Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 42 (Friday, March 8, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 42 (Friday, March 8, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2591-H2602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Underwood). 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 gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 0917

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 Ms. DeGette (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
March 7, 2019, amendment No. 69 printed in part B of House Report 116-
16 offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) had been
disposed of.

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Neguse

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title I of the bill, insert the
following:

PART 8--VOTER REGISTRATION OF MINORS

SEC. 1081. ACCEPTANCE OF VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS FROM
INDIVIDUALS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

(a) Acceptance of Applications.--Section 8 of the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20507) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (k), as redesignated by
section 1004, as subsection (l); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j), as inserted by such
section 1004, the following new subsection:
``(k) Acceptance of Applications From Individuals Under 18
Years of Age.--
``(1) In general.--A State may not refuse to accept or
process an individual's application to register to vote in
elections for Federal office on the grounds that the
individual is under 18 years of age at the time the
individual submits the application, so long as the individual
is at least 16 years of age at such time.
``(2) No effect on state voting age requirements.--Nothing
in paragraph (1) may be construed to require a State to
permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time
of an election for Federal office to vote in the election.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to elections occurring on or after
January 1, 2020.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I am proud to offer an amendment today to
ensure early registration, or pre-registration, for all 16- and 17-
year-olds

[[Page H2592]]

across the country ahead of their 18th birthday.
To be clear, my amendment does not lower the voting age; it simply
allows individuals to pre-register so they are registered and ready to
vote when they turn 18.
Today, 14 States, including my home State, the great State of
Colorado, as well as the District of Columbia, permit pre-registration
beginning at 16 years old. Four States permit pre-registration
beginning at 17 years old, and five other States allow for pre-
registration a few months ahead of voters' 18th birthday.
States across the Nation are taking up pre-registration to integrate
young people in the democratic process early, and I think it is time
for us to take up these reforms at the Federal level.
We see young people interacting with the government agencies most
frequently when they are 16 and getting their driver's license or
learner's permit. This is common sense to allow our young folks to
register early when they are already at the Department of Motor
Vehicles in their respective State, where voter registration services
are typically offered, to ensure that when they turn 18, they have no
barriers to casting their ballot on election day.
Madam Chair, the foundation of our democracy is built on the ability
of our citizens to vote. We must hold this right precious and sacred,
and we must encourage, in my view, our citizens of every age, from
every background and every locality and every local party to engage in
our political process. Pre-registration helps us do that by investing
in our next generation and by encouraging democratic participation from
an early age.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my new colleague,
Mr. Neguse, and welcome him. I am glad he is participating in the
process.
I am going to oppose the gentleman's amendment; not because of the
process, just because it adds another layer of burden to our States and
our localities.
Many States already accept pre-registration forms, and that is within
their State's jurisdiction to do so. I just don't like this top-down
approach which this now upwards of 700-page mammoth bill called H.R. 1
is putting on to our States and our local election officials.
Our county offices, our local officials, they are bleeding from
unfunded mandates from State and Federal Governments, and this is one
more of those.
I agree, we ought to get more 16- and 17-year-olds interested in
government. I have got twin boys who are 18; I try and get them
interested. Sometimes they are not even interested in me and what we
do.
But the key is we, as Members of Congress, ought to go take our
message to the high schools. And I just recently was in Boston with a
bipartisan group in and around our colleague, Joe Kennedy's district.
Joe, Markwayne Mullin, and Lisa Blunt Rochester and I, we visited
numerous high schools. And I hope all four of us standing there in a
bipartisan way actually inspired some young people in the Boston area
to get engaged.
My colleague, Jimmy Panetta and I visited schools in my district
last fall to do the exact same thing, to show people that we can work
together in a bipartisan way.
Unfortunately, this process in H.R. 1 has been nothing but partisan;
and that is not the message that we need to send to 16- and 17-year-
olds.
I have put my hand out with an olive branch. I have accepted many
Democratic amendments throughout the last few days, and not one single
amendment, either in the markup of the only committee that marked this
bill up, House Administration, where we offered 28, not one Republican
amendment to this bill that is now 700 pages has been accepted. Every
amendment has been a Democrat-led amendment.
I thought the new Democratic majority was going to be bipartisan. I
thought the new Democratic majority was going to be transparent. I
thought the new Democratic majority was going to not work with special
interests to write mammoth 700-page bills. But I guess, Madam Chair, I
was mistaken.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from the other side of
the aisle for his thoughtful comments. I would say that I think this
amendment is a bipartisan amendment in the sense that it will apply
equally to every 16- and 17-year-old across the country, irrespective
of their political affiliation.
In Colorado actually, in some months we have had more Republican 16-
and 17-year-olds pre-register than Democrat 16- and 17-year-olds. So
really what this is all about is just ensuring that young folks in our
country are able to integrate into the political process and engage in
their civic duties at an earlier age.
From my perspective--I appreciate the gentleman's comments with
respect to visiting high schools. I certainly do that quite a bit in my
district, to meet with young folks, to talk to them about how to become
better citizens and engaged in their community. And often the question
I get is, How? And I think this is a great answer.
The ability to say to them that if they go, when they get their
driver's license, and pre-register to vote so that, ultimately, when
they turn 18 they are automatically registered and ready to participate
in our elections; I think that, at the end of the day, it will do a
great service to our country and get more young people involved in our
political process.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren), a distinguished colleague and the chair of our Immigration
Subcommittee and, of course, the chair of the House Administration
Committee. Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I just want to express my thanks to the
gentleman from Colorado for offering this refining amendment. I think
he is exactly right. In order to fully engage the American people, we
need to make every effort for them to participate.
And for young people who feel that they really don't have a say,
allowing them to pre-register helps them buy in to our American system
of government.
You know, somebody on the other side of the building said, well, this
is a power grab, to make sure that--H.R. 1 is a power grab. It is. It
is a power grab for the American people, to take the power away from
the special interests and give it to the American people. The
gentleman's amendment helps further that worthy goal, and I thank him
for offering it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr.
Neguse, again. I admire his tenacity, and admire his willingness to
come down and legislate. I stand ready to come to his district and talk
to high schoolers with him, and I would hope he would reciprocate, come
to mine. If the gentleman will have his team call mine, we will figure
out a way to work something out. I think that is the best way for us to
send a message to high schoolers to get them engaged, get them
involved.
This is just an administrative burden that is going to affect our
State and local officials. To process--I mean, there are provisions in
this 700-page mammoth bill that don't allow our local election
officials to clean voters off the rolls that they know no longer may
live in their jurisdiction. So we are hindering local officials'
ability to clean up their rolls; and then decide, you know, later on,
that we are going to be ahead and pre-register people that we don't
know, may or may not want to vote in their college town of residence.
So it just is a burden that I think is unnecessary. Although, again,
I respect the gentleman's willingness to come down here and debate;
this is an issue that goes further than Mr. Neguse's amendment.
I am going to oppose the amendment. I urge folks to vote ``no'' on
it. But more importantly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
bill that is going to eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars and
add billions upon billions to the campaign coffers of Members of
Congress. That is not what the taxpayers in my district are asking

[[Page H2593]]

for. It is not what the taxpayers of America are asking for. It is only
what the Democratic majority is asking for.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I certainly will take my colleague up on his
invitation, and look forward to visiting his district and having him
come to Boulder and Fort Collins, where I know there are plenty of 16-
and 17-year-olds who are very eager to be able to advocate for other
young folks to be able to pre-register in other States, as they have
been able to in Colorado, thanks to the incredible election reforms
that we have enacted in our State.
I understand that we have a respectful disagreement with respect to
the merits of the underlying bill, but I would hope that, on this
particular amendment that is not particularly controversial and that,
as I said, is really a nonpartisan approach to just getting young folks
of all political affiliations involved in our political process.
I would hope and trust that colleagues in both parties here in this
Chamber would think about this amendment thoughtfully, and I would
certainly urge them to support it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, we know this bill is not
going to be signed into law. I look forward to working with the
gentleman on other amendments that we might be able to come up with
some good plans to engage our 16- and 17-year-olds, engage the next
generation of leaders.
I hope maybe a visit that we can do together could inspire somebody
to do what we do one day, and that would be that we would manage to
call ourselves successful in legislating to inspire the next
generation.
This bill, H.R. 1, is not going to inspire the next generation. I
appreciate Mr. Neguse; I appreciate his willingness to serve.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam 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 Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mrs. Kirkpatrick

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, 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 365, strike lines 15 through 24 and insert the
following:
``(6) Safe harbor for platforms making best efforts to
identify requests which are subject to record maintenance
requirements.--
``(A) Availability of safe harbor.--In accordance with
rules established by the Commission, if an online platform
shows that the platform used best efforts to determine
whether or not a request to purchase a qualified political
advertisement was subject to the requirements of this
subsection, the online platform shall not be considered to be
in violation of such requirements.
``(B) Special rules for disbursement paid with credit
card.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), an online platform
shall be considered to have used best efforts in the case of
a purchase of a qualified political advertisement which is
made with a credit card if--
``(i) the individual or entity making such purchase is
required, at the time of making such purchase, to disclose
the credit verification value of such credit card; and
``(ii) the billing address associated with such credit card
is located in the United States or, in the case of a purchase
made by an individual who is a United States citizen living
outside of the United States, the individual provides the
online platform with the United States mailing address the
individual uses for voter registration purposes.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, I strongly support H.R. 1, and I
commend Congressman John Sarbanes for his persistent work on this
legislation. We have an opportunity here to reduce the role of dark
money in politics and make it easier for Americans to participate in
our democracy.
This is not a partisan issue. This is an American democracy issue,
and H.R. 1 is the best solution to cleaning up corruption in
Washington.
I am proud of my colleagues for working on this historic and
necessary package.

{time} 0930

You see, Madam Chair, I ran as a publicly funded candidate in Arizona
under our public financing law called Clean Elections when I first ran
for the legislature. This meant I had to go out and get a certain
number of $5 contributions from constituents in my district, which I
then turned in to get my public financing.
It was the same for everyone who was running as a Clean Election
candidate, regardless of party. It equalized everything.
One of my favorite stories is that I was walking from my law office
down to the post office to check my mail, and this cowboy pulled up in
his pickup truck at a stoplight and rolled down the window, and he
said, ``Hey, Ann. You don't know me, but I gave you $5.''
So he felt empowered in my election. I walked over, and we had a
conversation in the middle of the street.
That is the way it should be. This puts power in the pocket of the
people, not special interests, and that is the way it should be.
It is the For the People Act, and that empowers people, and that
makes our democracy work.
I offer my amendment because it creates transparency in the process.
This amendment was actually suggested by a Republican colleague. It
requires the disclosure of credit card verification value and billing
address information for purchases of online advertising. The credit
card verification value is an antifraud security technology designed to
protect us and to reduce fraudulent activity.
We know that there are bad actors and foreign nationals out there
that have an interest in influencing our American elections through
online advertising. Haven't we seen that very, very well in the last
couple of years. We have loopholes that allow them to do so, but we can
fix that. Not only can we fix it, we must fix it.
This amendment is a commonsense solution to help protect the
integrity of our elections and prevent bad players from compromising
our outcomes. This amendment is focused on protecting our democracy
through transparency in the digital age.
Madam Chair, I urge you and all my colleagues to support my amendment
and the entire H.R. 1 package to clean up Washington and put the
American people first.
Remember that cowboy who stopped me in the middle of the road who
felt like he was empowered in his election and in his selection of his
representative. That is the way it should be.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I welcome back my
colleague, Mrs. Kirkpatrick. It is great to have her back in this
institution.
The gentlewoman's amendment is an amendment that I support. However,
the underlying bill, H.R. 1, is the furthest thing that can be
considered ``for the people.'' This bill is nothing but a bill that is
for loading billions upon billions of dollars into the coffers of
Members of Congress.
I don't think anybody in my district who stops me in the street is
saying, ``Hey, we want you to take taxpayer dollars away from investing
in infrastructure, take taxpayer dollars away from investing in
pediatric cancer research, and you know what, load up your campaign
coffers with that so you can go enrich some political operatives and
maybe buy some more TV commercials and radio ads, send some more mail
pieces that get thrown away immediately when they come into your
house.''

[[Page H2594]]

This has to be one of the worst examples of self-preservation that I
have ever witnessed in my 22 years working for the U.S. House of
Representatives and serving in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I can't think of one person in my district who has come up and said,
``I want you to take tax dollars away from building bridges and roads,
finding cures for deadly diseases, and put it in your campaign fund.''
That is why this bill is terrible.
This bill has not been open; it has not been a bipartisan process; it
has not been regular order, all the things that the Democratic majority
promised us that they would do when they took over.
This bill was introduced on January 3. I certainly hope every
Democratic Member actually read the bill before they signed on as a
cosponsor, but I think they are reading it now. And there are a lot of
problems, which is why we have so many amendments.
Let me go through some of the process. We requested a CBO score--it
was delivered last Friday; it was updated yesterday--which actually
agrees with me that taxpayer dollars are going to be taken away from
other priorities that we can spend here in Congress, like roads and
bridges, cancer research, Alzheimer's research, and others, and go
toward Members of Congress' campaigns.
Hours before the only committee markup that we saw with the majority,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute with new text, including a
magical, new freedom from influence fund that would supposedly support
the enrichment of Members of Congress' campaigns, it had no details on
how that fund would be filled.
We went through the markup. Only one committee, the smallest
committee in Congress, House Administration, it was the only committee
that marked this up. That is not regular order. Forty percent of the
bill has never gone through regular order.
Yet we see now 72 amendments over the last few days. Twenty-eight of
them that we offered to try to make the bill better in committee were
all turned down on a partisan roll call.
Then we went to Rules. I actually had a good time in Rules. I have to
thank my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren, for that debate during the
Rules Committee.
We again received new text of the bill 10 minutes before I walked in,
10 minutes before, including 51 new pages. Where was this in the markup
process?

After the Rules hearing and before consideration on the floor, we
learned through leaks to the press that the new freedom from influence
fund would be filled with some magical surcharges of corporate fines,
but we had no details.
I had no idea that the Democrats' solution to campaign finance reform
and their goal to take corporate money out of politics was to use
corporate money to now fund our campaigns, which we now legally cannot
accept.
That is the height of hypocrisy. No one is asking for more corporate
dollars to line the campaign coffers of Members of Congress.
This bill and the process are just a sham. Look, a joint committee
report with revenue stream projections for this new magical freedom
from influence fund was not shown to us. It was just submitted for the
Record. We found it. We saw it.
The new CBO report clearly says this fund will be out of money in
just a few years after it becomes activated, because the costs are
going to exponentially rise, and clearly, taxpayer dollars will have to
bail it out.
The corporate fund, even the CBO and The Washington Post realize that
that corporate tax fund, the tax rate of corporate dollars now being
funneled into our campaigns that we can't take right now, those
corporate dollars and fines will take away from being able to be spent
on the priorities of my constituents who stop me in the streets. They
say, ``We want to build new bridges. We want new roadways. We want to
make sure that this bill goes down, because it is a travesty on the
American people and the American taxpayer.''
Madam Chair, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, while I have the utmost respect and
admiration for my colleague across the aisle--in fact, he is one of my
favorite Members of Congress--I strongly disagree with his
characterization of H.R. 1.
No one knows more than I about dark money, secret money being spent
in elections. I have had tens of millions of dollars spent to defeat
me, yet I prevail because I have the power of the people.
That is what this bill does. It empowers people just like that cowboy
who stopped me with his pickup and contributed $5 to my legislative
election.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this election. There is
nothing more important than elections in our democracy and empowering
the people to participate, nothing. That is the cornerstone of our
democracy.
Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), my esteemed colleague.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Arizona
(Mrs. Kirkpatrick) on this very smart amendment. I am not surprised. It
is typical that she would make this a bipartisan amendment. It is very
helpful. It is very smart. I am glad that she is back here in Congress
to show this leadership.
Just one word on the CBO: It shows that there is indeed no tax money
involved in the freedom from influence fund.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Golden

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to introduce my amendment to
H.R. 1.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 449, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert the
following:
``(c) Prohibiting Certain Candidates From Qualifying as
Participating Candidates.--
``(1) Candidates with multiple civil penalties.--If the
Commission assesses 3 or more civil penalties under
subsection (a) against a candidate (with respect to either a
single election or multiple elections), the Commission may
refuse to certify the candidate as a participating candidate
under this title with respect to any subsequent election,
except that if each of the penalties were assessed as the
result of a knowing and willful violation of any provision of
this Act, the candidate is not eligible to be certified as a
participating candidate under this title with respect to any
subsequent election.
``(2) Candidates subject to criminal penalty.--A candidate
is not eligible to be certified as a participating candidate
under this title with respect to an election if a penalty has
been assessed against the candidate under section 309(d) with
respect to any previous election.
``(d) Imposition of Criminal Penalties.--For criminal
penalties for the failure of a participating candidate to
comply with the requirements of this title, see section
309(d).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, before I talk about my amendment, I would
first like to thank Congressman Sarbanes for his work on this bill.
H.R. 1 is a comprehensive, good government bill that goes a long way
in wresting power away from elites who abuse our political system for
narrow self-interests. This legislation would return power where it
belongs: in the hands of working people.
As long as corporations and mega-donors finance campaigns, well-
connected insiders will continue to call the shots.
Mainers have seen firsthand what can happen when the power is
returned to the people. In 1996, our State's voters passed a referendum
establishing the Maine Clean Elections Act.
By collecting small donations from people in their communities, Maine
candidates refuse the donations of lobbyists and the well-heeled, and
concentrate instead on face-to-face conversations with their neighbors.
This empowers a community to choose a representative in a battle of
ideas instead of a battle of bank accounts.
Maine's clean election reforms have been supported and used by
candidates of all parties in my State. Republican,

[[Page H2595]]

Democratic, Green Party, and independent candidates have used our clean
election system.
In fact, in 2018, a Republican candidate for Governor used the system
because he understood that it was going to free him up to spend his
time going door to door and talking to the very people who he wanted to
represent as Governor of the State of Maine.
Today, we have the opportunity to follow Maine's lead and bring
needed reform to the rest of the country.
H.R. 1 allows candidates to refuse donations from mega-donors by
implementing a matching system for small-dollar donations from everyday
people.
As we have seen in Maine, candidates who use this system are good
stewards of the funds they receive. But as with any system, there is
potential for bad actors, and it is important that they be held
accountable.
My amendment to H.R. 1 ensures that any bad actors are cut off from
the matching system and sets high standards for participation. The
legislation bars a candidate from using matching funds if the FEC
assesses three or more civil penalties against a candidate for
violating election laws.
More importantly, if a candidate willfully, knowingly violates the
law, my amendment permanently bars them from the program.
Finally, my provision reaffirms that egregious violations of campaign
finance laws should result in imprisonment of up to 1 to 5 years.
With H.R. 1 and my amendment, we are creating an accountable election
system.
The funds for the matching program, as was just discussed, come from
bad corporate actors. These are fines, penalties, and settlements from
corporate malfeasance, tax crimes, and other breaches of the public
trust. That money can be used to ensure that everyday people who don't
have a network of deep money around them, just everyday, working
people, will be given the opportunity to compete in a campaign, to go
out and represent their people, to go out and spend their time talking
to them face-to-face instead of spending their time dialing for dollars
and talking to just the very wealthy.
It is time that the people take the power back. By passing my
amendment and H.R. 1, we will take that first step. Americans aren't
going to let our democracy be taken out from under us any longer.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment
and ``yes'' on final passage.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I don't have the best
Nickelback lyrics to introduce my next speaker, but I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our Republican leader.

{time} 0945

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his work
and his love of music.
This new Democrat socialist majority wants the Federal Government to
interfere in our free and fair elections. This bill today, the
majority's most important bill, is a massive Federal Government
takeover that would undermine the integrity of our elections. But
before I explain why, I want to highlight how the majority has gone to
great steps to actually hide their prize legislation from the American
people.
Madam Speaker, the American public need to understand, when you
become the majority, you reserve 1 through 10 of the numbering of
bills, and you want to make your number one bill the most important
thing you do for America today.
Two years ago we were in the majority, Madam Chair, and we made the
most important bill to make sure the people's money went back to them.
We wanted to cut your taxes.
The most important bill that the Democrat socialist majority has is
to take more of your money and give it to the politicians who want to
vote for this bill. How ironic.
Now, because H.R. 1 has had such a broad spectrum of where to go, it
was referred to 10 committees. Imagine that, 10 committees.
But 40 percent of this bill has not even been marked up because, what
did they do? They only went to one committee.
What committee did they go to? They went to the very special
committee, House Administration.
This House Administration, the Members who sit on House
Administration, I am sure they are probably selected from the
conference committee that goes forward to select individuals for it.
Oh, no, no, no. That is not the committee we went to. House
Administration is selected just by two people: the Speaker and the
leader. The Speaker and the leader.
And do you know what? It is one of the smallest committees we have.
Because if H.R. 1 is so important to the American public, I am sure we
would want everybody to see it. But, no, it is just nine people of this
House.
And in their jurisdiction, they didn't get to mark up the whole bill.
They only had about 60 percent of the bill to mark up.
But I want to thank our Republican colleagues on this committee:
first of all, Ranking Member Rodney Davis, Mark Walker, and Barry
Loudermilk. They were very thoughtful.
They realized, even though the chair of the House Administration,
when asked during the markup, would the other committees mark up this
bill, she promised--she promised--that the other nine committees would
see it, that the other nine committees could mark up that other 40
percent that House Administration didn't get to mark up.
But lo and behold, that is not true. Just as this new Democrat
socialist majority said there will be 72 hours before things come to
the floor, no. Yesterday we learned that can mean an hour; those other
71 don't matter.
But what the Republicans on the other side of the aisle did, they
wanted there to be a thoughtful approach on the issue. They provided 28
amendments to improve H.R. 1.
Do you know how many the Democrats on the other side that the Speaker
selected, those six Members--they didn't vote for one of them. They
could not find a way that, of those 28 amendments, one of them could be
accepted.
I guess the Speaker selected the right people for the House
Administration.
Now, they call this bill the For the People Act, but I want to
explain why I actually think it is for the politicians, because
everyone who votes for this bill today, they are all going to go home a
little more excited. Do you know why? They just got the taxpayers to
actually fund their elections, and they picked it in a manner where you
don't even know, and the multiplying effect of the 6 to 1, who provided
it.
So let's talk about ``For the Politicians Act.''
First, H.R. 1 wants to give American taxpayer dollars to political
candidates and campaigns, regardless of whether you support it. We are
not talking just Republicans or Democrats running. Any view they want
with any impression they want to say.
We just had a bill on the floor yesterday about hate. I imagine there
are going to be quite a few people who run for office who get
taxpayers' money who talk a lot of hate. I don't think America wants
their money spent on that.
This bill will give candidates a government match of 6 to 1, not a
dollar for dollar. No, no, no, no. The ``For the Politicians Act''
multiplies it. So, if a citizen gives $200, the government gives
$1,200.
That is why the new Democrat socialist party is so excited by this
bill. That is why they made it their number one priority. Hard-earned
taxpayer money should go toward building roads, bridges, or giving a
boost to struggling Americans, not just to political campaigns.
I am not sure about these other districts, but when I campaigned, no
one came to me and said: ``Let's make sure you take more of my taxpayer
money to give to you to run.'' I can't remember one time anybody on any
side of the aisle asked for that.
Worse, this bill would allow political candidates to profit off
actually running for office on the American taxpayers' dime. The bill
expands the use of taxpayer funds to include the childcare, the rent,
the mortgage, or even professional development.

[[Page H2596]]

We have now just created a new industry. Think of the individual who
just wants to run for office, who wants to spew hate, and says: ``The
taxpayers are going to pay for it. I am just going to keep doing it.''
Second, H.R. 1 legalizes the vote for convicted felons, even if that
person was convicted of election fraud. Can you imagine that? We are
going to vote on a bill today that provides more taxpayer money to
politicians, that is going to allow felons to vote, because we don't
care what States say. But even if you are convicted of election fraud,
come on down; we have got something special for you.

And this wasn't created by one new member of this Democrat socialist
party. It is the most important bill that they selected. It is H.R. 1.
No other bill matters to them but this. It just doesn't make sense to
me.
Third, H.R. 1 would weaken the security of our elections and make it
harder to protect against voter fraud. It automatically registers
voters from the DMV.
Voting is a right. It is not a mandate.
This legislation would also prevent officials from ever removing
ineligible voters from the rolls or even verifying the accuracy of
voter information.
To that point, H.R. 1 exposes our election system to widespread
fraud. Take ballot harvesting, for example. We have one less Member in
this body because of the harvesting of ballots, a practice where a
third-party activist can collect your absentee ballot from other voters
and turn them in for you, or potentially not even turn them in at all.
Can you imagine putting the trust of your vote in the hand of a
stranger? If that doesn't scare you, it should.
Sadly, this practice was weaponized in California and North Carolina
not so long ago, but now we want to make it everywhere.
You know, The Washington Post highlighted the peril of this practice.
Let me read you the headline: ``Don't Be Shocked by the North Carolina
Fraud Allegations. Absentee Ballots Are Much Less Secure Than Polling
Places.''
Absentee ballots are less secure than polling places.
The piece goes on to say: ``No one oversees voters filling out
absentee ballots to ensure that they fill out the ballot and return it
without tampering.
``Campaigns and parties have taken advantage of this by turning to
campaign and party workers to deliver and return absentee ballot
materials for voters--on the honor system.''
And, finally, this bill wants to stack the deck in favor of the party
in power at the Federal Election Commission.
We talk a lot about bipartisanship. We have talked a lot about it in
different ways. The committee that could only mark up 60 percent of
this bill, you might say it is bipartisan. But it is not level. It is
six to three. That is why not one of the 28 amendments got adopted.
But the Federal Election Commission is an even six Commissioners, a
panel of three on one side and three on the other.
So what does this bill do that the new Democrat socialist majority
cares most about? Let's stack the deck. Let's stack the deck a little
further. Let's not make it three and three. Let's put the party in
power to get that one more, to put the thumb on the scale a little
further. So they want to make it a five-member panel.
This week, The New York Times wrote:

Republicans, arguably, have spent more time trying to
define this bill than Democrat socialists have spent trying
to promote it.

I wonder why. If it is your most important bill, the bill that is
going to define your Congress, let's look at what it is. They want to
take more taxpayer money. They want to give you less freedom.
Those who vote for it today, I guess they walk away with a raise in
their campaign. They are asking the taxpayer to give them 6 to 1.
Pretty good return, I would say. But it doesn't even matter if the
taxpayer supports you or not because you are just going to make
government larger and take the money away.
It is going to let people who are convicted felons open the door.
Come on and vote, even if you are convicted of election fraud.
It is kind of interesting to me that you would make it your number
one priority. It is kind of interesting to me, a structure of Congress,
if you referred to a committee, that you wouldn't have it all marked
up. It is kind of interesting to me the only committee you would pick
to mark it up is the one chosen by the Speaker. It is interesting to me
that this is where you spend your time.
We can do better, and I hope today we have a big voice to say
taxpayers should not pay for our elections, that politicians should not
vote to take more of taxpayers' hard-earned money so they could say
things that people disagree with.
The Acting CHAIR. All Members are reminded to address their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I think I am going to go home this weekend
to my district feeling comfortable that I understand what my
constituents want.
As I said earlier, in 1996, Maine voters actually voted for a public
funding program in the State of Maine. They liked the program so much
that they actually upped the ante in 2015 through another voter
referendum where Maine voters actually voted that they wanted to
continue this program and they wanted to increase the funding to keep
regular people competitive against the dark money that was flown into
elections in the State of Maine.
In the State of Maine, we actually allow convicted felons to vote.
They do it from prison. Because while we believe in holding people
accountable for their crimes, we don't feel the need, in Maine, to take
their voice away from them.
So I am going to go home knowing that I understand my district.
I also just want to take a moment--you know, some of the comments
from the Republican leader, whom I respect very much, but you want to
talk about spewing hate. H.R. 1 is a piece of legislation that
Democrats have put forward to show that one of their top priorities is
to protect our democracy, and I know a little something about it.
I fought in two wars for this country, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I
reject this socialist rhetoric. I am an American. Democrats are
Americans. Republicans are Americans. We need to put this
hateful speech behind us and talk about how we can work together.

I understand that there is some frustration being expressed by other
side about amendments and whether or not Republicans are involved in
this process. Look, I will wrap it up, but let me just say: I have
voted for a number of Republican amendments in the last couple of
weeks, so I would encourage them to support this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Golden for his
service to our country. Our country thanks the gentleman, and everyone
in this institution thanks him for that service.
This bill, however, is a very bad idea. Public funding of elections
is a very bad idea.
At the last second before we vote on H.R. 1, Democrats have decided
they are afraid of the CBO score for their massively expensive bill. We
haven't even debated it and want to hide it from consideration in this
Chamber.
So they created this gimmick called the freedom from influence fund,
which is proposed to add an additional 2.75 percent penalty against
law-breaking or malfeasant corporations and officials at corporations.
They claimed it would generate enough funds to pay the massive cost of
funding political campaigns for Members of Congress.
Late last night, we got that CBO report, and the score for H.R. 1
that projects the impact of this new shell game called the freedom from
influence fund and its proposed funding source, corporate fines--again,
voting for this bill will allow corporate money to, for the first time,
lawfully flow into the campaigns of each and every one of us in this
institution.

{time} 1000

The CBO score tells a very different story from what Democrats want
you to believe. According to the CBO, this new fund will result in a
reduction of income and payroll taxes, meaning corporations will have
less money to spend on their payrolls, which equates to less jobs.
To quote the CBO report:

[[Page H2597]]

The assessment on civil monetary penalties and settlements
would reduce the base for income and payroll taxes.
Consequently, the revenues from the assessments will be
partially offset by lower income and payroll taxes.

Put another way, H.R. 1 takes American jobs away in order to fund the
campaign coffers of Members of Congress.
Furthermore, the CBO notes that, as a result of this funding source,
less money will be available for other government programs that we want
to prioritize in this institution.
I quote again from the CBO report:

CBO and JCT expect the increased assessment of criminal and
civil penalties would reduce the amount of penalties and
settlements collected under current law.

The CBO report confirms what Republicans have been saying all along:
H.R. 1 is a shell game that will, in the end, hurt taxpayers because
this proposal to publicly fund campaigns will be funded by the
taxpayers.
However, you are going to likely hear Democrats say, instead, that
this fund will run at a surplus over the first few years of its
existence, which is true because they designed the bill to not make any
expenditures for the first 6 years of this program.
But pay very close attention. What the Democrats won't tell you is
that, once the fund starts making its expenditures, the fund will be
nearly broke in 5 years, and that is assuming that the cost of running
campaigns will stay static today and not exponentially increase like it
has.
Again, this Democratic funding gimmick was concocted just to result
in a more desirable CBO score. I don't see that as a result.
The new fund will collect money for 6 years with no expenditures,
resulting in the accumulation of a large balance. Then, once the money
starts flowing to every Member of Congress in this institution, it is
going to run out in 5 years.
Democrats should be ashamed for making this bill H.R. 1.
When Republicans took over this institution, after 50 years in the
minority, our H.R. 1 was the Congressional Accountability Act, to make
Congress work better.
H.R. 1 in the last Congress, put more money in the pockets of middle-
class taxpayers, families back home.
This H.R. 1 will do nothing but put taxpayer dollars in the campaign
funds of every Member of Congress, and that is not acceptable to me,
and that is why we should have a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).
The amendment was agreed to.

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. 54 by Mr. Brindisi of New York.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Neguse of Colorado.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Brindisi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Brindisi) 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

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 188, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 115]

AYES--237

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
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
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
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
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
Stefanik
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

NOES--188

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
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
Crenshaw
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
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)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (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
Steil
Steube
Stewart
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
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--12

Bilirakis
Clay
Crawford
Curtis
Dunn
Khanna
Radewagen
Rogers (AL)
Sablan
San Nicolas
Stivers
Yoho

{time} 1027

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

[[Page H2598]]

Stated for:
Mr. KHANNA. Madam Chair, I was late with my kids sick. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 115.
Stated against:
Mr. YOHO. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''
on rollcall No. 115.
Mr. CURTIS. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted
``nay'' on rollcall No. 115.

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Neguse

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Neguse) 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 239,
noes 186, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 116]

AYES--239

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buck
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
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)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
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 (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.
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
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
Stauber
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--186

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
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--12

Cicilline
Clay
Crawford
Dunn
Johnson (GA)
Maloney, Sean
Radewagen
Rogers (AL)
Sablan
San Nicolas
Stivers
Van Drew

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1033

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 116.
Stated against:
Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, on rollcall Number 116, my vote is recorded as
``yea.'' My intention was to vote ``nay.''

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to
consider a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, for 8 years, this Chamber has been silent, a silence
that harms people. We have allowed measures to reduce people's access
to vote, measures that caused the Fourth Circuit to find that African
American voters were targeted with surgical precision, measures that
excluded voters on Indian reservations and that wrongfully tried to
remove 95,000 naturalized Texans from the rolls.
Today that silence ends. This bill is not for its own sake. A Member
of the U.S. Senate said that H.R. 1 is a power grab. He is right. It
grabs power away from the special interests, the elites, and the 1
percent and gives it to the American people.
I tell you plainly what it does: automatic voter registration to
allow 50 million eligible citizens to vote, prohibits deceptive
practices, increases access to polls for voters with disabilities,
helps States replace outdated voting machines, and requires disclosure
of dark money donors, not limiting their speech but simply asking them
to stand by it. These reforms aren't difficult, but they will require
courage to make.
Mr. Frederick Douglass saw what our democracy was and what our
democracy could be and said: ``Where all is plain there is nothing to
be argued.''
For that reason, I do not argue. But I look forward to joining and
doing the will of the people and supporting this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Haaland). The Chair will remind all persons in
the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.

[[Page H2599]]

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, before I get started, I
ask for a point of personal privilege to have the Members of this
institution and the gallery recognize the Chair as the first Native
American woman to ever chair the House proceedings.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, as my home State President
Ronald Reagan once said: The most terrifying words in the English
language are: ``I'm from the government and I'm here to help.''
I am for the American voter. I support every eligible voter having
easier ways to register to vote and easier access to the polls. What I
am not for is Washington, D.C. taking over our elections.
I have said it before: I agree with my colleagues across the aisle
that there is a role for the Federal Government to play in election
infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access,
transparency, and, most importantly, election security. However, H.R.
1, misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from the States to
administer their own elections, and threatens to limit Americans'
constitutional rights. I cannot support this legislation.
This bill, a 700-page mammoth bill, takes power away from States
given to them by the U.S. Constitution to designate the time, place,
and the manner of their elections. I know the author of this
legislation said yesterday that H.R. 1 is simply implementing the best
practices of States, but that is federalizing our election system, no
matter how nicely you phrase it.
Congress should partner with the States who understand the unique
needs of their own residents and provide support to increase voter
registration and improve election security instead of federally
mandating, what this bill does, which is a one-size-fits-all approach.
There is a limited role for the Federal Government to play in
elections when patterns of discrimination have occurred, and when we
will continue to address those patterns, we can do it in a bipartisan
way through the Voting Rights Act.
I cannot stress enough that Congress should absolutely be in favor of
increasing access to the polls, but we cannot do that without adding
the necessary checks and balances to ensure that these accesses are
protected.
We should allow States to maintain their own voter rolls to help them
process voters in a timely manner, avoid unfunded mandates, and manage
voter lists to avoid registration and voting irregularities. A few
voting irregularities can change the outcome of a single election.
Just look at what happened recently in North Carolina. A political
operative working for a Republican candidate illegally harvested
ballots which led to the North Carolina State Board of Elections
calling for a new special election. Ballot harvesting is the practice
when a political operative or volunteer can come to your home, pick up
your ballot, and deliver it to the polling precinct. This process,
while illegal in most States like North Carolina, is a perfectly legal
practice in places like California.
Republicans, both at the House Administration Committee markup and at
Rules Committee, offered amendments to prohibit ballot harvesting, and
both attempts were rejected by Democrats. We can no longer be naive to
think that this is a practice that will simply help your elderly
neighbor who can no longer get to the polls. Just ask my former
colleagues from California. Ballot harvesting is an unguarded
instrument that is occurring on a large scale as a practice used by
political operatives to manipulate the outcome of elections.

If we want to improve election security, we must eliminate ballot
harvesting and its risks to taking away the choice of the American
people. Every American deserves their vote to be counted and protected.
H.R. 1 limits free speech and imposes vague standards that
disadvantage American citizens who want to advocate on behalf of what
they believe in. Organizations like the National Right to Life, the
Chamber of Commerce, and even the ACLU have spoken out against this
bill for that very reason. Every American should be able to speak on an
issue that they are passionate about.
We also recently received the revised CBO score of H.R. 1 which
egregiously underestimated H.R. 1's cost to the taxpayers because the
Congressional Budget Office said they needed more time to develop a
comprehensive score. Instead of giving them more time, we are preparing
right now to vote on this 700-page bill.
My colleagues across the aisle are all about transparency--at least
that is what I keep hearing. But I have yet to see it in action,
especially when it comes to funding their own campaigns. H.R. 1 is
creating public subsidies through the new government match program. For
every $200, $1,200 will be going to a politician's campaign. The
majority has changed this provision so many times throughout the last
couple weeks. This money will come from the U.S. Treasury through
corporate fines and go into this nebulous Freedom From Influence Fund,
but the bottom line is it is going into Members of Congress' own
campaigns.
Why are we allocating money to go to politicians when there are so
many other causes like transportation, infrastructure, and cancer
research that our tax dollars, your tax dollars, and the Americans' tax
dollars should be funding?

{time} 1045

The Democratic majority claims they want to take money out of
politics but have created a scheme that will, for the first time ever,
make it legal for Members of Congress to take corporate money into
their own campaigns.
This is exactly why we need to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1. It is a
travesty.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), leader of H.R. 1, the author of the bill.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chair, my colleagues, somewhere in America there
is a family in their living room looking at the television, hearing
another report about how billionaires and super-PACs and insiders and
lobbyists are running Washington and calling the shots on what happens
in their lives.
And they are asking themselves: Do we matter anymore? Do we count?
Will our voice be heard?
H.R. 1 says to that family and millions of families across the
country who feel the same way: We get it. We hear you. We want to
change this place and give you your voice back by restoring ethics and
integrity, by pushing back on the influence of big money in our
politics and by making sure that, when you go to vote, you don't have
to run an obstacle course to the ballot box in America.
That is what we stand for.
Our colleague John Lewis reminds us all the time that we have to
keep our eyes on the prize. Well, on this day, at this moment, in this
House, the prize is H.R. 1. Let's pass H.R. 1.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable John Lewis, hero of the voting
rights and civil rights movement.
Mr. LEWIS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support on H.R. 1, and I
urge each and every one of our colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Chair, you have heard me say on occasion that the right to vote
is precious--almost sacred. In a democratic society, it the most
powerful nonviolent instrument or tool that we have.
In my heart of hearts, I believe we have a moral responsibility to
restore access for all of our citizens who desire to participate in the
democratic process.
Many people marched and protested for the right to vote. Some gave a
little blood. Others gave their very lives.
This weekend, many of our colleagues traveled with us to Alabama--to
Birmingham, to Montgomery, and to Selma. They saw the signs in the
museums that said, ``White only.'' ``Colored only.''
They visited the First Baptist Church in downtown Montgomery

[[Page H2600]]

where we feared for our lives as a mob waited outside to attack and
kill us.
They stood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge--crossing the Alabama River--
where we were beaten, trampled, and tear-gassed for attempting to march
from Selma to Montgomery to dramatize the need for voting rights.
Madam Chair, you have heard me tell this story before, and you know
our work is not finished. It makes me sad. It makes me feel like crying
when people are denied the right to vote.
We all know that this is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It
is an American one.
For the past few days, I listened to the debate on this bill. I spent
some time having what I call an executive session with myself.
The words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., came to mind. He would
often say that the ``arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends
toward justice.''
This vote is an opportunity to be on the right side of history. It is
a chance to cast a vote by the people, of the people, and for the
people.
So I ask you: If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
The time has arrived to tear down the barriers to the ballot box.
Today, we are able to do our part in this long fight for the very soul
of our Nation. Let's save our Nation and redeem the soul of America.
Ms. LOFGREN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
DeGette) having assumed the chair, Ms. Haaland, Acting 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 172, she reported
the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry
further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CRENSHAW. I am, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Crenshaw moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):

DIVISION D--UPHOLDING SUFFRAGE IN AMERICA

TITLE XI--UPHOLDING SUFFRAGE IN AMERICA

SEC. 11001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ``Upholding Suffrage in
America Act'' or the ``USA Act''.

SEC. 11002. FINDINGS.

Congress finds as follows:
(1) Voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy.
(2) The Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting
based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age.
(3) It is of paramount importance that the United States
maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them
from interference, including interference from foreign
threats and illegal voting.
(4) The city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-
citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote
in school board elections.
(5) Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in
elections for Federal office.

SEC. 11003. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that allowing illegal
immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and
diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.

Ms. LOFGREN (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill.
It will not kill the bill. If adopted, the bill will immediately
proceed to final passage, as amended.
Much has been made of election security as of late, much of it for
good reason. In the end, these concerns, the concerns that many
Americans rightfully share, are built around the fundamental notion
that our vote should count, our vote should mean something; and we
should know that, when we cast it, it is sacred and unchanging.
Our vote is a signal of what direction we want our country to move
toward, and that vote is an element of trust that we place in the men
or women elected to take it in that direction.
We vote because this country is governed by the people, by the
citizens of this country. We in this body humbly serve at their
pleasure.
The quickest way to erode a democracy, erode faith in our
institutions, is to erode that trust, erode the notion that your vote
truly counts.
The truth is this is already happening. In places like San Francisco,
Democrats have fought hard to ensure that U.S. citizens must share
their civic duty, their vote, with illegal immigrants. The city of San
Francisco has effectively canceled out the votes of its citizens and
replaced it with illegals.
When I say it out loud, it sounds like I am making it up, because
what kind of government would cancel out the votes of its own citizens
and replace them with noncitizens--but not just any noncitizens, ones
who entered our country illegally.
It is with this in mind, this sacred duty to protect our citizens,
protect their vote, protect their voice, that I propose this motion to
recommit.
This motion to recommit would show the American people that, despite
the deep and growing differences between us, we can at least agree that
the people who vote for us are citizens of this country.
Madam Speaker, this is a simple affirmation. It is an affirmation of
the fact that the elected representatives of this body answer to the
citizens of this country who voted for us. We will not stand by and let
their voices be muted. We will not let their trust be eroded. We will
not let our democracy be questioned.
Last year, Congress voted on this very idea. Forty-nine Democrats
crossed the aisle to vote with us.
It should not be a partisan idea that the people who do not legally
live in our country cannot legally vote in our elections. If you are
not legally here, if you entered our country against the laws and
wishes of our citizens, then you should not vote for representation in
our government, diluting the voices of Americans.
I am proposing this MTR not because it feels good, not because we
want to attack anyone, but because it is clear to all of us that voter
integrity actually needs to be defended.
It has become clear because San Francisco is not the only
municipality that has fallen into this radicalism. Other cities have
done or attempted to do the same.
The men and women in this body are here because we were duly elected
as such.
Our citizens expect much of us. They expect us to protect their most
fundamental rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. They expect us to respect their voice. Often, the only way
they have to express that voice is through their vote.
If we no longer agree to protect that voice, as we did last
Congress--if we don't, in this moment, agree that their voice should
not be canceled out but protected, then I worry a great deal

[[Page H2601]]

about our democracy. I worry that radicalism has made its way into this
sacred body, as it already has in so many other places across our great
country.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to
protect the voices of your constituents. Vote to preserve the notion
that our Nation's government is elected by--and only by--the citizens
of this country. Anything less is a disservice to the very people who
put us here.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1100

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1 already prevents noncitizens from
voting in Federal elections, whether they are here lawfully or
undocumented. In fact, the motion to recommit notices that. They say:
``Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections.''
H.R. 1 utilizes the authority in Article I, Section 4 to extend in
Federal elections the opportunity for every American to vote.
This motion to recommit is an effort to divert us from the mission
that we are on to expand voting rights to every American citizen in
Federal elections. I urge its defeat.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).
Mr. ROSE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
this motion. I rise today as a new Member who ran for office on
cleaning up our system. And admittedly, I rise today as someone who has
voted for Republican MTRs in the past.
In fact, I was eager to hear how my colleagues and friends across the
aisle would propose a solution today for how they are going to finally
drain the swamp. I was eager to hear how they would protect and
enshrine the rights and freedoms and liberties that we all are endowed
in the Constitution.
But what they have given us today does nothing to drain the swamp,
nothing to uphold our freedoms. Only in Washington would we see a group
of people actively trying to sabotage anticorruption measures.
This is a political stunt meant to divide us, meant to sow hatred. It
is a game, nothing less. Nothing less.
This right here is why the American people hate politics. Honestly,
if this is your strategy to win future elections, we wish you Godspeed
because it will never work. It will never work because the question
before us today, and the thing that this joke of an MTR that is seeking
to distract us from is, whose side are you on?
Let's show the American people that this is the people's House, not
the House of corporate interests and lobbyists and dark money.
Again, I stand in opposition to this motion.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the hero of the voting
rights movement.
Mr. LEWIS. Madam Speaker, I believe in the way of peace, in the way
of love. I believe in the philosophy and the discipline of nonviolence.
Can we come together and support a simple piece of legislation to
open up the political process and let all of our people come in?
I ask you to remember what I said a few moments ago. With this vote,
we have an opportunity to be a headlight and not a taillight.
Some of our colleagues are complaining that we didn't have enough
time. We have the time. This piece of legislation was introduced more
than 7 years ago, and the other party didn't do anything.
We are prepared to act. We are prepared to open up the political
process and let all of the people come in. It is the right thing to do.
It is a good thing to do, to set our country on a path, a path that can
be a model for the rest of the world.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on:
Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 228, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 117]

YEAS--197

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
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
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
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
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NAYS--228

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
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
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
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.
Matsui
McAdams

[[Page H2602]]

McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
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
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Clay
Crawford
Dunn
Maloney, Sean
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Stivers

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1111

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 117.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 193, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 118]

YEAS--234

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
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--193

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
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (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
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

NOT VOTING--5

Clay
Crawford
Dunn
Rogers (AL)
Stivers

{time} 1121

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________