Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 41 (Thursday, March 7, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 41 (Thursday, March 7, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2555-H2571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 172 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1.
Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 1735

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. Peters (Acting Chair)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 49 printed in part B of House Report 116-16 offered by
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown) had been disposed of.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
116-16 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 24 by Ms. Pressley of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Green of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
Amendment No. 33 by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote in this series.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Raskin

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Raskin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 215, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 109]

AYES--219

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cummings
Cunningham
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)
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)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--215

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Casten (IL)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
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)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
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
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Torres Small (NM)
Trone
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--3

Clay
Rogers (AL)
San Nicolas

{time} 1742

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cole

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[[Page H2556]]

[Roll No. 110]

AYES--199

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
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
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)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
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
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--235

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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
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
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
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

NOT VOTING--3

Clay
Rogers (AL)
San Nicolas

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1747

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Pressley

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 305, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 111]

AYES--126

Adams
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Burgess
Carbajal
Carson (IN)
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Correa
Crist
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
DeFazio
DelBene
Delgado
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Doggett
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Gonzalez (TX)
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Hastings
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Malinowski
Maloney, Sean
McGovern
Meng
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Neal
Neguse
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Payne
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Pressley
Price (NC)
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tonko
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Yarmuth

NOES--305

Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bera
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Chabot
Cheney
Cisneros
Cleaver
Cline
Cloud
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeGette
DeLauro
Demings
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Harris
Hartzler
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Jeffries
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger

[[Page H2557]]

Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lesko
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luria
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Morelle
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Newhouse
Norcross
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Posey
Quigley
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trone
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

Himes
Porter

NOT VOTING--4

Clay
Gomez
Rogers (AL)
San Nicolas

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1754

Mmes. PLASKETT, SPEIER, WATERS, and Mr. CICILLINE changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote Number 111 on H.R.
1, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted
``no'' on amendment No. 24 from Ms. Pressley.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Green of Tennessee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Green) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 112]

AYES--200

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
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
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)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
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
Peters
Peterson
Posey
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--233

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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
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
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
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
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

NOT VOTING--4

Clay
Rogers (AL)
San Nicolas
Watkins

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1759

Mr. MARSHALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H2558]]

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 113]

AYES--194

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
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
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
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)
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
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--238

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
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
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gohmert
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
Katko
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
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
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

NOT VOTING--5

Clay
O'Halleran
Omar
Rogers (AL)
San Nicolas

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1804

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 114]

AYES--195

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
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
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
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--237

[[Page H2559]]

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
Fitzpatrick
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
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
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

NOT VOTING--5

Clay
Cole
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
San Nicolas

{time} 1809

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Brindisi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 184, insert after line 2 the following:

SEC. 1908. LIMITING VARIATIONS ON NUMBER OF HOURS OF
OPERATION FOR POLLING PLACES WITHIN A STATE.

(a) Limiting Variations.--Subtitle A of title III of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.), as
amended by section 1031(a), section 1101(a), section 1611(a),
and section 1621(a), is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 308 and 309 as sections 309
and 310; and
(2) by inserting after section 307 the following new
section:

``SEC. 308. LIMITING VARIATIONS ON NUMBER OF HOURS OF
OPERATION OF POLLING PLACES WITH A STATE.

``(a) Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
subsection (b), each State shall establish hours of operation
for all polling places in the State on the date of any
election for Federal office held in the State such that the
polling place with the greatest number of hours of operation
on such date is not in operation for more than 2 hours longer
than the polling place with the fewest number of hours of
operation on such date.
``(2) Permitting variance on basis of population.--
Paragraph (1) does not apply to the extent that the State
establishes variations in the hours of operation of polling
places on the basis of the overall population or the voting
age population (as the State may select) of the unit of local
government in which such polling places are located.
``(b) Exceptions for Polling Places With Hours Established
by Units of Local Government.--Subsection (a) does not apply
in the case of a polling place--
``(1) whose hours of operation are established, in
accordance with State law, by the unit of local government in
which the polling place is located; or
``(2) which is required pursuant to an order by a court to
extend its hours of operation beyond the hours otherwise
established.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act,
as amended by section 1031(c), section 1101(d), section
1611(c), and section 1621(c), is amended--
(1) by redesignating the items relating to sections 308 and
309 as relating to sections 309 and 310; and
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 307 the
following new item:

``Sec. 308. Limiting variations on number of hours of operation of
polling places with a State.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Brindisi) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from
Maryland for his work on this important topic, and I also want to thank
him for his willingness to work with Members of this body to address
our concerns regarding the finance of this bill.
Thanks to the changes that I supported and pushed for, we have
ensured that no taxpayer dollars will go towards financing political
campaigns. It is a testament to what we can accomplish when we work
together and compromise.
This bill has many important provisions which will make it easier for
working families to have their voices heard. My amendment would extend
these wins to the people of upstate New York who have been treated
unfairly for years by arbitrary restrictions on polling hours.
In New York State, voters in New York City and neighboring downstate
counties have 6 more hours to vote in Federal primary elections
compared to voters in my district. A voter in New York City can vote on
their way to work when the polls open at 6 a.m. A voter in Binghamton,
on the other hand, can't vote in that very same election until their
polls open at noon.
My amendment would fix this situation and institute some basic rules
to prevent States from reducing polling hours for people based solely
on where they live. This is an important step to ensure that all voters
across the State are treated fairly.
I urge adoption of my amendment, and I again thank the gentleman from
Maryland for his leadership on this bill, and I urge our colleagues to
pass the underlying legislation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, as we look at H.R. 1, at least the
limited amount of time that we have had to actually consider H.R. 1 as
it has been rushed through the committee process and it has been rushed
to the House floor--it grew from 571 pages when we had the opportunity
to briefly review it on one day for 5 hours when it was before the
House Administration Committee. It has significantly grown since then
before it even came to the floor.
But as those who do take a look at it realize, yes, there may be some
good ideas in H.R. 1. And what is interesting, those good ideas that
are in H.R. 1 are things that are already in States. They are ideas
that States have implemented.
This amendment, when you look at it, it sounds like a good idea.
Well, let's put all of the polling places on the same timeframe.
I submit to my good colleague from New York, if there is an issue in
New York, then the gentleman ought to lobby his State legislature to
make that change because the Constitution gives that power to the State
legislatures.
Mr. Chairman, as I was coming to Washington again this week, I left
my home early on Tuesday morning, and I went to the State capitol in
Georgia where I had the opportunity to address both the statehouse and
the State legislature, which I served in both of those bodies.
What was amazing, as I talked about this bill, there was bipartisan
opposition to this bill. Why? Because this bill strips away the
authority of States to actually set their own laws regarding elections.
Some may think it is a good idea to centralize that power here in
Washington, D.C., but the problem is the landscape of America is
diverse. The geography of America is diverse, and the States are more
well-suited to actually meet the constituencies' needs of that State.
Some would say that the Federal Government is more powerful; we can
actually enforce this across the board.

[[Page H2560]]

Well, the one-size-fits-all doesn't work, and besides that, we don't do
very much very efficiently.
As I was looking at the State legislature, there is one thing that I
know: Their session in Georgia is going to end in a few days, and by
the end of that session, they will have passed a budget and
appropriations to fund the State of Georgia for the next year, and it
will balance.
Mr. Chairman, do you know the last time that we did that by our
deadline? Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. We can't even pass
our own appropriations here. We are not even following our own laws,
but we want to take on more laws and force the States to follow what we
think is a good idea?
Early voting, we established that in Georgia years ago, and it has
worked well, and we have worked to perfect that.
Mr. Chairman, while this amendment may sound good and it may be well-
needed in New York, I would submit to my colleague that this is
something that the New York Legislature should take up. This is not
something that should be under the purview of Congress.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I again urge adoption of my amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, again, I love this country. I love what
this country has stood for. I love the idea of our Founding Fathers,
who made this Nation the greatest Nation in the history of the entire
world. It is unique because our Founders understood that a government
that is closest to the people is the most effective and the most
efficient. This bill will undo 220-plus years of States setting their
own voting requirements, running their own voter laws.
As I have stated, there is little that we do efficiently here, and we
have already uncovered that there are a lot of unintended consequences
in this bill. If the States make mistakes, they are much faster, much
quicker, and more responsive to correct those mistakes than we would be
here.
I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and vote
against the underlying measure.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Brindisi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Case

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 453, line 16, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 453, line 19, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 493, insert after line 8 the following new subtitle
(and redesignate the succeeding subtitle accordingly):

Subtitle E--Empowering Small Dollar Donations

SEC. 5401. PERMITTING POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE
ENHANCED SUPPORT FOR CANDIDATES THROUGH USE OF
SEPARATE SMALL DOLLAR ACCOUNTS.

(a) Increase in Limit on Contributions to Candidates.--
Section 315(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking
``exceed $5,000'' and inserting ``exceed $5,000 or, in the
case of a contribution made by a national committee of a
political party from an account described in paragraph (11),
exceed $10,000''.
(b) Elimination of Limit on Coordinated Expenditures.--
Section 315(d)(5) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(5)) is
amended by striking ``subsection (a)(9)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(9) or subsection (a)(11)''.
(c) Accounts Described.--Section 315(a) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 30116(a)), as amended by section 5112(a), is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) An account described in this paragraph is a
separate, segregated account of a national committee of a
political party (including a national congressional campaign
committee of a political party) consisting exclusively of
contributions made during a calendar year by individuals
whose aggregate contributions to the committee during the
year do not exceed $200.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections held on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Case) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in favor of my proposed
amendment.
This amendment will empower small dollar donors to participate in our
elections process and focus the attention of candidates and political
parties on earning financial support from a broader base of voters.
All across our political spectrum, we decry the historically low
esteem in which Congress is now held, as well as the utter absence of
many, if not most, of our fellow citizens from their government, as if
the two were unrelated. For, of course, low esteem breeds absence, and
absence breeds low esteem. Most Americans simply feel left out, without
a voice, unvested, unwanted, and, thus, the downward cycle.
Nor is this just about low esteem and absence. For the vast majority
of Americans are not vested in our government, and if our government is
only supported and is only representative of the very few, mostly
moneyed and influential, interests of our country, then that does not
lead to representative decisions and erodes the consent of the
governed, the political and social consensus on which our democracy is
based.
As just one manifestation of this dangerous and worsening syndrome,
the Center for Responsive Politics reviewed 2018 election-cycle
contributions and found that, still again: ``Only a tiny fraction of
Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates,
parties, or PACs. The ones who give contributions large enough to be
itemized, over $200, is even smaller. The impact of these donations,
however, is huge.''
In fact, according to the center, while less than a half percent of
the population contributed $200 or more, their contributions totaled 71
percent of all individual contributions in 2018 to candidates, PACs,
parties, and outside groups.
The clear corollary is that the vast majority of Americans do not
participate in our elections with their financial support and that, of
those who do contribute, their voices are drowned out in a sea of
larger contributions from a precariously narrow interest base.
This is why leading reform groups such as Issue One and its ReFormers
Caucus, a fully bipartisan group of now over 200 former Members of
Congress, Governors, and Cabinet members committed to nonpartisan
solutions to fixing our broken system, cites increased and broadened
voter participation in the election process through means such as
amplifying the voices of small donors as key to returning our
government to the people.
My amendment would take one small but meaningful step in that
direction by authorizing national political party committees of any
party to contribute up to $10,000 to a candidate, twice the amount
currently authorized, if the amount consists solely of individual
contributions of less than $200, and by making corresponding changes in
the limit on coordinated expenses.
By permitting such committees to provide enhanced support to their
candidates through use of separate, small dollar amounts, this change
would incentivize greater attention by committees of all parties to
small dollar donors, greater participation by such donors in the
political process, and representation of a broader and more
representative America by those elected.
I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend, one of our
newest Members, and a great guy.

[[Page H2561]]

Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1.
The people have a right to know what this bill truly is: a Big
Government, central command takeover of our elections by the new House
majority. This bill should be called the Democratic Politician
Protection Act.
This legislation is virtually a complete takeover by the Federal
Government of State and local voting jurisdictions. It imposes new
mandates, including more than 2 weeks of mandatory early voting and
same-day registration, and diminishes the process of election day
voting by expanding absentee voting and allowing both current and newly
registered voters to cast their ballot by mail, with no additional
safeguards to that process.
The bill also allows felons to vote, violating our Constitution by
usurping the 14th Amendment ability of States to determine whether
felons may vote or not.
An example of its impracticality can be seen in Lenhartsville
Borough, Berks County, in my district, a small borough with a polling
place that averages 60 voters each election. This bill would mandate
that Lenhartsville open and operate a polling place for 15 days of
early voting. That is absurd.
Astonishingly, this bill also includes a 6-to-1 match of public funds
to the campaign of a candidate that individual taxpayers may not even
support on contributions up to $200. That is a possible $1,200 match of
public funds going to fund political campaigns for each contribution.

{time} 1830

This legislation is not for the people. It is for partisan power.
H.R. 1 isn't just terrible policy, it is an attempt to rewrite the
rules of the political process itself and change the rules to favor one
side.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I hope they will
stand with me in defending the Constitution and the sanctity of our
elections. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, but I did not
detect in his comments any objection to the amendment, and I hope that
that means that he would agree that a much broader and more
representative group of Americans should, in fact, be incentivized to
participate in the political process.
I hope he would agree that one of the basic problems we have in this
country today is the disincentivizement and the disenfranchizement of
too many people who just simply don't feel a heart and zone of
participation. I hope he would agree that this amendment, at least, is
one way to accomplish that.
Speaking also to the broader purpose, he made reference to the fact
that this was a partisan bill, and I would refer him to Issue One,
which I referenced in my comments, and to the ReFormers Caucus, which
is about 100 each, Republicans and Democrats, Members that he would
recognize, leaders of both parties, now retired, who have looked back
on their service in this Congress and have concluded that many of the
provisions in this bill are the right way to go, not just this
amendment, but many, many of those provisions, and I hope he would
reference those leaders of the party for guidance going forward with
respect to the intent of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for participating in the process,
and I would like to ask the gentleman a question about the amendment.
I know you have been here before. We haven't had the chance to really
meet, but congratulations. I look forward to working with you.
Is this just raising the limit that political parties can give from
$5,000 to $10,000?
Mr. CASE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. CASE. No, that is not correct. It provides that if contributions
are received from donors of $200 or less, those may effectively be
pooled into a segregated account by either political party and then
contributed to candidates in an amount over and above the amount
allowed for contributions of over $200. So, therefore, you will see
that that would incentivize both parties to start to think a little
more seriously about getting contributions from donors at less than
$200.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
the clarification. I appreciate that.
I am still opposed to the amendment because, unfortunately, these
incentivization programs that are code word incentivized are part of
H.R. 1, and instead I think they are going to be gamed by many of the
same people who are gaming the system right now.
Many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle said they
want to get money out of politics, and we are talking about putting
more in. The amendment here is just a small part of a big problem of
what this bill is about.
Mr. Meuser talked about how bad this bill is going to be about
getting money back into politics. If the goal is to take money out of
politics, then H.R. 1 clearly is not the answer. This amendment, while
great intentions to my colleague from Hawaii trying to do what we can,
I would love to sit down with the gentleman in a bipartisan way to talk
about how we can make campaign finance reforms work.
But the clear fact is we have been shown zero consideration as
Republicans over here to try and work out solutions in this bill. We
weren't asked to even be considered to help write provisions in this
bill. No one was even called, none of us, no one on our side. As a
matter of fact, I guess we didn't know the special interest groups who
helped write this bill and who were touted in the press conference when
this bill was announced.
We got zero Republican amendments passed during our markup in only
one committee, which left 40 percent of the bill out from being marked
up. That is not the regular order that the Democrats promised when you
took the majority. That is what we get.
Today, the olive branch has been extended numerous times. I have
accepted Democrat amendments, and do you know what? Not a single
Republican amendment has passed, even one during the last round of
votes that all it did was give a sense of Congress that we like free
speech.
Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. You couldn't even accept
that amendment? How partisan can this new Democrat majority be?
This is why this bill is terrible. It is the biggest terrible bill I
have ever seen in my time here in Congress.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, to my colleague, I accept the
gentleman's offer to work in a bipartisan way to fix some of these
major problems. I look forward to it, number one.
Number two, the gentleman referenced that special interest groups had
drafted this amendment. If there is a special interest group, it is the
ReFormers Caucus, on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASE. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Real quick, I was not referring to the
amendment. It was the bill itself.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 57 Offered by Ms. Houlahan

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 136, line 1, strike ``4 hours'' and insert ``10
hours''.
Page 136, line 3, strike ``4 hours'' and insert ``10
hours''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I was sent to Congress by the Sixth District of
Pennsylvania

[[Page H2562]]

to fix the broken culture in Washington. H.R. 1 will help to reduce the
role of money in politics and address the culture of corruption in
Congress. I rise today to support my amendment, No. 57.
This bill also takes key steps to expand voting access to eligible
voters. Currently, my constituents in Pennsylvania have no access to
early voting and have severe absentee restrictions on voting by mail.
This bill will introduce early voting and vote by mail to all 50
States, which will greatly help working families who may have trouble
voting around their working schedules on election day.
I am introducing an amendment to further expand this early voting
provision to mandate at least 10 hours of early voting each day for the
final 15 days before election.
Expanding access to early voting, especially in Pennsylvania, is a
key component to bringing the government back to the people by helping
people with inflexible hours or people who work shift work to exercise
their right to vote. This ensures that their voice is heard and that
they are represented in our government.
This week, with H.R. 1, we are taking a big step to returning us to
government of, by, and for the people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is great to have you in the chair again tonight.
I rise to oppose this amendment; although, again, I want to
compliment my new colleague, Ms. Houlahan, for coming down here and
being a participant in the legislative process. It has been great to
get to know the gentlewoman and work with her, and I look forward to
working together on a bipartisan basis as we move forward during this
term.
I have got to oppose this amendment because I have opposed others
that are just like it.
We want every American to be able to cast their vote, to be
registered to vote, and to be able to have their vote counted and their
vote protected. My issue is with a top-down approach from the Federal
Government versus the State and local governments. This amendment,
though well-intentioned, just, again, infringes on our State and local
officials' ability to determine how best to run their elections.
Additionally, this mandate increases the cost of all election
offices, as it is tasked to recruit, train, and deploy additional poll
workers, where we already know we have a shortage.
I would love to work with my colleague, Ms. Houlahan, moving forward
to address many issues involving election reform. Unfortunately, I just
don't think H.R. 1 is the answer, and I don't think it is going to be
passed into law, so there are going to be opportunities for us to work
together. Again, my bipartisan olive branch is reaching out, once
again, to the gentlewoman's side, and I certainly hope we can do so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the bipartisan
spirit and the olive branch that the gentleman has reached out to me.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for
yielding her time, and I want to commend her on this amendment.
I want to respond to this idea of this kind of top-down
federalization of our voting. That is not what is happening here. The
States are going to continue to have the authority to put together how
elections operate. What we are doing is we are collecting best
practices and then making a policy decision at the Federal level that
those best practices ought to extend across the country.
If you think about it, Mr. Chairman, that is our role as Federal
legislators. Our purpose here is to gather up wisdom from all parts of
the country, figure out what things work and what things don't work,
and if it rises to a level of being a good policy suggestion, then
putting that into legislation. That is what we are doing, and that is
what this particular change would do, and it would make it much easier
for people to access the ballot box.
So, again, I want to thank Congresswoman Houlahan for this amendment,
and I support it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the author of this bill.
He and I have had some spirited discussions over the last day and a
half, but I appreciate his willingness to want to address issues. I
just don't think this bill is the answer.
To respond to the author of the bill, there is a big difference
between offering best practices to our State and local officials about
how best to run their elections, there is a big difference between best
practices and suggestions versus mandates, and that is clearly what
H.R. 1 is. It is going to be a mandate.
It is so nebulous. We get answers one day that change the next. There
is zero bipartisanship. We haven't been included. All of a sudden, we
get a new shell game: Move over; we are going to fund it by doing this
and put corporate money now into congressional campaigns, which is
illegal now, but I guess it is a solution for getting money out of
politics to the majority.
I don't understand this. This has got to be one of the most
discombobulated processes that I have ever been a part of. I can't help
myself to think there is no way that every Democrat who cosponsored
this bill on day one thinking they were going to talk about election
reform had any idea of so many of the terrible, terrible provisions for
taxpayers that are in this bill.

Again, Mr. Chairman, if you vote for this bill, you are putting
corporate cash into congressional campaigns. There is no way the
billions upon billions of promises that are made to congressional
candidates and incumbents are going to be able to be fulfilled with
this new, nebulous corporate malfeasance fund that we haven't even had
scored by the CBO.
Billions of dollars of taxpayer money are going to fund a revamp of
how public money goes into congressional campaigns. This is the worst
of the worst of the worst of what the D.C. swamp is all about.
I am going to lightly oppose this amendment because I really respect
Ms. Houlahan and her efforts. I just have a big problem with the bill,
as I think you can tell.
Mr. Chairman, I will give Ms. Houlahan, likely, the last word. I
reserve my right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge the adoption of my
amendment and also the adoption of H.R. 1 so that we can once again
restore the faith of the people and focus on the working Americans of
today.
Mr. Chairman, if you do a shift or even if you have a 9 to 5 job, it
is very, very hard to get to the polls, particularly in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to support of my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I think every American
who is eligible to vote deserves to have the right to vote, to have
their vote counted, and to have their vote be protected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1845

Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Phillips

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 514, insert after line 17 the following new section
(and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):

SECTION 6008. CLARIFYING AUTHORITY OF FEC ATTORNEYS TO
REPRESENT FEC IN SUPREME COURT.

(a) Clarifying Authority.--Section 306(f)(4) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30106(f)(4)) is
amended

[[Page H2563]]

by striking ``any action instituted under this Act, either
(A) by attorneys'' and inserting ``any action instituted
under this Act, including an action before the Supreme Court
of the United States, either (A) by the General Counsel of
the Commission and other attorneys''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to actions instituted before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Phillips) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that
would allow the Federal Election Commission to represent itself in
actions before the United States Supreme Court so that it may fulfill
its role as the people's top election watchdog.
Under current law, the FEC is almost always represented by the
solicitor general when it has business before the U.S. Supreme Court,
effectively removing the FEC attorneys from the process and
centralizing litigation within the Department of Justice.
It is a revelation that troubles me and many and should worry us all.
Unfortunately, we have seen the President use the Department of
Justice and its appointees not to promote truth and accountability, but
as a political tool with which to suppress those who challenge his
unilateral approach to campaigning and governing.
The identity, priorities, skills, and role of lawyers representing
the government play a significant role in determining the nature and
outcome of litigation.
These cases are often charged with partisan politics, and the
American people need an advocate who operates with a degree of
separation from a particular party or administration and can faithfully
execute the unique mandate bestowed upon the FEC.
As the people's last line of election oversight, the FEC must have
the power to act independently in its business before the courts so
that it may hold this administration, and all administrations to come,
accountable to the people, the law, and the Constitution.
My amendment would ensure that it can.
At a time when campaign finance law has become increasingly complex
and dangers of direct conflicts of interest have become more prevalent,
my amendment will strengthen the FEC's enforcement powers and help the
court navigate the increasingly blurry boundaries of what is and what
is not legal during Federal elections by having a subject matter expert
empowered to present arguments.
Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, once again, I claim time
in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, the language of the
amendment is pretty innocuous. The problem I have is the portion of the
bill that it is amending, the sheer fact that, in this now almost 700-
page, mammoth bill that anyone thinks it is a good idea to weaponize
the FEC by making it partisan. It is the furthest thing from where we
should be as an institution.
This amendment is going to do nothing to address this partisan FEC
that the bill establishes.
The biggest threat to our elections is actually partisanship, and a
partisan FEC will undermine the neutrality that voters expect of an
agency that oversees Federal elections, especially when the billions
upon billions upon billions of new dollars come in from the programs
that are created in this bill.
A partisan FEC is going to give enhanced powers to the chairman to
make decisions on behalf of the commission that have been reserved for
years for the full commission.
I fully expect a lower standard of protection of free speech to be
embraced by a partisan FEC.
As a former chairman of our own Franking Commission here in the House
of Representatives, I think bipartisan agencies can work together,
bipartisan commissions can work together.
Heck, we are not even allowed to send a bulk mail piece out of this
institution without Republicans and Democrats signing off on it. If we
can't send bulk mail out without it being bipartisan, why in the world
would we want to make the FEC partisan?
Do the Democrats really want the Trump administration to have a
partisan FEC? I don't want any party to have a partisan FEC. I want it
to remain an institution where it takes bipartisanship to get results.
I would urge my good friend, Mr. Phillips, if he hasn't, to sit down
with some of the FEC commissioners and talk to them about their opinion
of why the FEC is bipartisan, and I would urge the gentleman to work
with them.
This bill is not going to pass. The amendment, likely, will get ruled
by the chairman to be a part of this bill. The bill is not going to
become law. It is going to go die in the Senate. But I would urge the
gentleman to work with the FEC, talk with them on the reason why, why
it is bipartisan.
We don't want our Ethics Committee here in the House to have a
partisan edge. We don't want our Franking Commission to have a partisan
edge.
Why in the world do we want the FEC to have a partisan edge?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague
from Illinois.
However, to say that this weaponizes the FEC I do take exception to
because, indeed, it is just the opposite.
It empowers the FEC to actually do its job, which is to look out for
voters. That is quite simple and quite apparent to me.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, it is a good amendment because it allows the
FEC to be represented in an effective way.
As to the underlying bill, I can't think of another agency of the
Federal Government, commission, where you have an even number. Most
have an uneven number so you don't have deadlocks.
We are deadlocked at the FEC. They are dead in the water.

Is it because of bipartisanship? Right now there are two Republican
commissioners, one Democratic commissioner, one independent
commissioner, and two vacancies. They can't make a decision.
There are backlogged cases that go on for years. This is really a
disservice to America to not be able to play that cop on the beat,
because it is a completely dysfunctional agency.
We need to change that. And that is what the underlying bill does. It
allows a nonpartisan career staff to make initial fundings. It provides
that there can be no more than two commissioners in the same party, so
we are not going to have a partisan takeover. And then it allows the
commission to overrule the nonpartisan staff, if necessary.
We need reform at the FEC. This amendment is part of it, and I credit
the gentleman for offering it.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representative Sarbanes for
his tireless work in bringing this important legislation to the floor
and Chairman McGovern for making my amendment in order.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, again, I have a problem with
the underlying bill and the FEC issue.
It is not that hard to be bipartisan when we send bulk mail in the
House. It may take a little longer. It may be a little more difficult.
But, you know what, bipartisanship works. There is a reason for it
here.
Frankly, if the FEC isn't working, if the FEC is such an agency that
has zero credibility in the mind of the majority right now, then why in
the world are we spending time marking up a 700-page, mammoth bill in
the House Administration Committee when we ought to just reauthorize
the FEC?
I certainly hope that our committee can work toward making that
happen. And that is something that has not been done that we should be
able to get bipartisanship on. I look forward to working with
Chairperson Lofgren when that day comes over the next 2 years.
Mr. Chair, I am going to oppose the amendment because of the
underlying language regarding the FEC.

[[Page H2564]]

I commend Mr. Phillips for being here to legislate. I welcome the
gentleman to Congress, and I look forward to working with him and
appreciate his opportunity to be a part of the process. I thank the
gentleman for letting me be a part of it with him.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 220, insert after line 16 the following:
(E) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an
immediate family member of the individual paid a civil money
penalty or criminal fine, or was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment, for violating any provision of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1,
the For the People Act.
This historic package of democracy and anticorruption reforms will
put power back in the hands of the people and restore the American
people's faith that government works for the public interest, not the
special interests.
I am pleased that my bill, the Transparency in Corporate Political
Spending Act, is included in H.R. 1. I am also proud today to present
an amendment to prohibit violators of our Federal election campaign
laws from serving on critically important redistricting commissions in
the States.
Our democracy has been under attack from foreign interference,
gerrymandering, hidden corporate money, and voter suppression. Today,
the time has come to reform our system and restore faith in our
political process.
I believe we have a duty to transform our democracy from a spectator
sport into a true dialogue in which we all participate to debate the
issues, defend our interests, and demand our rights.
By passing H.R. 1, we will move one step closer to that
transformation by breaking the grip of special interests and ensuring
that the American people come first in our democracy.
Among its many important provisions, this historic democracy reform
package includes my Transparency in Corporate Political Spending Act,
which will eliminate the policy rider that lets corporations keep their
unlimited political spending secret.
In addition, I look forward to this Chamber's consideration of my
amendment to H.R. 1. This amendment would protect our democracy by
prohibiting campaign finance law violators and their immediate family
members from serving on redistricting commissions.
Congress needs to ensure that we set out commonsense minimum criteria
for people who will serve on redistricting commissions in States across
the country. My amendment will ensure that redistricting commissions
nationwide are free of individuals and immediate relatives of
individuals who have knowingly and willfully committed a violation of
the Federal Election Campaign Act.
In November 2018, the people of Michigan overwhelmingly passed Voters
Not Politicians, a ballot initiative that sets up a nonpartisan
redistricting commission to create State legislative and congressional
districts after the 2020 census. About seven or eight States have
already done this, and more are considering it.
If we are going to transform our democracy, we need to do it right. I
could not be more proud to vote to end the dominance of big money in
our political system, to guarantee free and fair elections that are
open to all, and to ensure public officials work for the public
interest.
I would like to thank Congressman Sarbanes and the members of the
Democracy Reform Task Force for their unrelenting efforts to reclaim
our democracy as one for and by the people.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the For the People Act and
to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to rise in
opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this
amendment.
I just want to take the time to welcome our new colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I would like the gentleman to
give my utmost thanks to his dad, who we stood on this floor, with
these same microphones, and I was able to work in a bipartisan way with
him to pass the EACH Act that allowed for a religious exemption from
the individual mandates of ObamaCare, of the Affordable Care Act.
That is now law, and that is a sign of bipartisanship that I hope to
be able to continue while we work together.
Give him my best. The Christian Scientists that are in my district at
Principia College, one of the largest Christian Science institutions in
the Nation, are very thankful that they are not now being penalized by
the Tax Code for a religious exemption from seeking medical care from
doctors and medical professionals.
So my thanks to the gentleman's father, and I thank the gentleman for
being here.
Mr. Chair, I am not going to oppose this amendment. I will reserve
just in case somebody wants to come up and talk about something else
and I can rebut them, but I am ready to close if the gentleman is.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I deeply appreciate the gentleman
from Illinois' kind remarks. I will absolutely give my dad his regards.
I will call him tonight and tell him, seriously, that the gentleman
said that.
I really appreciate the incredible honor and opportunity to be here
working with the gentleman to do the people's business.
I really hope we will get a chance to work together on any number of
bills to perfect and expand our democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1900

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to be bipartisan
once again. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mrs. Trahan

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 220, insert after line 16 the following:
(E) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an
immediate family member of the individual is an agent of a
foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act
of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend my friend, the Congressman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for offering one of the most significant
reforms to our election system in a generation. I am particularly
pleased that H.R. 1 puts redistricting in the hands of independent
commissions, where it belongs.
Under the bill, each State will create 15-person independent
redistricting commissions that represent the public's interests first
and foremost, without consideration of political party advantage.
However, to prevent the real or perceived risk of bias, H.R. 1
excludes several categories of people from serving

[[Page H2565]]

on these commissions, including political candidates or officeholders,
campaign officials, big donors, and lobbyists.
My amendment would simply add to this list those individuals who are
registered agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA.
FARA has been in law since the 1930s. It requires disclosure when an
individual is acting as a political representative of foreign
governments.
As with H.R. 1's current exclusions, adding foreign agents will help
ensure that those serving on the independent redistricting commissions
are not at risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
Coming from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which gave our Nation
the term ``gerrymander,'' I am pleased that H.R. 1 will put an end to
this device by allowing voters to choose their representatives rather
than the other way around.
My amendment aims to close a loophole by ensuring that registered
foreign agents, like lobbyists and big donors, may not serve on
redistricting commissions.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
Massachusetts. It is great to see her, and I thank her for putting this
amendment forward.
I have a problem with the underlying provisions of the bill. I
actually support redistricting reforms.
I am from Illinois. I am a Republican. We are not going to have a
single say in how the Democrats in the supermajority Illinois House and
the supermajority Illinois Senate, and our newly elected Democratic
Governor, we are not going to have a say in how these maps are drawn.
I certainly hope we can get an independent redistricting commission
because, since this bill is not going to pass the Senate, it is not
going to become law. I certainly hope that we could come together and
work on some independent redistricting issues.
Mr. Chair, I will, again, not oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts for simply an excellent amendment. This strengthens the
provisions in the underlying bill to make sure that agents of foreign
principals would have no role in these commissions.
I think it is important that we understand that the citizens who
serve on these commissions have no agenda, not for one party or the
other, and certainly not for some foreign country.
It is really a very good amendment. I am so glad that she offered it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am highly concerned
with the redistricting provisions in this bill now. It seems that now,
as part of the bill, that one State is going to be exempted out.
At what point, then, do we not question why everyone doesn't have the
same ability to opt out of provisions of this bill, just like the State
of Iowa has done in an amendment that was accepted.
The sheer fact that if Iowa's independent redistricting commission is
better and, thus, we shouldn't have to apply the same standards as the
other 49 States in this great Nation, then why don't we use Iowa's
independent redistricting commission standards for everyone? Why don't
we make the whole bill about Iowa?
I mean, I have been talking about federalism and States having to
follow top-down Federal mandates, in most cases, that are going to be
unfunded or nebulously funded because we really don't know how they are
going to get those funds to our States and localities. But the sheer
fact that we are debating a bill that has a provision about independent
redistricting that could have been very, very bipartisan, now we have
exempted one State out, it basically tells all of us that is a better
commission.
I hope that when we come back, after this bill passes the House,
unfortunately for many of my colleagues who are going to vote for it on
the other side of the aisle, I hope we can come together and have the
debate on whether Iowa's commission is better than what was proposed in
this bill.
You cannot have a 700-page bill that talks about how gloriously good
for the people it is, for all of the provisions that are this top-down
approach, and then, all of a sudden, you exempt one State out of what
could have been one of the most bipartisan provisions, and that is
independent redistricting.
If you are serious about governing, the majority ought to offer an
amendment, ought to offer a change, to make Iowa's independent
commission the language of this bill. Make it work in States, even
where they have independent commissions.
I would sure like it to work in Illinois. Maybe California would want
to use Iowa's commission because clearly it is better than what you
have in the bill, or we wouldn't have had to take an amendment on it.

Well, I think I got my point across.
I say to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), your
amendment is a good amendment. I apologize I had to use this time to
address an issue that is very frustrating, but the gentlewoman is
talking about redistricting.
I appreciate what she has done. I welcome her to the floor of the
House, and I look forward to working with her.
Again, my offer to the gentlewoman is the same as others. When this
bill fails in the Senate, let's come together on some provisions. I
will continue to throw the bipartisan olive branch out toward that side
of the aisle, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman.
Congratulations. I won't oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I
also look forward to working in a bipartisan way to restore our
government to the people.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I urge a ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mrs. Trahan

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In subtitle J of title I, insert after section 1704 the
following (and redesignate the succeeding provision
accordingly):

SEC. 1705. EXTENDING GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR VOTING
PURPOSES TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF ABSENT MILITARY
PERSONNEL.

Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20302) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(j) Guarantee of Residency for Spouses and Dependents of
Absent Members of Uniformed Service.--For the purposes of
voting for in any election for any Federal office or any
State or local office, a spouse or dependent of an individual
who is an absent uniformed services voter described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 107(1) shall not, solely
by reason of that individual's absence and without regard to
whether or not such spouse or dependent is accompanying that
individual--
``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in
that State, without regard to whether or not that individual
intends to return to that State;
``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in
any other State; or
``(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident
of any other State.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, under current law, our brave men and women
serving our country in uniform are able to maintain their residency
status for the purposes of voting during deployment. Current law also
protects voting residency status if a spouse of a servicemember is
absent from their State in order to accompany the servicemember on a
deployment.

[[Page H2566]]

However, current law does not protect the residency status of a
spouse if he or she is absent but without accompanying the deployed
servicemember.
My amendment fixes this loophole. It will ensure that these spouses
may maintain their voting residency status, regardless of whether they
accompany their spouse. Moreover, my amendment would extend the same
protection to voting-age dependents.
The absence of a servicemember who is deployed can be an enormous
hardship on a family. It means a caregiver is no longer at home to
share in parenting duties. In these cases, it is natural to rely upon
friends and family, even those in another State, for support. However,
these families should not lose the right to vote in their home district
if they are absent while their spouse is deployed. Furthermore, my
amendment extends those same protections to voting-age children.
This is an amendment about ensuring those who sacrifice the most for
the defense of our Nation are treated fairly and that they have a voice
and a vote in our elections.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition, although, once again, I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this is a great
amendment. I commend Mrs. Trahan because it is vitally important that
we protect the families of our Nation's military. It is very important
we remember those who sacrifice everything to serve us, and we should
ensure that they are able to weigh in to whomever represents them in
government.
I am going to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, again, an olive branch
to the other side of the aisle.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness to legislate. It is great
to work with her, and I will be supporting this amendment.
Since I see the chair up, in case she says something I have to rebut,
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say what a smart amendment this
is, and I am so grateful that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts has
taken the time to put this together.
We all care about our men and women in the armed services, to make
sure they are treated fairly. But over the years we have been here,
none of us came up with this amendment before this evening.
I really thank the gentlewoman. Great kudos to her. We are lucky that
she is a Member of our House of Representatives.
Like the ranking member, I will be happy to vote ``aye'' on this
amendment. I think it is very important, and I am grateful to the
gentlewoman for offering it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let the Record show that
I liked the amendment first. I liked it before the chairperson.
Listen, it is a great amendment, and I look forward to voting for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois once
again. I thank the gentlewoman from California. She made this easy on
me, and I appreciate that.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1915

Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Kim

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In subtitle F of title I of the bill--
(1) redesignate section 1505 as section 1506; and
(2) insert after section 1504 the following new section:

SEC. 1505. PAPER BALLOT PRINTING REQUIREMENTS.

Section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52
U.S.C. 21081(a)), as amended by section 1504, is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Printing requirements for ballots.--All paper ballots
used in an election for Federal office shall be printed in
the United States on paper manufactured in the United
States.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Kim) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 1.
Mr. Chair, our democracy isn't working for the majority of Americans.
This is a simple message I hear from the people in my district every
single day: there are too many barriers to participate in our
democracy; there is too much dark money influencing our politics; there
are too many loopholes for bad actors to skirt our ethics laws and use
the revolving door of politics to enrich themselves instead of
empowering the American people.
H.R. 1 isn't just a step in the right direction, it is a massive
shift that takes power and puts it back in the hands of our
constituents. It is legislation that reminds us that our government
must be for the people, but just as importantly, our democracy must be
by the people.
That is why I rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 1, which
will require Federal election ballots to be made in America.
In short, this is a win-win for the American people. It will help
protect and create American jobs by ensuring that manufacturing stays
right here in America. It will help protect the integrity of our
Federal elections, which are increasingly under attack by foreign
powers.
We have an opportunity today to not only help clean up our
government, but create jobs and secure our elections.
I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will come
together to make the democracy we swore to protect truly of, by, and
for the people.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense made-in-
America amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I don't know if I have had a
chance to formally meet Mr. Kim. I welcome him and thank him for being
here to participate in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I would like to have some details on what
percentage of ballots that are used in the United States right now are
not printed in the U.S.
The issue I have is not with United-States-made printing materials,
it is with the sheer fact that we are having a top-down approach once
again.
I mean, there is always going to be extenuating circumstances. Some
of our territories may raise the cost of importing paper to be able to
now live up to the paper ballot marking whatever requirements that are
in this 700-page bill.
We can work together on these provisions, but we also might want to
work together as this bill fails in the Senate.
Mr. Chair, if this is something Mr. Kim wants to work on together, I
am willing to work on it with him, but let's have some room in there
for some exceptions.
I mean, let's say it is almost election day, you have got wildfires
roaring all over California and there is a paper shortage in the
country. We can't stop the election, so maybe we need some exceptions.
We can't stop the election, maybe we need an exception.
So let's work together, let's do something like that so that nobody
loses a chance to be able to cast their vote on election day, to have
their vote counted, and even just as importantly, to have their vote
protected.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I have got to
oppose this, because there are no exceptions in here, but I appreciate
the gentleman's willingness to work together after this is done.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2567]]

Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I just want to start by saying that I am very
much looking forward to being able to continue to work with the
gentleman from Illinois throughout my time here. I appreciate his
welcome to me here on the House floor.
Mr. Chair, for me, as we go about this, it is essential that we
understand that our ballots are the most fundamental form of our
democracy that citizens here are engaged in, that we understand them as
a tangible manifestation of that participation that each and every
voter plays.
So this is a manifestation of our value, our collective value that
with this most important symbol of our democracy, this tangible form
that our voters take, that this should be something of, by, and for the
American people.
That is something that I think would be an important signal from the
United States Congress across this country that we recognize the
importance of that and we want to hold and commit to making sure that
this tangible piece of our democracy is something that is made in
America.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from
New Jersey.
Look, I am all for increasing American manufacturing, I am all for
building new paper plants, but I would urge my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle to remember they are probably going to burn more
fossil fuels. You know, if we are going to have to cut down more trees,
maybe we will get some bipartisanship when it comes to deforestation,
which could help cut down on forest fires that may cause the problems
that would need the exceptions that we talked about earlier.
So I certainly hope this fits into the New Green Deal provisions that
are going to be voted on in the Senate.
There is a lot of talk about paper in this bill. And in this bill,
actually the paper keeps growing. It is upwards of 700 pages now.
Mr. Chair, I just got a very important piece of paper with the new
CBO score, so I assume we are going to be talking about that soon.
Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentleman of the recycled
ballot amendment that had passed earlier today relative to the issue of
cutting down trees.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am all for more paper
production. Those paper plants that exist in my district, you know,
they use recycled materials, too. I am more than happy to have more
trees be deforested out of areas that are caught up in wildfires on an
annual basis.
If we could have the paper that is going to work, if the other side
is okay with burning more fossil fuels to make this happen, hey, maybe
we won't need those exceptions I talked about, maybe we will have
enough American manufacturing and paper jobs. Some of the best paying
jobs in my district are at the paper mills.
Mr. Chair, I am certainly looking forward to working with the
gentleman when this bill fails. Especially after seeing some of the
preliminary numbers out of this new CBO score. I don't know how many
cosponsors of this bill are going to actually be able to cast a vote
for it, but I will reserve judgment until I see the board tomorrow.
Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, but since I have the right to close,
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the perspective on the other end,
and I understand our common value that, of course, we would want to see
things made in America, and I want to make sure that I constantly, as I
will every time on this House floor, seek bipartisanship as we move
forward.
I reiterate that this is a commonsense amendment that is simply good
policy. My amendment would give a leg up to domestic supply chains and
ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to support local middle-class
jobs and boost our economy.
Amendments like mine also ensure that when Federal agencies buy
products to carry out their responsibilities, that they put American
manufacturers first.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Kim).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Spanberger

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 291, insert after line 20 the following:

SEC. 3106. PRE-ELECTION THREAT ASSESSMENTS.

(a) Submission of Assessment by DNI.--Not later than 180
days before the date of each regularly scheduled general
election for Federal office, the Director of National
Intelligence shall submit an assessment of the full scope of
threats to election infrastructure, including cybersecurity
threats posed by state actors and terrorist groups, and
recommendations to address or mitigate the threats, as
developed by the Secretary and Chairman, to--
(1) the chief State election official of each State;
(2) the Committees on Homeland Security and House
Administration of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and
Rules and Administration of the Senate; and
(3) any other appropriate congressional committees.
(b) Updates to Initial Assessments.--If, at any time after
submitting an assessment with respect to an election under
subsection (a), the Director of National Intelligence
determines that the assessment should be updated to reflect
new information regarding the threats involved, the Director
shall submit a revised assessment under such subsection.
(c) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) The term ``Chairman'' means the chair of the Election
Assistance Commission.
(2) The term ``chief State election official'' means, with
respect to a State, the individual designated by the State
under section 10 of the National Voter Registration Act of
1993 (52 U.S.C. 20509) to be responsible for coordination of
the State's responsibilities under such Act.
(3) The term ``election infrastructure'' means storage
facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulation
locations used to support the administration of elections for
public office, as well as related information and
communications technology, including voter registration
databases, voting machines, electronic mail and other
communications systems (including electronic mail and other
systems of vendors who have entered into contracts with
election agencies to support the administration of elections,
manage the election process, and report and display election
results), and other systems used to manage the election
process and to report and display election results on behalf
of an election agency.
(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
(5) The term ``State'' has the meaning given such term in
section 901 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C.
21141).
(d) Effective Date.--This Act shall apply with respect to
the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office
held in November 2020 and each succeeding regularly scheduled
general election for Federal office.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
1.
This week, we are focused on fighting for the public interest,
fighting for transparency, and fighting for accountability. We have a
rare opportunity to restore faith and trust in our system of
government.
Mr. Chair, I thank all those who have fought to bring us to this
point and for our upcoming major historic vote on H.R. 1.
As we speak, I am working under a mandate from the people of central
Virginia. They expect me to fight back against a broken Washington and
to work to protect our democracy, whether from special interests,
barriers to voting, or foreign influence.
Right now, we are seeing an uptick in hostile attacks against
election systems across the globe, with the rise of the internet,
anonymous hackers, non-state actors, and foreign intelligence
operatives, as they rise as formidable and dangerous adversaries.
Our elections are the bedrock of our democracy.

[[Page H2568]]

If our voting infrastructure is compromised or attacked, the entire
integrity of our electoral system could come into question.
This was especially clear following Russia's interference in the 2016
election, and it is almost certain that nefarious actors will continue
their deliberate attempts to attack our elections or put in doubt the
outcome of those elections.
During this time, it is critical that the U.S. election officials
have accurate and up-to-date information about where our election
security systems are most vulnerable.
This amendment pushes back against foreign attempts to interfere in
our electoral process and helps identify any potential threats that may
exist.
This amendment would use the invaluable expertise of public servants
in the intelligence community and Department of Homeland Security to
strengthen the security of Federal and State election systems.
My amendment would require a Federal assessment of the scope of
potential threats to the security of America's election system,
including cyber, terror, and state actor threats.
This assessment would happen 180 days prior to every general election
to allow the States the opportunity to respond and strengthen their
voting system.
Additionally, this legislation would direct the Director of National
Intelligence and DHS to update Federal and State officials on possible
vulnerabilities and to provide assessments on how best to stop these
threats.
As a former CIA case officer, I greatly appreciate the objective and
nonpartisan work of the national security and intelligence communities.
With their help, we can fight back against foreign interference, we can
safeguard our elections.
The dedicated men and women of our national security agencies and of
our intelligence agencies have demonstrated their ability to collect
information on foreign actors' intentions and provide election security
assessments that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and
useful to the States they would provide them to.
As we are having an important discussion about safeguarding the
integrity of the vote, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment
to H.R. 1.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it. I
think this is a darn good amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chair, it is great to work with Ms. Spanberger, and I thank her
for her service as an intelligence officer for our great Nation. This
is an issue that she knows better than me and she knows better than
most of us here in this institution. I look forward to supporting this
amendment, and I welcome the gentlewoman to the U.S. House of
Representatives and look forward to working with her.
Mr. Chair, I would love to work with the gentlewoman on issues like
this when this bill does not pass the Senate and is signed into law and
we can work together in a bipartisan way. I will continue to show
bipartisanship. I congratulate and welcome the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rodney Davis) for his comments and for his support of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren),
my colleague.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this just goes to show how lucky we are
that someone with the background of Congresswoman Spanberger has been
elected to the House. With her background in the CIA, we gain a special
expertise on issues of national security.
You know, States don't have a CIA, they don't have an NSA, and if
foreign actors are attacking us, they are not in a position to find
that out.
I think that the gentlewoman from Virginia understands the workings
of our national security agencies and the importance of giving them
metrics on what to do and with whom so that we are completely safe.
Mr. Chair, I am so delighted that she has offered this very smart
amendment, and I look forward to approving it, and I thank her so much
for the wisdom that she brings to the House.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1930

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, again, let the Record
show I was for the amendment once again before the chairperson. I
should get kudos.
Listen, this is a good amendment. I congratulate the gentlewoman on
her election, being a Member of Congress, and helping to legislate and
participate.
I also want to use a few seconds to really highlight the work of our
intelligence officials in the administration and our Department of
Homeland Security, especially Secretary Nielsen and her team, working
with our local officials in Illinois before the last election to ensure
that there was no nefarious activity that could have come about in our
home State.
Our home State election officials got a lot of accolades from the
Department of Homeland Security, and I think the Department of Homeland
Security and their team, especially Secretary Nielsen, deserve the
accolades, also.
So, with that, I am ready to close. I congratulate Ms. Spanberger.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman yields back.
Ms. SPANBERGER. May I reclaim my time, Mr. Chair?
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from
Virginia?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. May I reclaim my time?
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois and the
gentlewoman from Virginia both reclaim their time.
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Virginia is recognized.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Actually, I want to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois
and the remarks of the gentlewoman from California in congratulating
Congresswoman Spanberger on this excellent amendment and emphasizing,
as they did, how lucky we are to have the benefit of the expertise that
is brought to this Chamber by Congresswoman Spanberger, based on her
national security experience. We need to maximize what people can offer
here, and this amendment is a perfect example of that.
There is increasing anxiety out there among the populace about these
attempts to hack into our election infrastructure. This measure will
make sure that we are all on alert to that. I thank the gentlewoman for
the amendment.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have
left?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am having a lot of fun
down here, but I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 69 Offered by Ms. Slotkin

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69 printed in
part B of House Report 116-16.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 323, insert after line 6 the following:

SEC. 4103. DISBURSEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO FOREIGN
MONEY BAN.

(a) Disbursements Described.--Section 319(a)(1) of the
Federal Election Campaign

[[Page H2569]]

Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
(2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) an expenditure;
``(D) an independent expenditure;
``(E) a disbursement for an electioneering communication
(within the meaning of section 304(f)(3));
``(F) a disbursement for a paid internet or paid digital
communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate
for election for Federal office and is disseminated within 60
days before a general, special or runoff election for the
office sought by the candidate or 30 days before a primary or
preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political
party that has authority to nominate a candidate for the
office sought by the candidate;
``(G) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable or satellite
communication, or for a paid internet or paid digital
communication, that promotes, supports, attacks or opposes
the election of a clearly identified candidate for Federal,
State, or local office (regardless of whether the
communication contains express advocacy or the functional
equivalent of express advocacy); or
``(H) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication, or for a paid internet or paid digital
communication, that discusses a national legislative issue of
public importance in year in which a regularly scheduled
general election for Federal office is held and is made for
the purpose of influencing an election held during that year,
but only if the disbursement is made by a foreign principal
who is a government of a foreign country or a foreign
political party or an agent of such a foreign principal under
the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to disbursements made on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, the legislation before us today, the For the
People Act of 2019, represents a major step forward toward improving
government transparency and accountability, expanding voting rights,
and draining the corrosive influence of money in our politics.
These are the very issues I hear about over and over again as I
travel across my district in mid-Michigan, and these are the issues
that my constituents sent me to Washington to address.
Simply put, people in Michigan and across the country know in their
bones that the current system isn't working and want a return to
honesty and decency in our politics. Passing H.R. 1 is a huge step
forward in increasing confidence in our system.
Mr. Chair, my amendment today would add important provisions to close
a loophole in our current campaign finance laws that allows foreign
governments and foreign nationals to influence American elections
through campaign ads. Right now, a foreign entity can legally buy an ad
through social media that supports or attacks a candidate. Right now, a
foreign entity can legally purchase an ad that focuses on an issue of
legislative importance.
My amendment would close this loophole by implementing new
requirements to ensure that foreign governments don't influence our
elections.
The amendment specifically would prohibit a foreign entity from
buying a campaign ad, on digital media or on TV, that supports or
attacks a candidate or an ad that focuses on an issue that is meant to
divide us rather than unite us.
Mr. Chair, I am a former CIA officer, a former Pentagon official. I
have spent my life preventing homeland attacks and preserving the
democratic system that we all love. I am introducing this amendment
because the attempts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections
targeted vulnerable voters and took advantage of the lack of disclosure
in our laws. During the 2016 election in my home State of Michigan, we
were specifically targeted and witnessed disturbing evidence of Russian
interference in our elections.
It is important to remember what we are talking about. These ads,
which I have a bunch printed out over here, purposely divide us. They
sow discord. They target ethnic groups. And they generally attempt to
influence American elections.
Some may say that these ads were a relatively small number of the ads
in our elections and that it is a relatively meager investment. As
defenders of American interests and our national security, we must
ensure that our laws do not allow this to happen at any level.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing: Support preservation of
the American democracy. Reject foreign influence in our elections.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition,
although I am going to do the right thing and not oppose this
amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I know our time together
tonight is winding down. This, I think, is the last amendment we are
going to debate tonight.
I thank Ms. Slotkin for her amendment and thank her for her service
to our country. It is a pleasure to be able to serve in this great
institution with the gentlewoman.
As I said, I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
Congratulations. I certainly wish this would be part of something that
could go into law, because this bill is not going to go into law. I
certainly look forward to working with her to address these issues as
we move forward.
Congratulations, and I thank the gentlewoman again for her service
here now.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding her
time, and I also congratulate her on this amendment and her service
here in the House and contributing her expertise, again, as I said a
moment ago with respect to our other colleague. Providing her insight
and her experience here in shaping these amendments and making our
legislation stronger is absolutely valuable. We need to make our
democracy more resilient.
The gentlewoman made the point that too often now these foreign
adversaries can get into our politics and sow discord. The way we push
back at that is by putting our antenna out, our radar, making sure we
are keeping that kind of spending out of our politics. That is exactly
what the gentlewoman's amendment does. I thank her for it. I support
it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Well, I would be remiss to not thank my
colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for being a cosponsor of this
amendment. We have had some lively discussions back and forth. My
apologies. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this amendment,
too.
I am ready to close, but congratulations once again to Ms. Slotkin.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I look forward to working across the aisle on
this important amendment. I think it is not a partisan issue. It is an
American issue. I look forward to talking with my Republican colleagues
about how we can break this thing off and turn it into law.
Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLOTKIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I join in the celebration of the new Members
of this House of Representatives. The gentlewoman from Michigan has
experience in preserving our national security. Not everyone who is
here serving has done what she has done, and the gentlewoman who
preceded her.

Our body is richer because of the experience that they have brought
to this Congress, and I think this excellent amendment really is a
product of the expertise that she brings to this institution.
I am grateful for her amendment. I look forward to joining the
ranking member in approving it and in celebrating her service to our
country here in the House of Representatives.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a
list of groups such as the Hispanic Leadership Fund, The LIBRE
Initiative, Americans for Tax Reform, Coalition to Reduce Spending, the
National Right to Life, Heritage Action for America, and the Chamber of
Commerce and several

[[Page H2570]]

letters in opposition to H.R. 1, obviously, or I don't think I would be
entering them into the Record.

The following organizations oppose H.R. 1:
ACLU
U.S. Chamber of Commerce along with over 300 Chamber's of
Commerce and industry groups
Freedom Works
National Right to Life
Heritage Action for America
Republican National Lawyers Association
March for Life Action
Conservative Action Project
Club for Growth
Americans for Tax Reform
National Taxpayers Union
Coalition to Reduce Spending
Americans for Prosperity
The LIBRE Initiative
Concerned Veterans for America
Faith and Freedom Coalition
Hispanic Leadership Fund
National Association for Gun Rights
Goldwater Institute
American Bankers Association
Agricultural Retailers Association
American Petroleum Institute
National Grocers Association
Associated Builders and Contractors
National Association of Manufacturers
Insurance Associates, Inc.
Airlines for America
____

National Right to Life

Committee, Inc.

Washington, DC, March 5, 2019.
Re H.R. 1, the so-called ``For the People Act of 2019''.

Dear Representative: The National Right to Life Committee
(NRLC), representing state right-to-life organizations
nationwide, urges you to oppose the so-called ``For the
People Act of 2019'' (H.R. 1), introduced by Rep. John
Sarbanes.
This legislation has been carefully crafted to maximize
short-term political benefits for the dominant faction of one
political party, while running roughshod over the First
Amendment protections for political speech that have been
clearly and forcefully articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court
in a series of landmark First Amendment rulings, culminating
in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) and
Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n, 558 U.S. 310
(2010).
Because this legislation would severely impede the exercise
of our organization's constitutional rights, and the rights
and privacy of our donors and supporters, NRLC intends to
include any roll call that occurs on H.R. 1 in our scorecard
of key roll calls of the 116th Congress:
Enactment of H.R. 1 would not be a curb on corruption, but
is itself a type of corruption--an abuse of the lawmaking
power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of
criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the
amount of private speech regarding the actions of the
lawmakers themselves. Further, this legislation would add a
commissioner to the Federal Election Commission (FEC),
causing a partisan takeover by significantly increasing the
likelihood that the agency could make decisions benefiting
the political party in power.

The true purposes of H.R. 1

Our organization's name and contact information always
appear on our public communications, and we openly proclaim
the public policies that we advocate. But there is very
little in this bill, despite the pretenses, that is actually
intended to provide useful or necessary information to the
public. The overriding purpose is precisely the opposite: To
discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as
National Right to Life) from communicating about
officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts
to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering
organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and
reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and
criminal sanctions.

Speech-restrictive provisions of H.R. 1

The bill would codify, in Section 324, a vague and
expansive definition of ``the functional equivalent of
express advocacy,'' that applies to communications that
``when taken as a whole, it can be interpreted by a
reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat
of a candidate for election for Federal office.'' There is
little that an organization could say by way of commentary on
the votes or positions taken by an incumbent member of
Congress that would not fall within this expansive
definition, in the eyes of some ``reasonable person''--most
often, an annoyed incumbent lawmaker or his operatives.
The time periods over which the government would have
authority to regulate speech about those who hold or seek
federal office--so-called ``electioneering communications''--
would be dramatically expanded under H.R. 1.
H.R. 1 also contains additional provisions that would place
an unacceptable burden on the exercise of First Amendment
rights. H.R. 1 mandates burdensome disclaimers on television,
radio, and online advertisements that are likely to bury the
substantive message and make some advertising, especially
online, functionally impossible.

Partisan Takeover of the FEC

In title VI, H.R. 1 would destroy the FEC's long-standing
bipartisan structure. Proponents claim that the provision is
aimed at ending ``frequent deadlocks,'' but this is a sham
argument leading down a dangerous road.
In the excellent piece by the Institute for Free Speech
(IFS), titled ``Establishing a Campaign Speech Czar and
Enabling Partisan Enforcement: An Altered FEC Structure Poses
Risks to First Amendment Speech Rights'' issued on January
31, Brad Smith comments,
But, in fact, tie votes have always been a small percentage
of FEC votes. Historically, they have totaled approximately
one percent to four percent of Commission votes on
enforcement matters. . . . Although critics claim that tie-
votes sap the FEC's ability to enforce campaign finance laws,
in fact, it is assuredly the opposite. The only reason that
the FEC has any legitimacy is its bipartisan makeup.
Particularly in the current environment, it is inconceivable
that an agency empowered to make prosecutorial decisions
about the legality of campaign tactics, communications,
funding, and activities on a straight party-line vote would
have any legitimacy.

Disclosure of Donors

Our members and supporters have a right to support our
public advocacy about important and controversial issues
without having their identifying information posted online,
exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may
disagree with their beliefs.
In an additional piece from the IFS, titled ``For the
People Act'' Replete with Provisions for the Politicians, by
Eric Wang, issued on January 23 he writes,
The right to associate oneself with a nonprofit group's
mission and to support the group financially in private is a
bedrock principle of the First Amendment that the government
may not abridge casually. This is particularly true when the
cause is contentious, such as abortion, gun control, LGBTQ
rights, or civil rights, and association with either side on
any of these issues may subject a member or donor to
retaliation, harassment, threats, and even physical attack,
as recent events have tragically reminded us. The potential
divisiveness of these issues does not diminish their social
importance and the need to hash out these debates in public
while preserving donors' privacy.
It should be self-evident that the real purpose of such
burdensome requirements is not to inform the public, but to
deter potential donors from financially supporting the work
of groups such as National Right to Life in the first place.
We strongly urge you to oppose this pernicious,
unprincipled, and constitutionally defective legislation. In
our scorecard and advocacy materials, the legislation will be
accurately characterized as a blatant political attack on the
First Amendment rights of National Right to Life, our state
affiliates, and our members and donors.
Sincerely,
Carol Tobias,
President.
David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
Jennifer Popik, J.D.,
Legislative Director.
____

March 5, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of March for Life Action and
the millions of pro-life Americans who march to end abortion,
I am writing to voice our opposition to H.R. 1, the
misnomered ``For the People Act of 2019.'' Many aspects of
the bill seek to put an undue burden on organizations and
individuals who speak out for the unborn--discouraging these
people from participating in the political process. When H.R.
1 reaches the House floor March for Life Action will score a
``yes'' vote negatively in our scorecard for the First
Session of the 116th Congress.
H.R. 1 would regulate a new category of speech--
communications that ``promote,'' ``attack,'' ``support,'' or
``oppose'' (``PASO'') federal candidates and elected
officials. Under this broad and vague standard, groups that
merely speak about federal legislation or policy issues could
be forced to file FEC reports that they did not have to file
before. This is conflicting to Supreme Court precedent
limiting the regulation of speech to communications that
could have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the
election or defeat of a candidate.
The main beneficiaries of H.R. 1 would be incumbent
politicians and campaign finance attorneys while those who
would suffer most would be grassroots activists. The
legislation would greatly increase the already onerous legal
and administrative compliance costs, liability risk, and
costs to donor and associational privacy for public groups
that help inform citizens speak about policy issues and
politicians. Instead of being able to inform the public
organizations will have to divert resources away from their
advocacy activities to pay for compliance staff and lawyers.
Some groups will not be able to afford these costs or will
violate the law unwittingly. Less speech by private citizens
and organizations means politicians will be able to act with
less accountability to public opinion and criticism.
When our great nation's founders articulated the rights of
Americans, they not only included the right to life but also
the right to free speech. As those who speak up for the
unborn, we uniquely combine those two rights. H.R. 1 would
take away one of those rights, the freedom of speech, making
it almost impossible for us to speak up for those

[[Page H2571]]

who cannot speak for themselves. For these reasons, March for
Life Action will score against the legislation our annual
scorecard for the First Session of the 116th Congress.
Sincerely,
Thomas McClusky,
President, March for Life Action.
____

Heritage Action for America,

March 6, 2019.

KEY VOTE: ``NO'' ON THE ``FOR THE PEOPLE ACT'' (H.R. 1)

Heritage Action opposes the For The People Act (H.R. 1) and will
include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

This week, the House will vote on H.R. 1, the ``For The
People Act.'' Lawmakers should not let this legislation's
misleading name fool them--it is comprised of
unconstitutional and ill-advised policy mandates that the
Democratic Party would use to hijack America's election
processes. H.R. 1 is a very long, complex bill that is a
liberal wish list of ``reforms'' ranging from voter
registration and elections to campaign finance, lobbying, and
judicial ethics.
Free and fair elections are the bedrock of American
government. They are fundamental to our way of life and
confidence in our representative system. H.R. 1 cloaks itself
in the guise of transparency and fairness but in reality is a
partisan scheme to choke off dissent and squelch Republican
candidates and conservative political voices. This bill is
aptly ``renamed'' by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
as the ``Democrat Politician Protection Act.'' It is an
unprecedented attempt to seize control of elections through
federal government power.
This fundamentally flawed legislation establishes a new
taxpayer-funded bailout of political campaigns, weaponizes
the Federal Elections Commission by destroying the current
bipartisan makeup, and creates a new, subjective category of
``campaign-related'' speech that is regulated by Washington
bureaucrats who are empowered to enforce these regulations
with penalties and censorship.
According to The Heritage Foundation, H.R. 1 would
implement the following changes:
1. Makes it easier to commit fraud and promotes chaos at
the polls through same-day registration, as election
officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter
registration information and cannot anticipate the number of
voters, ballots, and precinct workers that will be needed to
ensure a safe and secure election process.
2. Degrades the accuracy of registration lists by
automatically registering individuals from state databases,
such as DMV and welfare offices, which provides an
opportunity to register large numbers of ineligible voters,
including aliens as well as multiple or duplicate
registrations of the same individuals.
3. Constitutes a recipe for massive voter registration
fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter
registration not tied to an existing state record, such as a
driver's license.
4. Requires states to count ballots cast by voters outside
of their assigned precinct, overriding the precinct system
used by almost all states that allows election officials to
monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots,
and prevent election fraud.
5. Prevents election officials from checking the
eligibility and qualifications of voters and from removing
ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the
U.S. Postal Service's national change-of-address system to
verify the address of registered voters; participating in
state programs that compare voter registration lists to
detect individuals registered in multiple states; or ever
removing registrants due to a failure to vote.
6. Cripples the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by
allowing individuals to vote without an ID and to merely sign
a statement in which they claim they are who they say they
are.
7. Expands regulation and government censorship of
campaigns and political activity and speech, including online
and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 imposes onerous legal and
administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates,
citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit
organizations.
8. Requires states to unconstitutionally restore the
ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment gives states the
constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed
crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress
cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
9. Transfers the right to draw congressional districts from
state legislatures to``independent'' commissions whose
members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 makes it a
violation of federal law to engage in ``partisan''
redistricting and mandates inclusion of alien population,
both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an
anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that takes away the
ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decision
about redistricting.
10. Violates separation of powers and directly interfere
with the President's constitutional duties. H.R. 1 bans his
political appointees, such as the Attorney General, from
participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in
any matter (including lawsuits against a President's
policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of
the law) in which the President is named as a party.''
Although Democrats are promoting H.R. 1 as a bill that
would ``strengthen our democracy and return political power
to the people'', it is an anti-democratic bill that would
wreak havoc on our election system by manipulating election
rules in favor of Democrats. It is nothing but a progressive
power grab and Heritage Action urges all House Members to
vote against it.
Heritage Action opposes the For the People Act (H.R. 1) and
will include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I am not going to oppose this
amendment, and it has been great debating with the other side tonight.
I look forward to a livelier debate tomorrow.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the spirit of the gentleman from
Illinois and look forward to working with everyone.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Hill of California) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________