those opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I request a roll
    call vote. I get the confusion. We are on the opposite sides.
        The Chairperson. That is right.
        Mr. Davis has asked for a roll call vote. So the clerk will
    call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        [No response.]
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, two
    Members voting yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member seek recognition?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The Ranking Member is recognized, and the
    clerk will distribute the amendment and read the title.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order again.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California reserves a
    point of order.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, Madam Chairperson, this
    amendment strikes Section 1012(d). This provision in H.R. 1
    would prohibit States from treating 16- and 17-year-olds as
    ineligible to vote for purposes of automatic registration.
    Automatically registering individuals to vote has inherent
    risks and opens the door to fraud.
        This provision requires the registering of 16- and 17-year-
    olds who are, in fact, not eligible to vote, only furthering
    that risk. As a matter of fact, 16- and 17-year-olds may not
    know the consequences of casting a vote that they are not
    eligible to cast.
        Additionally, there is a privacy issue, as voter
    registration lists are publicly available, and this bill would
    require States to automatically register minors, which, in
    turn, would make their information publicly available.
        My twins are 18 years old. They registered to vote and
    voted in their first election. I certainly wouldn't want their
    information publicly available for more mail to come into my
    mailbox when they were 16 and 17.
        Furthermore, it violates a citizen's basic free speech
    rights, such as expressing displeasure with the electoral
    process, by choosing not to participate. This provision is at
    best inviting mass confusion and disorder at polling locations
    across the country and at worst inviting election fraud. I
    support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        H.R. 1 does not actually change the voting age. As we know,
    16- and 17-year-olds often do interact with our local
    Departments of Motor Vehicles, and as part of this process, 16-
    and 17-year-olds will have the option to preregister to vote.
    This preregistration is voluntary, and this will just make sure
    that when they turn 18, they are registered to vote. This has
    been used in California with tremendous success, and so I would
    urge that we vote no on the gentleman's amendment. Are there
    additional Members wishing to be heard on the amendment?
        Is the point of order withdrawn?
        Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw.
        The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn.
        All those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
        All those opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I request a roll
    call vote.
        The Chairperson. A roll call vote is requested. The clerk
    will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Definitely yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Why do you guys always win?
        The Chairperson. Because our cause is righteous.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I like when our Chairperson uses the
    word ``righteous.''
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, two
    Members voting yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member seek recognition?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis' amendment will be distributed,
    and the clerk will read the title.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California reserves a
    point of order.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
    Strike Section 1013.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, this amendment
    strikes Section 1013. This provision in H.R. 1 would require
    each State and Federal contributing agency and universities to
    transfer customer data for the purposes of registering them to
    vote. Currently, only 16 States have automatic voter
    registration. This provision proposes to force every State to
    adopt automatic voter registration and, in addition, force most
    State agencies to transfer customer records to their State
    election agency for the purposes of registration.
        These automatic voter registration requirements propose to
    fix a nonexistent problem. Let's be clear: It has never been
    easier to register to vote in this country. From a practical
    standpoint, these State agencies are not equipped to handle
    this type of function, and it would divert them from their
    primary mission. Never mind the astronomical cost associated
    with this.
        This provision includes colleges and universities to
    automatically register students. That is not the role of our
    colleges or other State agencies. As a matter of fact, who is
    going to make sure that colleges don't raise tuition just to
    cover the cost of another unfunded mandate?
        In the past, DMVs have had a terrible track record of
    verifying citizenship and incorrectly placing noncitizens on
    the voting rolls. The amount of data that would have to be
    transmitted if H.R. 1 were to be enacted would be enormous and
    would only exacerbate problems that we have seen at DMVs. These
    problems would lead to a significant amount of litigation and
    cost for years to come.
        The goal of everyone voting is not necessarily a shared
    goal of everyone. Voting is a privilege of being in a
    democracy. I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield
    back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. I would urge a
    ``no'' vote on the amendment. Automatic voter registration is
    far from unvetted. The reality is it has been demonstrated to
    be effective. And according to the Brennan Center for Justice,
    AVR is also functioning successfully in nine States and the
    District of Columbia, and six more are in the process of
    implementing it. You know, the accuracy improves with AVR.
        The fact that you are registered does not require you to
    vote, but we are here to remove barriers to those who want to
    vote. We know that something like a quarter of the people who
    didn't vote, when queried in the last election, said they
    didn't do it because of registration problems. We want to make
    sure American citizens have the option to vote, and one way to
    do that is to make sure that those who are eligible to vote are
    registered to vote.
        So I would urge a ``no'' vote. Does any Member wish to be
    heard on the amendment? If not, the question is on the
    amendment.
        All those in favor will say aye.
        All those opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And the noes
    have it.
        Does any Member----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I need a roll call vote. We just had
    it. Oh, wait, I have got an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. Do you want a roll call vote on the last
    amendment?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. No, we just did it.
        The Chairperson. No, we did a voice vote.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. I didn't hear you.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Chairperson. We will have a recorded vote, and the
    clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        [No response.]
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, two
    Members voting yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member seek recognition?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have another
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Madam Chairperson, I reserve a
    point of order.
        The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved, and
    the clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois. Strike Section 1014.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment strikes Section 1014. This provision
    requires a one-time transfer of data from contributing agencies
    to State election agencies for the purposes of registration.
    This provision takes the transgressions outlined in Section
    1013 and makes it retroactive, violating the privacy of those
    who have interacted with these agencies prior to the would-be
    enactment of H.R. 1.
        Additionally, large-scale transferring of individuals'
    information would certainly be done electronically, and that
    cannot be done without a risk that the personal information
    becomes compromised.
        Furthermore, there is no way to authenticate if data being
    transferred or transmitted is accurate. What if the data
    conflicts with other data on file?
        I support the passage of this amendment and yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. As was
    discussed in the prior amendment, the effort is to allow all
    American citizens the opportunity to vote and, in order to do
    so, to be registered.
        I would note also that this is opt-out. So individuals who
    do not wish to be registered can opt out of this process and
    remain unregistered. And, with that, I would yield back.
        Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order?
        Mrs. Davis of California. No. Withdrawn.
        The Chairperson. She withdraws her point of order.
        On the amendment, unless there are further Members wishing
    to be heard, all those in favor will say yes.
        All those opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would like another 5-2 vote.
        The Chairperson. The Ranking Member has asked for a
    recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, three
    Members voting yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member seek recognition?
        Mr. Walker. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved. The
    amendment will be distributed, and the clerk will read the
    title.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Mark Walker of North
    Carolina. In Section 1015(a)(2) of the bill, strike the period
    at the end and insert the following: ``, unless the individual
    made a false affirmation of United States citizenship.''
        [The amendment of Mr. Walker follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment strikes and replaces Section 1015(a)(2) and
    would allow States to alert authorities if someone knowingly
    certifies citizenship and is not a citizen.
        Under the scheme proposed in this section, noncitizens who
    knowingly certify U.S. citizenship and ultimately are
    registered to vote would be protected from prosecution or any
    other civil adjudication concerning immigration status.
        This provision would further handicap the efforts of
    Federal immigration officials and their missions to promote
    homeland security and public safety by enforcing immigration
    laws. To be clear, this amendment does not require States to
    turn over noncitizens for prosecution; it simply allows States
    to do so while not protecting those that represent their
    immigration status for the purpose of voter registration. I
    support the passage of this amendment and yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment?
        If not, I will say that I oppose the amendment for the
    following reasons: It is already illegal to do this. This
    amendment is unnecessary, and the protection that is written in
    the bill is to protect someone who without their knowledge was
    registered.
        If you were not eligible--and it is not just someone who
    lacks citizenship. Let's say you have another defect and,
    unknowing to you, you were registered, then you would not be
    held accountable. You would have to know in order to be held
    accountable for that error. I think that is just fairness.
        And, with that, I would yield back and ask if there are any
    individuals----
        Mr. Walker. I request the yeas and nays
        The Chairperson [continuing]. Who would--all those in favor
    will say yes.
        All those opposed, no.
        Mr. Walker. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have
    it, and a recorded vote has been requested----
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson [continuing]. The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and
    three Members are yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to. Does any
    Member seek recognition.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman--point of order is reserved.
    The amendment will be distributed, and the clerk will read the
    title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois. Strike Section 1017.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes on behalf of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment strikes Section 1017. This provision
    authorizes $500 million for the purposes of implementing
    automatic voter registration. Let's be clear: Once again, we
    want everyone to have access to registering to vote. Nobody--
    and I mean no one--who is eligible to be registered should be
    dissuaded from doing so. Let's be clear: Our system of
    government today when it comes to election registration is at
    its highest level of access. What this bill does is, it extends
    and puts a national footprint on the registration process that
    is working so well in this country today.
        This amendment would strike Section 1017, which authorizes
    $500 million in fiscal year 2019 to be spent on grants for
    States to create or update online voter registration systems,
    accelerate compliance with H.R. 1, public education campaigns,
    and automatic registration system enhancements. The grants
    would be awarded by the Elections Assistance Commission.
        Furthermore, it authorizes such sums as may be necessary
    each succeeding fiscal year and makes any money appropriated
    toward this authorization no-year money.
        H.R. 1 still does not have a score from the Congressional
    Budget Office, and because this section is so open-ended in
    terms of funding authorization, there is no way to tell how
    much this is going to cost. Additionally, we have worked with
    the House Budget Committee Ranking Member, Steve Womack, to try
    and get a score on H.R. 1, but have, to this point, have been
    rebuffed. This is fiscally irresponsible. I support this
    passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Are there additional Members who wish to be heard on this
    amendment?
        Does the gentlelady from California insist on her point of
    order? She withdraws her point of order.
        Let me just say: I oppose this amendment. There is no
    evidence whatsoever that the dollar amount proposed by the
    Ranking Member is necessary. In fact, all the evidence is that
    you save money with online voter registration. As I mentioned
    earlier, Arizona experienced a reduction in preregistration
    costs from 83 cents per registration to 3 cents per online
    registration.
        Now I know that the Democrats are sometimes thought of as
    the ones who want to spend money, but in this case, this is not
    a necessary thing to do. So I would urge the opposition to the
    amendment. Unless there is further comment, all those in favor
    of the amendment will say aye--oh, did you wish to be heard? I
    am sorry.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Point of order. Strike the record.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I would like to yield as much time as he
    may consume to the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I want to correct
    something that I believe you said. I did not propose $500
    million be spent. $500 million is authorized in this bill. It
    is open-ended and without a Congressional Budget Office score,
    we need to know the impact of that to the taxpayers and to the
    Federal budget.
        We want to make sure that everyone has access to voting.
    Again, I cannot be more clear: We want everyone who is
    registered or can be registered to vote to have the ability to
    do so. We don't need to continue to wonder how much taxpayer
    dollars are going to be spent by putting a Federal fingerprint
    on this.
        The Federal Government has not done a good job of
    implementing any online voter registration system, and this
    bill, this section, is not limited to online voter
    registration. It is the entirety. Imagine, imagine, the cost of
    putting an online voter registration system together at the
    national level and the possible cybersecurity concerns, let
    alone the billions of dollars after the Federal contracting
    procedures that will have to be followed, would cause the
    taxpayers to have to foot the bill.
        I enjoy seeing many of my Democratic colleagues worry about
    the Federal debt and deficit when it comes to other pieces of
    legislation, but clearly, clearly, the cosponsors of this bill
    have not taken into any consideration the billions, possible
    trillions, of dollars that this bill would cost.
        And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. Before calling
    the roll, I will note that I have every expectation that we
    will have a CBO score before this bill is heard on the floor.
    It is going through several committees, as we know, and
    amendments will be made in all of them.
        Does the gentlelady from California insist on her point of
    order?
        Mrs. Davis of California. No, I withdraw the point of
    order, but I would say, Madam Chairperson, if it is possible,
    to just note that----
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. You know, in fact, we have a
    number of States that are enacting this kind of legislation and
    process. So it is possible to find out what that is costing,
    and we know, and, in fact, we are saving money as you have
    mentioned. I just wanted to--you know, the sense I get of some
    of these amendments is to really go backwards rather than
    forward. We have been going forward, and we want to continue
    that process.
        The Chairperson. Will the gentlelady yield back?
        Mrs. Davis of California. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Then, on the amendment, all those in favor
    of the amendment will say aye.
        All those opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request recorded vote, please.
        The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested, and
    the clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four yeses and two noes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member wish to be recognized?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The Ranking Member is recognized.
        Mr. Tucker. Can he reread the tally again? I think it was
    misreported.
        The Chairperson. I am sorry?
        Mr. Tucker. I think he said four yeses and two noes.
        The Chairperson. I don't think so. I think he said four
    noes and two yeses.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four noes and two yeses.
        The Chairperson. All right. The gentleman is recognized for
    five minutes. His amendment will be distributed, and the clerk
    will read the title----
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson [continuing]. A point of order is reserved.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
    Strike Section 1019(b).
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
    for five minutes on behalf of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, before I get into
    this amendment discussion, I am glad you have let us know that
    this bill will be marked up in other Committees. I was under
    the impression that we could still possibly be voting for this
    bill very soon since the Speaker said we would vote by the end
    of this month. Since we are coming up to the end of this month,
    I certainly hope that other Committees will have the same
    process as we have to be able to offer amendments. Have you
    been assured by the Speaker that we will have markups in other
    Committees?
        The Chairperson. I expect regular order.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Great. That is good to hear.
    Previous statements by the Speaker have not given me the
    confidence. So good. Then that will give us a chance to have
    more discussions. This amendment strikes Section 1019(b). This
    provision allows third-party vendors to handle voter
    information. Aside from these provisions creating a nightmare
    of entanglement of Federal law for States and creating a mass
    amount of customer data vulnerable to cyber intrusion, this
    provision takes it a step further and allows third-parties to
    manage all the sensitive data.
        We have all heard countless news stories reported in recent
    times about private companies being hacked and, as a result,
    enormous amounts of data being compromised. Allowing this
    provision to stand would be inviting more of that.
        One of the top goals of H.R. 1, as stated extensively at
    the press conference announcing this bill, was to ensure
    security of the elections. How is allowing third-party vendors
    to handle voter information accomplishing that goal? I support
    the passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
    time.
        The Chairperson. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
    this amendment?
        The gentlelady----
        Mrs. Davis of California. Withdraw.
        The Chairperson [continuing]. Withdraws her point of order.
    If no other member wishes to be heard, I will simply urge a
    ``no'' vote on this amendment. These entities are subject to
    the same privacy and security standards as any government
    agency. The amendment is not necessary, and I would urge a
    ``no'' vote.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        All those in favor the amendment will say aye.
        All those opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And the noes
    have it.
        Does any Member wish to be heard?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members are no, and two
    Members are yes.
        The Chairperson. And the amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member wish to be--the gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at
    the desk.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes on behalf of his amendment. The gentlelady reserves a
    point of order. The amendment is being distributed, and the
    clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
    Georgia. Strike Section 1019(e).
        [The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        One of the concerns that I have with this bill--there are
    many, many concerns I have, but one predominantly is the speed
    of which we are moving on such a major piece of legislation. We
    have 50 States. We have 50 Secretaries of State. We have 50
    Governors that this would have a huge--I repeat, a huge--
    impact, not only on the way that they handle their elections,
    because there are more than just Federal elections--there are
    State elections; there are local elections; there are school
    board elections--that ultimately would be impacted by this
    legislation. This provision that we are amending here is one
    that could have a significant cost factor to the States.
        This amendment simply strikes Section 1019(e). The
    provision extends the private right of action under the NVRA to
    the previous sections. While this may be well intentioned,
    undoubtedly it will result in a huge number of civil litigation
    cases brought by election attorneys, which would put our States
    in the situation of having to defend against multiple--
    multiple--potential lawsuits, not brought up necessarily by
    people but outside organizations.
        The provision is not designed to protect people. It is
    designed to create more business for special interest election
    attorneys and would inevitably not only cost the States, the
    counties, the cities, an enormous amount of money, but it would
    also clog up our court systems, which are already very busy in
    this country. With provisions like this included in H.R. 1, it
    does not appear to be For the People Act, but rather a ``For
    the Lawyers Act.'' I support passage of this amendment, and I
    yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do any other members wish to be heard on the amendment?
        Mrs. Davis of California. I will withdraw my point of
    order.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California withdraws
    her point of order. I would just note that voting rights
    provisions are almost entirely now enforced through a private
    right of action. That is true for previous sections. It will be
    true for these as well. I know that a right without a remedy is
    no right at all. So I would urge that we oppose the amendment.
        I would ask those who are in favor of the amendment will
    say aye.
        Those who are opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman asked for a recorded vote,
    and the clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote yes, and
    two Members vote no.
        The Chairperson. No. Four voted no and two voted yes.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and two
    Members are yes.
        The Chairperson. Thank you.
        Does any Member wish to be recognized?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have an amendment at the desk, and
    I certainly would have taken that last roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. I know you would have.
        The gentleman is recognized, the amendment will be
    distributed.
        The gentlelady from California reserves a point of order,
    and the clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois. Strike Section 1031.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. This
    amendment strikes section 1031. This section would require
    same-day voter registration for all Federal elections. Same-day
    voter registration invites fraud and undermines the voter-
    registration process. Even with certain safeguards in place, it
    is impossible to verify the eligibility of an individual in
    such a short period of time.
        Additionally, same-day voter registration can put an undue
    burden on poll workers who are typically already working
    extremely long hours and are often retirees.
        Matter of fact, another section of this behemoth 571-page
    bill recognizes that we have a shortage of poll workers and
    adding long lines because of same-day registration invites
    issues in poll worker shortages.
        Once again, Illinois has same-day registration. Somebody in
    my district with Illinois election authorities can walk in with
    something like a Jimmy John's receipt that is a proof of
    address, without any verification on that same day.
        In the midst of long lines, in the midst of poll workers
    being overworked, how in the world are they going to verify
    that that person is eligible to cast a vote in that district?
    That is why we have to have more safeguards in place. We want
    everybody to vote. We want everybody to be registered to vote.
    But in the end, we want to make sure those who are voting are
    voting in the districts that they are eligible to vote in. I
    support the passage of this amendment, and I will reserve the
    balance of my time.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman reserves the balance of his
    time. Actually, that is not something that we are used to doing
    under the five-minute rule.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I will yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order?
        Mrs. Davis of California. No. Withdrawn.
        The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn. Does any
    other Member wish to be heard on this amendment?
        I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. You know, in
    the November 2016, general election, nearly one in five people
    who were eligible to vote but did not vote cited registration
    issues as the main reason for not casting a ballot. Demos,
    which has done a study of this, suggests that same-day
    registration increases turnout by upwards of 10 percentage
    points.
        The same-day registration provisions in Section 1031 would
    make registration straightforward. It provides that each State
    shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal
    election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is
    permitted for a Federal election to register to vote in such
    election and to cast a vote in that election. Same-day voter
    registration is not an unvetted practice. It is already
    successfully in place in States across the United States, and
    according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 17
    States and the District of Columbia already have same-day
    registration.
        The lack of same-day registration has a different impact on
    African American and Hispanic voters than it does on white
    voters. The Atlantic reports that more than 1 in 10 African
    Americans and Hispanics missed the registration deadline to
    vote in 2016 as opposed to just 3 percent of White voters.
    African American and Hispanic respondents were twice as likely
    as white respondents to have been unable to get time off from
    work for voting. So flexible provisions for voting, such as
    same-day registration, will increase access of diverse voters
    to the polls. According to recent polls, more than 60 percent
    of Americans support same-day registration.
        With that, unless there are further Members wishing to be
    heard, all those who are in favor of the amendment will vote
    aye.
        Those opposed will vote no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested. The
    clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members voting no, two
    Members voting yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member wish to be heard--yes, sir?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I think he said four no, two no.
        The Chairperson. No, he said four no, two yes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Oh.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at
    the desk.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for his
    amendment for five minutes. The clerk will distribute the
    amendment, and the clerk will read the title. And the gentleman
    is recognized for five minutes on behalf of his amendment.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
    Georgia. Strike Section 1041.
        [The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved.
        Mr. Loudermilk. As I mentioned regarding the last
    amendment, which, by the way, barely failed; I think we only
    lost by two votes. So we are getting close here, Ranking Member
    Davis.
        As the Ranking Member said, voting is a--almost a sacred
    thing in this country. We not only have to make sure that we
    extend every available opportunity for those who want to vote
    to be able to vote, but we also have to be able to protect the
    integrity of the voting system. And with 50 individual and
    unique States, 50 Governors, 50 Secretaries of State, countless
    numbers of county and city voting registrars, I don't know that
    we have reached out and we have gotten the feedback that would
    be necessary, in my opinion, to move forward with such a
    sweeping law that would affect every single State and every
    single voter.
        I think this is something we should pause; we should take
    careful consideration and get the feedback. I know my Governor
    and our Secretary of State has not had ample opportunity to
    read through such a large piece of legislation as I know my
    colleagues have not had ample opportunity to really work on it
    in a way that there is probably some areas in here we could all
    agree on.
        But this is one of those areas that, again, I am very
    concerned about. This amendment strikes section 1041. The
    section would place additional conditions that States must meet
    to remove registrants from voter rolls through cross-check
    systems. This section is broad. It is too broad in nature, and
    it puts additional burdens on States' already existing
    processes that work. Again, additional cost to States.
        I am sure we have some States that do a phenomenal job at
    this already, and there are probably some States that need some
    work on it. But the cost and the unfunded mandates that we are
    putting on the States through this bill, we don't know the
    impact it is going to have on the States. We don't know the
    burden it is going to place on the States. We don't know the
    impact it would have on the election processes in those States
    because there are more than just Federal elections that are
    held.
        The Electronic Registration Information Center and other
    interstate databases already serve as valuable and reliable
    tools for States to use if they choose to. While these cross-
    check systems are not perfect, to limit their use is
    shortsighted. One of the comments we have heard most often from
    States is that they would love to utilize ERIC, but more can't
    due to cost. I don't know that this bill addresses that cost.
        Again, this is a huge, unfunded mandate that we are placing
    on 50 States, many of those which have struggled financially in
    recent years. What is the point of adding this data without
    methods of maintaining it in a way that does not compromise the
    integrity of the voting system? I urge my colleagues on both
    sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment, and I
    yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order? It is
    withdrawn. Do other members wish to be heard on the amendment?
    If not, I will say that I hope that we will vote against this
    amendment. Cross-check is a system that has been used and
    studied for accuracy. The Brennan Center, one of the prime
    election centers of analysis, has found that cross-check is
    wrong 99 percent of the time.
        Illinois, the State of Illinois, just dropped this system,
    and more States are following suit because it disenfranchises
    voters. So I would hope that we can vote against this
    amendment.
        And those who are in favor, please say aye.
        Those who are opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And unless
    there is a request for a recorded vote, we will----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis requests a recorded vote, and
    the clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, two
    Members vote yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Does any Member wish to be heard?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The amendment will be distributed.
        The clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
    Strike Section 1502.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved by the
    gentlelady from California.
        Mr. Davis is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
        This amendment strikes section 1502. This provision
    requires the use of paper ballots in Federal elections.
        This bill preempts State laws as well as the historical and
    constitutional role of States and localities in choosing the
    method of voting for their citizens. This provision requires
    that paper ballots must be counted by hand, optical scanner, or
    other counting device, thus ending the use of many ballot
    marking devices that I will remind my colleagues the Federal
    Government paid millions upon millions of dollars for.
        We have not heard from States regarding this provision, nor
    voting equipment manufacturers. We have no basis for this
    proposal in this section of H.R. 1.
        We also have no idea what the cost associated with this
    provision will be. But it would almost certainly require the
    reworking or even rescinding of State contracts with election
    machine vendors, so I imagine the cost would be enormous. But,
    again, we do not yet have a CBO score on what H.R. 1 will cost
    taxpayers.
        I am concerned that proposals like this will bring us back
    to the days of Florida during the 2000 election. I support the
    passage of this amendment.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this
    amendment?
        Does the gentlelady withdraw her--she withdraws her point
    of order.
        I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
        You know, eight national entities, including the FBI, the
    NSA, the Department of Justice, DHS, and others, confirmed the
    fact of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Experts
    convened by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and
    Medicine subsequently warned that election administrators
    should use human-readable paper ballots by the 2020 elections.
    That is so if there is an audit and there is a problem we can
    go and look and see what the voter actually intended.
        With over 40 States using 10-year-old electronic voting
    machines on out-of-date platforms like Windows 2000, which
    aren't even being updated or patched for security problems,
    paper ballots, so voters can check and verify their votes, are
    important.
        I would note also that the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute does not preclude optical scanners. It simply says
    there must be a paper ballot. It is anticipated, although not
    required, that States will in fact move to the optical scanner
    system that has a paper ballot that can allow for a recount if
    necessary.
        Without further discussion, all those who are in favor of
    this amendment will say aye.
        All those opposed will say no.
        And, in the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. There is a request for a recorded vote,
    and the clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. And Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, two
    Members vote yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments to be offered?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have another
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
        The clerk will distribute the amendment.
        The gentlelady is recognized for a point of order being
    reserved.
        The clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
    Strike Section 1504.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment strikes Section 1504. This section requires
    standards for paper ballots.
        If we suppose that the paper ballot requirement proposed in
    Section 1502 is sound policy, there is still the question of,
    why these requirements for the paper ballot? Why not understand
    that we may not know what the best technology may or may not be
    in the future when it comes to protecting us from hacking
    attempts from foreign agents or anyone who may want to try and
    hack into election systems?
        We need to make sure that the election systems in this
    country have a paper trail, a paper trail, not prescribed
    mandates that would force new technology that could be safer in
    the future from being implemented, which is why we offered the
    amendment that just failed and which is why we are offering
    this amendment now.
        We have heard from no experts in this field. We have heard
    from no experts or a single State or local official regarding
    these requirements that are in this 571-page bill. But here we
    are trying to create a Federal mandate from Washington, D.C.
        I again remind my colleagues the Federal Government does
    not have a good track record of offering a cost-effective,
    secure data platform in other parts of our government. Why in
    the world, without proper vetting, without talking to the
    experts, why in the world would we decide to offer a mandate to
    our election officials right now, just assuming, assuming, that
    the Federal Government is going to get it right?
        We should really be consulting with these local and State
    election officials regarding any standards that are proposed in
    a 571-page bill. I support the passage of this amendment.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do any other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
        The gentlelady withdraws her point of order.
        Seeing no one, I would simply note that the arguments
    against this amendment are similar to those for the prior
    amendment. This strikes a provision that simply requires that
    the paper ballots can withstand multiple handlings that would
    then allow for accurate recounts if needed. And I would urge a
    ``no'' vote on the amendment.
        With that, all those who are in favor of the amendment will
    vote aye.
        All those who are opposed will vote no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. There is a request by the Ranking Member
    for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, and two
    Members vote yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments?
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes, Madam Chairperson. I know you are
    surprised. I do have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. No, I am not.
        The gentleman's amendment will be distributed.
        A point of order is reserved by the gentlelady from
    California.
        The clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
    Georgia.
        [The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized
    for five minutes on behalf of his amendment. The gentleman is
    recognized.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Again, I reiterate my concern of the lack of working with
    the 50 States and the secretaries of state and the governors on
    this. Even though I think this may be well-intentioned, again,
    there are unintended consequences.
        This amendment strikes Section 1601. This section requires
    States to count provisional ballots regardless of the precinct
    at which a voter tries to vote.
        Now, that sounds good on the surface, but, again, the lack
    of foresight is that our elections are more than just Federal
    elections. When you go to the ballot--or you go to a polling
    precinct in Georgia and you walk into there and you pull up a
    ballot, there of course are the Federal offices on there, but
    there are also State representatives, there are State senators,
    there are county commissioners, there are municipal elections
    that are candidates on there. Those are by precincts.
        It may be more convenient, if you are at work and you work
    40 miles away from your home, to go to a polling place that is
    near your place of business and to walk in there. Well, that
    may help with the turnout for Federal elections, but what you
    do is disenfranchise the voter from effectively voting in their
    local elections, which in most cases impact their lives more
    than the Federal elections. Especially in the State of Georgia,
    because of the system of government we have, we believe that
    the government closest to the people is the most effective.
        When you are going to force a State to allow someone to
    vote at a polling place that is not their home polling place,
    they will not have the accurate ballot, and it will
    disenfranchise them from voting on those elections that matter
    the most to them.
        I think, again, this is one of the areas that was well-
    intentioned, but the unintended consequences would actually
    disenfranchise voters from their votes actually meaning
    something in those local, those State, and those municipal
    elections.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Does any other Member wish to be heard on this amendment?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Withdrawn.
        The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn.
        I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
        The Section 1902, titled ``Minimum Notification
    Requirements for Voters Affected by Polling Place Changes'', on
    page 138, line 20, provides effective measures to give voters
    information about their correct polling site.
        The section requires that notice of any changes arrive at
    least seven days in advance of the election and that, in the
    event of the State making the change fewer than seven days
    before the election, the State shall make every reasonable
    effort to enable the individual to vote on the date of the
    election.
        However, citizens should not be deprived of their right to
    vote in the statewide election because they have mistakenly
    ended up at the wrong polling place. Provisional ballots are a
    necessary and helpful backstop to ensure all eligible voters
    are heard.
        Providing for provisional ballots to be counted uniformly
    and in a nondiscriminatory fashion in H.R. 1 will not open the
    floodgates of provisional ballots. H.R. 1's other measures will
    provide a diverse array of options to vote, including early
    voting and vote by mail, so any discrepancies in registration
    can be caught early and remedied. Provisional balloting thus
    remains a useful last resort, not a first resource.
        Provisional voting is good for robust democracy and
    encouraging citizens to engage with voting. Provisional ballots
    protect the integrity of elections, as they are checked for
    eligibility after the provisional vote is cast, while also
    protecting the right of the voter to have that vote counted if
    they are in fact eligible.
        Provisional voting has built-in protections. After a
    provisional ballot is cast, election officials have time and
    processes to discern the eligibility of the voter and retain
    the opportunity to reject the vote if the voter was indeed
    ineligible to vote.
        A lack of provisional voting creates a far greater
    possibility of harm. A prospective voter who is eligible to
    vote could be turned away from the polls, losing their instant
    opportunity to vote and potentially even deterring future
    voting.
        So I would urge a ``no'' vote.
        All those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
        All who are opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. The Ranking Member has asked for a roll
    call vote. The clerk will call the roll, please.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and two
    Members are yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments to be heard?
        The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved.
        The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will
    read the title.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
    Georgia. Strike Section 1611.
        [The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes on behalf of this amendment.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Again, I reiterate the swiftness in which this is moving
    forward without adequate consulting with our State governments
    on the impact it would have on them.
        I was in the State legislature in Georgia when we passed a
    law to allow for early voting. We thought it was a good
    proposition, and it has worked well in Georgia. Since we did
    that, the early voting law has been modified several times. The
    reason it was modified was to make it the best possible early
    voting system that fit the State of Georgia. It is different
    than early voting in other States. In fact, one of the things
    that the legislature did is saw that some people who were
    working five days a week were even having a hard time getting
    to the poll during the workday for early voting, so we amended
    it and added a Saturday, that there is a Saturday that the
    polls are open.
        The point I am getting to is that government governs best
    when it governs locally, the closest to the people.
        Every State is different. I lived in Alaska for 10 years,
    and in Alaska some people live in areas they can't physically
    get to a polling place.
        So every State is unique, every State is different, every
    State is autonomous, especially when it comes to the voting
    system. The States need to have the ability to tailor their
    voting, their early voting, to what maximizes voter turnout and
    access that is unique to that State, to that municipality, to
    that county.
        Again, this is big Washington bureaucracy trying to create
    a one-size-fits-all system for the entire State. The reason we
    have 50 States is because different geographical areas have
    different demographics, different, obviously, geographic--we
    are unique. We are not the United States as one big country; we
    are a unity of 50 individual States. Our State governments have
    a purpose, they have a reason. It is to meet the needs of the
    people of each State.
        I am all for giving voter access. I just believe the States
    can do a better job of tailoring voter access to their people
    than big government bureaucracy can.
        Right now, on customer service rankings, the Federal
    Government is dead-last of all industries, of all governments.
    The Federal Government is dead-last in customer satisfaction
    and customer service, and we are dead-last in efficiency. The
    State governments are well ahead of us in that.
        All we are going to do is drag down this system to another
    big government bureaucracy if we continue to do this huge
    Federal overreach. I believe we should leave this, especially
    the early voting aspect, to the decisions of the State
    lawmakers, the Governors, and our secretaries of State.
        I support passage, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
    favor.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Withdrawn.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California withdraws
    her point of order.
        Other Members wish to be heard?
        I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
        You know, the provision in our bill sets a floor for early
    voting, and that is important, because millions of Americans
    are given only a single day to vote, Tuesday, a workday for
    most people, when voting will inevitably be squeezed in among
    errands and jobs, and some people can't get off to get to vote.
        Early voting in this section provides that each State shall
    allow individuals to vote in an election for Federal office
    during an early voting period which occurs prior to the date of
    the election in the same manner as voting is allowed on such
    date. The section provides for a period of consecutive days,
    including weekends, which begins on the 15th day before the
    date of the election or even earlier at the option of the
    State.
        This 15-day early voting period will not suppress turnout.
    It will work alongside other measures, like absentee voting and
    same-day registration, to ensure every voter has a chance to
    vote when it is possible for her, either by mail before
    election day at the polls or at the polls on election day. This
    is expanding the freedom to vote for our American citizens.
        States have proven that early voting works to meet voter
    needs. More than two-thirds of the States--that is 39--plus
    D.C., offer some form of early voting.
        Early voting works for diverse populations. That is why I
    believe it is under attack in some States. Consider a post-
    Shelby 2013 law in North Carolina later struck down for
    targeting African Americans with, quote, ``surgical
    precision,'' unquote. That is what the Court of Appeals for the
    Fourth Circuit wrote. After learning that African Americans
    used early voting in greater numbers than white voters, North
    Carolina legislators changed their bill to eliminate the first
    week of early voting, eliminating one of two Souls to the Polls
    Sundays in which African-American churches provided
    transportation to voters.
        Protecting early voting protects the franchise for
    everyone. That is precisely why it is dangerous to those who
    want to see fewer people voting in some States.
        In-person early voting and absentee voting have
    administrative benefits. They ease congestion on election day,
    leading to shorter lines, improved poll-worker performance, and
    improved voter satisfaction. And they also allow for earlier
    correction of registration errors and voting system glitches.
        Early voting was one of the principal recommendations of
    the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election
    Administration. It wrote, quote, ``Election officials from both
    parties testified to the importance of early voting in
    alleviating the congestion and other potential problems of a
    single election day,'' unquote.
        So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
        The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. I
    won't take the full five minutes. I want to thank you for the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. I am beginning to read
    through it as quickly as I can.
        I want to just make an observation or two about Section
    1611, the early voting section.
        With respect to Section 306, paragraph--oh, I guess it
    would be (b)(1), that speaks to a minimum of four hours of
    early voting for each one of the early voting dates except for
    Sunday, and it appears it would authorize the States to have
    less than four hours on Sunday, I wanted to ask the
    Chairperson, is there a reason why we would want to reduce the
    number of hours on Sunday?
        The Chairperson. Well, the thinking was this: There are
    States that may want to have Sunday morning not part of the
    voting day. But you would still have four hours after church on
    Sunday----
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
        The Chairperson [continuing]. For people to go.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for answering that for me.
        The Chairperson. Certainly States could do more than four
    hours, should they wish.
        Mr. Butterfield. That helps me tremendously.
        Finally, further down on line 10, it speaks to requiring
    the polling place to be within walking distance of a public
    transportation route.
        I just want to say, for those of us from rural areas, some
    of our towns and cities don't have transportation systems in
    those cities. If we could just consider some language in the
    future that would simply say that the early voting site could
    be near populated communities in addition to transportation
    centers.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        I would like to echo the concerns my colleague from North
    Carolina has. I also represent a rural district.
        This shows once again that this bill is being rushed
    through this markup process. This bill is being rushed to the
    floor of the House for political reasons rather than actual
    good policy--good fiscal policy and good policies to ensure
    that everyone gets access to early voting.
        I personally participate in early voting. Three of the last
    four election cycles, I cast my vote early. I think it is a
    great process. But we have to make sure there are safeguards in
    place. And the Federal Government does not have a good track
    record of being able to implement systems from a top-down
    approach.
        The Federal Government still has not even given us, through
    Federal Government bean-counters, how much this bill is going
    to cost. Imagine: In many of the rural areas that Mr.
    Butterfield and I serve, how are the election officials going
    to pay for not only infrastructure improvements in their roads
    and their bridges, how are they going to dedicate now more
    resources to actually implementing provisions that were put in
    place by a law that was written by groups here in Washington,
    D.C., without any input or bipartisanship?
        It is very frustrating to me that this markup is being held
    after I and my colleague Mr. Loudermilk only had 15 minutes of
    time to ask questions to the panel that was put in front of us.
        Madam Chairperson, I don't blame you for that. I blame the
    fact that many here in your leadership team want to rush this
    bill to the Floor, and they want to ensure that this is a
    political message rather than good policy.
        I would like to yield the balance of my time to my
    colleague from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I thank the Ranking Member.
        I appreciate what Mr. Butterfield brought up because it
    goes back to the concerns I have of the Federal Government
    stepping in and doing a one-size-fits-all.
        As I said, I spent 10 years in the State of Alaska. I
    worked in the bush. I worked in a city that had a summertime
    population of about 50 and a wintertime population of about 15.
    There is a polling place in that city. There are 15 permanent
    residents there who vote in that election. Is this legislation
    going to put a cost burden on this city that has a polling
    place, with the population of 15 people, to where they have to
    open and maintain a polling location for 15 days prior to an
    election when pretty much everybody shows up within a 15-
    minute-to-2-hour period on election day and they all cast their
    ballot?
        Again, because we are rushing this thing through, we are
    not considering and we are not asking the States their input on
    this. I believe that we are still uncovering unintended
    consequences that not only could suppress votes but be a huge
    cost factor to our municipalities and our States.
        I yield back to the Ranking Member.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
        Again, I certainly wish we had more time to debate this
    bill, just as much as this bill requires local officials to
    give for individuals to early vote, and we have not had that
    opportunity.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        I would just note in response to the concern about the stop
    on a public transportation route, it says ``to the greatest
    extent practicable.'' That is the preamble. So, if there is no
    public transportation route, that would not be practical to
    have it.
        This was in response to the situation we found in Dodge
    City, Kansas. We had a young man who was a witness, where the
    polling place was moved, it looked like intentionally, to a
    place that was inaccessible even though there were accessible
    places.
        But for rural areas where there is no public
    transportation, obviously, that would not be practical and
    would not be required.
        If there are not further Members wishing to be heard, those
    who are in favor of the amendment will say aye.
        And those who are opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        The gentleman from Illinois has requested a roll call. The
    clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. And Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, and two
    Members vote yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will please distribute the
    amendment and the clerk will read the title.
        A point of order is reserved.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
    Strike Section 1621.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized
    for five minutes on behalf of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment requires voting by mail in Federal
    elections. We wish to strike this provision because this
    provision would force no-excuse no voting on every State and
    locality.
        Currently, 28 States have vote-by-mail programs, but these
    programs have been tailored to those States and their
    constitutions and their State laws. This provision would upend
    these schemes that have been put in place to provide access for
    people to vote in favor of a Washington-imposed one-size-fits-
    all mandate.
        As we just saw with the debate over the last amendment,
    there are concerns that need to be addressed that have not been
    adequately vetted by the processes that have been put in place
    by the majority to get questions answered about the impact to
    local election officials. This one-size-fits-all mandate is not
    something that needs to happen.
        Additionally, this provision mandates that States verify
    identity through signature match. This requirement would
    preempt the law of many States--and I think this was
    intentional--that require witness signatures, photo ID, and
    non-photo ID or other ways of identification.
        This Committee has heard no evidence that signature match
    is the right way to confirm identity, and may in fact be the
    worst way, as a person's signature changes over time, while
    identification numbers, such as Social Security or driver's
    license, tend to remain the same.
        I will use me as an example. They know me in my polling
    place, thankfully, because a signature that I used when I
    turned 18 in Christian County, Illinois, is not the exact same
    signature that I use today that I am allowed to send franked
    mail with from this institution.
        I support the passage of this amendment.
        I will yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Does the gentlelady insist on the point of order?
        Mrs. Davis of California. No, I withdraw, but I would like
    to speak.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        You know what I am wondering here is, what excuse is
    justified or not justified? You know, what we have in hopefully
    more States than not, at least 30 States, that work with no-
    excuse voting--and when we have spoken to people, our
    Secretaries of State, our registrars of voters, you know, we
    ask them about this. Generally these will just somehow end up
    in a drawer somewhere, and they are really not acted upon
    because you can't justify it. If you can think of some that are
    justified, you know, I am happy to hear that, but I think that
    that is really a problem.
        We also know that it invades privacy. My colleagues who are
    concerned about these issues, I hope that they would think
    twice about that. Because in some States they ask if someone is
    pregnant. What does that have to do with whether they are
    voting or not?
        The other thing we know is that, if people are going to be
    sick, they don't often know that they are going to be sick. So
    to get an excuse from the doctor doesn't make a whole lot of
    sense.
        I think we need to be certain, and that is why we are
    asking that there is, across the board, no-excuse opportunities
    for people to vote by mail. When you look at it, when you look
    at the cost, when you look at the verification, we know that
    requiring a signature check has worked and, in fact, they are
    updated. I know that because my husband was asked to update his
    signature.
        This is real for those States across the board that find
    this is what people want to be able to do because they can't
    get to the voting place all the time. And this gives them the
    opportunity, the privacy at home to be able to think through
    what is on the ballot and be able to act accordingly.
        So I think we need to turn this down, reject this
    amendment. Because if you go to people--and I remember one of
    our colleagues here a number of years ago had asked, should we
    take away the ability to vote by mail? I think everybody who
    has voted by mail would tell you no. It is almost as foolproof
    as voting can be.
        I really do hope that we will reject this one.
        Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        I totally agree with my colleague. Georgia has implemented
    a no-excuse, no-reason absentee voting system. My objection, I
    believe Representative Davis's objection, to this is the
    signature aspect only. Because, as he pointed out, his
    signature has changed significantly since he was 18 years old.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Longer than that.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I mean, it was like an ancient time for
    him.
        Again, it could disenfranchise voters if you don't allow
    the States to use the security that the best way of ensuring
    the person that is sending in the ballot is the person who
    actually filled out the ballot. And a signature, in most cases,
    is not a valid enough reason. It opens it up for too much voter
    fraud, which disenfranchises the very people that we are trying
    to protect in the voting system.
        I will yield whatever time my colleague may need.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you to my colleague and
    friend, Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mrs. Davis, we want to make sure that vote by mail is
    utilized in a manner throughout this Nation. It is utilized in
    States like Georgia, California, Illinois, and others, and many
    take advantage of the no-excuse system.
        The problem we have, again, is Washington--this bill is,
    again, being used to usurp already-working State policies and
    procedures. I don't believe that is our job as Federal
    officials, to stop what is working in States and ask for a top-
    down approach.
        To my colleague, Mrs. Davis, she mentioned that she has
    been in contact with many local and State election officials.
    Clearly, that has not been a part of the hearing and markup
    process here. We invited Washington's Secretary of State, and I
    got to ask her just a few minutes of questions. We clearly did
    not--and we got five minutes of written testimony. We clearly
    have not vetted this with local and State election officials.
        Again, I don't believe this rush attempt to move a 571-page
    bill with zero Republican input in drafting this bill, I don't
    believe it is the fault of my colleagues on this Committee. I
    believe it is political messaging by the leadership of the
    majority that wants this bill to be pushed through.
        We don't know what the cost of this bill is going to be. We
    don't know what the final rules and regulations could or could
    not be. Concerns were brought up by both Republicans and
    Democrats in many provisions.
        I would certainly hope that this amendment, any amendment,
    any of our amendments that were offered in good faith--there
    aren't any ``gotcha'' amendments here. These are amendments
    that were offered to help fix the bill. I would certainly hope
    that my colleagues on this Committee would realize that there
    need to be fixes in place.
        We are not going to be given the opportunities to put these
    fixes in place because of the process that I believe is at your
    leadership level and not at the level of this Committee.
        The Chairperson. Does the gentleman yield back?
        Mr. Loudermilk. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. I will recognize myself for five minutes
    and yield to Mrs. Davis for final comment.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        I just wanted to go back to the question that I asked
    earlier, if we can think of any excuse that would be
    acceptable. And that, in fact, we have a history in all these
    States that has worked very well. And there really has been
    nothing that has been stated that questions the ability of
    people to do this and to have no excuses.
        The Chairperson. Reclaiming my time, I would note, just
    before we go to a vote--and then we will go to the floor--that
    there are substantial due-process elements in the bill to
    prevent for mistakes when it comes to signature verification.
        And, with that, I would ask for the yeas and nays on the
    amendment.
        All of those who are in favor of the amendment will say
    aye.
        Those opposed will say nay.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it.
        A roll call is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. And Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and two
    Members are yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        The Committee will stand in recess until after the votes on
    the Floor. I think we are about 9 minutes from close of votes.
    We will return immediately after the votes on the Floor.
        We are in recess.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairperson. The vote on the Floor is over, and the
    House Administration Committee will reconvene at this point.
        When we departed for votes, we were in the process of
    considering amendments, and we will return to that process at
    this point.
        Are there Members who wish to offer an amendment?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, Madam Chairperson. I have an
    amendment at the desk, Davis Amendment 13.
        The Chairperson. All right. The clerk will provide the
    amendment.
        Mrs. Davis of California reserves a point of order.
        The clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
    Strike Section 1802.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I know that we
    need more poll workers, and this is a provision that--1801
    grants Federal employees six days of paid vacation to serve as
    poll workers. I support measures to increase those numbers, but
    using taxpayers dollars to take Federal workers away from their
    duties is not the way to do it.
        We just went through the longest government shutdown in
    history. How in the world can we say to those essential
    employees who were working hard every day that now you are
    going to get six more days off?
        I have Federal prison workers in my district that can't
    hire enough prison guards at the Federal prison in Greenville,
    Illinois, because salaries aren't competitive enough right now.
    How are they going to staff--how are they going to staff very
    important parts of our Federal agencies when we are telling
    agencies they have to give six days off?
        Allowing Federal workers to take paid leave away from their
    jobs will impact that level of service the agencies they work
    for can deliver. And, also, imagine veterans needing assistance
    from the VA and that service being delayed because Veterans
    Affairs workers are being paid to work at the polls.
        There is nothing to stop a Federal employee from
    volunteering on their own time if they wish to do so.
        Also, my home State of Illinois, every general election,
    every State worker gets the day off. I argue, out of the 18
    districts in Illinois, I represent the most State workers, and
    we still, especially in the rural areas of my district, we
    still have a problem getting poll workers.
        We do a lot of pilot projects around here in Washington,
    D.C., and in Congress. Let's look at Illinois as a pilot
    project. It doesn't work there, and it is not going to work
    here.
        However, I am going to withdraw this amendment, as Section
    1801 is the primary jurisdiction of the Oversight and
    Government Reform Committee.
        The Chairperson. Would the gentleman suspend for a minute?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The written amendment says 1802, but I
    think it was your intent to do 1801, correct?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would like to make a clerical
    change, yes.
        The Chairperson. Okay. With unanimous consent, the
    amendment will be altered to reflect ``strike Section 1801.''
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I appreciate the Chairperson's
    diligence and patience, and I promise no one behind me will be
    fired for it.
        The Chairperson. Good.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I withdraw the amendment.
        The Chairperson. All right. The amendment is withdrawn. It
    is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee.
        The Chairperson. Are there further amendments that Members
    would like to offer at this point?
        The gentleman is recognized.
        The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will
    read the title of the amendment.
        Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
    Georgia. Strike Section 1811.
        [The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Again, our efforts here are to try to avoid, as this
    massive piece of legislation rushes its way through the
    process, to try to avoid any unintended consequences that,
    again, I think disenfranchises voters.
        This amendment would strike Section 1811, which is a
    provision that creates a private right of action for private
    plaintiffs to sue under title III of the Help America Vote
    Act--HAVA, which includes a multitude of ways a plaintiff could
    argue he or she was aggrieved.
        Now, I think the intention here is good, but from the
    experience that we have had in previous elections, especially
    in the last election cycle and especially in Georgia, I can
    tell you that the voters out there are really sickened by
    politics these days, especially--I have had many come to me and
    say, what does it matter if I go to the polls and it is going
    to be up to the courts to decide who won? What value is my
    vote?
        I believe this is just going to weaponize the candidates
    who don't like the outcome of the election to be able to take--
    I mean, I think a good example was something that was brought
    up earlier, something Mr. Butterfield brought up and, Madam
    Chairperson, you brought up, that the language of the bill
    states ``to the greatest extent practicable'' when it comes to
    where polling places are going to be located near public
    transit. Well, who is defining what ``the greatest extent
    practicable'' really means? That is going to be a judge
    somewhere in a court somewhere, and you are going to empower
    trial lawyers to be able to sue if somebody doesn't like the
    outcome of an election.
        I think it is going to be counterproductive to what we are
    doing because this is disenfranchising the voters, and it takes
    away the power of the ballot away from the voter and hands it
    to lawyers. If you don't like the outcome of the election, find
    somebody who can come up and say, well, I don't think the
    polling place was put at the greatest extent practicable.
    Somebody is going to find that--some lawyer somewhere is going
    to take that case up and take it to the courts, and we are
    going to have the courts deciding elections, not the people. I
    think we need to empower the people, not the courts and not
    trial lawyers.
        Again, I don't think we have run this through a proper
    vetting. Have we talked to the courts? Can they handle a
    greater load of cases? Right now, I have a family member who
    has been involved in a traffic accident and now is in the
    second year of just trying to get a court date to deal with an
    insurance settlement because the courts are backed up.
        I think that this has good intentions. I think it is a lot
    of unintended consequences. Again, this would disenfranchise
    the voters and take away the power of the ballot and hand it to
    trial lawyers.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do additional Members wish to be heard on this amendment?
        If not, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
        Actually there is a right of action. This does not create a
    new cause of action. It merely allows aggrieved parties to also
    have a right of action. The Attorney General has the right to
    sue already.
        A private right of action is necessary for justice, and
    this has been discussed earlier today. Most enforcement of
    voting rights law today is done by aggrieved citizens. And with
    so few election officials willing to stand for them, I don't
    think we can depend on the Attorney General to bring
    enforcement actions. Unfortunately, we have seen that.
        As I said this morning, a right without a remedy is
    actually not a right. So I think this is an important provision
    of the act, and I would urge opposition to the amendment.
        Unless there are further comments, all those who are in
    favor of the amendment will say aye.
        Opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. A vote has been requested. The clerk will
    please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members vote no, and
    three Members are yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
    The clerk will read the title.
        And Mrs. Davis reserves a----
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order,
    please.
        The Chairperson [continuing]. Point of order.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
    Strike Section 1901.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment strikes Section 1901. This provision
    expresses the sense of Congress that students would be allowed
    to establish a second residency.
        This would allow college students to establish a second
    residency, which is just another example of this bill weakening
    the voting system and increasing the election system's
    vulnerability to fraud while again failing to implement the
    necessary and basic verification measures on who is registering
    to vote.
        This provision opens a huge door to voter fraud by allowing
    students to vote at their university without any change in
    their legal residency or creating any mechanism for removing
    them from the voter rolls at their legal residence. Under this
    provision, students could vote absentee at their legal
    residence and vote in person at their university.
        Look, I have twin 18-year-old boys. They don't always make
    the best decision. They are going to be going to college next
    year, and what if they thought it was great to vote at home for
    their dad and also vote at school for their dad? What it would
    get them and what it would get any other student who did this
    is prosecuted. I don't believe that is the intention of this
    provision, but that could be the end result.
        In my home State of Illinois, also, for example, the
    requirements imposed by the State for somebody to prove that
    they are part of the university community are so lax that at
    colleges in my district you can meet the qualifications for
    proof of residency by presenting an emailed receipt from Jimmy
    John's.
        There is no other population of people that gets the option
    to be registered in two locations. I certainly would hope that
    my colleagues would feel the same about extending this same
    option to members of the military.
        This is yet another provision of this bill that impedes on
    States' rights to determine their own registration and voting
    practices, as protected under Article I, Section 4 of the
    Constitution.
        I support the passage of this amendment.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Before I call on the gentleman from
    Maryland, I would like to say I think the amendment relies on
    an incorrect reading of the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        State law already allows students to choose their domicile.
    This merely provides a sense of the Congress that rearticulates
    existing law. It doesn't create a new right for students.
        Mr. Raskin is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        I was just simply going to make the point that the
    Chairperson just made. I think this question was settled in the
    1960s and 1970s in a series of cases called the college student
    voting rights decisions, where there were challenges to
    restrictive efforts by States to keep students from voting at
    their college campus. There was a parallel set of cases dealing
    with military servicemembers. The Texas case, I recall, was
    called Carrington v. Rash.
        In all those cases, the Federal courts and the State courts
    said that it is essentially an optional question for the voter,
    whether to choose as their voter domicile their college
    residence or their residence as a member of the military or
    their original place of residence, overriding precisely the
    kinds of objections that we just heard from Mr. Davis.
        So it is really up to the person to decide. I don't read
    anything in H.R. 1 to try to give people the right to vote in
    two places at once. The dilemma that Mr. Davis's sons face
    about where they should register to vote exists today. They can
    decide today whether to vote on campus or to vote back home.
        Since you have twins, one could vote at home and one could
    vote on campus, and that is perfectly Constitutional and legal,
    because domicile is referred by virtue of physical presence
    with intention to remain at least for the time being. And the
    people get to decide basically where they want to do it.
        The Chairperson. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Raskin. Yes by all means.
        The Chairperson. You know, it is worth noting voting twice
    is illegal. It is illegal now; it will be illegal after
    hopefully this bill becomes law. This doesn't change it.
        Are there additional Members wishing to be heard?
        The gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I would like
    to yield to my good friend from Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Look, I appreciate the comments,
    Chairperson Lofgren, and my good friend, Mr. Raskin. But,
    looking at the legislation, I do believe that this causes
    confusion, and I do believe it could lead to the determination,
    when this law is implemented, that college students will be
    able to choose their domicile, as of today, at their university
    while also keeping their domicile at home, thus increasing the
    opportunities for somebody to make a bad decision and try and
    cast two votes.
        I don't believe that is the intent of what you want in this
    bill, but the way the bill is written, I believe that is the
    intent that you absolutely have right now.
        So this is another reason why a 571-page bill should not be
    rushed through. I have had 15 minutes of questions with two
    panels that I have been able to ask the witnesses. The same for
    my colleagues here. This is not the process that we call
    regular order. This is a rushed process that leads to many
    questions and many debates that we may have throughout further
    provisions in this bill.
        I would certainly hope that if a provision in a sense of
    Congress is being asked to be given to not just college
    students, let's make sure we express a sense of Congress that
    we also want to make sure that we protect from any possible bad
    decisions that someone will make. And let's also maybe express
    a sense of Congress that we afford this same ability to our
    members of the military.
        So these are the issues that have to be addressed, and they
    are not being addressed because this bill is being pushed
    through to get a vote, to send a political message, and not
    enact good policy.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Do additional Members wish to be heard?
        If not, on the amendment, those who favor the amendment
    will say aye.
        Those who oppose will say nay.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it.
        Mr. Walker. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk
    will call the roll, please.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report, please.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members are no, and three
    Members are yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment does not prevail.
        Are there additional amendments?
        Mr. Loudermilk. Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
        The amendment will please be distributed.
        And Mrs.----
        Mrs. Davis of California. Point of order.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order.
        The clerk will please read the title.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
    Georgia. Strike Section 1904.
        [The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Again, because of the speed that this thing is being pushed
    through, I can see numerous unintended consequences, but, in
    this case, I think this may be an intended consequence, to
    undermine what many States have spent many years in the
    legislation and debate to protect, the integrity of their
    voting systems, to ensure that only those who have the right to
    vote and legally can vote vote. Because whenever someone
    fraudulently votes in an election, it discredits those who have
    legally cast their vote.
        Now, what this amendment does, simply strikes Section 1904,
    which is a provision that allows for a sworn statement of
    identification to be in place of an actual ID that is required
    by many States.
        Again, I go back to: The States are the closest to the
    people. The States know what is best for the populations that
    they represent, for their citizens. And many States already
    have a voter ID law in place. This would circumvent that and
    simply go to a sworn statement.
        I was at a convenience store during this last recess, and a
    gentleman, probably about my age, that was in front of me went
    up to buy a packet of chewing tobacco, or chaw, as they call it
    in Georgia. A guy about my age. You know what the clerk did? He
    asked for his ID because the law says you have to be 21 to buy
    tobacco in the State of Georgia, and that clerk had to check
    his ID.
        In the State of Georgia, it has been required that you have
    to show an ID to get your ears pierced, to show that you are of
    age.
        This would undermine something that is of much greater
    importance than either one of those, is to prove you are who
    you are and that you are allowed to vote.
        Now, in Georgia, we do have provisional ballots that are
    available. If you don't have your ID, they will let you vote on
    a provisional ballot.
        I can see that there is a multitude of issues that will
    come up here, especially when we go back to the last amendment
    that I proposed, to where, if now we have people who are coming
    up and they are just doing a sworn statement that they are who
    they say they are and they are allowed to vote and it turns out
    they are not, you know, what do you do then? Do you kick their
    votes out? Then does somebody go and find a lawyer and sue
    against that?
        I mean, I think that we need to slow this process down.
    More importantly than that, we need to take this to the
    governors, to the Secretaries of State, have input from the
    States, not just simple hearings in a State that a few people
    are invited to, but actually have those who have been elected
    to represent the people of those States who are going to bear
    the cost. They are going to bear the legal costs. They are
    going to bear the cost of implementing this.
        And, also, we are overriding those things that the States
    have done effectively well.
        With that, I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Are there additional Members who wish to be heard?
        The gentlelady from--first, does the gentlewoman from
    California insist on her point of order?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Point of order withdrawn.
        The Chairperson. It is withdrawn.
        The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
        You know, I hear a lot of discussions about voter ID laws.
    Let me just suggest to the gentleman from Georgia that buying a
    pack of cigarettes is not a constitutional right; voting is.
    You cannot compare the two things. Voting is a right. It is in
    the Constitution that we read in this building all the time.
    Buying a pack of cigarettes is not, going to a movie is not,
    getting on an airplane is not. And so I think you cannot make
    an argument--I mean, I guess you could--but it certainly
    doesn't make a lot of sense to me that you would compare
    something as simple as a child going to get a pack of
    cigarettes to the right to vote.
        I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
        Would additional Members like to be heard on the amendment?
        The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Walker. I will yield my time to Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I thank my friend from North Carolina. You
    make a very good point. That is why it is so much more
    important to ensure that the person voting does have a right to
    vote, not someone who doesn't have a right to vote, showing up
    to vote, and circumventing their right that their voice be
    heard in this government. You are making the argument that I am
    making, is, it is much more important that we ensure that those
    who should be voting are the ones who are voting, and the only
    way to do that is with proper ID.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. As we know, voter ID
    laws have deprived many voters of their right to vote. They
    reduce participation and they prevent many Americans from
    participating in the democratic process. Studies have shown
    that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have
    government-issued photo ID, and that percentage is even higher
    for students, people of color, people with disabilities, low-
    income voters, and students.
        Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs,
    because the underlying documentation, like birth certificates,
    is often difficult or expensive to come by.
        I would note that also, in-person voter fraud is
    exceedingly rare. A recent study found that from 2000--the year
    2000 to 2014, there were only 31 Federal allegations of voter
    impersonation, the only type of fraud that photo IDs could
    prevent, during a period in which over 1 billion ballots were
    cast.
        These voter ID requirements do have a partisan effect. I am
    not going to go into all of that. I am not--if you take a look,
    for example, in the State of Texas, voter ID, your gun permit
    is accepted but the University of Texas ID is not. I think that
    that is an example of the pernicious impact of these voter ID
    laws that so often prevent people from--who have a right to
    vote from exercising that right.
        I will just close with this. One of the things that upset
    me more than any other report was a World War II vet went out,
    served his country in World War II, the greatest generation. He
    is very old, he doesn't have a driver's license, he is too old
    to drive. He didn't have a photo ID and so he could go and say
    he fought the Nazis, but he couldn't vote on Election Day. That
    is what voter IDs will do.
        So unless there are additional Members who would like to
    speak, those who favor the amendment will say aye.
        Those who are opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested. The
    clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
    and three Members have voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments?
        Mr. Walker. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at the
    table.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will please distribute the
    amendment. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order, and the clerk
    will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Mark Walker of North
    Carolina, in title I of the bill redesignate----
        The Chairperson. I would ask unanimous consent that the
    reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
        [The amendment of Mr. Walker follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment would add a new subtitle to the bill,
    prohibiting the practice of ballot harvesting. Ballot
    harvesting is the practice in which organized workers or
    volunteers collect absentee ballots from certain voters and
    then drop them off at a polling place or election office. While
    this process seems innocuous at first, it has been used to take
    advantage of voters and has been severely abused by political
    operatives, really, throughout the country.
        Most recently, we saw a new election ordered in North
    Carolina's Ninth Congressional District because of ballot-
    harvesting allegations. In California, this practice is legal,
    and we saw it affect multiple races. Valadao was up six points
    on election day and lost 3 weeks later. Young Kim was up by
    8,000 votes and then lost by 5,000 votes. One more example was
    Jeff Denham lost because of the 57,000 vote-by-mail ballots
    cast and counted after election day.
        This amendment prohibits the practice of ballot harvesting,
    while allowing for commonsense exceptions for the disabled and
    elderly, of course. I support the passage of this amendment,
    and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Are there----
        Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw my point of order.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis withdraws her point of order.
        Are there other members who wish to be heard on this
    amendment?
        Yes, Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Well, I think you have offered a
    number of examples, and I appreciate that, but I think that we
    know that ballot harvesting, as you are thinking about it, is
    not the fact that people are allowed to cast absentee ballots
    up until election day. That is legitimate in the State of
    California. It also means that we are allowing as great an
    access as possible to the electorate. This actually--while we
    don't want to have the kind of situation that happened in North
    Carolina--and obviously, there is going to be another election
    there at the same time, the way that these activities have
    continued with people being in control of their ballots, should
    not be confused with this issue of ballot harvesting.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California yields
    back.
        Mr. Davis, do you wish----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
        The Chairperson. You are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Rest assured this issue has to do
    with ballot harvesting. We have just recently seen that there
    is possibly criminal behavior in North Carolina. We have a new
    election because election officials said there could be
    possible fraud. Now, I hate to break it to anybody, but that is
    just not going to be relegated to North Carolina.
        The problem we have is, the process that is illegal in
    North Carolina that was ripe with fraud, is legal in other
    States. McCrae Dowless, who could possibly go to jail in North
    Carolina, would be walking free in California for what he did.
    That is wrong. He could be walking free in other States. That
    is wrong.
        If we are going to try and federalize every other part of
    the election system in this country with this 571-page bill
    that we have no input in as Republicans, then why in the world
    wouldn't you want to federalize a process that has been
    possibly criminal in one State? We have seen the impact. We are
    having a brand-new election. There were--millions upon millions
    of dollars are going to be put back into the political system
    that made my colleagues in this chamber say you want to get
    money out of politics. So why in the world, if you want to
    federalize everything else, why wouldn't we stop this process?
    Because it is ripe for possibilities of fraud, and everybody
    sitting on this dais knows that.
        What is illegal and what is criminal in another State, and
    we have seen it--you can't close your eyes and say you did not
    know that it could happen somewhere else. That is wrong. That
    can affect the outcomes of the elections. I want fair elections
    for everyone. I want everyone to know that they can cast a vote
    and it is going to be counted fairly.
        We saw what happens when people criminalize this process.
    Not everyone--I know it is a shock to people in this room, not
    everyone in the election process is a do-gooder like all of us
    sitting here at this table. There are bad people, and bad
    people are going to take advantage of bad processes. This is
    wrong in North Carolina; it ought to damn well be wrong in any
    other State in this Nation. And if we are serious about
    elections and elections being fair, then this amendment should
    pass. And I would certainly hope that my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle would recognize this.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Are there additional Members who would like to be heard on
    the amendment?
        Mr. Aguilar. Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Aguilar is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Aguilar. I will take the bait, Madam Chairperson.
        You know, what we saw--and I appreciate the gentleman from
    North Carolina bringing this to the forefront. He has seen in
    his State, let's just call it what it is, it was election
    fraud, and it was meant to skew the outcome of an election. But
    make no mistake, other processes in other States, their
    intention is to count every ballot, and that should be the
    intention of this Committee. It should be the intention of
    every individual who casts a vote, is to have their ballot
    counted.
        Let's not conflate the two: widespread election abuse that
    we saw in North Carolina versus having an ability to cast your
    absentee ballot on the day of the election and having it
    counted. I don't care how many votes you were up on election
    night or where you went to bed and you were winning and you
    ended up losing. What matters is, is every vote counted. That
    is what this Committee has the obligation to discuss. That is
    what this piece of legislation does. Let's not conflate the
    two, and let's not add issues that don't exist.
        So where there is election abuse and fraud, individuals
    should--can and should be prosecuted. And whether that is in
    any State, my home State or in North Carolina, individuals
    should be prosecuted if they don't play by the rules. And I
    trust that that will be the case.
        But at its peak, we need to ensure that every ballot is
    counted, and that is exactly what other States have done. There
    has been no reported abuse. And if there are evidence of
    abuses, individuals should be held accountable, and I look
    forward to my colleagues on the other side raising those
    issues.
        I would like to yield my remaining time to Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
        You know, I am really kind of shocked by those comments. It
    is judge and jury by innuendo. I think in California, there is
    no attempt to fill out other people's ballots and to go house
    to house and pick them up. People are receiving absentee
    ballots. They can be encouraged by family members or others to
    vote, to get their votes in. We do it, you know, on television.
    You know, please, you know, mail in your absentee ballots. But
    that is a very different process.
        I think we really don't want to go there, because access is
    one thing, but fraud is something very different, and that is
    what will--that is what a jury and a judge can decide in North
    Carolina. That doesn't mean that everybody else is under that
    same auspices.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back?
        Mr. Aguilar. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Do other Members wish to be heard?
        The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Obviously, this is one of those issues that--I mean, from
    the--from what I am hearing here is that it is okay if you are
    in a Democratic State, but it is not going to be okay if you
    are in a Republican State. I mean, this is institutionalizing
    the potential for fraud. When you look at this, you look at
    this bill as a whole, we weaken the ability to ensure that the
    right people are voting, and then we are going to
    institutionalize a system that has been shown that it can be
    fraudulently used.
        This is the problem I have with taking anything from the
    States and moving it to the big bureaucracy of the Federal
    Government, which is much, much further away from the people
    than the State governments and the local governments, which I
    think, as in any case, there have been issues. There is always
    issues. But the issues with the States are much less impactful
    than with anything that the Federal Government begins doing.
        With that, I would like to yield whatever time he may
    consume to my good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk.
        Just a couple quick things here. To my colleague from
    California, I think your quote was, you are in control of your
    ballot, but the fact is, that is--the whole reason for this
    amendment is that I don't believe that you are. You actually
    have volunteers, these are not even paid people really
    accountable to anyone. These are volunteers going around
    collecting these absentee ballots.
        Speaking of North Carolina, my other friend from California
    mentioned that this was widespread fraud. Actually, it wasn't,
    but it shows you how much damage one individual can do when you
    have one county, Bladen County, go from 25 absentee ballots to
    over 500, obviously there is an issue with that kind of growth,
    and the more you looked into it, the more we saw what was going
    on.
        But my question is this: Should we not have some
    consistency in our Federal voting laws that even if it is a
    gray area, what is legal in one State, you can do that a little
    bit over here, maybe--I don't understand why there is not a
    consistency across the board, that if it is even close to being
    illegal in North Carolina, why in North Carolina--or why in
    California, that you would have volunteers--now, McCrae Dowless
    did lots of things that we are still uncovering, and I don't
    want to acknowledge him in any way, but some of what he did may
    have been legal if it would have been in California. There may
    be some other things where he acted more improper where he
    actually filled some of it out. We are still looking into that.
    But just his whole process of going to these places and
    collecting some of these ballots, to me, it looks like that a
    volunteer could do that in California but not in North
    Carolina. I see some of the staff even shaking their heads
    behind you there.
        This is a problem. If a volunteer in North Carolina can go
    and collect these absentee ballots, but you can't do that in
    California, should we not have consistency here is my question
    and with that I yield back to Mr. Loudermilk the remaining
    minute 55.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I will yield my remaining time to Mr.
    Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I appreciate the comments made by
    those on the other side of the dais. I do want to go there, as
    my colleague Mrs. Davis said. This amendment would make sure
    that people could vote on election day in absentee. What we are
    trying to do is stop the potential for more McCrae Dowlesses in
    every other State in the Nation.
        You all want to federalize the national election system--
    that is what this bill does--but you don't want to federalize a
    process that has been shown to be ripe for possible criminal
    behavior. And we have evidence from people on the ground when
    these ballots in certain California races were being counted,
    you had somebody who worked for a campaign--their goal is to
    win. Nothing more, nothing less--who was a ballot harvester and
    a poll watcher and somebody who was there when they were
    counting the ballots.
        Mr. Butterfield. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. No, I only have 56 seconds left. You
    will get your time in a second.
        Mr. Butterfield. All right.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have got to take everything I
    have.
        This is a problem, and to say that you don't realize that
    this is a problem and to look and just--because of
    partisanship, put this amendment down, we know that this has
    been a problem in North Carolina. William Wilberforce said, you
    can choose to look the other way, but you can never again say
    that you did not know. This is something that needs to be
    addressed for fairness. If this bill really is about fairness,
    if this bill is about giving everybody the chance to vote, then
    let's make sure that no one can just pop a ballot out the back
    door of their car because they know they may have picked up
    another party's ballot.
        You want to talk about bipartisanship? Bipartisanship will
    matter when we have a fair election process that does not allow
    ballot harvesting.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        First, I want to get a clarification on the--the amendment
    appears to speak to Section 1931, Subtitle O, but I am trying
    to find that in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I
    am trying to get the----
        The Chairperson. It adds. It adds a new subtitle.
        Mr. Butterfield. It would be a new subtitle?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Okay, that clears that up.
        Okay. I understand, Mr. Davis, that you want to limit who
    handles ballots to family members and election officials and
    postal officials and all of that. Do you also want to address
    those who handle applications for absentee ballots?
        See, in North Carolina, we have two processes, step one and
    step two. First you have the application process where the
    voter seeks to have a ballot mailed to him or her, and step
    number two is when the voter mails the ballot back to the Board
    of Elections.
        Your amendment, I just want to get this clear, your
    amendment does not speak to the application process?
        The Chairperson. Will the gentleman yield for the----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. We are talking about ballot
    harvesting. You are talking about vote by mail, where it goes
    through the Postal Service and gets delivered directly to the
    election official.
        Mr. Butterfield. I am.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. But not another set of fingers put
    on it that could possibly commit the same fraud that we saw
    exist in your home State.
        Mr. Butterfield. But absentee voting by mail is what you
    are addressing?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. No. We are addressing ballot
    harvesting. We are addressing somebody----
        Mr. Butterfield. In general?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. We are addressing a process that is
    legal in the State of California right now for anybody to go
    and pick up ballots and then be trusted to bring them back to
    the election officials' office without any bipartisanship that
    occurs----
        Mr. Butterfield. These are live ballots after they have
    been completed?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. Or as far as we know. Did
    McCrae Dowless complete--did he pick up only completed ballots?
    That is why this process needs to be outlawed. That is the
    questions we have right now, Mr. Butterfield. Because what was
    illegal in your State is not illegal to do in other States.
        In particular we saw the ballot harvesting process possibly
    determine the outcome of elections to Congress. Imagine how
    many local officials that could have been impacted by those
    same ballot harvesters. There are no safeguards. That is the
    problem here. That is again why I say, we can all choose to
    look the other way, but we can never again say we did not know.
        Mr. Butterfield. Reclaiming my time. Thank you, I yield
    back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Madam Chairperson, thank you, and I rise in
    opposition to the amendment. Although I confess that I am
    somewhat charmed by the argument from our friends who have been
    saying that they don't want to interfere with the State,
    suddenly to try to rewrite the laws of 50 States with respect
    to voter fraud when it is completely unnecessary.
        Now, as I understand what Leslie McCrae Dowless did in
    North Carolina was he picked up the absentee ballots, and then
    some of them they threw away, some of them they lost. Some of
    them they may have written their own way. That is voter fraud.
    It is voter fraud in North Carolina. It is voter fraud in
    California. This guy is not in trouble because he delivered
    somebody's ballot successfully to the Board of Elections. He is
    in trouble because he committed voter fraud. You know,
    anybody--any third grader would recognize that what he did was
    to try to distort and alter the outcome of the election. That
    is against the law in California right now, as I understand it.
    I just----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Raskin. By all means.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. What we are trying to do is prohibit
    a process that we saw could be corrupted.
        Mr. Raskin. Can I ask you about that then? Okay.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. What the rest of this bill is trying
    to do is prescribe--prescribe a process to our States. That is
    the difference between this amendment and the rest of this
    bill. So that is why I wanted to respond to your--but, yes, I
    will answer your question.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, well, just reclaiming my time then.
        Your solution strikes me as an exceedingly broad one to the
    problem of a few bad actors. I mean, the Dowless guy also had
    been convicted of insurance fraud a few years before where he
    took out a life insurance policy on a dead man and collected
    $165,000. You may as well rewrite the life insurance policy law
    in California because he did that. But why would you? What he
    did was fraud in North Carolina. It is fraud in California too.
        Now, under your law, you would still allow the practice,
    which you have described as ballot harvesting, if the person's
    a household member, a family member, or a caregiver. Those
    terms are not defined anywhere. Why would you allow that? Now,
    I happen to think it is fine, but if I can give my ballot to, I
    don't know, you tell me, a brother-in-law, a stepbrother, a
    half-brother, why can't I give it to my roommate, who I have
    lived with for the last 50 years, my best friend from college
    to take in, if I am disabled, and do I need to be disabled in
    order to do it?
        So, the argument is presented as this sweeping categorical
    prohibition, but then it is riddled with exceptions with all
    these people that you want to allow to be----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Raskin. Shouldn't we leave that to----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Raskin [continuing]. The people of California and North
    Carolina and Florida to decide, because all of them have their
    own prohibitions against voter fraud, which is a completely
    recognizable species of misconduct.
        By all means.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. We are assuming in
    California, because the election results have seated Members of
    Congress, that there wasn't fraud, but we cannot sit here and
    say that this process is not ripe for fraud, because what is
    illegal--what is alleged--and I believe there was fraud in
    North Carolina, which is why I think this process needs to be
    changed. The sheer fact that the same process that could
    prosecute and send this gentleman back to jail--and I am--you
    know, I don't think he should lose his right to vote, right,
    because he was a convicted criminal in the past.
        Mr. Raskin. Not when he gets out of prison because----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yeah, so--but he----
        Mr. Raskin [continuing]. The purpose of punishment is
    rehabilitation.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. But he committed a process that is
    going to probably send him back to jail. And we have got to
    make sure we have processes in place that don't encourage that.
    And we are trying, with this amendment, to identify those who
    States can then identify who they trust to bring in as a ballot
    harvester.
        Mr. Raskin. All right. Reclaiming my time.
        I don't think you are trusting the States to decide. You
    have defined the categories--you haven't really defined them.
    You have designated them without defining them, and so I--
    basically, I think that your amendment doesn't even have the
    courage of its convictions. If you want to ban it, you should
    just ban it without offering a whole string of exceptions. But
    let the States decide what it is that they want to do.
    California doesn't seem to be having a problem, and I don't see
    why we should superintend their law for them on this.
        I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        I would also urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
    California Election Code Section 3017 provides that, quote, a
    vote-by-mail voter who is unable to return the ballot may
    designate any person to return the ballot to the elections
    official who issued the ballot to the precinct board at a
    polling place or vote center within the State or the vote-by-
    mail ballot dropoff location within the State.
        Now, there are criminal penalties for doing this wrong.
    California Election Code Section 18577 provides that any person
    having charge of a completed vote-by-mail ballot who willfully
    interferes or causes interference with the return to local
    elections officials having jurisdiction over the election is
    guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the
    county jail not exceeding 6 months and by a fine not exceeding
    $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
        I will say that this--you know, I think the amendment to
    some extent is illogical. The North Carolina law prohibits
    voter harvesting. You can only give it to a family member. So
    that is the standard that is being urged, and yet it is in
    North Carolina that the election fraud occurred because this
    individual violated the law, and he will be held accountable
    for his misbehavior.
        But there have been no credible reports of fraudulent or
    otherwise illegal provisions in California. I understand that
    many people outside of California were perplexed about why the
    count took so long. Those of us in California know why. It is
    because the ballots that are postmarked on election day are
    still counted. And it can take, you know, days to be delivered.
    And then each ballot has the signature on the outside, needs to
    be compared to the microfiche that is in the election office.
    It is a very time-consuming process. It was no surprise to any
    of us in California that it took a long time, and the late-
    breaking ballots did not go for the Republican incumbents in
    our State up and down the State.
        But there were observers from both parties in all the
    contested elections, and there were no allegations, that I am
    aware of--and I took quite some time to find out--of fraud in
    any of these elections. I do think it is important that
    individuals who are homebound, who have no family to delegate
    this role to, have an opportunity to give their ballot to
    someone who will turn it in for them, and I would hope that we
    may----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I know I have no
    more time left.
        The Chairperson. I will yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, thank you. I just want to say,
    federalize a criminal penalty for a local election official who
    may mistakenly have an employee who may be an intern or a temp,
    remove somebody from the voter rolls unintentionally, but we
    are not willing to federalize a crime that you say is illegal
    in your State, that is obviously--the process is illegal in
    North Carolina. I think this shows--the debate we are having
    here today shows clearly that this Committee ought to have a
    hearing on ballot harvesting.
        This Committee ought to have witnesses from North Carolina,
    from California and others, sitting at that table, and we ought
    to be able to get an idea of what ballot harvesting means in
    this country and what safeguards we can put in place. Because
    the sheer fact is, if somebody grabs a bunch of ballots and
    they are coming in, in California, and it was so late to count
    these ballots because they kept coming in, your congressional
    districts aren't that big. It doesn't take days to get ballots
    that were postmarked on election day to the local county
    election office. It just doesn't work that way.
        When they are out there, it is ripe for possibilities of
    fraud. That is why we ought to have a hearing. We ought to have
    more openness, and that is the biggest complaint I have about
    this markup, is we are not given the right data before this
    bill is pushed through.
        The Chairperson. Reclaiming my time.
        I will just close, before my time expires, by indicating
    that the vast majority of the votes that were counted in all of
    these races were, in fact, delivered by mail. And it does take
    a long time. The Central Valley districts are not compact. Try
    going from one end to the other in Congressional District 21,
    it is not an easy or compact district.
        But in any case, the remedy being urged on us by our
    friends on the other side of the aisle is the North Carolina
    model, which, in fact, did not help prevent the fraud.
        My time is expired. The time of all Members has expired.
        Those who favor the amendment will vote aye.
        Those opposed will vote no.
        The Chairperson. In the opinion----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. I have to say, in the opinion of the
    Chair, the noes have it, and a recorded vote is requested. The
    clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        [No response.]
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members voted no, and two
    Members voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment does not prevail. Are there
    additional amendments?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I have an amendment at the
    desk, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis has an amendment. The clerk will
    distribute the amendment. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order,
    and the clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois. Insert after subtitle N of title I----
        The Chairperson. I would ask unanimous consent that we
    dispense with the reading of the amendment.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis is recognized for five minutes
    in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Leave it to me to go back to the last debate quickly, but I
    have been to California 21 and that district is not that large.
    Come to Illinois, go to Montana. The sheer fact that ballots
    were coming in after election day shows this process is ripe
    for possible fraud. That is why we should have had a different
    vote on that amendment and we did not. And that frustrates me,
    because it is about fairness, I heard. But it failed.
        This amendment that I am offering would add a new subtitle,
    prohibiting any funds authorized in this bill to be made
    available to anyone who does not certify that they did not aid
    in the creation or enactment of this bill.
        The amounts authorized to be appropriated in H.R. 1 are
    staggering. We still have not received a CBO cost estimate to
    even know how much it will cost. And we still have not had our
    questions answered on who assisted in the drafting of this
    bill. It was bragged about at the press conference announcing
    the bill. I don't know who helped write this bill. Who were
    they? Are they going to gain from the possibly billions that
    are going to be put into the campaigns? Are they going to go be
    a political consultant? Are they going to work for the TV
    stations?
        By all appearances, H.R. 1 is simply a way for political
    operatives to enrich themselves. I support the passage of this
    amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
        I am just getting familiar with the amendment right now.
    And as always, Mr. Davis has an inspired suggestion here. I
    would almost like to argue that we universalize this for all
    legislation that goes through Congress, that anybody who has
    lobbied for it can't benefit from it in any way, but I think
    that that extension of the principle demonstrates precisely
    what is wrong with this, which is it is a naked violation of
    the First Amendment.
        The Supreme Court has determined that the right to lobby
    and to participate in the legislative process is protected by
    the First Amendment. So this violates the doctrine of
    unconstitutional conditions, which says that you can't
    condition the receipt of public money and public funding on
    surrender of a constitutional right. And essentially what you
    are saying is, if you want to enjoy the benefits of this
    legislation, or by extension, any other legislation, you can't
    have participated in the legislative process that leads up to
    enactment.
        I would say, if for no other reason, we shouldn't pass this
    because it is unconstitutional. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis withdraws her reservation.
        Are there additional Members who wish to be heard on the
    amendment?
        I would just note, in addition to the comment made by the
    gentleman from Maryland, that the funds made available in the
    act are made available to State election officials, and that
    the States should not necessarily be constrained in how to
    administer those funds, and this prohibition would be an
    overreach in restricting who States can contract with.
        The gentleman asked to be recognized.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Walker. I will yield my time to the distinguished
    gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yeah, we have in this amendment
    exception for State and local governments. So State and local
    government officials helped to write this bill that we don't
    know about. They would be exceptions. What we are talking about
    are the same special interests that this bill is supposed to
    get out of politics. We don't know if lobbyists, we don't know
    if different groups who are active politically helped to write
    this bill.
        Our colleague at the press conference announcing this bill
    said that we want to thank these different groups who helped us
    write it. That is exactly why we must ensure that they cannot
    gain from the drafting of this bill.
        I appreciate the--look, my friend from Maryland, I
    appreciate your friendship and your tenacity too, but it shows
    we can have policy disagreements but not be disagreeable, but
    this is clear. This is clear. Somebody who wrote the bill
    shouldn't be able to profit from it, because it is going to put
    billions upon billions upon billions of dollars--I mean, look,
    my good friend Mr. Aguilar, you look at what he raised from
    under $200 in contributions, he would have been eligible for up
    to 3 million bucks to spend. He didn't have a race. He could
    have spent it on somebody else's behalf.
        It is more money getting into the political system. It is
    people who say they helped write a bill that is going to take
    money out of the political system and instead replace it--not
    even replace it--add to it with tax dollars, and we still don't
    know how much this bill is going to cost. There is no CBO
    score. This is being rushed through.
        Again, I reiterate, I don't blame my colleagues sitting on
    the other side of this dais. I believe it is your leadership
    that is pushing this bill to move to the floor, to send a
    political message, and it is not real legislation. This is a
    political message meant to help drum up support for what have
    you in the electoral process, and it is very frustrating to me.
        Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, I will.
        Mr. Raskin. But I wonder, would you be willing to
    universalize this principle and attach it to every piece of
    legislation that goes through Congress? So I am thinking of one
    very special case, for example, that was discussed recently
    about the prohibition in Medicare for the government not to be
    able to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, which was
    put in very explicitly at the behest of the big pharmaceutical
    companies, and would we want it to say, they can't benefit from
    this legislation if they had any involvement in the legislative
    process?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, it is very interesting that my
    colleague wants to offer an amendment that would be outside of
    this jurisdiction of this Committee, because I had to withdraw
    an amendment that is outside of our jurisdiction.
        I would defer to the Energy and Commerce Committee, who
    held many hearings on our Medicare program and Medicare Part D,
    who, you know, created a process that involved many, many hours
    upon hours upon hours of hearings. We have not had that here,
    Mr. Raskin. I have had 15--as the Ranking Member of a standing
    Committee in the House of Representatives, the most open
    process that we have had is me asking 15 total minutes of
    questions to two panelists, and this is--and then we got a 571-
    page bill.
        Look, I read the last 200 pages of this bill on a treadmill
    Sunday, and I walked five miles while I did it. Tell me, tell
    me that this is something that we should put through to the
    American people that is going to nationalize our election
    processes. That is what is frustrating to me. I get it. I know
    it is not the members of this Committee's fault that we are
    doing this, I know that. This is something that leadership
    wants. They want to send a political message. They don't want
    to govern. They want--if this ever got through, it would
    seriously nationalize the electoral process. It would seriously
    undermine the States' responsibilities to have and to hold
    elections on the days that they see fit.
        We have so many problems with this bill. I would certainly
    hope that when the ballot-harvesting amendment failed, that we
    would recognize as we go through further, that there has got to
    be a part--there has got to be some bipartisanship in this.
    There is none right now. And I am giving you 40 opportunities
    to show some, and I got nothing.
        I will yield the 33 seconds to Mr. Walker if he wants it.
    Otherwise, I yield back.
        Mr. Walker. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much, Madam Chairperson.
        If that is the case, Mr. Davis, then I think we need to go
    back and repeal the tax bill, because I know probably half of
    the people in this Congress benefited from it, and it had not
    one hearing. Not one. Not one. So if that is the case, I am
    happy to go back and repeal it. I think it would be a great
    idea.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from Ohio yields back.
        I just wanted to note that I think my comment was
    misunderstood. It is not that State election officials were
    exempt because, you know, if they participated; it is that the
    grants will be administered by the States, and that we would be
    constraining them.
        You know, this is a bill that was introduced by our
    colleague from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. There are a number of
    bills that were introduced by other people that were compiled
    into the bill as there--a book I read years ago called The
    Dance of Legislation, and, you know, when you write bills,
    people give opinions, constituents write in. It is a process
    that is interesting and inclusive, and that is, I think,
    generally, a good thing.
        I think this amendment not only would violate the First
    Amendment, but it is probably not a good practice. I would urge
    a ``no'' vote.
        The time of all members has expired.
        So I would ask those who are in favor of the amendment to
    vote aye.
        And those opposed to vote no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. A roll call has been requested. The clerk
    will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voted no, and
    three Members voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments for consideration?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis' amendment will be distributed.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order, and
    the clerk will please read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois, strike section 2502.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
    minutes in support of your amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and
    thank you to my colleagues for going through this process. This
    is a process that I am glad we can have open amendments. I am
    glad we can discuss our concerns with this bill, because, you
    know, I am for open processes, and you know what, it is an
    epiphany.
        All of you who said we didn't have enough hearings on the
    tax bill or the healthcare bill, hey, you were right. You were
    right. Why are you doing the same thing to us when you take
    control? That is--you were right. We need to have more. We need
    to have more processes. We ought to have more hearings. And we
    are not going to get that. We are not going to get that.
        This amendment strikes Section 2502. This provision would
    overturn the Supreme Court and prohibit States from removing
    invalid voters from their rolls. National Voter Registration
    Act requires--a bill that passed this House--requires States to
    conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to
    remove the names of voters who are ineligible by reason of
    death or change in residence.
        Approximately 24 million voter registrations, one in eight
    in the U.S., are either invalid or inaccurate. And about 2.75
    million people are registered to vote, more than--that vote in
    more than one State. And that is straight from the Supreme
    Court Husted opinion.
        Voter list maintenance is critical to keeping election
    costs down and lines at the polls short. I know costs don't
    matter with this bill because we have seen that.
        The Supreme Court laid out a good standard in Husted, and
    that was just in 2018. This wasn't some decision made back
    decades ago. In Ohio, for example, to remove a voter from the
    rolls, mail has to be preaddressed, prepaid postcard to voters
    who haven't voted in two years to determine if they have moved.
    If they don't vote in any other election for four more years,
    then they are presumed to have moved and are removed from the
    rolls. That seems like a pretty reasonable process to keep the
    election costs down in our States.
        Your bill would not allow this. Your bill would not allow
    this to happen.
        Section 2502 would make this requirement nearly impossible
    for States to comply with already existing law, the National
    Voting Rights Act. Now, I will give you an example. In
    Alexander County, Illinois, there are more registered voters
    than people who were counted in the census. What H.R. 1 will do
    would codify that we will have more registered voters in so
    many more census tracks, almost, could be all of them in this
    country, if it is implemented, than people who say they live
    there.
        So local election officials, they are going to print as
    many ballots as they can for the possibility of a hundred
    percent turnout. And if they are wrong, if they try and save
    costs like we have seen in the past, and then there is unheard
    of turnout, you know who is going to get criticized? It is the
    local election officials. When what this bill would do would be
    requiring them to take that gamble. That is why this bill is a
    serious infringement on free speech. This bill is a serious
    infringement on States and local governments to run their own
    election processes.
        We want everybody to vote. I can't state that enough, we
    want everybody who is eligible to vote to vote. We want
    everybody who is eligible to register to vote. But what this
    Committee has shown me is that they have no regard for putting
    safeguards in place. Not a single amendment that offers what I
    believe are commonsense safeguards has been voted for by the
    majority. Not one. This is our time to show bipartisanship, and
    I am getting none.
        If this bill wants to be shoved down our throat in a
    partisan roll call, just like many bills I heard in the past
    from my Committee members were shoved down their throat when we
    were in the majority, that process is taking place right now.
    And that is wrong. Doesn't matter who is in charge, it is
    wrong.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Do additional Members wish to be heard on
    this amendment?
        Is the reservation withdrawn?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
        The Chairperson. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. I
    think the minority is mischaracterizing Section 2502. It does
    not prevent States from removing ineligible voters. Instead,
    Section 2502 ensures that voters do not lose their right to
    vote simply because they have chosen not to vote in an
    election. Voting is a right, not a use it or lose it privilege.
        Section 2502 still allows for numerous options for States
    to remove ineligible voters. For example, States can remove
    voters from the rolls because they passed away or changed
    addresses. Federal standards exist to help ensure accurate
    voter rolls, but they don't really protect the right to vote.
        You know, it is interesting that the purge rates greatly
    increased in covered States after Shelby County v. Holder. And
    those previously preclearance States appear to have engaged in
    purging with an agenda. It is important that that not be
    permitted. And this amendment would undo that.
        I will say, Mr. Davis, that we don't agree with the
    amendments you have offered so far, which is why we are not
    voting for them, primarily because they strike the bill that we
    agree with. We are certainly willing, and hopefully we will be
    able to come to agreement on some of the amendments. But come
    up with a better amendment and maybe we can do that.
        So unless there are further comments on this amendment, I
    would ask that those who favor the amendment say aye.
        And those who oppose it, say no.
        And in the opinion of the Chair----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson [continuing]. The noes have it. A recorded
    vote has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members voted no, and
    three Members voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment did not prevail.
        Are there additional amendments that Members wish to offer?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I would like to offer, I
    believe it is out of order, Davis amendment No. 19.
        The Chairperson. Okay.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved. The
    clerk will distribute the amendment, and the clerk will please
    read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois, amend Title III to read as follows --
        The Chairperson. I would ask unanimous consent that the
    amendment be considered as read.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
    minutes to support your amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Every one of the amendments we have offered, except this
    one, has been about five pages on average. You don't like our
    amendments because of the way they were written. Well, I don't
    like your 571-page bill, which is why I offered 40 amendments.
    Only 40. We are nowhere close to 571 pages. So I am going to
    give you a chance to show bipartisanship, because this
    amendment that strikes Section 3001, it authorizes funds for
    Title III and replaces it with the Secure Elections Act. It is
    a bipartisan bill from the 115th Congress.
        Nothing about H.R. 1 has been open or transparent. The
    Secure Elections Act was a bipartisan bill and is the model we
    should be adopting in the House. Again, bipartisan.
        This bill designates Federal elections and their
    infrastructure as critical infrastructure, ensures that every
    vote is cast by a paper ballot, marked or verifiable by the
    voter; encourages security audits and the adoption of basic
    cybersecurity standards for voting infrastructure. It improves
    post-election auditing, especially through statistical
    sampling. Additionally, it articulates a retaliatory policy
    that threatens to impose costs on those who seek to threaten
    the integrity of the U.S. elections.
        The Secure Elections Act is not a perfect bill; it is a
    much better starting point than H.R. 1. I support the passage
    of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
        Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw the point of order.
        The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn.
        I would like to note I personally thought that this was not
    germane, but the Parliamentarians overruled us. So----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. We will take it.
        Mrs. Davis of California. It is bipartisan.
        The Chairperson. That is right. You know, we have moved
    forward in terms of knowledge since 2002. The Secure Elections
    Act does not provide State and local governments the resources
    they need to improve election security. Rather it approaches
    the same old one-and-done approach to funding that got us into
    this situation of inadequate security.
        H.R. 1, in contrast, provides States the surge funding they
    need to secure elections in time for the 2020 election, and the
    predictability of funds in the future, so they can plan, make
    deliberate security investments, and continue cybersecurity
    training for election officials.
        The Secure Elections Act, although well intentioned at the
    time it was devised, fails to impose sufficient transparency
    requirements for election service providers.
        H.R. 1 provides greater transparency related to election
    security vendors, including requiring the disclosure of supply-
    chain information, and it requires that vendors be owned and
    operated by a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, among
    other things, which was absent from the prior bill.
        Finally, H.R. 1 would ensure that audits take place by hand
    rather than a machine, and that is critical for election
    security if the electronic counting system has also been
    infected. I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment was
    offered, but I think H.R. 1 is an improvement over the prior
    effort, so I would urge opposition to the amendment as offered.
        Are there additional comments to be made?
        If not, all those in favor will say aye.
        Opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. A recorded
    vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
    three Members have voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not adopted.
        Are there additional amendments that Members wish to offer?
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman from North Carolina has an
    amendment.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis has reserved a point of order.
    The clerk is distributing the amendment.
        Will the clerk please read the title?
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Mark Walker of North
    Carolina, strike Section 4122.
        [The amendment of Mr. Walker follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes on behalf of his amendment.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment strikes Section 4122. This provision creates
    a new standard of judicial review, creates new standards of
    judicial review that weakens the rights of respondents in
    Commission matters. Let me break it down. If a respondent
    challenges in court a Commission decision finding that it
    violated the law, the court would then defer to any reasonable
    interpretation the agency gives to the statute. But if the
    respondent wins at the Commission, no deference will be given
    to the FEC's decision if challenged in court.
        Basically, this ``heads I win, tails you lose'' approach
    harms respondents and biases court decisions against speakers.
    I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
        Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw my point of order.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis does not insist on her point of
    order.
        I would just note that Section 4122 simply establishes that
    challenges to the constitutionality of campaign finance laws go
    to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with
    an appeal to the D.C. circuit. It also provides a right for
    Members of Congress to intervene in support of or opposition to
    the position of a party to the case regarding the
    constitutionality of any challenged provision. It doesn't
    create a new standard of judicial review. It is simply
    procedural as to where these matters will be heard.
        Are there additional Members wishing to be heard on the
    amendment?
        If not, then on the amendment, those in favor will say aye.
        Opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. There is a request for a roll call vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Okay, Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted
    no, three Members have voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments to be heard?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis' amendment will be distributed.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved. The clerk
    will----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Amendment 22. Pardon. I have
    skipped.
        The Chairperson. Okay. Amendment 22.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, the amendments
    will be distributed. I apologize, but as much as I know, my
    good friend Marcia wants to hear me go through all my
    amendments, I have chosen to skip a few.
        Ms. Fudge. Really?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, yes. I know it is not usually
    my style, but we did it.
        This amendment strikes Section 4208----
        The Chairperson. Oh, this is--no. This is 41--this is the
    same amendment. So we need----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. 4208, yeah.
        Voice. So 4206 you are skipping?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. We are skipping 4206.
        The Chairperson. Okay. Can we find the correct----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Trust me, this process is still
    shorter than me talking on the other ones.
        The Chairperson. That is all right.
        Thanks very much. The clerk will report the title of the
    amendment.
        The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois, Strike
    Section 4208.
        And a point of order is reserved--actually, and withdrawn.
    This is germane.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right. Ready to roll?
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
        This amendment strikes Section 4208. This provision creates
    new political record requirements for online platforms. Any
    person or group spending as little as $500 during a calendar
    year on qualified political advertisements on many popular and
    widely accessed internet platforms, including news, social
    media, social networking sites, search engines, mobile apps--a
    lot of us spend that on franking--so they would have to provide
    certain information to those platforms, and the information
    would have to be posted in an online public file.
        The term ``national legislative issue of public
    importance'' is not defined, and is borrowed from the public
    file requirements for broadcasters under the Federal
    Communications Act, which also does not define this term.
        I know we had some debate earlier about terms that I have
    defined in some of my amendments. This is another example where
    the Committee could show the same consideration, because the
    process could truly disrupt free speech. And we want free
    speech for everyone. So--not just those who helped write the
    bill, that we don't know.
        Grassroots groups using social media to promote contentious
    but important causes, such as support or opposition for a wall
    on the U.S.-Mexico border, immigration reform, the Tea Party,
    the Women's March, to targeted supporters, may find themselves
    targeted for harassment and retaliation by opponents monitoring
    the content and scope of their online advertising campaigns,
    using the information reported in the public file.
        I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Do other Members wish to be heard on the
    amendment?
        I would just like to note that it is true that the Honest
    Ads Act borrows from the approach that applies to political ads
    on television and radio. It extends those standards to online
    platforms and requires those platforms to keep public records
    of political ads. The bill does also include a safe harbor for
    those online platforms to show their best efforts. It does so
    in Section 4208 which adds a subsection titled Safe Harbor for
    Platforms Making Best Efforts to Identify Requests which are
    Subject to Record Maintenance Requirements. In accordance with
    the rules established by the Commission, if an online platform
    shows that the platform used best efforts to determine whether
    or not a request to purchase a qualified political
    advertisement was subject to the requirements of this
    subsection, the online platform shall not be considered to be
    in violation of such requirements.
        It only applies to big platforms, those with 50 million or
    more unique monthly visitors from the United States that sell
    political advertising. That is specified in Section 4208(A),
    which includes a subsection for online platforms that defines
    them as having 50 million or more unique monthly visitors or
    users for the majority of months during the preceding 12
    months.
        The Honest Ads Act has flexibility to deal with changing
    mediums, but at a minimum, people should know who is paying for
    an ad. This bill is about paid online advertising. It isn't
    about people's Facebook or Twitter accounts or their blogs.
    According to Borrell Associates, in 2016, more than $1.4
    billion was spent on online political advertising. The Honest
    Ads Act is about ensuring our disclosure laws keep pace with
    changing technology.
        Digital advertising can have a far greater reach than
    broadcast advertising, and it is time for the rules to be
    updated to reflect how campaigns are run in the 21st century.
    It is about curbing illegal foreign influence in our election.
    Facebook disclosed that Russian entities spent $100,000 in
    political advertisements to amplify the different social and
    political messages in 2016. Our online platforms can be
    exploited to sow distrust in American democracy. And that is
    something I think we all oppose. I oppose this amendment and
    would urge its defeat.
        Unless there are further comments----
        Mr. Walker. I would like to yield my time to the gentleman
    from Illinois.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized and yields his
    time to Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I appreciate you
    brought up what we do need to address, and that is the possible
    Russian interference that we saw on Facebook, but your safe
    harbor provision in the same statement would allow whomever to
    decide that Facebook did their best to ensure that they weren't
    compromised. That doesn't make sense.
        My amendment is the only way that I have a voice in this
    process on a 571-page bill that has been jammed down our
    throats. I mean, could you--I mean, would this bill with the
    safe harbor provision let Facebook off the hook? I don't
    understand. That is why we need to have more hearings. That is
    why we need to have a better process. That is why I offer this
    amendment, to bring attention to the problems in this bill, and
    I am not going to run away from the problems in this bill.
        The safe harbor provision would allow platforms like
    Facebook to walk away from responsibility that they now see
    that they should have taken before the 2016 elections. They
    chose not to. Unless this bill is strengthened, they are going
    to have the opportunity to choose not to again. Ladies and
    gentlemen, that is not what we are here for.
        I yield back. Although, I will tell you, we are working
    through more amendments to get this process going faster, so
    bear with us if we don't get the right amendment in front of
    you.
        The Chairperson. That is all right.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Does the gentleman from North Carolina
    yield back?
        Mr. Walker. Yes, I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Mrs. Davis, did you wish to be recognized?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I was going to ask my colleague
    to just--if you could pinpoint where is the problem here? I
    mean, this is kind of like a floor, I guess you would say, and
    so I am just wondering where would you like to strengthen it?
    You mention Facebook, and I would agree with you when it comes
    to Facebook. I think that they were not open. Maybe that is a
    different way of saying it.
        The Chairperson. I think you can get unanimous agreement on
    that.
        Mrs. Davis of California. But I am just looking for, you
    know, where the----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Excuse me for not remembering the
    exact provision in this 571-page bill that the Chairperson
    referred to when she mentioned the safe harbor provisions. What
    she relayed to us and what I took it as is that a platform,
    regardless of the size--because I brought up concerns about
    groups who want to participate in the political process.
    Remember, I heard a lot of talk about free speech from both
    sides here but what Madam Chairperson talked about in her safe
    harbor provision was, oh, it is okay. You know, somebody will
    judge whether they did their best to ensure that bad actors
    weren't allowed in the process; did their best to ensure that,
    okay, maybe we didn't disclose that these were Russian troll
    farms buying $100,000 worth of ads on Facebook.
        Would Facebook be liable? Could they just say, oh, it is
    okay, we tried? Well, that still can have an impact. I am only
    working off of what this discussion has been, Susan, and I
    appreciate you are allowing me to actually respond too.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Well, I appreciate your response,
    and I think that we know that we have to do a far better job in
    being able to see through what is going on, and I think we have
    that experience now. We should be able to do it better. But it
    is important to--where in this can it be strengthened, and we
    can work on that in the future.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. If the gentlelady would yield to me, I
    would just note that there is a rule for the FEC here, because
    there are complicated questions, for example, on establishing
    search interface requirements. As we discussed at the hearing,
    it may be unduly burdensome to have a disclosure that is verbal
    in a 10-second ad, so they are going to make some decisions on
    that, as well as the other things on page 268, and it is not a
    blanket. It is a rulemaking process that is provided for.
        Are there further Members who wish to be heard?
        If not, those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
        Opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Are there additional--there is a request for a roll call
    vote. The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
    three Members have voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis has an amendment.
        Can you identify it for the clerk?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. It will be Davis amendment 23.
    It will strike Section 5101. 5101.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is being distributed. The
    clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois, strike Section 5101.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
    minutes in support of your amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. I will read fast so we
    don't take that long.
        This amendment strikes the section that creates the My
    Voice Voucher pilot program. It provides citizens vouchers
    which they can then give taxpayer dollar financed vouchers to
    political candidates as contributions. This is simply a money
    grab for politicians. If the goal is to get money and
    corruption out of politics, I mean, who--who believes that this
    won't lead to more money in politics? How is it going to get
    dark money out of politics when we allow tax dollars to not
    replace it but be added to it? This is what is so frustrating
    about this bill.
        This is not a serious attempt at getting money out of
    politics. This is a serious attempt to invest taxpayer dollars
    to supercharge the amount of money that is being spent in
    congressional campaigns throughout this country. Supercharge
    it, turbocharge it, whatever you want to call it. I would have
    gotten a million extra dollars in this campaign based on this
    bill passing just in the last election cycle. You know what I
    would have done? Well, I wouldn't have gone 80 thousand into
    debt, but I would have spent the last, the other $920,000 on TV
    ads and radio ads and thrown it into our local economy, but is
    that what the intention of this bill is? I don't think so. It
    shouldn't be, but that is the result.
        This is not the business of Federal Government. Creating
    this program is taking the federalization of elections and
    campaign financing to a whole new level. The FEC is in no
    position to manage this program and would move the Commission
    away from their central mission.
        Additionally, some States are already doing this. Allow
    these experiments to play out. Just like we are not allowing
    Illinois to be used as a pilot program as to why we should give
    Federal workers election day off, let alone add 6 more days,
    when it hasn't truly addressed the problem in Illinois by
    giving State workers election day off every two years. We still
    have poll watching shortages. People just look at it as a day
    off. They are not getting active in the process. Heck.
    Hopefully they are early voting.
        We do not have a CBO score on this either. Unlimited
    taxpayer dollars going to political campaigns is certainly not
    what I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want
    out of this. Taxpayer dollars going to their campaigns? Really?
    I don't know how the American public is going to react to that
    when they know about it. Thankfully, we are having this markup.
    We haven't had enough hearings. They are not made aware of what
    is in this bill. This is our chance to make people aware of
    what is in it.
        I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back
    my two minutes and 26 seconds.
        The Chairperson. All right. Thank you very much.
        I would like to just make a couple of points here, if I
    may. First, this is a pilot program that is based on a
    successful program adopted by Seattle voters for local
    elections that would run in three States and for a program
    operation period that will run two election cycles. In Seattle,
    when they implemented a similar small dollar democracy voucher
    program, the number of donors participating in local elections
    tripled, and the new donors better reflected Seattle's
    population.
        This is an alternative and completely voluntary way to pay
    for campaigns. It does not rely on special interests or Big
    Money donors. The program is about advancing the public
    interest, not special interests. Right now, big donors and
    wealthy special interests fund campaigns, and even if not
    funding everyone's campaign directly, they are funding big
    super-PACs and dark money groups.
        The intent of this is to give power to everyday Americans
    boosting their influence and voice in our elections, to empower
    more people who would otherwise be incapable of affording
    campaign donations to participate in the political process by
    contributing to candidates.
        I would like to note that all payments to the three States
    for the democracy vouchers are going to come from the Freedom
    from Influence Fund. I have heard Mr. Davis complain about the
    process in our hearing, but one outcome of the hearing was we
    heard you in terms of complaints about taxpayers' funds funding
    elections. So in the manager's amendment, it says no
    appropriated funds, no taxpayer money will be used and put into
    this Freedom from Influence Fund. All payments are subject to
    mandatory reductions of payments in case there are insufficient
    amounts in the fund, and there is a strict cap of $10 million
    for each of the three States participating in the pilot.
        Now, it is not in our jurisdiction to develop the funding
    source here in the House Administration Committee. That is
    beyond our jurisdiction. So essentially what we have done is
    created a vessel for nontaxpayer money to be placed in this
    Freedom from Influence Fund. No taxpayer dollars. So I think
    the amendment is misplaced. We will see whether the pilot
    program expands participation, as has been done in the States
    where it has been tried. If not, we will reevaluate.
        But without using taxpayer funds, we have an opportunity to
    see whether this really does get us away from the grip of
    special interests controlling elections through their money.
        Are there other Members who would like to be heard?
        The gentleman from North Carolina.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        I think we have the same end goal here on this particular
    area, but I do have a--may I ask a question of the Chair?
        The Chairperson. You can ask, and if I know the answer, I
    will tell you.
        Mr. Walker. This particular model, are we basing it on what
    we have seen in Seattle? Is that one of the----
        The Chairperson. That is one of the examples, yes.
        Mr. Walker. Okay. All right. It is my understanding that
    that particular model was--about half the administrative costs
    didn't get to where it needed to be. There may be some fraud as
    well. Is that a particular issue as far as this particular
    amendment that we need to strike?
        The Chairperson. Well, the Congressional small donor
    program is different than the voucher program, but we do think
    that this can be successfully managed. And obviously, we are
    going to have to have--if this becomes law, we are going to
    have to have oversight on this.
        Mr. Walker. Would it not make sense--thank you for
    entertaining me--maybe a potential hearing because of the
    concerns that we are seeing out of this? Is that something that
    maybe we could consider?
        And with that, I will yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairperson. Thank you.
        Are there other Members that wish to be heard on this?
        If not, then those who are in favor of the amendment will
    please say aye.
        Those who are opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote, please.
        The Chairperson. A roll call has been requested. Will the
    clerk please call the roll?
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. Abstain.
        The Clerk. Okay. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Okay. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members have voted no,
    three Members have voted yes, and one abstention.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments to be heard?
        Yes, sir, the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. This
    will be the amendment striking Section 5111. It should be the
    next amendment.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order,
    strikes. The clerk will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
    Georgia, strike Section 5111.
        [The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Okay. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Before I begin on this, let me again say that you have done
    a very good job of managing this. I apologize that we have had
    to spend this much time in here, but at the speed that this is
    moving and the lack of input that we have had in the process
    all together, this is our only opportunity to address some of
    the grave concerns that we have. In fact, as I read over this
    bill, it is about like reading a Stephen King novel, that you
    don't know what you are going to get around the next turn. And
    it seems like every time we get another turn, there is
    something else that surprises us greater than what we had
    already looked at.
        I mean, so far, some of the issues that we have looked at
    is a bill that undermines over 200 years of States responding
    to the needs of the voters and the citizens of those States, of
    tailoring their laws to ensure that not only is there easy
    access to the polling places, as in the State of Georgia, three
    weeks of advance voting, including adding a Saturday vote in
    there, no restrictions on absentee voting. These are things
    that the people wanted, then the States responded to, that
    States are different of those stated. We have got 200-plus
    years of States responding to the needs of the voter, and then
    we are just going to strip that out because of every idea that
    somebody throws out there. We see an idea that is somewhere in
    the Nation, and we will grab it and throw it in this bill and
    we will just see how it works.
        From what we have seen, some of the ideas facilitate the
    potential of voter fraud, disenfranchises individual voters by
    many, many ways, which again, I think is unintended
    consequences because we haven't taken the time to actually
    engage those who know the election systems best in their
    States, which is the governors, which is the secretaries of
    state, and those elected--the election officials.
        It is a huge unfunded mandate; weakens the power of
    individual ballot by letting or allowing the weaponization of
    the people's votes, empowering trial attorneys to let the
    courts decide elections in some cases; institutionalizes
    questionable campaign practices; strips away the ability for
    States to put the best policies that meet the needs of the
    citizens in place; creates not sanctuary cities, but sanctuary
    polling places.
        Now, when I turn to the next chapter, I see that we are
    creating a government subsidy for politicians, and I think that
    is going to fly over real well with the voting public out there
    who already doesn't trust us. I had somebody say recently, you
    know what politics means? Poly is many, and ticks are
    bloodsucking parasites. You know, I hate to tell you, but that
    is the way people think about us up here.
        Now we are going to ask the taxpayers to fund the campaigns
    of people who probably disagree with--that they are going to
    fund elections of people they possibly disagree with. Oh, but
    of course, the Federal Government does a great job of handling
    finances so far. I mean, just look at our $22 trillion debt.
    Yeah, we do a good job of finances, so why don't we just take
    on more and give out more money, especially to the politicians?
        None of this makes a lot of sense to me when the idea is to
    get government closer to the people, and all we are doing is
    stripping it away because of an idea we see here and an idea we
    see over there.
        Now we come to this, Section 5111, that creates a 6-to-1
    small dollar match program of government taxpayer money to go
    to candidates to help fund their elections. Now, I don't know
    about the rest of the country, but I can tell you what most
    people think of the Federal Government around Georgia. In fact,
    well, I can tell you about the rest of the country, because I
    have been working on customer service legislation. The more we
    dig into customer service legislation, the more we found out
    that more people in this Nation today distrust politicians and
    government officials in Washington, D.C., than ever before in
    the history in this country. Why? Because of the things that we
    do up here. That is why this place is called the swamp, and all
    we are doing now is opening the doors of financing to refill
    the swamp.
        There is a reason that people refer to us as a swamp up
    here, because we do a terrible job with our finances. We do a
    terrible job with fiscal responsibility. We do a terrible job
    with efficiency. Why? Because this Nation was established to
    get government closest to the people, not further away from it,
    and this is exactly what this horror book is doing to the
    American people. I think if this thing was to--I pray that this
    will never pass, but if it does, I can almost guarantee you, we
    are going to be back here in a few years undoing the damage
    that this has done, but you are never going to get back to
    where it was before.
        As I look at this, this government subsidy for politicians
    is the most unbelievable thing that I think I have encountered
    since I have been here in Congress.
        I think I have expressed my opposition to this program, but
    I am in support of this amendment. I do appreciate it, Madam
    Chairperson. You have done a very good job of managing this.
    Thank you for allowing us and not shutting us off to bring our
    grievances because, you know, this is about--we have
    disagreements on things, and this is the forum that we should
    bring this, and I do appreciate you allowing us and even
    putting up with Mr. Davis through all this.
        But with that, I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mrs. Davis. I withdraw the point of order.
        The Chairperson. The point of order has been withdrawn. The
    amendment is germane.
        Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I do, Madam Chairperson.
        The Chairperson. You have five minutes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
        I have got to agree with my colleague on multiple issues.
    The fact that you have managed this very well, I certainly
    appreciate it. It has been great to be able to have a
    principled debate with our colleagues on issues that we
    disagree on. There is a lot that, as you know, after this
    markup, that I disagree with this bill. This has to be near the
    top, if not at the top, the most egregious provisions that are
    put in place.
        Look, I get it. I get it. The Democrats running for
    Congress weaponized small dollar donors through platforms like
    Act Blue. Heck, you outraised us $374.9 million to $114.9
    million. So who would have thought that somebody, maybe a
    special interest group that we don't yet know about that helped
    write this bill, wouldn't think about, hey, let's add taxpayer
    dollars to turbocharge this a little more.
        Listen. Using the top 20 winning Congressional campaigns as
    the cap for participation in this program, using the formula
    that was created by every Democrat member in this institution
    that cosponsored this bill, the formula they say they
    appreciate, that would make the cap $4.5 million. $4.5 million.
    It doesn't even include the special elections that we know are
    even more expensive. How much would the Georgia special
    election have added to the cap of taxpayer dollars?
        Look, supporting this bill without my amendment? Supporting
    this bill means that every member of this institution who is
    voting supports putting taxpayer dollars, millions, $4.5
    million more potentially in congressional races.
        Look, I have got a couple of examples. I will use me. Look,
    my opponent used Act Blue to outraise me when it came to small
    dollar donors. She would have had $2.8 million more of taxpayer
    money financing her campaign. Heck, she had so much to spend,
    she rented out a city block for her victory party. Sorry to
    ruin that. Texas' 23rd District. Will Hurd's opponent would
    have gotten an extra $4.247 million of taxpayer money to spend.
    Maybe they could have rented out a couple blocks.
        That is not what the American people want, and we still--I
    mean, this is the reason why we have got to slow down. We have
    got to have more hearings. We don't even have a CBO score.
    Heck, I am going to have to send this to the CBO to make sure
    they know, because here is the formula. I don't even know if
    the bean counters over there would not have their heads explode
    over this one.
        Look, again, Madam Chairperson, you have done a phenomenal
    job managing this. I know the reason we are here today is not
    because of anyone on this Committee. The reason we are here
    today is because the Democratic leadership in this institution
    has said we want this bill to pass and make it as seemingly
    open as possible. It is not open, ladies and gentlemen, and
    this provision, I certainly hope--I certainly hope we are going
    to be transparent enough to tell the taxpayers of this country
    that we expect just in two races, two races, to have $6 million
    and $8--$9 million, respectively, given to both candidates.
        Are the taxpayers in this country clamoring to get dark
    money out of politics, saying replace it--or not even replace
    it, add to it. Add to it with your hard earned tax dollars.
    That is crazy, but that is what is in this bill. A vote against
    this amendment accepts that. That is wrong.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlelady from California is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        Who would have thought? I guess if I am not mistaken, my
    understanding is in terms of Presidential candidates who at the
    time could take public financing, Ronald Reagan was the chief
    beneficiary of those dollars. Now, maybe you are suggesting
    that that is not the case. I have seen it--I think there is an
    issue there.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. This is not a Presidential
    election----
        Mrs. Davis of California. I am sorry, but----
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady controls the time.
        Mrs. Davis of California. It is my time.
        I think what we are trying to do is think of a way that
    people can feel participatory in elections, including today
    they do not. It is not the small donors that people mistrust;
    it is the large ones.
        There is a way of trying to gather a replacement for what
    we have seen today, and that is not pretty, and we know that.
    So bringing more people into the process, developing their
    interests, having some investment on their part, what we know
    about civic participation is that people don't feel that they
    are being asked to join. This is another way of approaching
    that issue. It wasn't there necessarily for our Presidents. Of
    course, they have chosen to not use public financing. We all
    acknowledge that. But this is an attempt to find a different
    way of approaching the issue.
        I think that Mr. Sarbanes and others who have worked on
    this, Members of Congress, have tried to come up with a way of
    using fines that are there for purposes where people have
    gotten into some difficulty, but they have been able to answer
    it through fines that they propose. It is not taxpayer dollars.
    We know about taxpayer dollars, and certainly those are issues
    that we haven't had a full chance to be part of as well.
        But we can change the whole perception of the general
    public, I think, through trying to come up with a better way,
    and that is really what we have in front of us.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Walker. Madam Chairperson, I would like to yield my
    time----
        The Chairperson. The gentleman from North Carolina is
    recognized, and he yields to Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I appreciate my colleague from
    California, Mrs. Davis' concerns about money and politics. I
    have to apologize for interrupting you without asking you to
    yield time, so I apologize. I got frustrated. I won't let that
    happen again, and I will be respectful for your time and ask
    for permission in the future. I do apologize for that as this
    debate goes on.
        The Presidential Election Campaign Fund, as we see it, is
    much different than what is being proposed here. Candidates
    have a choice to take either/or. Now, there are other
    provisions in this bill that fix--that don't fix it, make it
    worse. The candidates are allowed to take taxpayer dollars and
    spend unlimited amounts, but that is not what we are talking
    about here.
        We are talking about the infusion of billions of dollars in
    elections--billions of dollars in each election cycle to
    candidates like all of us, and there is no either/or. It is
    added to it. You can say we want to match the small dollar
    contributions, but, heck, you are not saying then you can't
    take PAC money. You are not saying then you can't take other
    sources. You are just supercharging the money that is coming
    in. That is the problem with this bill. That is the problem I
    have.
        It is no--it is nothing compared to the current
    Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Look, there is $374
    million, I believe, right now sitting in the Presidential
    Election Campaign Fund. John McCain was the last person to use
    it. Barack Obama was the first one to say I don't want it,
    because he knew he could go raise more. That is a problem.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I agree.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. That is why I didn't donate this
    year on my tax form to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund,
    because it is sitting there, and major candidates aren't using
    it. Why in the world, then, would anybody who helped to write
    this bill say that that is the model that we should use to
    infuse billions of dollars into the coffers of campaigns of all
    of us sitting around this table? Taxpayer dollars. That is
    wrong. That is why we have to stop. We have got to put a brake
    on this, and we can't approve something like this.
        That is why this is one of the most egregious provisions
    that we have in this bill. That is not what the American people
    have asked for. And seriously, who helped write this bill? A
    legislator? An outside group that was credited at the press
    conference when introducing this bill? Who thought it was a
    good idea to weaponize what Democrats did much better than
    Republicans with small dollar donors in the last election
    process? Who thought it was a good idea to be able to go to the
    taxpayers and go, here is how we are going to make elections
    better? Here is how we are going to get dark money out of the
    politics.
        We are going to give you taxpayer dollars, but, hey, don't
    worry about the money that is already there, because you can
    still spend it. I mean, look, I gave you $9 million in two
    races. Two. $9 million more that would have been put into the
    system, taxpayer dollars, that is much, much different than the
    current Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
        I know we are skipping other amendments. I think we have a
    couple left, so bear with us. And if one of them is not
    amending the Presidential Election Campaign Fund language in
    here, this is my chance to say, what you have put in that
    portion is supercharging the amount of money that will go into
    the Presidential race too.
        You know who is the biggest small dollar donor candidate in
    the history of politics? Our President, Donald J. Trump.
    Provisions in this bill potentially, if passed, could add more
    money to his coffers than anyone in history that has ever
    thought about using the Presidential campaign. Think about
    that. Think about that before you vote for this bill. Think
    about that before you vote against our amendments and show no
    bipartisanship here. Think about that. That is what this could
    do.
        I know--again, I don't think it is any of us sitting around
    this table that are forcing this issue of having this markup
    today, but we need to take a step back and say enough is
    enough. Do we want to infuse this many more hundreds of
    millions, billions of dollars into the political system that
    taxpayers and voters believe is oversaturated right now? I urge
    you, go to a competitive district. Get in a competitive race.
    We don't need in my race $6 million more dollars. It is
    saturated enough in central Illinois.
        It is wrong. This bill is wrong. This process is wrong.
    This is why this amendment, this amendment, this one of any of
    them, should pass. Nobody should codify lining the campaign
    coffers of people sitting around this dais, which this portion
    of the bill does. No one. No one should be okay with this. Not
    us, not taxpayers, no one.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I would just like to make an important point, which is all
    the funds that would be used come from the Freedom from
    Influence Fund that is established in this bill. In the
    provision, it specifies that no appropriated funds shall be
    used for the Freedom from Influence Fund. In other words, there
    will be no taxpayer money in the Freedom from Influence Fund. I
    think that is an important correction. No taxpayer money
    whatsoever in this program.
        The intent of the program is a voluntary way to pay for
    campaigns to not rely on special interests or Big Money donors.
    It is an alternative way to fund campaigns. It gives political
    power to everyday Americans, boosting their influence and voice
    in our elections. Candidates need to raise at least $50,000
    from 1,000 small donors; that is at $200 or less. And, in fact,
    as the Ranking Member has pointed out, this could benefit, as
    to the Presidential section. President Trump, not someone who I
    voted for, shows that we are truly operating in a bipartisan
    way as we approach this bill.
        Unless there are other members who wish to be heard, I
    would ask that members who favor the amendment indicate their
    support by saying aye.
        Those who oppose will say nay.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I would request a
    roll call vote.
        The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested, and
    the clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. Abstain.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Absolutely, yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members have voted no,
    three Members are yes, and one has abstained.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there any additional amendments?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I would like to skip over to
    Davis amendment 25, creating a threshold for reporting small
    dollar donors.
        The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved. The
    clerk is distributing the amendment. Would the clerk please
    read the title?
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois. In paragraph 2 of Section 522(a) of the Federal
    Election Campaign Act of 1971, as proposed to be added by
    Section 5111 of the bill, strike the period at the end and
    insert the following: among such payments, shall----
        The Chairperson. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
    be considered as read.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
    minutes in support of your amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        This amendment would require the identification of every
    small dollar donor under Section 5111 if the aggregate of
    qualifying small dollar donations from outside the district
    exceeds $250,000. This 6 to 1 match program is inviting outside
    interference in elections. This amendment will shine the light
    on that fact as it would require disclosure of small dollar
    donations after the aggregate of qualifying small dollar
    donations from outside the district exceeds $250,000.
        If a candidate is receiving great sums of money outside the
    district, then the donors should be disclosed like others. I
    remind everybody sitting around this table, currently, any
    donation below $200 does not have to be itemized. We are simply
    saying, if you are getting all your money from outside the
    district, itemize it. This would ensure that people in each
    Congressional district would know how much outside money was
    coming in through this matching program that, again, the
    Majority codified by knocking out our amendment.
        I support the passage of this amendment. You know why?
    Because Act Blue. Act Blue. Again, hey, if people want to play
    partisan politics, I am okay if they want to--if they want to
    play it but be open about it. Be transparent. But the sheer
    fact that Democrats did a better job raising small dollar
    donations than Republicans did shouldn't mean that, again,
    taxpayer dollars should not go to add more money to politics.
        Act Blue had $1,580,437,210 small dollar contributions in
    2018. That was from an analysis from the Center for Responsive
    Politics. And no CBO score. None. It is a problem.
        I know the Majority's tasked with pushing this bill through
    so we can get it to the Floor, send a message. Boy, that is a
    terrible message to send. A terrible message to send.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
        Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order?
        Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw the point of the
    order.
        The Chairperson. Withdrawn.
        I would note that the bill, Section 522, already provides
    for enhanced disclosure of information on donors. It includes
    mandatory identification of individuals making qualified small
    dollar contributions, and that is contributions between $100
    and $200. This helps to ensure compliance with Federal campaign
    finance laws. These qualified small dollar contributions are
    being matched with funds from the Freedom from Influence Fund.
        As for small dollar contributions that are not matched,
    regular disclosure rules apply, which means that contributions
    that are less than $200 and not matched are not required to be
    disclosed. And that is just current law.
        Now, I want to talk a little bit about Act Blue, because
    Act Blue is already required by Federal law to report the
    details of every single contribution that comes into and out of
    its platform to the Federal Elections Commission. That is why
    we know how much money and exactly from whom Act Blue has
    processed. It does not matter how large or small the
    transaction. Act Blue is considered a conduit under Federal law
    for individual contributions made through its platform. It is a
    payment processor. And under Federal law, contributions made to
    Act Blue are made by individuals themselves. They are not PAC
    donations.
        Whenever a donor contributes to a candidate or political
    committee through Act Blue, it provides the contributor's name,
    address, occupation, and employer information, along with the
    details of the donation, in its regularly filed reports with
    the FEC. Each candidate, committee, or organization receiving
    donations may also include this information in their regulatory
    reports.
        As for candidates and parties and PACs, they are required
    to identify contributors giving more than $200 in their
    disclosure reports. Lowering the disclosure threshold will not
    provide the public with the useful information about Big Money
    donors who are trying to influence elections. You know, some
    have opposed disclosure for $10,000 donations by big
    corporations and secret front groups but want disclosure for
    $25 grassroot donors. I just don't think that is reasonable. I
    think this amendment is misplaced. I would urge that we oppose
    the amendment.
        Unless there are further comments on it, I would ask that
    those who favor the amendment indicate their favor by saying
    aye.
        And those opposed by saying no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the
    roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
    three Members have voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there additional amendments?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. One last one.
        The Chairperson. Ah.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Go ahead and cheer. It is okay.
        Mrs. Davis of California. I don't have to say point of
    order anymore?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. One more time. One more time.
        Mr. Walker. You can and probably will be through the night.
        The Chairperson. The clerk is distributing Mr. Davis' last
    amendment. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order, and the clerk
    will read the title.
        The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois, strike Subtitle A of Title 6.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, we are combining three
    amendments: amendment 29, amendment 30, and amendment 31.
        The Chairperson. All right. Let's see if the clerk can
    distribute all of those before we proceed.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. The one we distributed is good. It
    is multiple pages.
        The Chairperson. Oh, okay.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. It reflects those three pages.
        The Chairperson. Okay. Very good.
        [The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
    minutes in support of your amendment.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Again, thank you all. I love the
    markup process. I love the hearing process. That is why we came
    to Congress is to legislate. I don't agree with your votes, you
    don't agree with mine, but that is okay. That is okay. But this
    one, I certainly hope we can get some agreement on.
        In amendment 29, what we do is we strike Section 6002, and
    this provision in H.R. 1 changes the current six-member
    commission of the FEC to a five-member commission. Look, we
    can't even mail bulk mail out of the House of Representatives
    without going through a completely equal bipartisan commission,
    the Franking Commission. I chaired it last Congress. Mrs. Davis
    was the co-Chair. We had some disagreements, but in the end, we
    had more disagreements than disagreements, but we had to work
    together, and we did. We did.
        So this provision will take away the bipartisan nature of
    the FEC right now. The FEC shouldn't be weaponized by any
    administration, Republican or Democrat. I mean, are you
    comfortable with President Trump naming a partisan FEC? Thank
    you, Marcia. I am not, either. I am not comfortable with any
    President naming a partisan FEC.
        I don't believe this is a partisan amendment, you know.
    Some of my colleagues expressed some concern during the hearing
    that we had, the one hearing we had, in regard to provisions
    like this going through the FEC.
        Amendment No. 30, which is the second amendment that was
    combined, gives new powers to the Chair of the Commission that
    currently require bipartisan support. Who the heck wants a
    czar, an FEC czar to chair the Commission? That is partisan. It
    is appointed by a President. Look, and maybe there is going to
    be gridlock. Maybe a Democratic appointee in the future can't
    get through that evil, bad Mitch McConnell in the Senate. Then
    you have got a partisan--you have got a partisan warrior who
    has been given power by the previous President that you may or
    may not have knocked out, and then all of a sudden, you are
    still weaponized with the FEC. That should concern us. That
    should concern us for the balance of Constitutional powers that
    we have here in this institution. We don't need a free speech
    czar sitting over at the FEC.
        A third portion of our amendment, third amendment, is
    rolled into this. This one is classic coming out of many who I
    am sure helped write this bill. They give a lawyer--they give
    the general counsel of the FEC new authority, and actually
    takes the power away from the appointed and confirmed
    Commissioners whose job it is to enforce campaign finance law
    in a bipartisan way. Just like Susan and I enforced franking
    laws, mailing laws. We were forced to do it in a bipartisan
    way. Forced to do it in a bipartisan way.
        The decision to hire and fire agency general counsel in the
    past required some degree of bipartisan agreement, but H.R. 1,
    as written, without this amendment, would destroy that
    bipartisan requirement, allowing the President's appointed
    chair to name the general counsel with the support of any two
    of the other four Commissioners appointed by that same
    President. No bipartisan support. Do we want the FEC operating
    like this markup today? I certainly hope my colleagues on the
    other side of the dais don't.
        We see a process that, once an investigation has begun,
    according to H.R. 1, it will enhance the power of the general
    counsel to issue subpoenas on his or her own authority. There
    has got to be another drafting error. Seriously. This has got
    to be a drafting error. I would certainly hope that we might
    have a quick markup someday to fix this. Really? We are going
    to accept this? We have Commissioners that are confirmed. We
    are elected officials. We are confirmed by our voters every 2
    years.
        Come on. Help me with this one. I combined three into one.
    Show some bipartisan support. Does anybody sitting around this
    dais really want to weaponize the FEC? Even our Congressional
    Ethics Committee does not have a partisan leaning. I know we
    are joined by the former chair of that committee. Nobody would
    decide, ``You know what? Let's slide a provision into a 571-
    page bill, and let's go ahead and make the Ethics Committee
    partisan.'' No. Let's not make the FEC partisan either. Help me
    out here. Please. I am begging you. I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do other Members wish to be heard on this amendment?
        Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw the point of order.
        The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis withdraws her point of order.
        I would like to make a couple of comments. First, the FEC's
    mission is to protect the integrity of our Federal campaign
    finance laws, and it is supposed to enforce and administer the
    laws on the books and ensure that political spending is
    transparent, and I think it is obvious that the FEC is a
    completely failed agency. The current state of affairs at the
    FEC only serves to benefit those who want to rig the system and
    those who benefit with no referee on the field.
        Former FEC Chair Ann Ravel, who I have known for 40 years,
    told The New York Times that the FEC, and this is a quote, ``is
    worse than dysfunctional and that the likelihood of laws being
    enforced is slim.'' She published her report in 2017 showing a
    huge increase in deadlocked votes over the past decade. That is
    because the FEC has gotten bogged down in dysfunction and
    deadlock. Hundreds of enforcement cases are languishing, and
    that is not fair to candidates or to the public or to anyone
    who depends on fair administration of the law. It has not
    enacted major disclosure rules after Citizens United, even
    though the Supreme Court really invited them to do so. It
    cannot even agree to hire a permanent general counsel. There
    has been no permanent general counsel for more than 4 years, 5
    years. H.R. 1 breaks the gridlock by setting up a five-member
    commission instead of a six-member commission. H.R. 1 prevents
    a partisan takeover of the FEC by mandating that no more than
    two of the five Commissioners can be from the same political
    party so that no one party can take over the Commission, and it
    sets up a blue ribbon panel to help name nominees to the
    Commission. That will make the nomination process more fair and
    more transparent. It also lets nonpartisan career staff make
    initial findings in enforcement cases while at the same time
    ensuring that the Commission can always overrule the career
    staff.
        To say that this sets up an election czar with a powerful
    chair is incorrect. The Chair gets the same powers typically
    given to other agency chairs: preparing a budget, hiring a
    staff director, being the chief administrative officer. While
    it is true that the Chair will have the power to issue a
    subpoena, so can the rest of the Commission with a majority
    vote.
        It is true that H.R. 1 provides new powers in that way to
    hire a staff director, but that is really not that unusual.
    While the chair is also given the power to issue subpoenas, as
    I say, the Commission can exercise the same power and check on
    the Chair.
        Finally, as to the general counsel, the bill provides that
    an initial decision to open an investigation can be made by the
    general counsel but can be overridden by a majority vote on the
    Commission within 30 days. Now, that is an important way to
    streamline the enforcement process. Cases right now languish
    for years on the FEC's enforcement dockets, and that is just
    not fair to complainants nor respondents. It doesn't unduly
    empower the general counsel because the Commission has the
    final say as to whether to find probable cause in a case and
    whether to pursue an enforcement action. And even when it comes
    to starting an investigation, the Commission can overrule the
    general counsel.
        The current FEC has two Republicans, one Independent, one
    Democrat, and two vacancies. They can't do anything, and we
    need to break this logjam. I think what is in H.R. 1 is a
    reasonable effort. I think it has a high probability of success
    and that our enforcement of our laws is not weaponizing the
    FEC; it is making sure that the laws that we have already
    enacted relative to campaign finance reform actually are
    enforced.
        Are there additional Members who wish to be heard? The
    gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I will be
    very brief.
        It is true that we have some gridlock at the FEC, and it
    takes time to get things done. But we are restricting free
    speech. It ought to be hard. And from what I see in this bill,
    there is significant restriction on free speech. I would also
    add that how long has it been since we have reformed the FEC?
    It has been a long time. Why? Because it is really hard to do
    these things, and if things aren't right, it takes a lot to
    undo it. And that is what I am afraid will happen if this bill
    goes forward and we see all the things that we have warned
    about in here in terms of unintended consequences. This doesn't
    just affect us. It affects the millions of people in this
    Nation. It may be near impossible to do those.
        Again, I thank you for the time and for the good job of
    managing it, and I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        Do other Members wish to be heard?
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
        I just want to add a postscript to your comments. Most
    Federal commissions and agencies operate on an odd number
    composition. The FEC has been the exception, and it has been an
    exception which perhaps demonstrates the wisdom of the general
    rule because it has been the absolute paradigm of dysfunction
    and paralysis and deadlock to the point where they can barely
    even hire staff members. There is a multiyear backlog of cases
    over at the FEC. So, by revamping the composition so it is in
    line with the other Federal agencies and commissions, I think
    all we are doing is improving its operation and giving it the
    opportunity to actually work. I mean, one can only imagine what
    it would be if we used the current FEC principle and imported
    it to other Federal commissions like the FTC and the SEC and
    the FCC or to the Supreme Court, for that matter. It would be a
    recipe for complete paralysis.
        So I think that, yeah, I would like to be able to help our
    friend from Illinois in backing one of his amendments, but I am
    afraid that this one moves us backwards instead of moving us
    forward to a functional and improved FEC.
        The Chairperson. Thank you. Are there additional comments
    on this amendment? If not, we will move the--I think the point
    of order has already been withdrawn.
        So I will ask those who favor the amendment to signify that
    by saying aye. Those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the
    Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. One last request for a recorded
    vote.
        The Chairperson. A request for a recorded vote has been
    made. The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I think I will do a yes on this one.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no;
    three Members have voted yes.
        The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
        It is my understanding that was the last amendment, and
    there being no further amendments, the question would then be
    on agreeing to H.R. 1, as amended.
        All those in favor will please say aye.
        And those opposed will say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        H.R. 1, as amended, is agreed to.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested. You
    have to actually find that the ayes have it, and you would like
    a recorded voted now?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would like a recorded vote.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, pursuant to House
    Rule XI, clause 2(l), I request that all Members have two
    additional calendar days to file supplemental minority
    additional or dissenting views in the Committee report to the
    House accompanying H.R. 1.
        The Chairperson. Certainly, I was going to do that myself.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I was just told by these folks to
    read it.
        The Chairperson. We will unanimously agree to that.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report the final vote.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members voted yes; three
    Members voted no.
        The Chairperson. The ayes have it. H.R. 1 is agreed to, and
    the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
        I move that H.R. 1, as amended, be reported favorably to
    the House.
        All those in favor of reporting H.R. 1, as amended,
    favorably to the House, say aye.
        Opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
    motion is agreed to, unless there is a recorded vote asked for
    again.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
        The Chairperson. And there is. The clerk will call the
    roll.
        The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
        The Chairperson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted yes;
    three Members have voted no.
        The Chairperson. On that H.R. 1, as amended, is ordered
    reported favorably to the House.
        Pursuant to clause 2(l), Rule XI--oh, we have already done
    the additional days unanimously.
        Also, without objection, the staff is authorized to make
    any technical and conforming changes.
        Unless there are additional matters of business before us,
    without objection the Committee will stand adjourned with
    thanks to the Members for your active participation on this
    bill.
        [Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]