[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2379-H2388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, AND 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 172 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 172

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1) to expand Americans' access to the ballot 
     box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and 
     strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on House Administration now printed in the 
     bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-7, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.

[[Page H2380]]

       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on House Administration or her designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on House Administration or their designees, shall 
     not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  After the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
     for amendment and a final period of general debate, which 
     shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     House Administration, the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such further amendments as may have 
     been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of March 7, 2019, or March 8, 2019, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sarbanes). The gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 172, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  The resolution self-executes Chairwoman Lofgren's manager's amendment 
and provides for the consideration of 72 amendments debatable for 10 
minutes each.
  The rule also provides authority for en bloc amendments, debatable 
for 20 minutes each.
  The rule also provides 10 minutes of final general debate after 
amendment consideration equally divided and controlled by the Chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or 
their designees.
  Lastly, the rule provides suspension authority through Friday, March 
8, 2019.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, this past weekend, I had the honor of 
traveling to Selma, Alabama, with over 40 of our congressional 
colleagues on a pilgrimage to observe the 54th anniversary of Bloody 
Sunday, the violent confrontation at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.
  That confrontation seized the Nation's attention and launched one of 
the most important periods in the history of our Republic, culminating 
in the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
  When our colleague, Representative   John Lewis, along with Martin 
Luther King and other civil rights pioneers, organized voters to 
register, crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and marched from Selma to 
Montgomery, they did so knowing that their lives and the lives of those 
they loved were at risk.
  The institutional opposition they faced was fierce and violent, but 
their message of nonviolence and justice strengthened them and their 
resolve.
  They marched and risked their lives in order to secure the right to 
vote. They understood that they would never be equal citizens of the 
United States until they had a voice in their destiny, and they 
understood that the United States could never be the republic it 
aspired to become until all of its citizens had the right to 
participate in decisions affecting their future.
  We undeniably have made progress since then, but not enough, and 
frighteningly, we seem to be moving backward.
  In recent years, we have seen new forms of voter suppression emerge, 
whether in the guise of strict voter ID laws, purges of voting rolls, 
partisan gerrymandering, or unfounded allegations of voter fraud.
  As an election official, election protection organizer, and voting 
rights advocate for over 3 decades, I have seen all of these tactics in 
play. In fact, several of us in the Pennsylvania delegation were able 
to join this Congress in part because a Federal court ordered that 
Pennsylvania's congressional districts had been so gerrymandered that 
they must be redrawn, they were unconstitutional.
  We have heard, and will undoubtedly hear again today, that Democrats 
are pushing voting rights reform because of the expectation that new 
voters will likely be Democratic voters. I would hope that those with a 
sense of history would resist this, recognizing that the very same 
argument was used to oppose the Voting Rights Act in 1965 out of fear 
that those who had been oppressed would factor that experience into 
their voting decisions.
  It is telling that a similar fear motivates some in this Chamber 
today who would rather deprive citizens of a fundamental right than 
face them at the ballot box.
  The cynicism of those who would continue to place barriers in the way 
of those who wish to vote goes a long way to explaining why our 
citizens lack faith in us to work for them.
  Those with power, voting and otherwise, too often try to preserve 
that power through means that are neither transparent nor understood by 
the people of this country. We have to be bold, and shed some of that 
institutional power in order to regain the trust of the people.

                              {time}  1230

  I thank my colleague, Representative   John Sarbanes, who has worked 
for years in tirelessly crafting this legislation. I also thank Speaker 
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team for making this bill the top 
priority in the House for the 116th Congress. I am so proud that the 
first order of business of this Congress, our H.R. 1, is dedicated to 
good government and restoring trust in our democratic institutions.
  Our elections are the bedrock of our democracy. During the recent 
midterm elections, the American people charged us, the new Congress, to 
make sure that our government works for them. They put their trust in 
us to champion our uniquely American creed: a government of the people, 
by the people, and for the people.
  H.R. 1, the For the People bill, is our commitment to that trust. 
This reform package will address many of the barriers to democracy that 
prevent too many eligible voters from having their voices heard, 
including our seniors, communities of color, servicemembers, college 
students, those with disabilities, and low-income families. But it is 
up to us to see it through.
  I am immensely proud to be part of a Caucus that is prioritizing 
legislation that the people are asking for, legislation that will 
protect the right to vote for every American and ensure clean and fair 
elections, that will end the dominance of big money in our politics, 
and that will crack down on corruption to make sure that public 
servants put the public interest first.
  Recent polls have found that many Americans do not vote because of 
difficulty registering or accessing their polling places and that 
Americans are really concerned about the ethical standards of their 
elected representatives and government officials and are equally 
concerned about the influence of special interests and corruption in 
Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority takes what the people are asking 
for seriously. This is a bill that addresses their concerns and resets 
our democracy so that it works for the people, not special interests.
  H.R. 1 will make it easier for eligible Americans to vote. Allowing 
and enabling Americans to vote should not be a divisive partisan issue. 
Our Nation

[[Page H2381]]

can only stand to benefit when all eligible voters have a voice.
  The very fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
greater electoral success when fewer people come out to vote is not 
just a stain on our democracy but a direct threat to it.
  Automatic voter registration will make it easier for young adults and 
working families to make sure that they are not left out of the process 
due to issues with registration.
  This bill will make critical fixes to voter purging policies that 
have disenfranchised millions since section 4 of the Voting Rights Act 
was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder. Over 4 
million more names were purged from voter rolls after that decision 
came down than they were in the years before. These purges affected 
poor minority communities at a vastly disproportionate rate, further 
marginalizing people who already face significant institutional 
barriers to voting.
  Election security has been a bipartisan concern across the country 
for years, and H.R. 1 will make considerable investments to ensure our 
elections are secure, independent, and free from foreign interference. 
Empowering the Election Assistance Commission will allow States to get 
the funding they need to upgrade or improve their election 
infrastructure, and improvements in election administration will help 
protect voting systems from cyber threats.
  Election infrastructure is critical, and this bill finally recognizes 
the role that Congress must play in protecting our elections.
  A specific priority of mine that I am excited to see included in the 
bill will make it easier for persons with disabilities to participate 
in the electoral process. For too long, individuals with disabilities 
have faced barriers that prevent them from participating in our 
democracy at the ballot box. I have introduced legislation included in 
H.R. 1 that will direct and assist States to improve access to voter 
registration and the ballot box for persons with disabilities.
  These democracy-driven policies represent just a handful of the 
voting rights reforms contained in H.R. 1. They will improve access to 
voting, promote integrity in the voting process, and ensure the 
security of our elections.
  Going further, H.R. 1 acts to shine a light and address the dark 
money which the Citizens United decision unleashed into our politics. 
Each year that we do not act on reversing Citizens United, more and 
more untraceable money is spent on campaigns.
  This bill will overhaul the Federal Election Commission, the FEC, so 
that we have a real cop on the beat to enforce our campaign finance 
laws.
  It will upgrade political advertising disclosures and require donors 
giving more than $10,000 to politically active organizations to be 
publicly identified.
  Simultaneously, this bill seeks to empower everyday Americans by 
creating a small-dollar match system that will bring more people into 
the conversation while reducing the impact large donors can have on any 
one campaign. While small-dollar campaign funding is relatively new to 
the Federal system, it has been trialed in States and larger cities to 
great effect.
  I am proud that H.R. 1 also includes a bill that I drafted to keep 
Presidential inaugural funds from becoming shadowy slush funds or 
opportunities for dark forces, whether foreign or domestic, to 
influence our government. The bill will prohibit donations to inaugural 
funds by foreign nationals or corporations, ban personal use of 
inaugural funds by a candidate, and require disclosure of all donations 
and disbursements.
  H.R. 1 will also help to restore voter confidence in our democracy by 
codifying ethics standards for all three branches of government. The 
bill requires the development of a code of ethics for Supreme Court 
Justices, mandatory recusal of Presidential appointees from matters 
that concern the President, and increased enforcement of the 
registration of foreign agents.

  The bill will prohibit Members of Congress from using taxpayer funds 
to settle employment discrimination cases against them, preventing 
Members of Congress from hiding this conduct and protecting taxpayer 
money from being misused.
  Finally, H.R. 1 will address Presidential conflicts of interest by 
requiring sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as 
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, to release their tax 
returns. Those occupying the highest office in the land should be 
required to show if they have financial interests that would influence 
their decisionmaking. Having an executive beholden in any way to a 
private company or a nation only serves to undermine our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we had quite the debate on this bill in the Rules 
Committee last night, and I expect the debate on the floor today will 
be along similar lines. Today's bill is H.R. 1, which my friends on the 
other side of the aisle are calling by the misnomer ``For the People 
Act.'' Unfortunately, this bill is completely misnamed.
  It is not for the people. It is, instead, for the Democratic 
majority, by the Democratic majority, in hopes of maintaining the 
Democratic majority for many years to come. Every provision in this 
bill reflects that goal.
  That began with the process the majority used to put this bill 
together. H.R. 1 was referred to 10 different committees, yet only one, 
House Administration, held a markup. My friends hold a 2-to-1 advantage 
on that committee. There are only three Republicans who can 
participate.
  Later, we will be hearing from some of the Republican ranking members 
of these committees, each of whom will talk about provisions that they 
had hoped to address, had their respective committees marked up the 
bill. This failure to allow other committees with jurisdiction to mark 
up the bill reinforces the desire of the majority to push this bill 
through as quickly as possible without any additional consideration. 
Without further hearings and markups, it is all too easy for the 
majority to sweep the bill's flaws under the rug and pass it quickly 
without allowing the American people to see what they are up to.
  This bill would be more aptly named the ``For the Politicians Act'' 
or ``Welfare for Politicians Act.'' It reinforces the idea that the 
majority cares only about passing a bill that will lead to more 
Democrats in the House of Representatives.
  We do not have time today to go over every provision in this bill, 
but for now, I will take a moment to point out some of the bigger flaws 
in this product.
  First, H.R. 1 takes taxpayer dollars and uses them to create a 
special piggy bank for campaigns. That is right, Democrats want to use 
taxpayer dollars of the American people to finance their political 
campaigns. H.R. 1 creates a matching program for small-dollar campaign 
contributions, thereby shifting taxpayer dollars to politicians to run 
their campaigns. In essence, Democrats are demanding that your tax 
dollars be used to subsidize and fund political candidates.
  According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, since 2000, total spending 
on Federal elections has exploded, going from $2.7 billion that cycle 
to $6.4 billion in 2016. With so much money being raised from private 
sources, one wonders why the majority wants to waste taxpayer dollars 
adding even more money into campaigns.
  Second, H.R. 1 completely takes over elections, removing authority 
from States and local election boards and giving it to Washington, D.C. 
Currently, States have the authority to determine how they want to 
structure their own elections, including voter registration, timing, 
and even redistricting. But all that goes away under H.R. 1. States 
would no longer be able to set voter registration requirements, nor 
hold elections where and how often they want, nor reapportion voters 
into appropriate districts. Instead, under H.R. 1, Washington, D.C., 
takes over all these functions.
  I doubt any secretary of state or supervisor of elections in America 
supports this federalization of the election process. In fact, last 
night in the Rules Committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, I entered into the 
record a letter from the

[[Page H2382]]

Oklahoma State Election Board opposing H.R. 1 on precisely these 
grounds.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that letter again today.


                                Oklahoma State Election Board,

                                 Oklahoma City, OK, March 4, 2019.
     Re Election Administration Provisions of H.R. 1.

     Hon. Tom Cole,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Cole: As Oklahoma's chief state 
     election official, I am very proud of Oklahoma's election 
     system. Our state has one of the most effective and efficient 
     election systems in the world. It is uniform, it is fair, it 
     is secure, it is accurate and it is fast.
       As the House of Representatives prepares to consider H.R. 
     1, I want to take a moment to express some concerns about 
     several of its provisions related to election administration. 
     While I believe H.R. 1 to be well-intentioned by its 
     sponsors, its ``one-size-fits-all'' requirements for state 
     election systems would require Oklahoma to make extensive 
     changes to the way we run elections. I am concerned that some 
     of H.R. 1's mandates could negatively impact the very things 
     Oklahoma's election system does so well.
       Based on my review of H.R. 1, here is a list of my top 
     concerns.
       ``Voting by Mail'': To combat Oklahoma's past history of 
     absentee ballot fraud, several decades ago the Oklahoma 
     Legislature enacted legislation requiring most voters to have 
     their identity confirmed by a notary public when voting by 
     absentee ballot. Oklahoma law also requires absentee ballots 
     to be received by the county election board no later than 
     7:00 p.m. on Election Day. These procedures help prevent 
     fraud and enable county election boards to have 100% of 
     absentee ballots counted on election night. Unfortunately, 
     H.R. 1 seems to do away with these safeguards and 
     efficiencies, instead requiring county election boards to (1) 
     accept signed affidavits in lieu of notarized ones and (2) to 
     accept an absentee ballot postmarked on Election Day. H.R. 
     1's mandates would prevent Oklahoma from counting all 
     absentee ballots by Election Day, would require the counting 
     of absentee ballots to continue for days or weeks after an 
     election, and would take away a critical security feature of 
     our election system.
       ``Early voting'': In Oklahoma, county election boards 
     typically have a very small staff. (Many have only the 
     secretary and one assistant.) For federal and state 
     elections, Oklahoma currently allows ``early voting'' on the 
     Thursday, Friday and Saturday prior to Election Day. Most 
     counties have a single early voting site, but several have 
     two sites. Even with the assistance of absentee voting boards 
     paid for by the State Election Board, most counties barely 
     have enough budget and staff to successfully conduct early 
     voting on the three days currently required. H.R. 1's 
     requirement for FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS of early voting is 
     simply not feasible given the small budgets and staffing 
     levels of the 77 county election boards. This would make it 
     virtually impossible for county election board staff to 
     perform their other critical duties (e.g., processing mail 
     absentee ballots, processing voter registration applications, 
     and preparing supplies for precinct workers) if they are 
     instead conducting early voting during this time.
       ``Same Day Voter Registration'': Oklahoma has a very 
     reasonable deadline for voter registration (applications must 
     be submitted by the 24th day prior to an election). H.R. 1 
     requires county election boards to conduct voter registration 
     during ``early'' voting periods and on Election Day. This 
     mandate is not currently feasible with the current funding 
     and staffing levels of county election boards. The logistics 
     of predicting how many ballots to print and how many precinct 
     officials to assign to polling places, with the number of 
     potential voters unknown, would be extremely difficult and 
     inefficient. Same day voter registration increases the risk 
     that due to error or fraud an ineligible person is allowed to 
     register and vote.
       ``Provisional ballots'': Oklahoma has a county-based 
     election system. While Oklahoma uses the same voting system 
     statewide, for security reasons each county's system is 
     siloed and does not directly interact with other counties' 
     systems. (For example, one county cannot print or count 
     another county's ballot.) Oklahoma law requires a voter to 
     vote in the assigned polling place in the county where the 
     voter is registered. Provisional ballots are issued for a 
     variety of reasons, and, if eligible, are counted after 2:00 
     p.m. on the Friday following Election Day. However, H.R. 1 
     requires a provisional ballot to be counted even if it is 
     cast in the wrong county, which creates a security risk and 
     is not currently possible given Oklahoma's election security 
     features.
       ``Online Voter Registration'': Oklahoma will implement 
     online voter registration in the near future. Unfortunately, 
     H.R. 1 sets different requirements for its federally-mandated 
     online voter registration system than is required by Oklahoma 
     law. (For example, H.R. 1 does everything from defining 
     acceptable signature requirements, to mandating a telephone 
     version of an online voter registration system, to 
     micromanaging the features required for a state's customer 
     support system.) Further, Oklahoma's future online voter 
     registration system will require that a registrant's identity 
     be conformed by matching the person's information with an 
     existing driver license or state I.D., but H.R. 1 sets 
     different (and less secure) standards for confirming a 
     registrant's identity.
       ``Federalism'': While I believe H.R. 1's sponsors are well-
     intentioned, a great many of its election provisions--even 
     those that are not concerns--relate to policy decisions that 
     are best left to the states under our federal system. I am 
     concerned that, in its current form, H.R. 1 could lead to 
     costly and lengthy litigation.
       While these are not my only concerns, they are the most 
     serious. I appreciate your representation of our state in 
     Congress, and I feel it is my duty as Oklahoma's chief 
     election official to make you aware of some of the potential 
     negative impacts H.R. 1 could have on our state's election 
     system.
       If you ever have any questions about elections in Oklahoma, 
     please feel free to contact me or Assistant Secretary Pam 
     Slater. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                           Paul Ziriax, Secretary,
                                    Oklahoma State Election Board.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that, in the case of 
redistricting, if the State cannot reach a resolution, H.R. 1 hands 
over the redistricting function to an unelected Federal court here in 
Washington, D.C. Everywhere you look, this bill represents an erosion 
of traditional State authority and a power grab for Democrats here in 
Washington.
  Perhaps even more egregiously, the bill places limits on freedom of 
speech, criminalizing actions that we would currently describe as mere 
advocacy for candidates. Not since the Sedition Act of 1798 has the 
Federal Government tried to pass something that tramples so heavily on 
freedom of speech as H.R. 1. The bill is so bad in this regard that 
even the American Civil Liberties Union is opposing it, which is a 
perfect illustration of just how bad H.R. 1 really is.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Everywhere you look, H.R. 1 fails 
to do what the majority has promised. They have promised it is to be 
about returning power to the people. Instead, this bill only gives 
power and money to Democratic politicians. It takes away authority from 
States and gives it to the Federal Government, wastes taxpayer dollars 
on political campaigns, weakens the voting system, and limits freedom 
of speech.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how any Member can stand up 
with a straight face and support this bill. I urge opposition to the 
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the 
Rules Committee for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the For the People Act, H.R. 1, and 
the rule.
  We promised the American people, and our neighbors back home have 
urged us on, to strengthen America's ethics laws, to fix our broken 
campaign finance system, and to empower American voters.
  I represent the State of Florida, and you better believe that we have 
to protect access to the ballot box, ensure the voting rights of 
everyone, and count every vote.
  I thank the Rules Committee for including a bipartisan amendment that 
I have worked on to address the abuse of zombie campaigns. Many folks 
don't understand this, but sometimes Members who retire from Congress 
keep their campaign accounts, and they live on for decades, hence the 
title ``zombie campaigns.'' Oftentimes, they will misuse the unspent 
campaign funds. It is wrong for campaign accounts to live on forever, 
and we are going to address that abuse as well.
  This bill has important reforms that strengthen American democracy, 
root out corruption, and ensure that our government here in the United 
States of America works for the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), my good friend.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution for consideration 
of H.R. 1.
  H.R. 1 includes provisions that fall under the jurisdiction of the 
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, of which I am ranking 
member.
  Buried in the 600-page bill are requirements that would greatly 
expand

[[Page H2383]]

the role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, 
in election security. NIST is an important agency under our committee's 
jurisdiction. NIST also plays an important nonregulatory role, 
providing guidance to State and local governments to help ensure that 
election results are secure and accurate.
  Keeping our elections safe from cyberattacks and fraud is not a 
partisan priority. It is a priority for all of us.
  Unlike the more partisan parts of H.R. 1, I believe that if we had 
been given a chance on the committee, Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson 
and I would have been able to come to an agreement on bipartisan 
legislation to update NIST election security activities.

                              {time}  1245

  However, the Democratic leadership has rushed this legislation to the 
floor without giving our committee an opportunity to even hold a single 
hearing on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, all of the issues raised from 
NIST were ignored. The opportunity to have a hearing on this subject 
matter in the committee was ignored.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the 
underlying bill. We can do better.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and, 
of course, in support of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which would 
provide the most significant reform to our democratic system in 
decades.
  This landmark legislation represents the fulfillment of a promise to 
the American people to restore our democracy by expanding access to the 
ballot, reducing the corrupting influence of corporate money and 
political campaigns, and restoring ethics, integrity, and transparency 
to government.
  We live in a time in our Nation's history where Americans have a deep 
sense that government does not work for them, and they are right. That 
cynicism is caused by policies that respond to the voices of the rich 
and powerful while ignoring those of ordinary Americans and practices 
that seek to reduce and restrict participation in our electoral 
process.
  Americans are sick and tired of corruption and mismanagement here in 
Washington, and they elected us with the expectation that we will take 
real steps to clean up the mess and return power to the people of our 
great country.
  H.R. 1 provides us with the opportunity to do this by offering the 
most sweeping reforms to our democracy since Watergate, and it makes 
real strides in rooting out corruption, strengthening voting rights, 
and restoring government by and for the people.
  I want to particularly thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your extraordinary 
leadership in shaping this bill and drafting it and working with our 
colleagues all across the Caucus and producing this product.
  H.R. 1 includes the DISCLOSE Act, which I introduced to shine the 
light on unlimited corporate spending that has overrun our elections.
  Without fixing our broken campaign finance system and taking power 
from the powerful special interests and returning it to the people of 
this country, it will also be impossible to make progress on the other 
issues that are important to the American people.
  The DISCLOSE Act will require organizations that spend money on 
elections to promptly disclose donors who give $10,000 or more during 
the election cycle and prevent political operatives from actions meant 
to conceal the identity of donors.
  I have also introduced legislation which would require motor vehicle 
registries to automatically register all eligible citizens to vote when 
they obtain services from their motor vehicle registries.
  In 2006, at least 32.6 million eligible Americans were not registered 
to vote and, thus, unable to cast a ballot.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, making registration automatic will ensure 
that everyone who wishes to be added to the voter rolls will not have 
to think twice about it, and I am proud that H.R. 1 will implement 
automatic voter registration.
  For too long, Mr. Speaker, Washington has acted on behalf of wealthy 
and powerful special interests. Last Congress, Republicans passed 
legislation to take away healthcare from 23 million Americans, to give 
billions in tax cuts to billionaires, and to ease gun restrictions in 
the wake of the deadliest shooting in modern America. Americans 
responded by voting them out and entrusting us to clean up this culture 
of corruption. Let us repay that trust by passing this landmark 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the For the People Act, 
and I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is about what is called the For the People 
Act, but, to me, it should be called the ``For the Swamp Act.''
  Now, we are going to have plenty of time later to debate the 
particulars of the bill, but right now we are talking about the rule 
and what brings this to the floor.
  I just want to remind everybody that this bill was given jurisdiction 
in 10 committees--10 committees--but 1 committee marked it up; one 
committee took a look at it and said: Well, this is wrong. Let's fix 
this. Let's change that.
  One committee with nine people--2 percent of Congress--has been 
involved in this bill.
  Now, we understand we are in the minority here. We get that. We get 
that we are not going to get our way, but we are asking to have a say. 
That is all we are asking for here.
  This bill is about shutting down the open process and honest debate--
this rule resolution, which actually makes sense, because the 
underlying bill does the same thing for the American people.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee of Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1997, I stood on this floor and urged action to fix 
our broken campaign finance system. I spoke then about how newspapers 
were filled with daily stories detailing how unregulated campaign 
contributions were corrupting our political system and threatening the 
very essence of our democracy. That was my first year serving in this 
institution.

  I am sorry to say that this problem hasn't only persisted, it has 
gotten worse than many of us could have ever imagined.
  Who could have thought that the Supreme Court would issue a disaster 
ruling like Citizens United? that some would try to have us believe 
that corporations are people? that we would have a President in the 
White House who has taken the Republican culture of corruption to a 
whole new level?
  Now, I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. The news that once made the 
front page of the newspaper is now in front of us on our smartphones 
nonstop.
  We see over and over again how big money has infected our political 
process and prevented action on things that the American people care 
most about, how new roadblocks are being put in place to prevent some 
eligible Americans from casting their ballots, and how some have used 
their office to side with special interests over the public interest.
  This legislation is about finally fixing our broken democracy, 
including modernizing and securing our election system. We care so much 
about this that the For the People Act is literally our top priority. 
That is why it is H.R. 1.
  Now, my Republican friends are talking about process like it is 
something

[[Page H2384]]

to be ashamed of. Are they kidding? I mean, these are crocodile tears. 
When they were in charge at the last Congress, their priority, their 
H.R. 1, was a tax cut for the superrich. Ours is literally a bill for 
the people.
  And their H.R. 1, by the way, as you can see from this chart, had 
zero hearings. None. Our H.R. 1 had five.
  Our H.R. 1 had 15 hours of hearings. Do you know how many hours of 
hearings their H.R. 1 had? Zero, a big fat zero. No hearings at all.
  We had expert witnesses come to testify and give their input, pro and 
con. They had none when they did H.R. 1.
  Our bill, as we have a structured rule, we have made over 70 
amendments in order. When they had their H.R. 1 bill to help the 
superrich, do you know how many amendments they made in order? Zero. 
None. A big fat closed rule.
  The cost of our legislation to kind of cleanup our democracy is zero. 
Do you know how much theirs was? At least $1.5 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is how the legislative process is 
supposed to work. And imagine what we could achieve once we get special 
interests out of the way, whether it is lowering the cost of 
prescription drugs or strengthening our healthcare system or passing 
sensible gun safety legislation or protecting the Dreamers.
  This is about ensuring that our elections actually reflect the 
Constitution my friends on the other side of the aisle so often talk 
about. The Preamble does not begin with ``We, the corporations'' or 
``We, the special interests.'' It says, ``We, the People.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with the majority in 
supporting this rule and the underlying legislation so we can finally 
put our government back in the hands of the people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan), my good friend and distinguished Republican ranking 
member on the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
and thank him for his service on the important Rules Committee as our 
ranking member and for his service in Congress and on that particular 
committee.
  Much of this grab bag of Democratic party favors in this bill are 
entirely unrelated to each other. How, for example, does imposing 
unfunded Federal mandates on State administration of elections relate 
to mandating the President divest from business holdings?
  The House Administration Committee is the only committee to mark up 
this legislation. However, House Administration only marked up the 
portions of the bill that were in their jurisdiction.
  The amendment in the nature of the substitute was 447 pages; the 
Rules print was 622 pages.
  The Committee on Oversight and Reform had substantial jurisdiction 
over this legislation. We sent a letter to the chairman asking for a 
markup. We got a letter back from him saying we would do that after the 
vote on the bill. Now, how the heck does that work? How the heck does 
that work?
  So this needs to slow down. I think the underlying legislation is 
wrong for the country. The idea that every single taxpayer is now going 
to have to finance public campaigns, finance election campaigns--just 
what the voters wanted, just what they need. The very people who are in 
this swamp, you now have to pay for them to get reelected to stay in 
this swamp.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio an additional 
15 seconds.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we oppose the rule. If the rule 
does pass, I would certainly urge that we oppose the legislation as 
well.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Texas is ground zero for voter suppression. 
Texas Republicans enacted the most stringent voter ID law in the 
country. They slashed communities across our State through partisan 
gerrymandering. And now, this year, in what a Federal court has just 
described as a ``ham-handed move'' which ``exemplifies the power of 
government to strike fear and anxiety and to intimidate the least 
powerful among us,'' the Abbott administration has initiated a massive 
voter purge by making the false claim that tens of thousands of people 
have voted illegally in our State.
  Our State has a problem. It is not too many people voting illegally; 
it is too few people voting at all. The difference that you see in this 
debate is that we believe elections should be won for one party or the 
other based on turning out the voters, and too often, our Republican 
colleagues believe they are won by throwing out the voters.
  I believe that the important reform that we are considering today 
will replace these purges with the urge to have voters participate by 
removing the many obstacles that stand in their way.
  It makes the right to vote more than a paper guarantee. It makes it a 
reality by allowing people to know their own power, to shape our 
democracy, and hold every public official accountable. ``For the 
People'' means stopping the steady Trump erosion of our democracy by 
empowering the people to make their voices heard.
  I am so pleased that this legislation includes a provision that I 
authored to ensure that we seek the business tax returns, as well as 
the personal individual returns, of candidates for President.
  Now, this particular amendment is directed not specifically at Mr. 
Trump, but his conduct underscores why we must require it. He had his 
personal law firm review his tax returns, and they awarded him an all-
clear from any Russian connection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, they noted that he was the sole or 
principal owner of 500 separate business entities that stretched from 
Azerbaijan to Miami, and they gave him an all-clear, upon which he 
asked us to rely without noting that the same firm had proudly boasted 
that it was ``the Russia law firm of the year.''
  Some of us believe we need a little more credible source to review 
his conduct. But not just review his conduct, that of anyone, for 
either party, who aspires to be the most powerful person in the entire 
world.
  Even President Nixon invited the Joint Committee on Taxation to 
review his tax returns, explaining that the people have got to know 
whether their President is a crook--something very relevant to our 
times. Candidates who cannot meet the very low Richard Nixon standard 
have no right to our highest office.
  If left untouchable and unreachable, without exposure to sunlight, we 
will find business tax returns hide the darkest secrets. It is good 
that we have a strong act demanding disclosure of those returns.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Burgess), my good friend, fellow member of the Rules Committee, 
and classmate.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 years ago, President Trump stood on the 
west front of this Capitol and pledged to dedicate his administration 
to taking care of the forgotten men and women of this country. This 
bill does not take seriously the plight of those forgotten men and 
women. It does take seriously the plight of protecting Democratic 
incumbents and candidates.
  This bill can't become law. It is never going to pass in the Senate. 
It is never going to be signed by the President. But it is important to 
talk about it because it reveals the agenda of the Democratic majority 
here in the House of Representatives.
  This bill, things like the Green New Deal, things like a massive 
single-payer healthcare system, and it is pretty clear that Democrats 
don't care about the economy. They don't care about the middle class. 
Every election I have been in, people talk about rebuilding the middle 
class.
  My gosh, Donald Trump has rebuilt the middle class, but you don't 
care

[[Page H2385]]

about that. You don't care about jobs. You don't care about what people 
earn in those jobs, otherwise you wouldn't be opening the borders the 
way you are. You care about your own power. You care about maintaining 
your own power. It is our job to notify and magnify what is going on 
with the Democratic leadership of this House of Representatives. That 
is why I am speaking out about it today.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me the time.
  Our friends across the aisle are nothing if not courageous. They have 
got the brazen temerity to raise the question of process after running 
the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of 
America; the most closed House of Representatives that anyone has ever 
seen.
  Let's compare their H.R. 1 when they got started with our H.R. 1. 
Well, their's was filed, marked up, and passed in 2 weeks with no 
hearings, no amendments made in order, and no expert testimony at all.
  Our H.R. 1 was filed on the first day of the new Congress for all of 
the public to read. There have been hearings in five different 
committees with over 15 hours of expert testimony, culminating in a 
full committee markup in House Administration. Sixty days later, we are 
now on the floor for consideration in an open and transparent way.
  You would think they would have the decency not to raise the question 
of process after running the House of Representatives like King Kong 
over the last 2 years. But the people who ran it like King Kong now 
want to turn it into a Quaker meeting house somehow. They should be 
thanking us for the openness of our proceedings.
  Their H.R. 1 blew a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit, a staggering 
and unprecedented assault on the fiscal integrity of the United States 
of America, to shower tax cuts on the wealthy and well-connected.
  Our H.R. 1 is an effort to reclaim our democracy from the wealthy and 
well-connected people who were the beneficiaries of their H.R. 1 by 
creating a 21st century campaign finance system that responds to the 
people.
  On the substance of the matter, it is amazing to me that my 
colleagues raise the question of the swamp. They got elected 2.5 years 
ago campaigning against the swamp. It was a great slogan they borrowed 
from Nancy Pelosi. They moved to Washington. They moved into the swamp. 
They built a hotel on it, and they have turned the Government of the 
United States into a money-making operation for the President, and the 
President's family, and the President's friends and business 
associates.
  Now, what are we doing in H.R. 1? We are trying to reclaim American 
democracy. This legislation is anti-gerrymandering legislation. This 
legislation says that every State in the Union will have to have an 
independent redistricting commission. No politicians involved.
  They want the politicians to be involved. Amazingly, they embrace the 
title of being the gerrymander party. They want to keep gerrymandering 
because that is how they maintain their stranglehold on political 
power.
  The whole purpose of H.R. 1 is to liberate us from the gerrymandering 
of our elections. That is why we start with independent redistricting 
commissions. We move to publicly financed elections, because either the 
big, wealthy, special interests are going to own the elections, or else 
the people are going to own them through a small, donor-leveraged 
system. And that is what we are doing. We have got ethics reform in 
this legislation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I encourage, everyone to actually read the 
terms of this landmark reform legislation, which insists upon ethics 
reform at the Supreme Court, ethics reform in the executive branch, 
empowering the Office of Government Ethics to have real subpoena power, 
and to actually be able to ferret out the corruption which is engulfing 
the Trump administration today, and to prevent corruption in the 
future.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my friend and the ranking 
Republican Member on the House Administration Committee.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here and 
follow my colleague on the House Administration Committee, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Obviously, as you will hear over the next 1 minute and 50 seconds, we 
disagree. This bill was rushed. This bill does not live up to the 
promises that the Democratic majority said they were going to do when 
they ran the House and how open, how bipartisan, and how transparent 
they were supposed to be.
  H.R. 1 means this is the Democrat majority's priority. This bill was 
introduced on January 3, and at a press conference introducing this 
bill, many different outside, special interest groups were noted for 
having helped craft this piece of legislation.
  It was 571 pages. It has turned into 622 pages. It has turned into 72 
amendments that were ruled in order.
  Now, let's take a step back. Ten committees of this House had 
jurisdiction within this bill. One committee, the smallest committee in 
the House of Representatives, the House Administration Committee is the 
only one to mark this bill up.
  That is not regular order. That is not an open process. And, frankly, 
it is a process that the American people should demand be much 
different.
  We Republicans were not consulted during the drafting of this piece 
of legislation. We Republicans during the only markup that lasted 5 
hours, offered 28 amendments that would have made this bill better, and 
not a single one was passed. All failed on a party-line vote.
  That is not bipartisanship. That is not openness. That is not a 
process that is inclusive, and, frankly, the American people should be 
very petrified what this bill will do. It is not a bill that responds 
to people, as my colleague, Mr. Raskin, just mentioned. This is a bill 
that is going to cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars, 
creating a mandatory program that is going to line the campaign coffers 
of every single Member of Congress with government money.
  That is not what the American taxpayers are wanting. That is not what 
this institution should be doing. We want every single person in this 
country to be able to cast their vote and make sure that they have the 
right to do it, the ability to do it, and to ensure that that vote is 
protected. This bill does nothing to make sure that happens.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am confused when I listen to the 
gentleman from Illinois when he complains about process. He complains 
that we have over 70 amendments in order, as if that were a bad thing.
  We think that is a good thing. And when they did their H.R. 1, which 
was a big, fat giveaway to big corporate special interests in this 
country, they had no amendments. They had no hearings in any 
committees.
  The House Administration Committee happens to be the main committee 
of jurisdiction, and they did a hearing and a markup. So did the other 
committees. They all did hearings. I don't understand what the problem 
is.
  The problem is, you don't like this bill because it undercuts your 
stranglehold on the political system where all of the big money, 
corporate special interests can basically get their way with the 
Republican majority. Enough.
  People, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, 
have had enough of this corrupt political system that my Republican 
friends have embraced. We are sick of it. They are sick of it. We are 
going to change it and it begins here today with passing H.R. 1.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle: stand 
with us, clean up our political system and support H.R. 1.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules 
Committee.

[[Page H2386]]

  

  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Cole, the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time to speak on 
this most important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I tell those of you who are here today and throughout 
America, this is a terrible bill. I have to tell you, the more that I 
read about it, the more that I study about it, the worse I think that 
it is.
  First of all, it is a total overreach of the Federal Government into 
States' rights. In this bill, the majority didn't even consult with the 
secretaries of States and the election officials throughout the entire 
country to see if they even liked it. And so you are mandating to the 
States how they should run their elections.
  Not only that, it is mandating to the States how they should run 
redistricting. Now, in the State of Arizona, the voters of Arizona set 
up a redistricting commission and determined how it should be run. But 
in this bill it says, no, no, it shouldn't be up to the State. It 
shouldn't be up to the voters. We know better here in Washington, D.C. 
how to do your business.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that it subsidizes 
politicians with public money, a 6-to-1 matching ratio giving millions, 
billions more dollars to candidates. My constituents don't want to see 
any more of those TV commercials at all; no more signs; no more 
robocalls. This bill would add more money to those nasty things.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the distinguished Republican ranking member on 
the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican leader on the Rules 
Committee for yielding.
  It is unfortunate we are here today to debate a bill like this. This 
bill is nothing more than a partisan power grab. That is the sum and 
substance of what has been offered here as H.R. 1.
  This is about the priorities of Democrats in the House, and the 
priorities of Democrats in the House is to change our election laws in 
such a way as to benefit their party and hurt the American voters and 
their will at the ballot box. That is the deep problem here with H.R. 
1.
  This is a partisan power grab by one party to seize power by 
manipulating our laws to get an outcome counter to the will of the 
people.
  It is not about fairness. It is just the opposite. This is a problem, 
the process that the Democrats went through, the majority went through 
for this bill. We had one markup in one committee even though we had 
multiple committees, including the House Financial Services Committee. 
That is how big this bill is. It had multiple committees of 
jurisdiction that were supposed to have markups on this, and they did 
not go through that full process.
  This bill, at the end of the day, seeks to limit free speech. It uses 
taxpayer dollars to fund partisan campaign efforts, and mandates 
outcomes designed to get more Democrats into power.
  This is not about fairness. It is just the opposite. Let's vote 
against this rule, and let's vote down this bad bill.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I am hearing from my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Against higher ethics in Congress, they are, what, accepting any kind 
of corruption in this institution and what corrupts our democracy? You 
are for gerrymandering? You want dark money to continue?
  This is absurd. This is about strengthening our democracy. This 
should have 435 votes. I am so proud that two of my bills have been 
incorporated into H.R. 1; one is that we have a national holiday for 
our national elections. People shouldn't have to choose between their 
job or their families. They should be able to go and vote.

                              {time}  1315

  Presidents and all Presidential candidates should be mandated to put 
out 10 years of their tax returns so that the American people can vet 
them in their own minds to see if they are worthy of the highest office 
in the land.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to add a provision that bars candidates from 
receiving matching funds under this bill unless that candidate 
certifies that no tax lien exists on any property owned by that 
candidate by reason of a failure of the candidate to pay any Federal, 
State, or local tax.
  Mr. Speaker, the logic of this is simple. If the majority is going to 
insist that millions--really, billions--of Federal tax dollars should 
be spent subsidizing campaigns, then the candidates should also certify 
that they have paid all the taxes due from them. If a candidate has a 
tax lien against them, then they should not receive taxpayer dollars to 
subsidize their campaign. This is common sense and simple fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from 
Oklahoma has any more speakers.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying 
measure. The majority has brought up a misnamed bill that instead 
serves only to preserve its own power. H.R. 1 will create a taxpayer-
funded ATM to waste Federal dollars on political campaigns.
  Let me say that again: to waste Federal dollars on campaigns.
  My friends are worried about the power of money, but they are 
injecting billions of new taxpayer dollars into this. And not only 
that, the taxpayer has no say in where those dollars go. They don't get 
to pick a candidate or whatever. We are just going to willy-nilly have 
their dollars support candidates whom they may or may not agree with.
  This does not only apply to Democrats and Republicans. There are 
fringe candidates who will get funding under this, too, candidates, 
quite frankly, who will probably embarrass my friends and ourselves.
  So I think this is an enormously misguided idea. It will take over 
elections and voter registration from States and transfer power to 
Washington.
  Let me say that again. My friends are voting to literally turn over 
the State election operations of 50 separate States and federalize 
them. They haven't talked to very many secretaries of state. I think 
there was only one who actually was allowed to testify in opposition to 
this bill.
  Instead, we are going to foist off billions of dollars in unpaid 
mandates on every State in the country so my friends can continue this 
misguided effort to alter the political landscape of the greatest 
Republic and democracy in the world.
  This bill will weaken voting systems and weaken the enforcement 
mechanism that guards against fraud, and it will undermine Americans' 
fundamental First Amendment rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my friends on the other side to 
reconsider their course of action. This bill is not going to be heard 
by the Senate; it will never be signed by the President of the United 
States; and instead of building a bipartisan coalition for election and 
campaign reform, it will partisanize this process further.
  There was and still is an opportunity to have this bill considered in 
markups across every committee of jurisdiction. Instead, the majority 
is simply ramming it through, using a committee where they hold a 2-to-
1 majority and limiting, frankly, the ability of Members to participate 
in the process of writing the bill.

[[Page H2387]]

  We can do better than this, Mr. Speaker, and we should strive to do 
better than this now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the reforms in H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will 
remove barriers to our democracy that drown out the voices of too many 
Americans.
  H.R. 1 will put the people back in charge. These reforms will bring 
about systemic change which, in turn, will lead to policy outcomes that 
improve the lives of all Americans.
  From lowering the cost of prescription drugs to rebuilding our 
Nation's infrastructure to raising wages and creating better job 
opportunities, each of these policies requires the voice of the people 
to be fully heard and respected. They all rest on fixing our broken 
democracy.
  We have heard the call for change from our friends, neighbors, and 
constituents. That is how I got here and how so many of my colleagues 
did, too.
  To those people who voted for such historic change, know that 
Democrats hear you, and we are ready to give you the government you 
deserve.
  Crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma last weekend was a 
poignant reminder that change does not come quickly, and it certainly 
does not come easily. Heroes like Representative   John Lewis remind us 
of the sacrifices that were made in order to preserve our uniquely 
American creed: ``of the people, by the people, for the people.''
  H.R. 1 is the top priority of Democrats because it will strengthen 
the very core of our democracy. It is a mandate with which we were 
entrusted by voters this past November, and it is the first step in 
restoring faith in our institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to support this rule to 
show that you want big money out of politics. Support this bill to show 
that you believe voting should be made easier--not harder--for eligible 
voters, and support this rule to show that you believe those elected to 
public positions deserve to be held to the highest possible ethical 
standards.
  In the words of our esteemed colleague, Representative Lewis: ``The 
fight to vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful 
nonviolent tool or instrument that we have in a democratic society.''
  To the American people: We hear you. In the words of the civil rights 
anthem, we must keep our eyes on the prize and hold on to the vision of 
a more perfect Union, one in which the voices of the people are heard 
and respected. Our Caucus is eager to restore the promise of our 
democracy and give you the government you deserve. That is why we are 
urging passage of H.R. 1--``For the People.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 7 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Cole of Oklahoma or a 
     designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       Sec. 7. The amendment referred to in section 6 is as 
     follows:
       Page 421, insert after line 11 the following:
       ``(5) The candidate certifies that no lien exists on any 
     property of the candidate by reason of a failure of the 
     candidate to pay any Federal, State, or local tax.''.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of House Resolution 172, if ordered; and
  Approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 191, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               YEAS--232

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz

[[Page H2388]]


     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Byrne
     Carter (TX)
     Clark (MA)
     Griffith
     Horsford
     Rutherford
     Spano
     Walden

                              {time}  1351

  Mr. KINZINGER, Mrs. HARTZLER, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. CRAWFORD changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 106.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 192, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               YEAS--232

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Byrne
     Carter (TX)
     Clark (MA)
     Rutherford
     Spano
     Trone
     Walden


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at memorial services 
following the untimely passing of Dennis Richardson, Oregon's 26th 
Secretary of State, I was in Oregon and missed votes. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 106 and ``nay'' on 
rollcall No. 107.

                          ____________________