[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
_____
MARKUP OF H.R. 4460, H.R. 4396,
H.R. 4316, H.R. 3162, H.R. 3229,
H.R. 6513, H.R. 4555, AND H.R. 6493
=======================================================================
MARKUP
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
www.cha.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-980 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida
Caleb Hays, Deputy Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statements
Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin. 1
Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
New York....................................................... 2
Statement
Laurel Lee, Representative from the State of Florida............. 4
Submissions for the Record
H.R. 4396........................................................ 7
H.R. 4316........................................................ 14
Amendment to H.R. 4316........................................... 17
H.R. 3162........................................................ 23
H.R. 4555........................................................ 29
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4555............. 32
Amendment to H.R. 4555........................................... 39
H.R. 3229........................................................ 55
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3229............. 58
Amendment to H.R. 3229........................................... 63
H.R. 4460........................................................ 66
Amendment to H.R. 4460........................................... 79
H.R. 6493........................................................ 86
Amendment to H.R. 6493........................................... 93
Confirmation Of Congressional Observer Access Act of 2023........ 97
Roll call votes.................................................. 105
MARKUP OF H.R. 4460, H.R. 4396,
H.R. 4316, H.R. 3162, H.R. 3229,
H.R. 6513, H.R. 4555, AND H.R. 6493
----------
November 30, 2023
Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith,
Murphy, Bice, Carey, D'Esposito, Lee, Morelle, Sewell, Torres,
and Kilmer.
Staff present: Caleb Hays, Deputy Staff Director, General
Counsel, Parliamentarian; Hillary Lassiter, Chief Clerk; Alex
Deise, Elections Counsel, Assistant Parliamentarian; Thomas
Lane, Elections Counsel and Director of Election Coalitions;
Caitlin O'Dell, Legal Assistant and Deputy Clerk; Khalil
Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director, Chief Counsel; Jamie
Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Elections
Counsel; and Sean Wright, Minority Senior Elections Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WISCONSIN
Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will
come to order.
I note that a quorum is present.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Today we have an opportunity to strengthen Americans'
confidence in our elections by passing commonsense election
integrity bills out of this Committee.
Over the past year we have held nine hearings and two
public roundtables with 42 witnesses on the issue of voter
confidence. Today we will consider several bills that focus on
increasing confidence in our elections.
I want to thank Mr. Morelle and his staff for
collaboratively working with us to move a few of these measures
forward.
Each of the bills will protect Americans' confidence in our
elections from foreign interference and ensure that only
American citizens are allowed to vote in American elections.
Recently we have seen States across the country consider
measures to allow noncitizens to vote in State and local
elections.
Right here in Washington, D.C., in our Nation's capital,
the city council passed a bill allowing noncitizens to vote in
city elections starting next year.
Consider the implications of this. This means a Russian
national, working at the Russian Embassy, holding a Russian
passport, residing in Washington, D.C., for simply 30 days,
next year could leave the Russian Embassy, walk to a polling
location with his passport in his pocket, and vote for mayor in
the city of D.C., and not even have to show his Russian
passport.
This is our opportunity to clean up this mess, to make sure
that American elections are for American citizens.
I think we can all agree that Russian nationals should not
be allowed to vote in our Nation's capital.
Today will bring us one step closer to blocking these
election insecurities and strengthening Americans' confidence
in our elections.
Under our Constitution, most of the responsibility for
Federal elections lies with the States, while Congress has a
smaller role. It is important that we work with the States to
ensure free, fair, and secure elections.
This summer our Committee passed the American Confidence in
Elections Act, the ACE Act. This Federalist approach offers
States tools to improve election integrity and gets the Federal
Government out of the way.
The legislation we will consider today is a series of
standalone bills that echo the ACE Act's work and help
strengthen our elections.
Today we will prevent Federal funds from flowing to States
that allow noncitizens to vote. We will stop foreign
adversaries from voting in Washington, D.C., elections. We will
stop the Biden administration from weaponizing Federal
agencies. We will prevent Federal dollars from being used for
partisan election activities.
The fact of the matter is simple: When Americans trust
their elections, that they are secure, they are more likely to
participate.
American elections are for American citizens. Period. Full
stop. The American people deserve an election system that they
can trust.
I look forward to today's discussions and passing these
bills out of Committee.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5
minutes for the purpose of offering his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Morelle. Good morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for gathering us together for this
markup, which consists of a series of eight separate measures
dealing with election law.
I note, because it bears repeating over and over, that we
are less than a year away from the 2024 elections. There are 46
days until Republicans gather to caucus in Iowa, and over 150
(sic) Americans across every State and territory will cast
ballots next year.
Everyone in this room would agree there is a tremendous
amount of work that needs to be done between now and next
November to ensure that the United States is once again blessed
with safe, secure elections, as we were in 2022, 2020, and
every year before that.
Unfortunately, election policy is often where those of us
on this Committee find our disagreements most profound. We
remain open on our side of the aisle to finding commonsense
bipartisan agreement on provisions that expand access to the
ballot, protect the franchise, and shine a spotlight on the
influence of special interests.
Let us never forget, as a Justice for the Supreme Court
said many years ago, the right to vote is preservative of all
rights.
I am optimistic, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, I am
grateful for this, that a few of today's proposed measures
hopefully will gain bipartisan support.
I want to express my appreciation to you and both the
majority and minority staffs for months-long discussion on the
confirmation of the Congressional Observer Access Act of 2023,
which I hope will result in a bipartisan vote to report the
bill out of Committee.
I am also optimistic that we will find consensus on a
measure to ensure foreign nationals do not seek to influence
State and local ballot initiatives, referenda, or recall
elections, a proposal suggested, as we all can recall, as part
of the FEC's package of bipartisan legislative recommendations.
Unfortunately, many of the other proposed bills before us
are recycled pieces of the ACE Act, which we feel is an omnibus
of anti-voter, pro-dark money package of bills previously
reported by the Committee's majority.
Counterintuitively, as States and localities prepare to
facilitate a colossal undertaking next year, this Committee is
considering some extreme partisan messaging bills that,
frankly, have zero chance of becoming law and would reduce
resources available to State and local officials.
I continue to believe that I think it is a shame we do not
use our limited time before the next election to take steps
necessary to adequately resource and support election
officials, deter and prevent mis- and disinformation, and shine
a spotlight on the oncoming torrent of dark money.
As the old saying goes, elections have consequences.
Today's agenda, sadly, represents the priorities of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
From my perspective, the measures before us today are
solutions in search of problems. We do not inspire confidence
in our elections by parroting disproven claims of rigged
elections, nonexistent voter fraud, and supporting fraudulent
audits of election results.
I do note that we had exhaustive testimony here--some would
say exhausting testimony--over ten hearings, dozens of hours.
The suggestions that there is widespread fraud, suggestions
that there have been elections which have been rigged had no
evidence at all in any of those hearings, not a shred of
evidence on any of it.
For my mind, what we do in Congress and what legislative
bodies do is hold hearings on concerns that we may have, and
once we hear testimony, when there is evidence presented, work
on solutions. Here we have got solutions searching for
problems.
Our Republican colleague from Colorado, Congressman Buck,
recently said: ``As a Republican Party, if we are going to
offer good, solid policy answers to the real challenges we face
in America, we have got to get past the lies. We have got to
have credibility with the American public. I think we can do
that, but we have to move forward.''
I urge my colleagues to heed Mr. Buck's call to restore
their party's credibility with the American public by ceasing
the baseless insinuations and the constant undermining of the
results of the 2020 election, knowing full well they lack any
evidence of any kind of malfeasance or fraud across the
country.
Indeed, the record of this Committee, as I indicated, and
the hours and hours that we spent, there is no evidence of
significant voter fraud in 2020. Every witness called before us
had an opportunity to present that evidence, did not do it, and
all indicated they thought Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
This is a record that we build together. We should heed it.
I urge all of us to move forward, as Mr. Buck said, by working
on commonsense bipartisan legislation that addresses our most
pressing concerns.
I will have more to say on the bills, obviously, as they
are called up for consideration.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration and
for the work on this.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. I thank the Ranking Member.
Without objection, the opening statements of all other
Members will be included in the record if they are provided to
the clerk of the Committee by 12 p.m. tomorrow.
As required by House rules, with one exception, a copy of
all measures has been made available to Members and the public
at least 24 hours in advance.
The one exception is the COCOA Act, which our Ranking
Member was referencing.
I thank Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle, Mr. Carey, and I, we were hard at work, and we
crossed the line late yesterday afternoon. We have posted that
legislative text online, available, and we will bringing that
up today. A copy of the language, as I said, was available
online.
I will now call up H.R. 4396, the American Confidence in
Elections: District of Columbia Citizen Voter Act, sponsored by
Mr. Bost of Illinois and a component bill of the ACE Act. This
bill bans noncitizens from voting in D.C. elections, including
local elections.
I will now yield 5 minutes to Ms. Lee to speak on the bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE FLORIDA
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The District of Columbia Citizen Voter Act would require
U.S. citizenship to vote in any D.C. election.
Last year the D.C. City Council enacted the Local Resident
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 that gave noncitizens that
are 18 years old and have resided in D.C. for 30 days the right
to vote in any D.C. election.
18 United States Code section 611 prohibits noncitizens
from voting in Federal elections. While States and localities
are free to permit noncitizens to vote in State and local
elections, article I, section 8, clause 17 of the United States
Constitution gives Congress complete control over the District
of Columbia. Therefore, Congress can and should overturn this
D.C. noncitizen voting law.
Elections in the District of Columbia should be an example
for the Nation. Allowing noncitizens, like embassy staff, to
vote in D.C. elections is inappropriate and contrary to our
system of democracy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
I will recognize Mr. Morelle, if you would like to give a
statement on the bill.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would indeed.
I think my majority colleagues and those on our side of the
aisle disagree on the status of Washington, D.C., itself. House
Democrats believe that taxation without representation is
undemocratic and contrary to our Nation's founding principles.
I think it is clear to say that in 1789 our Founders would
never have conceived that over 700,000 Americans would lack
full voting representation in Congress simply for living in the
Capital City.
To rectify this, House Democrats last Congress passed H.R.
51, which would have established statehood for the people of
D.C. outside the Federal district where our Federal buildings
lie.
Clearly--and I do not mean in this any dismissive way or
any other way than to suggest Republicans do not see it that
way--we have a disagreement about how we view this.
Saving that disagreement for later discussion, the claims
upon which this bill is based are baseless. Contrary to the
talking points about elections in D.C., noncitizen embassy
employees are unlikely ever to qualify as D.C. residents for
the purpose of voting.
Embassy employees are necessarily here for a temporary
purpose. They are consular officers posted to the United
States. A noncitizen embassy employee will leave D.C. when
their deployment ends.
By that very fact, by definition, embassy employees are not
going to be voting in D.C. elections under D.C. law. They are
not residents, simply put.
Frankly, we have had no evidence in all the testimony we
took that indicates even a single embassy employee ever voted
in a D.C. election fraudulently. Frankly, there would be
penalties associated with that if that were the case. No
evidence of that kind exists.
We are focusing on this issue because, frankly, I think my
majority colleagues want to distract from the unpopular,
restrictive, anti-voter policies they are trying to force on
District residents. They are trying to draw attention away from
the fact that this Congress has, frankly, I think from most
people's view, has been nothing short of a disaster.
One of our Republican colleagues from Texas, Congressman
Roy, recently noted he knows of not one, quote, ``material,
meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has
done,'' end quote.
I am always looking to find bipartisan agreement, and I am
grateful to Mr. Roy for issuing a Republican statement I can
support. I wish the majority would advance something more
meaningful that we could work together on, but instead we are
considering this bill I think as a distraction.
I would urge defeat of the bill, and I will urge our
colleagues to oppose it.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
The clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 43----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Also, without objection, the bill shall be considered as
read and open to amendment at any point.
[House bill H.R. 4396 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Chairman Steil. I will recognize myself first to strike the
last word.
Just as a follow up to my colleague's comments, I think it
is important to know that the law passed in Washington, D.C.,
simply says an individual has to reside in D.C. for 30 days. To
my knowledge, almost everyone that comes and works at an
embassy resides in Washington, D.C., for over 30 days. If it is
unlikely, it should be even easier to pass the bill.
I think it makes complete sense to make sure that we are
keeping U.S. elections for U.S. citizens and, in particular, in
Washington, D.C. Ms. Lee laid out why that is a Federal
interest. I think this bill is not only a good idea, I think it
is actually necessary to protect the integrity of our elections
in our Nation's capital.
I will yield back.
Does any other Member wish to seek recognition?
Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Yes, Chairman. I would like to also strike the
last word.
It is outrageous. The comments that have been spoken here
about D.C.'s ability to elect their own elected officials with
their own votes, it is so outrageous, some of the statements,
and offensive. It is the bullies bullying the D.C. residents.
To correct some of the unfortunate misinformation that
continues to be spread here, I do not know if any of you have
ever even tried to get a temporary parking permit in D.C. and
how difficult it is to prove that you are a resident of D.C.
In order for you to vote in D.C., you have to be 18 years
of age. You have to prove residency not by simply renting an
apartment. You cannot do that. Then you also cannot be a voter
in any other State.
So, please, stop the political theater here. Focus on
balancing a budget, passing a budget. Your inability to be able
to do anything in order to be able to do your job is incredibly
frustrating, and these are the people that are trying to tell
D.C. residents and voters and taxpayers how to live their lives
and how to govern themselves. You are completely out of order.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
I will not dispute how difficult it is to get a parking
permit in D.C. I think a lot of D.C. government leaves a lot to
be desired, that is not the point here, no different than the
massive number of carjackings in the city. This bill is focused
in just on the voting provisions.
I will recognize Mr. Loudermilk for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. I move to strike the last word.
Just real quickly, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with a little
bit of what my friend from California just said.
Even if all of that is true, that it is that difficult to
become a registered voter in D.C., nothing in this bill would
make it any harder than it already is, unless you were not
legally--you were not a citizen of the United States. I do not
see that there is a compelling reason not to move forward with
this piece of legislation.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Elections,
voter accessibility is something I care very deeply about, and
I know that all of us in this Committee do.
I agree with my colleagues, both Ranking Member Morelle as
well as Representative Torres, that we are looking for a
solution to a problem that does not exist.
I do not think that we have been able to have one example,
concrete example, of where this actually occurred with an
embassy resident trying to become a resident of D.C. for voting
purposes.
I think that the right to vote, as all of us know, is an
American democracy cornerstone. There are currently right now
in D.C. 712,000 residents of D.C. that do not have full voting
representation in Congress.
D.C. residents are American citizens. I think all of us
would agree on that. They pay Federal taxes. They serve in the
military. The decision that they make for their communities are
often overridden by the interests of those who do not live in
the District of Columbia, i.e., us in Congress.
I am not a resident of the city of D.C., nor do I think
anybody on this Committee is. There are--all the 712,000
residents who are residents of D.C. do not have equal voting
rights as American citizens.
Forty-five percent of the residents of the District of
Columbia are African American. The District of Columbia Citizen
Voter Act is an effort to not only disenfranchise voters of
color, but an effort to further distract us from the
conversation that we should be having when we bring up D.C.
residents, and that is a conversation on D.C. statehood.
The residents that live in our Nation's capital should be
able to fully participate in our democracy. They do not at
current. We would do well as a Committee to address that
concern instead of looking for a solution to a problem that
does not exist.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
If not, the question occurs on ordering H.R. 4396 reported
favorably to the House.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion is agreed to.
Mr. Morelle. May I ask for a recorded vote?
Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested.
Chairman Steil. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Chairman Steil. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
Mr. D'Esposito?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Sewell. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are five----
Chairman Steil. Mr. Loudermilk seeks recognition. I think
he is looking to see how he is recorded.
Mr. Loudermilk. See how I was recorded.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk is not recorded.
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
Chairman Steil. The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are six ayes
and three noes.
Chairman Steil. The amendment--or the bill--is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
I will now call up H.R. 4316, the Citizen Ballot Protection
Act, sponsored by Mr. Palmer of Alabama and a component of the
ACE Act.
Many States across the country have laws preventing
noncitizens from voting in their elections. One way they
enforce this prohibition is by requiring proof of citizenship
when individuals register to vote.
This bill allows States to enforce this prohibition and
ensure their elections are free from foreign interference.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if
you would like to give a statement on the bill.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I think you indicated, this is one of the provisions
from the ACE Act which we consider extremely partisan and we
also believe is a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters that
many of my colleagues do not want to participate.
Requiring voter registration applicants to provide proof of
citizenship on the Federal form with their voter registration
application prevents eligible citizens from registering to vote
at alarming rates. This is because millions of Americans do not
have readily available the most common types of documents used
to prove citizenship, including a passport, which many
Americans do not have, or a birth certificate, which may not
have readily available.
For those who have either lost or not had--lost access to
or never had those documents, securing proof of citizenship is
a costly and lengthy process that for many proves impossible.
Moreover, because many Americans do not just carry around
proof of citizenship, that requirement hampers voter
registration drives, which are a critically important tool to
engage eligible voters in civic participation. I think my
colleagues know this very well.
In fact, several States have attempted to require voters to
provide documentary proof of citizenship at the time of
registration and it has not gone well in many cases.
In Kansas, tens of thousands of eligible citizens, or about
a tenth of all voter registration applicants, had their
applications blocked in the first few years after a proof of
citizenship requirement was implemented.
Arizona saw similar results from its documentary proof of
citizenship law.
Worse yet, the rejections are not spread equally across the
eligible voter population. Instead, adding a proof of
citizenship requirement disproportionately prevents otherwise
eligible voters of color, young voters, low-income voters,
elderly voters, and voters without stable housing from
registering to vote.
That is not the point of the NVRA. The NVRA is a seminal
piece of legislation designed to expand access to voter
registration for all eligible Americans and improve civic
participation.
By permitting States to engage in a practice known to
disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters, this bill does
just the opposite.
In fact, in 1993, when the NVRA was passed, Congress
considered the very question of whether to add a proof of
citizenship requirement to the Federal form and rejected the
idea. The bill then passed with bipartisan support, including
from Republicans representing the same States that many Members
of this Committee represent today.
We should be doing everything we can to expand access to
the voting booths and to the ballot. It is essential for
American progress, it is essential to instill confidence in
Americans that they are going to have the right to vote because
it is their constitutional right.
I will be voting no. I want to uphold the goals of the
NVRA, and urge my colleagues to do so, as well.
With that, I will yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
The clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4316----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Also, without objection, the bill should be considered read
and open to amendment at any point.
[House bill H.R. 4316 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Chairman Steil. I have an amendment at the desk that makes
a small technical and conforming change.
The clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to H.R.----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[Chairman Steil's amendment to H.R. 4316 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Chairman Steil. Would any Member like to speak on the
amendment? On the--this is on the--I apologize--on the
technical and conforming amendment. It is a simple conforming
with the law piece.
If no further debate on this underlying technical
correction, if not, the question is on the Steil amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Does any--the amendment is agreed to.
We now bring the underlying--do any Members wish to seek
recognition for the underlying bill?
Ms. Sewell is recognized.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Voting is a fundamental civil right, and it should not be
infringed upon no matter what your race or ZIP Code is. Far too
often efforts to suppress voters--like strict ID requirements,
bans on early voting and vote by mail, closed polling stations
without notification, and voter roll purges and requiring proof
of citizenship--continue to resurface.
A recent study by the Brennan Center revealed that this
year alone at least 14 States have enacted 17 restrictive
voting laws. This exceeds the number of restrictive laws
enacted in every year for the past decade besides 2021, when 33
restrictive voting laws were passed by State legislatures.
Section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act
specifically prohibits requiring proof of citizenship and was
upheld by the Supreme Court in the Inter Tribal Council of
Arizona v. Arizona case in 2013. Yet we still see efforts to
try to require proof of citizenship.
Let us discuss what happened when they were tried, when
proof of citizenship was tried on the State level in Arizona
and in Kansas.
In 2005, Arizona implemented a proof of citizenship to
register law. Evidence shows that Arizona's law acts as a
significant obstacle to registration as measured by the tens of
thousands who attempted to register and had been rejected. More
than 10,000 people in Maricopa County alone were blocked.
Across the State, three of the most populous counties, one
in three applications were rejected due to documentary
requirement in the last 5 months of the law.
Two and a half years after the law had been implemented, it
had blocked at least 31,000 applicants from registering,
according to a Federal district court. By 2008, the number of
rejected applications reached 38,000 voters or potential
voters.
In 2017, a study of the Maricopa County's recorder revealed
that 17,000 of the rejected forms were filled out by American
citizens.
In 2013, Kansas followed suit with a discriminatory proof
of citizenship requirement as well. Nationally recognized
voting experts examined attempted registration between 2013 and
2015. Dr. McDonald's report revealed that more than 14 percent
of the new registrants, 35,000 people, were blocked by the
documentary requirement.
The experience in Arizona and Kansas proved that this
practice represents a significant obstacle to voter
registration and is not about voter accessibility or about
citizenship. More, it is about voter suppression.
In fact, national studies showed that between 5 and 7
percent of Americans do not have any documents to prove that
they are citizens. Yet they are citizens.
Women who require their names to be changed, in fact,
national studies showed that women who changed their names upon
getting married are less likely to have their documentation.
Citizens recovering from a natural disaster are less likely to
have documentation. 59 percent of Americans do not have a
passport to prove documentation.
It has been proven that this practice disproportionately
prevents young voters, voters of color, low-income voters,
voters with unstable housing, and elderly voters from
registering to vote. This is what we all want to consider as a
supposed commonsense measure to protect access to the
franchise.
I think those of us on this side of the aisle would agree
that this does not. Rather, it is an attempt to further
restrict access to the ballot box by valid American citizens.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Ms. Lee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Article I, section 4 of the United States Constitution, the
Elections Clause, confirms that States are given the primary
role in administering elections, not the Federal Government.
One of the powers that is given to States is the power to
establish voter qualifications, such as age, residency, and
citizenship.
It is a State decision whether to require documentary proof
of citizenship when voters register to vote. H.R. 4316 does not
mandate that States have this requirement. It simply allows
them to enact and/or enforce these laws if they choose. This
does no more than confirm and articulate States' authorities
under the Elections Clause.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
If not, the question occurs on ordering H.R. 4316, reported
favorably to the House.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to report is agreed to.
Mr. Morelle. I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Chairman Steil. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
Mr. Griffith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Sewell. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are four ayes
and three noes.
Chairman Steil. The motion is agreed to. Without objection,
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
Looking at Member attendance, we are going to jump ahead to
3162, the Protecting American Voters Act, introduced by Mr. Roy
of Texas, also included in the ACE Act.
This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security
and the Commissioner of Social Security to provide citizenship
information concerning registered voters to a State upon
request at no cost. States need the tools to ensure their voter
lists are clean and to enforce their noncitizen voting
prohibitions.
I will now yield 5 minutes to Mrs. Bice to speak on the
bill.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This legislation, sponsored by my colleague from Texas,
Chip Roy, requires the Department of Homeland Security and the
Social Security Administration, upon request of a State, to
provide citizenship information concerning registered voters at
no cost.
States need tools to ensure voter lists are clean and they
have the ability to remove their noncitizen voting
prohibitions.
Under the National Voter Registration Act, noncitizens can
end up on a State's voter rolls when they apply for a driver's
license. If the State has prohibitions against noncitizens
voting, they should have the information to enforce those laws.
The DHS does currently have the authority to share data
regarding naturalized citizens with the States, but the
discretion is left to the Secretary of the DHS.
The Social Security Administration cannot share Social
Security information for the purposes of election integrity.
This legislation also includes safeguards to prevent the
disclosure of Social Security numbers and ensures the
information costs nothing to the State.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Mr. Morelle, would you like to speak on the bill?
Mr. Morelle. I would. Thank you.
Chairman Steil. You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Morelle. Yes, sir. Thank you.
This bill is another attack on eligible voters of color
disguised as fraud prevention, which this Committee has shown
no evidence exists.
At the expense of American voters, this bill would
facilitate faulty but extensive information sharing between the
Federal Government and State election officials.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to wax
poetically about how their efforts will prevent voter fraud. As
this Committee's exhaustive series of hearings has borne out,
voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in American elections. No
evidence has been presented through these series of hearings.
During the Trump administration, the Department of Justice
charged only three people in cases involving election fraud.
That is three out of more than a hundred million ballots cast
in Federal elections during the former President's 4 years in
office.
In only one of these three instances was a noncitizen
charged with voting illegally. Notably, I just mention
parenthetically, in that case the defendant had also committed
a significant amount of tax fraud.
It makes me wonder, if my Republicans colleagues are so
concerned about preventing fraud, why they also trying to
defund the IRS, an agency dedicated to actually detecting tax
fraud.
Rather than preventing fraud, this bill is truly an attack
on the rights of voters, threatening to give States the tools
to improperly remove eligible U.S. citizens from their voter
rolls.
It is clear to me the bill fixes zero problems, and it
creates huge ones. It would permit the Secretary of Homeland
Security to rely exclusively on the infamous SAVE immigration
data base to provide information about citizenship.
The system is notoriously unreliable. In fact, the data
base has been the subject of multiple lawsuits throughout the
country when States have used it to verify the citizenship
status of voter registration applicants and registered voters
because of how often it improperly identifies U.S. citizens as
noncitizens and results in the improper removal of eligible
voters.
The bill would also facilitate the use of Social Security
information to verify citizenship status. This is nonsensical.
The Social Security Administration is not an accurate
repository for up-to-date and comprehensive citizenship
information. The SSA simply does not maintain this information.
Indeed, noncitizens who are authorized to work in the
United States are required to get Social Security numbers
before being allowed to start a job. That means that an
applicant who obtains a Social Security number and later
becomes a citizen might be improperly flagged as a noncitizen.
It also means that the mere fact that an individual has a
Social Security number does not confirm their citizenship
status.
What is more, providing information about citizenship
status is not part of SSA's mission. This unfunded mandate
would divert already scarce resources from the agency's
critical work of administering Social Security benefits and
serving the American public.
It is clear the bill is another poorly disguised--if it is
disguised at all--attack on American voters. I will vote no on
this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
The clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 31----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Also, without objection, the bill should be considered as
read and open to amendment at any point.
[House bill H.R. 3162 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Chairman Steil. Does any Member seek recognition?
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve.
Mr. Chairman, the Protecting American Voters Act is
directed at helping us achieve the twin pillars of voter access
to elections, but also ensuring that we have accurate elections
with a high level of integrity.
One of the primary responsibilities of State and local
election officials is to maintain accurate and current voter
rolls so that we can ensure all eligible Americans are able to
vote and also that we have an accurate and complete list of who
those eligible voters in a community are.
The Social Security Administration and the Department of
Homeland Security are two entities that have access to
information about eligibility because they do have information
about citizenship and that is a part of a State's determination
of voter eligibility and current and accurate voter
information.
This bill would enable and help support the role of State
and local election officials in maintaining accurate and
current voter rolls, which is certainly something that I know
we all share an interest in them being equipped and able to do
that role.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition on the bill?
Mr. Murphy.
Dr. Murphy. Thank you.
I just would like to bring up to the fact that all of these
bills we are trying to restore confidence in the American
voting system.
Now the fact that we have now 8 million people that have
come into our border who are undocumented, who are not citizens
of this country, with possibly an apparent motive is to get
them to be voting individuals, I think it is paramount and
requisite that we have each individual point that is enforced
that American citizens are the ones who vote, not people, not
individuals who came into this country illegally.
Thank you.
With that, I will yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes, just to follow up
with what you said, Mr. Murphy.
I completely agree. I think that one of the keys here is we
are providing States the tools that they need to be able to
maintain the election integrity standards. This is true with
the previous bill that we just passed out of Committee. It
provides States the tools they need, allows the Federal
Government to conform to States.
This is saying, if States are seeking access into the
Social Security data base for citizenship purposes, they should
rightly be able to have that access at no cost.
I think this is a very commonsense reform to make sure we
are protecting the integrity of our elections and making sure
that U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens.
I yield back.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
If not, there is no further debate, we will--if not, the
question is now on the bill, 3162.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Chairman Steil. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
Mr. D'Esposito?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Sewell. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are six ayes
and three noes.
Chairman Steil. The motion passes. Without objection, the
motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
We will now move on to H.R. 4555, the Federal Election
Audit Act, which is sponsored by Dr. Murphy and is also a
component of the ACE Act.
This bill amends the Help America Vote Act to allow States
to use existing Federal dollars to conduct substantive
independent audits of the accuracy and effectiveness of voting
systems and election procedures.
The clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4555----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Also, without objection, the bill shall be considered read
and open to amendment at any point.
[House bill H.R. 4555 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Dr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I have an Amendment in the Nature
of a Substitute at the desk.
Chairman Steil. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute is considered as read and will be
considered as original text for the purpose of further
amendment.
[Dr. Murphy's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Chairman Steil. I now yield 5 minutes to Dr. Murphy, the
bill's sponsor.
Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Free and fair elections are a hallmark of American
democracy and have been our national standard for over two
centuries.
However, in recent years trust in our elections has eroded
on both sides of the political spectrum. Trust in the accuracy
of electoral outcomes should not be influenced by the outcome
itself.
To ensure accuracy and restore confidence in our election
system, today we are debating the Federal Election Audit Act.
This measure would provide Federal funds to States who wish to
conduct comprehensive post-election audits in an effort to
boost transparency and improve election integrity.
As this Committee learned through the hearing process
earlier this year, many States and localities do not conduct
comprehensive audits, thus assuring election equipment worked
properly and ballots were cast by eligible and qualified
voters.
I just would remind everybody we audit everything in every
society. We do it in medicine all the time. Doing it now for
one of the things that is most precious to our democracy--
elections--really should be, as we say, a no-brainer.
The Federal Election Audit Act, as introduced, permits
States to use requirement payments or grant funds to conduct
audits of the accuracy and effectiveness of voting systems, as
well as election procedures.
This Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute includes
several relevant expansions and improvements to the underlying
language based on our oversight process and feedback. The
language is also identical to what is found in this Committee's
American Confidence in Elections Act.
First, audits are be conducted independently. State and
local officials, or contractors of such offices, may not
conduct an audit.
Second, audits are comprehensive. It prescribes what an
examination would cover over voter registration, voter check-
in, voting tabulation, canvassing, and post-election
procedures.
Finally, audits are timely. States' audits should be
conducted before the expiration so one can challenge the
results of an election under a State law.
In no way should this be considered a partisan issue and
funding to aid States should ensure that elections are
mechanically sound and taxpayer recourses are being used
effectively.
Further, every State retains autonomy to administer their
own elections as they see fit. It is enshrined in our
Constitution, and nothing in this act infringes upon this. We
believe all eligible American voters must be able to vote and
all lawful votes must be counted.
This legislation was crafted with thoughtful consideration
and a sincere recognition of the bipartisan concern of the
American people in election integrity. It is a sound piece of
legislation that seeks to protect the sanctity of our elections
and instill confidence in all, and I urge passage of the bill.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if
you would like to give a statement on the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we all agree that post-election audits are an
important tool to help ensure the accuracy of our elections.
However, I have serious concerns about the bill before us
today.
H.R. 4555, the Federal Election Audit Act, would allow
certain Help America Vote Act funds, HAVA funds, to be used to
conduct and publish an audit of the effectiveness and accuracy
of the voting systems, election procedures, and outcomes of an
election, as well as the performance of election officials who
carried out the election.
While this seems like good policy on its face, we have seen
how post-election audits can be weaponized in furtherance of
election-related lies and disinformation and election
denialism.
The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by the
majority also raises significant concerns.
Prohibiting any individual, first of all, who is an
employee or contractor of a State or local government office
responsible for the administration of the election from
participating in conducting the audit removes critical
individuals with great knowledge and expertise from the
process.
State and local election administrators are the experts in
how their elections are run. We should not be effectively
barring them from participating in an audit.
There are too many stark examples of bad actors conducting
or attempting to conduct audits of the 2020 election to simply
allow Federal funds to be used to pay third parties without any
guardrails.
The false claims about the 2020 election results led to the
fraudulent post-election audits in a cynical attempt to cast
doubt on election results. That is why they existed.
In Arizona, for example, despite overwhelming evidence of
President Biden's victory and without proof of any fraud,
allies of the former President in the State of Arizona hired
Cyber Ninjas, an organization with zero experience auditing
elections, none whatsoever, and whose CEO had spread publicly
conspiracy theories and election disinformation.
They were chosen to conduct another audit of the 2020
election results in Maricopa County, even though post-election
audits had already been conducted. At the end of the day, the
cost to the Arizona taxpayers was significant and unnecessary.
Attempts to conduct deceptive or disruptive audits were
seen in other States as well, such as Colorado and Michigan.
Post-election audits are a necessary and critical part of
the election administration process. We should be providing
States with the resources they need to conduct them
effectively.
However, this bill, while it does allow States to use HAVA
funds to conduct the audits, my majority colleagues fail to
provide any election funding in their appropriations bill, in
the Financial Services and General Government appropriations
bill, all but ensuring that State and local election officials
are underresourced heading into another Presidential election
year.
If my colleagues are going to allow Federal dollars to be
used to conduct the audits described in the bill, they should
allow State and local election officials to participate in
conducting them and should ensure that proper guardrails are in
place.
I will be offering an amendment, Mr. Chair, shortly, that
would do all of that. Failure to adopt that amendment would, in
my view, lead us to vote no, and I would urge my colleagues to
vote no on H.R. 4555.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Does any Member seek recognition?
Do any additional Members seek recognition for the purpose
of offering an amendment?
Mr. Morelle. I do, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Steil. Mr. Morelle is recognized.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Steil. The clerk will please distribute and report
the amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[Ranking Member Morelle's amendment to H.R. 4555 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
point of order.
Mr. Morelle is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the
amendment.
[Ranking Member Morelle's amendment to H.R. 3229 follows:]
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment that I am offering makes clear the very real
potential for post-election audits to be abused by those
willing to deny the outcome of an election, spread false
information about our electoral process, and profit from the
spread of lies and misinformation at the expense of voters and
which ultimately undermine our democratic institutions.
Congress has the obligation to protect the electoral
process and the American taxpayer and ensure that any post-
election audit which utilizes tax dollars meets the highest
standards of rigor and integrity and that taxpayer dollars are
not used to further election denialism.
My amendment would add findings outlining just a few
examples of how post-election audits were weaponized by
election deniers in the wake of the 2020 election. This is
public record, and it is in the amendment that I offer.
Additionally, my amendment would place limitations on the
participation of third parties in any audit funded by these
HAVA dollars unless the appropriate State or local official
authorizes the third party's access, the audit is conducted
with full transparency to the public based on a comprehensive
plan established and made public ahead of time, the State
implements procedures to ensure the proper chain of custody and
security of any equipment or supplies used in the audit, and,
finally, that the State implements procedures to protect voter
privacy.
Finally, my amendment requires that if HAVA funds are being
used to conduct an audit of an election outcome under this act,
that it must be a risk-limiting audit.
Risk-limiting audits are considered the gold standard of
post-election audits, and we should ensure that any audit of
election outcomes meets that standard.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
I yield back the balance my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Dr. Murphy is recognized.
Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I think all of us on this Committee are very earnest
that we want fair elections and free elections.
I will remind the Committee, however, of former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton contesting the election with former
President Donald Trump in several different regards.
I appreciate Mr. Morelle trying to improve the bill.
However, I find this amendment a distraction, it will,
repeating some of the other points that we have discussed ad
nauseam in the Committee. I would urge my colleagues to vote
no.
Chairman Steil. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Ms. Sewell is recognized.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to support the Morelle amendment.
I think that we have seen in the 2020 election, after the
2020 election, as he so eloquently said, lots of chances where
States may have been well-intentioned but they chose third-
party vendors to actually do the audits that were biased.
We need guardrails to make sure that we are, in fact, doing
the audit properly and that we are not just trying to hold up
someone from being sworn in and moving on with the process, but
we are actually providing transparency and accountability.
I think that because his amendment provides better
transparency and more accountability, that we should support
his amendment.
Thank you.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on
her point of order?
Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. If not, the question is on the amendment
from Mr. Morelle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Morelle. A roll call?
Chairman Steil. A roll call vote is ordered, and the clerk
will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Chairman Steil. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes no.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. No.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes no.
Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes no.
Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
Mr. D'Esposito?
Mr. D'Esposito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Sewell. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
Mr. Kilmer?
Mr. Kilmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes aye.
Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are four ayes
and eight noes.
Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
If not, the question now occurs on the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute offered by Dr. Murphy.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to report is agreed to.
Mr. Morelle. May I ask for a recorded vote?
Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Chairman Steil. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
Mr. D'Esposito?
Mr. D'Esposito. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Sewell. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
Mr. Kilmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
If not, the clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are eight ayes
and four noes.
Chairman Steil. The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is
laid on upon the table.
The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 4555 reported
favorably to the House.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote, please.
Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Chairman Steil. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Dr. Murphy?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. Aye.
Chairman Steil. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
Mr. D'Esposito?
Mr. D'Esposito. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Sewell. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
Mr. Kilmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are eight ayes
and four noes?
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the motion is agreed to
and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
I will now call up 3229, Stop Foreign Funds in Elections
Act, from Representative Fitzpatrick.
The clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 3229----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Also, without objection, the bill shall be considered as
read and open to amendment at any point.
[House bill H.R. 3229 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Chairman Steil. I have an Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute at the desk.
The clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute is considered as read and will be
considered as original text for the purpose of further
amendment.
[The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by
Chairman Steil follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Chairman Steil. This bipartisan bill, introduced by Mr.
Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and cosponsored by Mr. Kilmer,
would prohibit contributions by foreign nationals in elections
or in connection with ballot initiatives or referenda.
American elections and legislative efforts like referenda
are for the benefit of American citizens, not foreign
nationals. Foreign money should have no place in our politics
at the Federal, State, and local level.
This bill was one of the Federal Election Commission's top
nonpartisan legislative recommendations in 2022 and comes from
all six Commissioners. That is three Republicans and three
Democrats.
This amendment ensures that State or local campaign or
ballot question committees are not subject to Federal
registration or reporting requirements that would unnecessarily
duplicate State efforts.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if he
would like to give a statement on the bill.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you. As I mentioned earlier in my
opening statement, I am grateful to you and to staffs for
collaboration here. I have a discrete amendment that I will
offer a little later and make general comments.
In the interest of time, I am happy to yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize Mr. D'Esposito for 5 minutes.
Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Chairman Steil.
H.R. 3229, The Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act, is a
necessary bill to protect our elections from foreign influence.
This important piece of legislation would prohibit
contributions or donations by foreign nationals in connection
with State or local ballot initiatives. Federal law already
takes several steps to ensure foreign nationals do not
participate in Federal, State, or local elections.
Foreign nationals cannot, directly or indirectly make a
contribution or donation of money, or other thing of value, or
make an expressed or implied promise to make a contribution or
donation in connection with a Federal, State, or local
election. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from
contributing and donating to political party committees and
from making expenditures, independent expenditures, and
disbursements for electioneering communications. Of course,
noncitizens are also prohibited from voting in Federal
elections.
However, Federal law does not prohibit foreign nationals
from making contributions or donations in connection with State
or local initiatives or referendum. This legislation rectifies
that problem. American elections are for the benefit of
American citizens and not foreign nationals. Foreign money
should have no place in our elections at the Federal, State, or
local level.
This bill was one of the Federal Election Commission's top
bipartisan legislative recommendations in 2022, and comes from
all six commissioners, three Republicans and three Democrats.
It is essential that this is implemented before the next
election in 2024. I urge the support from all my colleagues for
this bipartisan bill that assures that the right to vote and
that participation in American elections belongs to the
citizens of the United States of America, not foreign
nationals.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
I will now recognize Mr. Kilmer for 5 minutes, the
cosponsor of the bill.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks for taking this bill
up. I want to just commend our colleague, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for
bringing it forward.
As you mentioned, I cosponsored this. I think it is really
important to keep foreign money out of our elections. That is
really what this bill is about, also applying that prohibition
to State and local ballot initiatives and referenda. I am
really glad to see the Committee move this bill forward.
As has been mentioned, this comes out of a bipartisan
recommendation from the Federal Election Commission. If you
follow the FEC over the years, they do not always agree on
much, but they agree that it is important to keep foreign money
out of our election system. I also think it is important that
again, mirroring one of the recommendations out of the FEC,
that we take up the amendment that would ensure recall
amendments are also included in this prohibition. That is
something that the Commission recommended, and I think that is
an important step to safeguarding the integrity of our
elections.
I actually think it is valuable for our Committee to
consider taking up other bipartisan recommendations that the
Federal Election Commission has advanced. Things like some of
their requests around staffing and recruitment. There have been
bipartisan proposals around establishing a blue-ribbon advisory
panel to look at how potential nominees are put forward to the
FEC. I think that is worth our Committee looking at.
I also just want to, you know, just on a side note here, as
we look at how to keep foreign money out of elections, an area
that I think we have got to fix a loophole in is online
political expenditure. Right now, if any of us, if our
campaigns, if an outside entity puts an ad on television, that
is disclosed. There is a public file. They have to put their
name on it. That is true on radio; that is true on broadcasts;
that is not true on online political expenditure. We have a
bill, Anonymous Ads Act, which is a bipartisan bill, just to
replicate the same requirements that exist in TV and radio and
have them apply to large-scale political expenditures. I think
that is really important. Again, if we are going to be serious
about keeping foreign money out of elections, we know more and
more political spending is migrating into that online arena. I
would hope to see this Committee take that up, too.
For now, I want to thank the Committee for moving forward
with The Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act, and hopefully, we
can keep the bipartisan train running.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
Ms. Sewell is recognized.
Ms. Sewell. I move to strike the last word.
Eliminating foreign interference in our local, State, and
Federal elections is an issue that transcends party lines,
because we all agree that the fact that corruption has no place
in our politics. This is why I currently co-lead the Stop
Foreign Interference and Ballot Initiative Act, which
Representatives Porter and Gallagher have introduced to ban
foreign donations for ballot measures and recall elections.
Currently, it is illegal for foreign entities to donate to
American politicians and political campaigns, but there is a
legal loophole that enables foreign nationals to donate to
State and local ballot initiatives. It is time to close that
gap in our elections to protect our democracy and ensure that
Americans can trust that their Government leaders are looking
out for their best interests and not those of foreign
governments, businesses, or other foreign investors.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
Mr. Morelle. I do.
Chairman Steil. Mr. Morelle is recognized.
Mr. Morelle. I do have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Steil. The clerk will please distribute and report
the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to H.R. 3229.
Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
Did the gentlewoman from Florida----
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman reserves a point of order.
Mr. Morelle is recognized in support of the amendment.
[Ranking Member Morelle's amendment follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, again, for
who were folks working on this and the collaboration. I want to
particularly thank Mr. Kilmer for his work and his comments
here. More evidence that he will be missed in the next
Congress. I am saddened by that, but grateful for his ongoing
contributions.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Election Commission determined as
has been said in a recent enforcement matter, that the Federal
Election Campaign Acts Foreign National Prohibition does not
reach ballot initiatives that do not appear to be linked to an
office-seeking candidate at the Federal, State, or local level.
To address the statutorial mission, the FEC included, as has
been said here, a recommendation to amend the prohibition to
include State and local ballot initiatives, referenda and
recall elections as one of the Commission's highest priority
legislative recommendations.
The underlying bill here largely tracks the bipartisan
legislative recommendations of the FEC, except for, it excludes
the recall elections provision. This discrete amendment simply
ensures the bill is in complete alignment with the FEC's
bipartisan legislative recommendations. I encourage my
colleagues to support what I consider a reasonable amendment in
the spirit of what the FEC worked on.
Before yielding back, I, again, want to note that I am glad
to see the Committee taking seriously the risk of foreign
interference in domestic election. In that spirit, I encourage
my colleagues to consider additional comprehensive democracy
reform, which closes loopholes for foreign campaign spending,
like the Freedom to Vote Act, which includes the DISCLOSE Act.
I would also welcome the opportunity to work across the
aisle to advance additional measures, which the FEC bipartisan
legislative recommendations included. Mr. Kilmer has already
acknowledged that as well, and I hope we are able to secure
final passage on the administration fines measure before the
program sunsets later this year. I think that is something that
you and I both agree on.
Again, thank you for all the work on this. With that, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. I thank the Ranking Member for his
amendment. It further enhances the underlying legislation that
I know Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Fitzpatrick put a lot of time into. I
thank you for the amendment. I will be supportive of the
amendment.
Does any other Member seek recognition on the amendment?
Does the gentlewoman from Florida reserve her point of
order?
Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Steil. Is there any further debate on the
amendment?
If not, the question is now on the amendment from Mr.
Morelle.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
Does any Member seek recognition on the underlying
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute?
Seeing none, the question now occurs on the Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, ayes have it, and the motion
to report is agreed to.
The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 3229, reported
favorably to the House.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the motion to report is agreed
to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
I will now call up H.R. 4460, the No Vote for Non-Citizens
Act, sponsored by Mr. Griffith and included in the ACE Act.
This bill would ensure that only eligible American citizens can
vote in Federal elections.
I will now yield 5 minutes to the bill's sponsor, Mr.
Griffith.
[House bill H.R. 4460 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Palagashvili.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it.
It is a pretty simple bill. I know some people may not like it,
but what it says is, is that if you are going to--and certainly
the State and local governments are able to do that, but if you
are going to allow noncitizens to vote in your local and State
elections, that you have to keep separate rolls, and you have
to have separate ballots if you have two elections going on at
the same time. If you are voting for a State or local issue at
the same time as there is a Federal election, then they have to
have ballots separate for the noncitizens voters as opposed to
the citizen voters.
That is fairly simple. I know there is some controversy
over the funding requirements, but those make sense to me. What
we are saying is if you do that, then you only receive 70
percent of the money you would have otherwise received. A big
part of that is, the Federal Government gives that money so
that we can make sure that when we have a combined ballot, the
Federal Government is helping the States and the local
governments and all make sure they do that process, and they
get it correctly.
If you are going to have separate ballots and you are not
going to have those ballots be the same, then the Federal
Government's responsibility is less. Frankly, I think you can
make intellectual argument for less than the 70 percent. We
felt like that would be unfair to go below the 70 percent
level. We left it at 70 percent.
That covers most of it. I mean, if we want to get into a
big discussion, there are a couple of other little provisions
in there relating to maintaining communications between the
Federal Government and the State government. If the Federal
Government has a jury pool and they say that people should not
be in the jury because they are not citizens, then if they make
that determination at Federal court, then that should be
communicated to the local and State governments that those
folks are not, therefore, American citizens not eligible to
vote in the Federal election process.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. I appreciate
your work in this area, Mr. Griffith. It is an important topic,
and I know it is passionate to you.
Does the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, want to speak on the
statement on the bill?
Mr. Griffith. There is an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Steil. An amendment at the desk. The gentleman has
an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. Morelle. Yes.
The Clerk. An amendment to H.R. 4460.
Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
point of order.
Mr. Morelle is now recognized for 5 minutes in support of
the amendment.
[Ranking Member Morelle's amendment to H.R. 4460 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I admit, looking at this bill I am confused about the
guiding philosophy of the modern Republican Party. As was
stated earlier, I think a misreading of the United States
Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the power to do it.
My majority colleagues often say that the States have primacy.
Do they support the power of States to create their own laws to
govern themselves? Are they for local control? Do they want to
use Federal power to override and overrule local governments?
Because that is exactly what we have here.
They enjoy a waxing poetic of the sacrosanct nature of
their view, States' rights and local control. This bill
directly contradicts those principles. It strong-arms local
jurisdictions and mandates extreme partisan restrictions. I am
all for real-election security. This bill does not increase the
security of our elections.
I want to be very clear about this bill up front. Everybody
in the room knows it is a messaging bill, has no chance of
passage. Frankly, it is gimmicky. With next year's elections
fast approaching, we should be focusing on how we support
election administrators coast to coast who continue to face
increased pressures to do their jobs and do it effectively.
Instead, we are considering a recycled provision of the ACE Act
that slashes already scarce funding for election administrators
and mandates heavy-handed voter purges using flawed systems
that disproportionately target naturalized citizens.
Let us be clear also, Democrats ardently believe that
Government can, indeed should, be used to expand prosperity and
opportunity, ensure safety and health, and most importantly
safeguard rights and freedoms. This bill is an attempt to
restrict freedom rather than to expand it. Where Democrats,
through our Freedom to Vote Act, aim to aid the exercise of
democracy and self-government, this bill does the opposite,
nothing but decrease local control without increasing election
security.
It would slash funds that are critically needed to keep our
elections safe, investments necessary to the success of free
and fair elections, which we all continue to talk about. I
suspect my majority colleagues may think the bill is a clever
way to punish blue States for their sovereign and entirely
constitutional decisions. This is their right to make these
choices. I do warn my colleagues this bill would not just
punish Democrats, HAVA funds benefit everyone. Our election
infrastructure safeguards the rights of every American.
California, for example, would lose 30 percent of its HAVA
funds under this bill. My majority colleagues might have
forgotten Republicans received almost 4 million votes in
California in 2022. In fact, over 13 percent of 2022 voters
live in just four States; California, New York, Maryland, and
Vermont. These four States which send 24 Republicans to
Congress, including the former Republican Speaker of the House
and the chair of the Republican conference, could lose a third
of their HAVA funds under this bill.
Voters in those States would be penalized by Republicans in
Washington. Voters would see their election infrastructure
dramatically weakened, and would vote in elections that are
underfunded, and therefore, necessarily less secure and more
vulnerable to malicious acts. That is not what I think any of
us want at a time when election administrators have repeatedly
told this Committee of their dire need for increased funding.
Slashing these funds would be a grave mistake.
I recently met with the commendable public servants who,
under great strain and scrutiny, run Rochester's elections,
Monroe County's elections. I will tell you here and now, I will
never vote to cut even a cent of funding for these hardworking
people. It is not just my community. Each of the public
servants who run the elections for the 11 percent of the
Republican conference from the four States I mentioned about,
would lose essential funding as a punishment for decisions made
outside of their control.
The Committee's majority keeps pushing a narrative that the
confidence of the American people is in crisis. I have never
been that cynical. If anything shakes the American people's
confidence in our Government, it is watching the slow motion
Hindenburg disaster that has been this majority's efforts over
the last 9 months.
I offer this amendment to strip away the provisions of the
bill that would punish election administrators at a time they
most need our support. It would leave a sensible proposal that
States or jurisdiction that allow noncitizen voting should
maintain proper registration lists and ballots that ensure that
all eligible voters, in their jurisdiction, are able to access
and cast the appropriate ballot.
If my majority colleagues will abandon denialism,
conspiracy theories uprooted in fact, certainly untethered from
this Committee's record that shows absolute dearth of
legitimate reasons to contest the outcome of the 2020 election,
then we can find common ground. That is what this amendment
seeks to do. I urge my colleagues to support real election
security.
I urge them to support my amendment, and with that, I yield
back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Griffith is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the Chairman.
You know, it is interesting because you always see things
in a different light than other folks. I think this is a very
reasonable measure. What, in essence, is happening is in some
of the States--and they have every right to do that. This bill
does not attack that right, but it says if you are going to
have two different election processes, we spend money to
guarantee or to assure free and fair Federal elections.
If the rules are then changing at State and local elections
because other people are allowed to vote, that is a different
ballot process. What this bill says is we are going to have
separate ballots. We are going to have those folks, you know,
two separate rolls, two separate ballots. We are trying to make
sure there are free and fair Federal elections.
In theory, one could argue that since it is a separate roll
and a separate ballot, and everything is separate, that it
should be cut to 50 percent. To say that we are slashing it
when, in fact, we are probably giving 20 percent more money
than we ought to because when you divide the process--I see
confusion on Mr. Morelle's face--if you are taking the process
that is 100 percent now and you are cutting it in two, would
seem you should only pay for 50 percent of it.
Mr. Griffith. If you go to the grocery store, and you only
get half a pound of ground round, you probably do not pay for a
whole pound of ground round. That is all we are saying. We are
only involved in half or half of these election processes now.
We are willing to pay a little bit more because we understand
that it may be detrimental in some ways. It is not meant as a
punishment. It is meant as a commonsense approach to spending
Federal dollars that we do not have enough of, that we have a
huge deficit over. We are just trimming it back a little bit
and saying, We are going to pay the part that the Federal
Government is invested in. If you have chosen to go in a
completely separate direction, have separate rolls, and I think
that is important that we do, but if you have separate rolls
and you have a separate balloting process, then you have every
right to do that. If you make that choice, that is something
you have to pay for. Even then, we are still paying 70 percent.
I yield back. I am opposed to the amendment if you could
not tell.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on her point of
order?
Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Steil. If not, the question is on the amendment
from Mr. Morelle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment
is not agreed to.
Mr. Morelle. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Steil. A roll call vote is ordered. The clerk will
please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Mr. Steil. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes no.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. No.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes no.
Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes no.
Mr. Carey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito?
Mr. D'Esposito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
Ms. Sewell?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer.
[No response.]
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are two ayes
and seven noes.
Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
If not, the question now occurs on ordering H.R. 4460
reported favorably to the House.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion is agreed to.
Mr. Morelle. I ask for a recorded rote.
Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will record the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Mr. Steil. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito?
Mr. D'Esposito. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
Ms. Sewell?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
Ms. Sewell?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
[No response.]
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are eight ayes
and two noes.
Chairman Steil. The bill is agreed to. Without objection,
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
I will now call up H.R. 6493, the Promoting Free and Fair
Elections Act of 2023 sponsored by Mrs. Hageman and included in
the ACE Act. The bill would repeal a Biden executive order that
gives Federal agencies unprecedented power to influence the
elections process, essentially turning them into an extension
of left's get-out-the-vote operation. I encourage support of
the bill.
I will now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Loudermilk to speak on
the text.
[House bill H.R. 6493 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to lend my
support for H.R. 6493 by Mrs. Hageman of Wyoming. President
Biden's Executive Order, 14019 reflects a startling expansion
of the Federal Government into election administration, a space
the Constitution clearly dictates that the States have primary
authority.
H.R. 6493 would repeal this executive order and roll back
yet another attempt by Democrats to expand the reach of the
Federal Government into elections. Federal agencies exist to
help Americans solve problems they have, such as verifying
their veteran health benefits, not to ask if they are
registered to vote.
The Department of Labor and the Department of the Interior,
for example, have no statutory or logical role in voter
administration. Yet, this executive order asks them to develop
new voter registration activities for which they are not
appropriately equipped, limiting the agency's ability to
complete its actual responsibilities.
Instead of propping up new Federal programs to register
voters, the Federal Government should look to the agency that
is already tasked with assisting in voter registration efforts,
the Election Assistance Commission. The EAC, as the only
Federal agency statutorily intended to work in the election
administration space, is well-equipped to support Americans in
accessing their voter registration information.
With an agency as robustly prepared to assist in voter
registration information already in existence, there is no need
to expend Federal funds and resources for other Federal
agencies to enter the election administration space.
I urge support for 6493, and I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Is there further debate?
Apologies. Mr. Morelle is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to just comment, again, about when I consider the
misreading of the Federal election, which gives Congress always
the right to alter laws, and there is no primacy identified in
the Federal Constitution. It is a misreading of a simply
written statement that should be easily understood. I will make
that point. I will try to make it repeatedly.
As it relates to the bill, the bill itself, in my view, is
beyond ridiculous and is deeply cynical. It repeals an
executive order by the President promoting voter participation
by directing Federal agencies to, quote, ``consider ways to
expand citizens' opportunities to register to vote and to
obtain information about and participate in the electoral
process.''
I, frankly, for the life of me, do not understand what my
colleagues find objectionable about that. The executive order
has a simple purpose, directing existing Federal resources,
like Department websites or agency social media accounts to
encourage more people to vote. It is the American way. We want
everyone to participate.
Frankly, when we see the disparity between certain groups
of Americans and their voting turnout, we should want to work
on making sure that every single American who is eligible
avails themselves of the ballot.
I struggle to understand their version of encouraging
people to participate in our democracy. That is all the bill
does. Importantly, by using existing resources, the
implementation of the executive order does not cost the
taxpayer an additional penny. Without those existing resources,
the executive order helps to make--with those without
additional resources helps make voting and voter registration
more accessible to all Americans while improving voter
confidence and election security.
Importantly, the executive order helps our servicemembers
by directing the Department of Defense to implement an end-to-
end tracking system on military ballots and offer each member
of the Armed Forces on Active Duty the opportunity to register
to vote in Federal elections, update voter registration, or
request an absentee ballot.
I, frankly, do not understand what is objectionable about
American servicemembers voting or being assisted and aided in
their efforts to vote while on active duty. As the purpose was
stated in the order itself, it is our duty to ensure that
registering to vote, and the act of voting be made simple and
easy for all those eligible to do so. I could not have, nor
would I have tried, to say it better.
The Republican bill would do exactly the opposite. It would
make it harder for servicemembers and veterans to register to
vote. It prevents the Department of Defense, of Veterans
Affairs from encouraging voter participation and registration,
which is a disservice to every single man and woman who serves
in our Nation's uniform.
The executive order on promoting access to voting has been
working. After the President's executive order, the VA sent a
survey to over 12 million veterans to understand the veterans'
experience of the voter registration process. The VA also
launched a website with nonpartisan voter registration and
elections information specifically for veterans. The VA is
developing pilot programs for VA health facilities to receive
and accept NVRA designations.
Now, why, in God's name, would any Member of this
Committee, if they support our veterans and support voter
registration, oppose the executive order? It is not just the VA
that has been successful. Crucially, the Department of the
Interior has been improving voter registration access for
Native Americans who have long been excluded from the full
Democratic participation. For example, the Department of the
Interior's accepted NVRA designations of the Tribal colleges
and universities it operates, ensuring students have regular
access to voter registration services.
Further, the Interior has raised awareness about barriers
Native American voters face by translating the report of the
interagency steering group on Native American voting rights
into six native languages, both in writing and in audio. By
supporting this bill, my colleagues will be dismantling vital
programs that materially help Native Americans participate in
democracy.
Again, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want
to do that. I applaud the administration for working on this
executive order. The right to vote is cherished in America. It
is what makes us the great republic we are. I urge all my
colleagues to oppose the bill, and ensure that the
administration, this one and future ones, can continue to
promote voter participation in our democracy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The Clerk will
please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6493.
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with. Also, without objection, the bill
should be considered as read and open to amendment at any
point.
Mr. Loudermilk is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to clarify a couple things my good friend Mr.
Morelle brought up that were not exactly correct. This bill
would not affect the Department of Defense. That is, as a
veteran, I can tell you the Department of Defense has a totally
separate program that is run from the Pentagon under the
Department of Defense to deal with voting. This would not
affect that.
Second, the VA has enough challenges providing adequate
healthcare and benefits to veterans. They need to focus on
that, not on voting. We have the American Legion, which is an
organization developed by Congress that does a great job--as a
member of the American Legion--does great job of engaging
people in voting.
Look, people have a lot of distrust in the Federal
Government. It is because of the performance of Federal
agencies not doing their jobs. Everyone here understands that
because if the agencies were doing jobs they should, we would
not have constituent services. We have them because the Federal
Government fails in most of the things that it tries to do for
the American people. Let us focus on those rolls.
Third, I will close with, yes, our interpretation of the
Constitution relating to the States having the primary
authority in setting the means and methods and ways of voting
is not a misreading of it, unless you want to argue with the
folks who were there at the Constitutional Convention because
both the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers clarify
that.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
Ms. Sewell is recognized.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Voting is a cornerstone of our democracy. Far too often,
many Americans confront significant obstacles when they try to
exercise the franchise. These obstacles include difficulties
with voter registration, lack of education around elections,
and barriers to access to the polling place.
For years, African-American voters, voters of color, voters
with disabilities, voters with limited access to language
assistance, members of our military serving overseas, and other
Americans citizens that live abroad face challenges while
trying to exercise their right.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to ensure that
registering to vote and the practice of voting is simple,
accessible for all the American people that are eligible to do
so. Today, we have only wasted time by discussing efforts to
restrict access to the ballot box.
Generations of Americans, many of whom are from my hometown
of Selma, Alabama, march, fought, bled, and some even died for
the equal right of all Americans to vote. It was their
sacrifices that brought us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Today, we know old battles have become new again, indeed
their legacy, and our very democracy are under attack. This is
why I reintroduced the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act in September, because it would restore the full
protections of the Voting Rights Act, strengthen our democracy,
and ensure that every American has access to the ballot box.
The Promoting Free and Fair Elections Act of 2023, which we
are discussing, is an egregious piece of legislation that would
make it harder for citizens to vote by limiting ways that
citizens can access the franchise. According to a coalition
report by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
63 million eligible Americans were not registered to vote
during the last Presidential election, and many of those were
disproportionately people of color.
The study the coalition released indicated that if the
Federal agencies integrate a high-quality voter registration
opportunity for the people that they serve as the President's
executive order states, they would collectively generate an
additional 3.5 million voter registration applications per
year.
Voting should be free. Voting should be fair. Voting should
be accessible for all Americans. We do our constituents a huge
disservice when we waste time discussing ways that we can
suppress the vote, versus trying to make it easier for
Americans to vote.
With that, I ask my Chairman if he would consider bringing
up the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which
would strengthen voting and not suppress it. Thank you.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
I know Mrs. Bice will have a friendly amendment at the
conclusion on this, but if we can continue on discussion of the
underlying bill.
Does any other Member seek recognition?
Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this effort to strip
away voter protections from the American people. At a time when
we are so close to an election, Republicans should be focused
on making it easier for Americans to be able to cast their
vote. Instead, they are trying to choose who gets to vote in an
election.
Let me just give you an example. When we try to prevent
military personnel, whether they are veterans or Active Duty.
In the Senate, right now, we have a Senator that has withheld
400--or blocked 400 promotions, which impacts 1.4 million
Active-Duty military personnel. He has blocked these promotions
for 266 days that equal to 6,384 hours of blocking military
promotions.
They are impacted by everything the Congress does. Here,
again, you are trying to tell our military personnel that it is
OK to mistreat them, that it is OK to take political actions
against them, but it is not going to be comfortable for them to
fill out a voter application, to be able to change their
address, and to be able to cast their vote.
I oppose this effort, and I want to encourage my colleagues
to find a different way to be more inclusive in helping our
voters vote rather than blocking and trying to choose who votes
and who does not get to vote.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mrs. Bice is recognized.
Mrs. Bice. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Steil. The clerk will report the amendment, will
distribute and report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to H.R. 6493 offered by Mrs. Bice
of Oklahoma. Page 1----
Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
Mrs. Bice is recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mrs. Bice's amendment to H.R. 6493 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a
friendly amendment and very simple. Evidently, this bill was
titled the exact same as an already-filed bill. We are changing
the name of this to the Safeguarding Electoral Integrity Act of
2023 at the request of the author, Mrs. Hageman.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Yes. I move to strike the last word. I do not
object to the amendment, but this gives me a chance simply to
read in because I do not want to argue with my dear friend, Mr.
Loudermilk. I just want to read a sentence that is actually
from the United States Constitution, article 1, section 4,
clause 1, Elections Clause, ``The times, places, and manner of
holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be
prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof. The
Congress may, at any time, by law make or alter such
regulations.''
It is a pretty clear reading. James Madison, the author,
primarily, of the U.S. Constitution actually agreed with the
interpretation that Congress may, at any time, by law, make or
alter such regulations. This notion of primacy, I think about
it this way, when I was about, I do not know, 17 years old, I
would say to my dad, Can I go out tonight. He would say, You
can go out tonight, but you have to be home by 11.
I do not know how anyone else interprets that. I know in my
household that but meant that he was making a decision. I read
it the same way. We keep talking about this. We keep having the
same argument, but I thought I would put into the record one
more time what the actual Constitution of the United States
says.
With that, I certainly support the amendment, but wanted to
make sure I got in on the record.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Is there further debate on the underlying amendment from
Mrs. Bice?
If not, the question is on the amendment from Mrs. Bice.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
The amendment is agreed to. The question now--do any other
Members seek recognition?
If not, the question now occurs on H.R. 6493 reported
favorably to the house.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of chair, the ayes have it, and the motion
to report is agreed to.
Mr. Morelle. I would like a recorded vote.
Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The
Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
Mr. Steil. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
Mr. D'Esposito?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Sewell. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
Mr. Kilmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito?
[No response.]
Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are five ayes
and four noes.
Chairman Steil. The bill is agreed to. Without objection,
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
I now call up the Confirmation Of Congressional Observer
Access Act of 2023 sponsored by Mr. Carey. The Ranking Member
and I have also cosponsored this legislation. We kind of got
across the line yesterday, and I appreciate the work not only
of you, Mr. Morelle, but his minority staff engaging with our
staff to get this legislative text correct.
The congressional Election Observers Program utilized both
parties is authorized under the Constitution, but is not
codified in Federal law. Official congressional observation of
Federal elections is crucial for creating records in cases of
contested congressional elections. The bill ensures that
congressional observers have full access to congressional
election administration processes, including polling places,
and election tabulation facilities.
I will now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Carey, the sponsor of the
bill.
Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Confirmation Of
Congressional Observer Access Act, or COCOA Act, codifies the
authority of Congress to deploy congressional staff to observe
close races in order to develop a record of information for use
during the election--used during election contest. I appreciate
the Ranking Member Morelle and his staff that worked on this
legislation in a very bipartisan way to make this a bipartisan
piece of legislation. I also want to thank the Chairman for
bringing this bill in front of the Committee for markup.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Ranking Member Morelle is recognized to give a statement on
the bill.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful that
despite whatever differences we may have on some of the bills,
that we end on a positive note. I am grateful to Mr. Carey, my
friend, for offering the bill, and particularly grateful to
staff on both the majority and minority side for coming
together, and am grateful that we are able to have a bipartisan
agreement.
The congressional Election Observer Program is important. I
am grateful for the changes you were willing to make address
the concerns we raised. I am pleased we are able to agree on
the need to preserve the authority of election officials to
remove an observer who is being disruptive or interfering with
the elections process, as well as the additional language
stating our sense that all House employees deployed as
observers must adhere to the Code of Official Conduct while
serving in this important role.
I think it is important to balance transparency with
security, particularly at a time when election officials across
the country have raised, I think, legitimate concerns about
safety, security, and privacy. We should hold ourselves and our
staff to those highest standards.
I am glad you, again, and your staff are willing to work
with us, and that we are able to reach a bipartisan agreement.
I support the bill and urge my colleagues to join me in voting
yes on the measure.
Again, thank you, all, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The Clerk will
report the bill.
The Clerk.
[No verbal response.]
Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with. Also without objection, the bill should
be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
Do any Members seek recognition? Does any Member seek
recognition?
If not, the question now occurs on the underlying bill.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to report is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
Finally, I would like to enter into the record a letter
announcing that assistant clerk vacancy previously held by
William Johnson, a member of my staff of November 5, 2023.
[The COCOA Act referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Steil. This concludes the order of business for
today's markup. Pursuant to House Rule 9, Clause 2(l), I ask
that Committee Members have the right to file with the Clerk of
the Committee supplemental, additional, minority, and
dissenting views.
Also without objection, Committee staff are authorized to
make technical and conforming changes.
If there is no further business, I want to thank the
Members for their participation. Without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[roll call votes 1-18 follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]