[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5091-H5099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2722, SECURING AMERICA'S FEDERAL
ELECTIONS ACT; WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH
RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3351,
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 460 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 460
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2722) to
protect elections for public office by providing financial
support and enhanced security for the infrastructure used to
carry out such elections, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In
lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on House Administration now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
116-20, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of June 27, 2019, relating to a measure
making appropriations.
Sec. 3. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3351) making appropriations for financial services and
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2020, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 4. (a) No amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc
described in section 5 of this resolution, and pro forma
amendments described in section 6 of this resolution.
(b) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may
be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided
by section 6 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in part
B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 5 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc
offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 6 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 6. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
5 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 7. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. In the
case of sundry amendments reported from the Committee, the
question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros
and without division of the question. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Monday night, the Rules Committee met
and reported a rule, House Resolution 460. It provides for
consideration of H.R. 3351 under a structured rule that makes 46
amendments in order, with 1 hour of general debate controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
It also provides for consideration of H.R. 2722 under a closed rule
with 1 hour of general debate provided, controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. It
also provides same-day authority through the legislative day of
Thursday, June 27, 2019, relating to appropriations measures.
Madam Speaker, this underlying package of bills is proof that this
Democratic majority is committed to getting its work done both for
routine matters like appropriations and emergency priorities facing our
Nation.
Take the first measure, H.R. 3351, the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act. This builds on our efforts to fund the
government for fiscal year 2020 in a timely way. Instead of hollowing
out important investments like past Republican majorities have done,
this Democratic majority is investing in our future.
This legislation not only ensures both the executive and judicial
branches can continue to operate for the American people, there is also
language here to protect consumers from dangerous products and help
small businesses thrive, especially in distressed communities.
Most notably, Madam Speaker, this bill provides hundreds of millions
in grants to strengthen the integrity of our election system. This is
especially important since, if left to his own devices, I don't think
our President would even acknowledge that there is a crisis of
confidence in our elections following Russia's meddling in 2016, let
alone act so it never happens again. He seems content to welcome future
interference rather than prevent it, so it is especially important that
this Congress takes the lead to protect our democracy.
[[Page H5092]]
That is why we are also moving here to consider H.R. 2722, the
Securing America's Federal Elections Act. The Mueller report made clear
that Russia waged an all-out attack on our elections. Putin put his
thumb on the scale for President Trump, and intelligence officials have
made clear that he and others are trying to attack us again in the next
election.
I want to repeat that, Madam Speaker, in case the President happens
to be watching. Our very democracy is under attack. No troops have been
sent into combat. No guns have been fired, but a foreign adversary is
turning the internet and the ballot box into battlefields with the
integrity of the vote at stake.
It is beyond me why this President has not acted as if this is a
national emergency. Instead, he said the other day that he thinks he
would take campaign dirt about an opponent from a foreign government.
You can't make this stuff up, Madam Speaker. That is like leaving the
front door wide open when you know there is a burglar in town. He is
not preventing future acts, he is encouraging them.
Before my friends on the other side chalk this up to a slip of the
tongue, let me remind them that his own former communications director,
Hope Hicks, testified recently that she believes he is serious about
accepting information from a foreign source.
This President may not be stepping up to secure our elections, but
this Democratic majority is. This bill would enact things like verified
paper ballots, cybersecurity upgrades, and State grants to secure
voting systems.
This majority passed H.R. 1 in the opening months of this Congress.
That package includes reforms to fix our democracy. But under Leader
McConnell, the Senate did with it what it seems to do best: nothing.
He refused to even bring H.R. 1 up for a vote. Now, I don't know why
Leader McConnell is ignoring the warnings from our intelligence
officials or why he seems content with weaknesses in our election
systems. Maybe he is unwilling to ever break from Donald Trump on
anything, even something this important, which really is quite sad. But
I hope this time he will try something radical for the Senate: have a
vote. Bring this bill up so the American people can see whose side you
are on.
Lastly, Madam Speaker, this bill also gives us flexibility to deal
with an emergency of a different kind--the one this President is
creating on our southern border. President Trump's policies have led to
children sleeping on concrete floors, dirty and hungry with no access
to soap or even a toothbrush, sometimes left to be cared for by
children just a few years older than they are. It is hard to believe
that this is happening in the United States of America today.
This House will act, and I hope the Senate does the same thing. I
encourage all my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying
legislation, so we can do our jobs and act on these important issues.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, we are here today on two very different pieces of
legislation. Last night at the Rules Committee, I noted that these
unrelated bills have only one thing in common, and that is their place
in the Democratic majority's partisan, going-nowhere agenda.
Unfortunately, I believe today's rule is only going to compound that
recurring problem of the Democrats, frankly, not even trying to work
with Republicans to actually legislate in divided government.
Our first bill today is H.R. 3351, the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act of 2020. This is the 10th of 12
appropriations bills to come to the floor. As we have worked through
these bills, I have raised several concerns that are applicable to this
bill as well.
Like the previous appropriations bills this Congress, H.R. 3351 is
marked to a high allocation figure that has no basis in reality.
Remember, the House and Senate have not agreed to an overall budget for
fiscal year 2020, which the Congressional Budget Act mandates be done
by April 15.
{time} 1230
Without a budget agreement, the budget cap numbers contained in the
Budget Control Act will automatically take effect, leading to an 11
percent cut in defense spending and a 9 percent cut in nondefense
spending.
Instead of working with Republicans in the Senate to reach a deal
before marking and reporting funding bills, the majority has, instead,
gone ahead and pushed through their own partisan appropriations bills
that are marked to fake and unrealistic numbers.
The 12 appropriations bills the majority has proposed have several
flaws in common. They reflect the idea that any increase in defense
spending must be matched by an even greater increase in nondefense
spending, which simply isn't a realistic assessment of our national
priorities.
What is worse, these bills actually underfund defense and homeland
security, coming in below the numbers that the President requested in
order to ensure our military can adequately defend our Nation.
The FSGG bill we are considering today contains an 8 percent increase
over fiscal year 2019, which makes little sense when we are
simultaneously underfunding our national security.
Like the previous bills brought by my Democratic friends, the
Financial Services appropriations bill also contains several partisan
provisions that must be removed before a bipartisan, bicameral
agreement can be reached on spending.
The majority has removed longstanding pro-life protections, such as a
rider that prohibits the District of Columbia from using government
funds to provide for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or
health of the mother.
The majority has also cut out a longstanding provision that I
originally sponsored several years ago barring government contractors
from being forced to disclose political campaign contributions. Since I
originally sponsored this provision several years ago, I find it
surprising that the majority would eliminate this provision, which
provides important protections for government contractors and prevents
contracts from being awarded on the basis of contributions.
Of course, there was an opportunity to work through and fix these
problems through the amendment process. But instead of making things
better, the majority has chosen, once again, to leave out minority
voices.
I want to reiterate a point I made the last time I was on the floor
for a rule. During the last Congress, when Republicans were in the
majority, our record shows that we allowed more amendments sponsored
solely by Democrats than we did amendments sponsored solely by
Republicans.
The current majority has a much sorrier record. As of yesterday, of
all amendments made in order this Congress, 67 percent were sponsored
by Democrats, 19 percent by Republicans, and 13 percent were
bipartisan.
Today's rule is right in line with that record. Sixty-seven percent
of the amendments made in order are sponsored by Democrats, 24 percent
by Republicans, and 9 percent are bipartisan.
Madam Speaker, this record of partisanship is a far cry from what the
majority promised at the start of this Congress. There was an
opportunity to move forward with fulfilling the majority's promises
with today's rule. Instead, we see few Republican amendments and many
Democratic amendments, resulting in a final product that will fail to
achieve the bipartisan support needed to become law.
The second bill included in this rule is H.R. 2722, which the
majority is promoting as a bill that provides security for elections.
The reality is that this bill, like its partisan predecessor H.R. 1
that passed the House earlier this Congress, amounts to nothing less
than a complete Federal takeover of elections.
Traditionally, elections are left to the States and local governments
to conduct as they see fit. Localities can respond to local conditions;
election officials can innovate; and elections can be operated in a way
that best suits the unique needs of each community.
H.R. 2722 turns all that on its head. The bill will force all
elections to be conducted using paper ballots, even if the local
officials prefer more advanced technology. It will require costly
recounts with no apparent purpose. It
[[Page H5093]]
will impose significant and wasteful spending on taxpayers.
Instead of affirming States as the laboratories of democracy, when it
comes to elections, H.R. 2722 will impose a one-size-fits-all
regulatory regime directed from Washington on communities across the
country.
Madam Speaker, this state of affairs could and should have been
avoided. Instead of pushing these partisan bills this week, the
majority could have chosen to work with Republicans to craft bipartisan
bills to address all of these problems.
Even if that did not come to pass, the majority at the Rules
Committee still could have worked with the minority to make more
minority amendments in order and give all Members the opportunity to
fix these flawed bills on the floor. That they did not is yet another
indication of where the majority's priorities lie: with pushing
partisan bills to score political points and avoiding the bipartisan
work of actually making law.
There is still a chance to change, Madam Speaker. In order to do so,
the majority needs to decide whether they are here to score political
points or if they are here to make law.
Before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not highlight what is
missing in today's rule. We should have been considering three bills
today, not two. The missing bill is the supplemental appropriations
bill providing funding for the humanitarian crisis on the southern
border.
Each week, this crisis grows worse. Our facilities for holding new
arrivals, particularly children and vulnerable unaccompanied minors,
are already at the breaking point. Simply put, we need more resources,
and we need them today.
To be fair to the President, he has been asking Congress to do that
since May 1. The failure to brin forward a supplemental appropriations
bill for this purpose is a major failure of governance by the majority.
All of us here, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree that we need
to provide funding for this crisis. Time is wasting while we wait.
Back in 2014, when President Obama asked us for $3.7 billion in
supplemental resources for precisely the same purpose, the House acted
to give him the resources he needed in 24 days. As of today, almost 2
months have gone by with the majority failing to act.
Many of my friends on the other side rightfully express concern that
unaccompanied minors backing up at border stations is not appropriate
nor in the best interests of the children. I couldn't agree more. The
Border Patrol couldn't agree more.
By failing to bring forward a supplemental appropriations bill, the
path the majority is taking us on leads only to this outcome: hurting
the children I know we all want to help.
Congress has given HHS the mandate to care for unaccompanied minors.
Congress now needs to write the check so that HHS can do what Congress
has mandated.
I remind my friends across the aisle that Republicans are ready and
willing to work with them to pass a bipartisan supplemental
appropriations package that provides needed funding for housing, for
the Department of Defense, and especially for children who find
themselves in an unfathomable situation at the border.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would like to say for
the record that when it comes to this piece of legislation, the
Financial Services appropriations bill, Democrats actually did much
better than the Republicans did when they were in charge.
In fact, we made more amendments in order. We made more minority
amendments in order than the Republicans did when they were in charge.
In fact, there is a 57 percent increase, in terms of minority
amendments being made in order compared to what they did.
Let me also point out for the record that my Republican friends, I
think, tend to be a little redundant in the amendments that they offer.
For example, I think they submitted three amendments on the wall. We
make one amendment. Do we have to debate the wall three different
times?
On spending reductions, four amendments were submitted. We make two
in order, which is probably two too many. We should have made one in
order.
The bottom line is, there is a habit of just offering the same old,
same old, again and again and again. Quite frankly, the minority will
get its opportunity to debate these issues but not over and over and
over again.
Let's also get to the substance here. The gentleman said these are
two unrelated bills. Well, I disagree. The Financial Services
appropriations bill actually funds the Election Assistance Commission,
and the other bill we are considering, the SAFE Act, authorizes the
Election Assistance Commission at the same amount that is in the
appropriations bill. They are very much intertwined.
Let me also say, I expect that, before the day is out, we will do a
supplemental emergency bill to deal with the crisis that this President
has created at the border.
Let me also be clear that what we want to make sure is that, when we
provide the funding, this cruel treatment of children at the border
comes to an end.
This administration's deliberate policy of separating children from
their parents, of allowing children, almost infants, to sleep on cold
floors, to be denied basic necessities like soap and toothpaste and
toothbrushes, I mean, it is child abuse. It is unconscionable, so we
want to demand that this administration stop it.
This is the United States of America. I think the American people are
horrified at the inhumanity that they are reading about that is
occurring to these little children at our border.
It is unbelievable. I never thought that we would ever be on the
House floor talking about how children who have fled some of the worst
conditions imaginable are being so mistreated at the border.
So, yes, we will have a supplemental appropriations bill to deal with
it, but we are going to demand that the cruel policies of this
administration stop and stop now.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, there is a crisis at the southern border.
That is true. This past month, 140,000 people showed up seeking asylum:
84,000 families, 11,000 children.
But everything--every single thing--that the Trump administration is
doing, led by President Trump himself, is making a very dire situation
worse.
First, start with the definition that our President gives for what is
going on. It is the arrival of rapists, of criminals, of gang members,
when every single one of us who has been on that heartbreaking trip to
the southern border knows it is children, women, and families who are
fleeing violence, who are fleeing gang members, and who are fleeing
destitution and grinding poverty.
Those are the people arriving at the border. Their crime, made
criminal by the administration, is to seek help, to knock on America's
door and ask for help.
We may not be able to do all that we would like, but is it a crime
for a person to ask for assistance?
Second, by defining the crisis as an invasion of criminals--the Trump
definition--the Trump policy is to treat these people worse than
criminals, first starting with the family separation policy where
children, literally, were yanked out of the arms of their parents.
Many of those children still don't know where their father or their
mother is. That is being done in your name and mine, with the full
authority of the American Government and the widespread opposition of
the American people.
Then, when these people are in our custody, it is the imposition of
cruel and brutal conditions on children and innocent people whose crime
is to seek some assistance.
We had a Trump attorney, in Federal court, arguing that when it came
to fulfilling the duty that we had of holding in custody children, it
was okay to deny them toothbrushes, soap, access to showers, and
sanitary conditions, and to have them sleeping on cement floors in
frigid conditions.
[[Page H5094]]
This is shocking. It is unnecessary. It is inhumane. In short, it is
a policy of calculated cruelty, family separation, and affliction of
wholesale suffering.
It must end. We must immediately return all children to their parents
and provide humane, sanitary, and safe conditions for those seeking
asylum.
We must work with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to improve
conditions in those countries to address humanitarian conditions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. We must not withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars in
aid, as the President decrees.
Mr. President, the response to this crisis must not be cruelty.
Enforce our laws, yes. Work with Central American governments, yes.
But treat all who seek America's help with respect and dignity.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
{time} 1245
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to remind my friends that it took them weeks, if not longer,
to even acknowledge there was a crisis at the border. As a matter of
fact, they were accusing the President of manufacturing the crisis a
few weeks ago. Now, fortunately, they have come around to the idea that
hundreds of thousands of people arriving over a 3-month period of time
is a crisis.
Secondly, I want to remind them, they have still yet to act in the
face of the crisis. They have had the ability to pass legislation. The
President asked for it almost 60 days ago. We still haven't seen
anything in terms of legislation reaching this floor.
Madam Speaker, I also want to point out that, frankly, it shouldn't
take this long to respond. We can disagree over a lot of things. And I
have no doubt about the sincerity of my friends when it comes to being
concerned about the well-being of these children; none whatsoever.
But we know that part of this crisis is created because we haven't
given the President the emergency funds he needs to quickly move people
out of facilities where they were never designed to be, into influx
facilities that we are trying to stand up, literally, right now. One of
these is going to be in my district.
We dealt with this, by the way, in 2014. We did it with President
Obama; supported it; gave him the funds he needed; a Republican House,
a Democratic Senate, and the President. He got that money in 24 days.
One of those facilities was set up in my district.
Again, we don't like using military bases in this way; don't approve
of it; but we understand that President Obama faced an emergency
situation, and we gave him the tools and the resources he needed to
deal with that. That needs to happen now.
Frankly, what we are seeing in the House is quite a contrast to the
Senate, which has a bill in the Appropriations Committee that was
reported out 30-1. It is bipartisan. It is a bill the President has
expressed a willingness to sign. We ought to be working with that
vehicle, if my friends can't get something to the floor to deal with
this urgent crisis now.
Madam Speaker, I would also, if I may, like to inform the Chair that
if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to immediately bring up Congressman Davis' Election Security
Assistance Act for consideration under an open rule.
This bill provides targeted and crucially needed resources to State
and local election administrators to help secure America's voting
infrastructure. Unlike the majority's partisan bill that takes over all
election operations and replaces local authority with a one-size-fits-
all mandate from Washington, the Republican alternative provides needed
resources without stepping on the toes of State and local election
administrators.
It provides grants to States to update aging and at-risk election
infrastructure; provides security clearances to election officials to
facilitate the sharing of information about threats with frontline
officials; increases resources available to States and local
governments; and provides for hands-on assistance, as needed.
Madam Speaker, we all agree that our elections need to be protected,
and we all agree that more resources and more assets are necessary to
accomplish that goal. But rather than pushing a complicated mandate
from Washington that wastes taxpayer dollars and eliminates the
tradition of State and local control over the election operations, we
can do better by providing resources for security improvements and
reinforcements for local officials with the minimum additional
regulation.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend, the author of the
legislation in question.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to defeat the previous question so the House may consider
election security legislation that actually has a chance at becoming
law.
As I explained last night during debate of H.R. 2722 at the Rules
Committee, there is no place for partisanship when it comes to securing
our elections.
H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act, is simply another partisan bill by the
majority aimed at federally mandating election standards; like
mandating that States exclusively use paper ballots, effectively
banning any type of direct recording electronic voting machines which
have been proven safe and efficient.
Madam Speaker, keep this in mind; that if this legislation passes, if
one of our local election officials had just worked to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars purchasing new, digital electronic machines
with a paper backup, those machines and that investment of their hard-
earned tax dollars would be obsolete in the year 2022, 3 years from
now. That is not right.
Mandating the exclusive use of paper ballots will create longer lines
at polling places, and can be lost, destroyed, or manipulated far
easier than electronic voting machines with a paper trail backup.
I want to highlight the fact that there is no evidence of voting
machines being hacked in 2016, 2018, or ever. So why are we forcing
States to get rid of what they have deemed as safe technology?
We should work together to safeguard technology. Safeguard technology
not abandon it. We don't know in this institution what technology is
going to look like when it comes to voting machines in the next five to
10 years. Why are we requiring a certain type of ballot process that is
only going to be processed by five companies that maybe produce it
today? That is not what we should be doing here in Washington.
Additionally, the SAFE Act federally mandates han recounts, which
will result in drawn-out elections that will become unnecessarily
expensive.
The majority's bill also contains irresponsible funding commitments.
The funding of elections is the primary responsibility of our States.
Democrats are committing $1.3 billion over 10 years, with zero funding
match requirements from States.
Congress has a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer
dollars. Funds should be given based on need, not a guess of what might
be needed a decade down the road.
I want the record to be clear. Many of the provisions in the SAFE Act
are inconsistent with what we have heard from experts in election
administration. But the majority is ignoring their requests.
As my colleagues across the aisle know, I believe there are areas on
election security where Republicans and Democrats can find and have
found common ground. There is a role for Congress in election security,
which is why, me and my fellow members on the House Administration
Committee, introduced H.R. 3412, the Election Security Assistance Act.
[[Page H5095]]
I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, Mark Walker and Barry
Loudermilk, for joining me in this effort, and the others who have
cosponsored it since its introduction. This realistic legislation
provides $380 million in Federal grants to States to update their aging
and at-risk election infrastructure, while requiring a 25 percent match
from States.
If it is good for transportation projects; if it is good for DHS
projects, DOJ projects, USDA projects, why don't we have locals and
States have some skin in the game?
In addition, our bill creates the first-ever Election Cyber
Assistance Unit. It is aimed at connecting State and local election
officials with leading election administration and cybersecurity
experts from across the Nation.
Our bill empowers State officials by providing security clearances to
election officials to better facilitate the sharing of information and
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to notify State election
officials of cyberattacks and any foreign threats within the State.
Keep in mind, the majority bill does not address this.
If DHS hacked a local election official's election system, if they
saw a hack in, let's say, central Nevada, DHS would not be able to
notify your local election official because he or she may not have
security clearance. The majority bill doesn't address this. Our bill
does.
To sum it up, our solution provides much-needed election security
improvements and reinforcements for local election officials without
overstepping the State's authority to maintain their elections. The
Election Security Assistance Act, our bill, is the only proposal being
discussed today that has a realistic chance of becoming law.
If the previous question is defeated, it will be the first step in
putting forth election security legislation that has a chance of
helping States improve their security ahead of the 2020 election.
I thank Ranking Member Cole for giving me the opportunity to speak on
behalf of this important issue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I always enjoy listening to my Republican colleagues debate on the
floor. And I always love listening to the gentleman from Illinois when
he is on the House floor.
But I can't help but think of the fact that the Russians attacked our
elections in 2016. The 2 years after that, the House was controlled by
Republicans. The Senate was controlled by Republicans. Donald Trump, a
Republican, was in the White House. They had a unified government; the
House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
And all of our intelligence agencies said that Russia interfered in
our elections; they attacked our democracy; not only the Obama
administration's intelligence officials, but the Trump administration's
intelligence officials.
And what did my Republican friends do in the aftermath of this attack
on our democracy by a foreign adversary? Nothing. Nothing.
We hear all these great ideas, but while they had a unified
government, while they were in control of everything, they did nothing.
In fact, I recall sitting here on the House floor and listening to
Republican after Republican after Republican basically say that this
was much ado about nothing; in fact, trying to deny that Russia
attacked our elections.
Now the evidence is so overwhelming you can't deny it anymore. But
yet, they had this opportunity. And now they say we all want to protect
our elections.
Well, 2 years prior to this, I don't know where you were, but you
weren't working trying to protect our elections. People were working,
instead, to try to cover up for what a foreign adversary did to our
elections.
So here we are, coming forward with a bill that we believe will
provide security for our elections so that people believe that the
elections have integrity, they believe the results. And we are told
well, we disagree with you, and we have better ideas; on and on and on.
Bottom line is we are acting. My friends had 2 years to act. They did
nothing.
Our Democratic majority went through regular order on this. The
Committee on House Administration held three hearings on election
security. In case anyone forgot, they were on February 14, May 8, and
May 21.
In addition to those hearings, the Subcommittee on Elections
conducted field hearings in six States, while the Committees on
Oversight, Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence held hearings on the subject.
So experts testified. People offered their viewpoints. And after all
of that, the House Administration Committee marked up this bill last
Friday, on June 21, and here we are on the House floor.
So, I mean, give me a break. I get it. Some of my Republicans friends
may be ``Johnny-come-latelies'' when it comes to the issue of election
security. We welcome you on board, because our elections are important,
and we need to protect them from interference from foreign adversaries
like Russia.
But you had 2 years of unified government in which my friends did
nothing, nothing.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, to quote my friend, ``give me a break.'' The
last Republican Congress appropriated roughly $300 million for election
security, point 1.
Point 2, we have no evidence anybody hacked any election machines, as
my friend, Mr. Davis pointed out in 2016 or 2018. If you want to
respond to the Russians, you probably ought to respond to what they
did, not to what they didn't do or didn't succeed in doing.
I would actually argue this administration did a lot more than the
last administration. You have got a larger military today, partly
because of what the Russians did. You have a reinvigorated NATO today.
You have a President who actually sent lethal aid to Ukraine today.
You want to get the Russians' attention? That is the way you get it.
When you lay down a red line in Syria, you enforce the red line. This
administration has been a lot tougher on Russia than the last
administration, which, by the way, knew this was going on, did almost
nothing to alert anybody or to stop anybody; and now, are trying to
blame it on the person that was actually involved in the election, our
current President, for their lapse when they were actually in power in
the executive branch.
So this idea that nobody wants to defend our elections is not true.
And, frankly, I will take some offense because I have never said that
the Russians didn't matter, or that our elections weren't serious or
weren't threatened. I used to be a State election board secretary. I
used to sit on the Board of Directors for the election board
secretaries around the country, and the oldest public body that there
is, or the oldest association of public officials there is in this
country; very bipartisan, by the way, extraordinarily well-run. They
don't agree with this bill.
I would just ask every Member to call their local Secretary of State
or election administrator, whatever they have, and go through the bill
and say, did you want to cede this much authority to the Congress of
the United States; or do you think you do a pretty good job of running
your own election?
{time} 1300
I know in my State, we do a very good job of running our elections,
and that has been true under Democrats and true under Republicans. I
think that is true around the country.
The other thing is if you want to actually do something before the
2020 election, then whether you like it or not, you are going to have
to do something that is bipartisan, because this will not get through
the Senate and this will not become law, and that makes it a rather
pointless exercise.
Sometimes in the legislative process, you sit down, and in Mr. Davis,
I will tell you, you have a willing partner and a person who has a
reputation in this body that I think is exceptionally bipartisan and
who is working, I think, in good faith on this very problem, and you
work through the problem.
But if it is going to be a partisan my-way-or-the-highway approach--
remember, this is coming under a closed rule, there is not even an
amendment made in order here--then it is not likely to get out of this
Chamber.
So if you are serious about trying to protect the elections, you
would. You may not get everything you want, but
[[Page H5096]]
in divided government, you have to work together to get things done.
That is the problem with almost every major initiative that our
Democratic friends have brought to the floor since they have been in
the majority.
Sorry. The Constitution is pretty clear. The Senate gets to decide
whether or not they are going to accept what we do over here or do
something different. The President has a part in this process.
We had to endure this when we first became the majority. We had a
Republican House, we had a Democratic Senate, we had a Democratic
President.
I don't have any problem with my friends bringing their agenda to the
floor. I applaud them for doing it. They ran on it. It is perfectly
appropriate.
A lot of times we bring that agenda to the floor knowing we can get
it across this Chamber, but we are not going to probably get it all the
way through the process unless we change it some.
What we haven't seen yet is any evidence that the new majority has
any ability to work with the current majority or the current President.
And if that is what they want to do for 18 months, score political
points as opposed to actually legislate something in a compromise
manner, they are free to do that, too, but it is not going to work.
If the aim here is to make our elections more secure, then I wouldn't
bring a bill with a closed rule. I would work with the other side,
knowing that their very concerns are probably going to be similar to
the concerns expressed in the United States Senate and by the President
of the United States.
So, you know, that is an unsolicited piece of personal and political
advice to my friends, but I think if they follow it, they will actually
have some success legislatively and will actually get some things done.
We are going to disagree about a lot of things. The American people
will sort that out in rather short order, about 18 months, but we ought
to try to get the things we can do today done.
This is an area I think we could work together in if we approached it
in a different manner.
I would also hope we could do the same thing on the southern border,
Madam Speaker. That is an impending emergency right now. We are going
to run out of money right now. So let's get that at least taken care of
while we sort out our differences in other areas.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman was talking about appropriations that
were approved in the last Congress.
A lot of the ideas that we are talking about here today, including
some of the ideas that Mr. Davis raised, are authorizations, and so
they can't be taken care of in an appropriations bill, and that is why
we are doing a separate bill in addition to the appropriations bill.
The gentleman talks about the $300 million that were approved under
the previous leadership. Well, we are asking for $600 million. We are
doubling that because we know how serious it is.
And just forgive us if we are a little bit concerned, because we have
a President who continues not to acknowledge that the Russians
interfered in our election. He continues to refer it to as a Russian
hoax. He took Vladimir Putin's word for it rather than the word of our
intelligence agencies.
So when we express concern about our election process and about the
lack of attention given to this, we are responding to what the
President of the United States, Donald Trump, says on a weekly, if not
daily basis.
The fact of the matter is Russia interfered in our election.
Everybody knows that. The only person who is in denial is at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. So we need to respond, and we need to respond
appropriately.
Madam Speaker, I say this to my friend again, that we expect,
hopefully today, to bring up a supplemental appropriations bill to be
able to deal with what I would call the Donald Trump-created crisis on
the border.
And, by the way, as we provide funding, which I believe we will do to
deal with some of the issues on the border, let us be clear: there is
absolutely no excuse at all for how this administration has allowed
children to be treated in such an inhumane fashion under our custody,
children being denied soap, children being denied toothpaste or
toothbrushes, children so young and separated from any adult who are
being cared for by children only a couple of years older.
I mean, everybody should be horrified by that. There is no excuse,
none at all, for that to be happening.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, Mr.
McGovern, for his extraordinary leadership on H.R. 2722, the Securing
America's Federal Elections Act, the SAFE Act.
Madam Speaker, we were attacked as a country in 2016. We were not
attacked as Democrats or Republicans or Independents. Our Nation was
attacked.
Special Counsel Mueller found that Russia conducted a sweeping and
systematic campaign to subvert and undermine the U.S. election on
behalf of one party and one candidate as opposed to another party or
another candidate, but you know what, that should make no difference to
us today. It could have been the reverse.
I would hope that all of us would be standing together as Americans
to reject foreign interference in our elections.
What did the Russians do? Well, they conducted cyber surveillance and
espionage and sabotage at the Democratic National Committee, at the
Democratic National Campaign Committee, and at Hillary Clinton's
headquarters. They injected racial and ethnic propaganda and poison
into our body politic through Facebook, through Twitter, through social
media, and then they directly entered into the websites of 30 different
State boards of election across the country, with varying degrees of
success, according to how well prepared the different election boards
were.
Now, in response to all of this, what do we get from the President of
the United States, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? What we
get is denunciation of what he calls the Russian hoax. He rejects the
evidence offered to him by his own intelligence agencies and leaders.
He rejects all of the evidence compiled by Special Counsel Robert
Mueller. He rejects the conclusion that there was a sweeping and
systematic effort to undermine our election.
H.R. 2722 says we need to protect our election in 2020. It is
precious. Our democracy is precious to us, so we will promote accuracy,
integrity, and security through voter-verified permanent paper ballots,
and provide grants to the States to carry out the security improvements
that we need. It will establish cybersecurity requirements for voting
systems and require testing of the existing hardware and software to
make sure there is not malware in there, to make sure that it is not
being manipulated, and it will implement risk-limiting audits to ensure
the accuracy of vote tallies in an efficient manner.
Madam Speaker, we have a philosophical difference with our friends.
It is not just that the President denied the existence of the attack,
but the Republican-controlled Senate did nothing, they offered us no
plan. They controlled the House and the Senate in the last Congress.
They did nothing. They offered us no plan for securing our elections
against foreign attack in 2020, which is why we have come forward with
an attempt to prevent the attack in 2020.
Now, we have a philosophical difference with them, because when we
say that America needs to act, they say federalism, let every State
work it out on their own.
I heard one of my colleagues say they are doing a great job at the
local level running the elections. But we are not talking about running
the elections, we are talking about protecting the security of our
elections against a foreign attack.
It is like we are saying we need to defend the country, and they say,
well, we have got great local police forces all across the America. The
police forces may be great, but we still need a national defense.
The election boards might be doing a good job in some places, maybe
less so in others, running the local elections,
[[Page H5097]]
but we still need to protect all of our elections against the foreign
attack that was described in detail by Special Counsel Mueller.
There is a constitutional basis and imperative for doing this. I
direct my friends to Article IV of the Constitution, the Republican
Guarantee Clause, which my good friend from Illinois suggested may have
been the Republican Party guarantee clause. I know he was kidding when
he said it. It is not the Republican Party guarantee clause; it is a
guarantee of a republican form of government.
``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against
invasion''.
That is a constitutional command that we must protect every State in
the union's republican form of government.
Well, what is a republican form of government? A republican form of
government is a representative form of government where the voters vote
for their leaders. It is republican only if the will of the people is
properly expressed through an election, we get the will through an
election, and it has integrity and accuracy and safety. That is what
this bill is about.
Madam Speaker, I urge everybody to support H.R. 2722.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
make a quick point, and then I want to move to my friend from Illinois.
Madam Speaker, I don't argue about constitutional power, but I argue
about process.
Look, I seriously doubt my friends have spent very much time talking
to election board secretaries and election administration officials
around the country. Had they done so, they would have heard, I am sure,
uniformly that they don't want a one-size-fits-all made system from
Washington, D.C. They don't want to throw away equipment that they
think is better than what we are offering them or that they have
already invested millions of dollars in.
They are happy to work with us. They are happy to inform us and
testify. That is not what is happening here.
This is the idea: all wisdom is in this Chamber, evidently, because
it is not going to get through the Senate, it is not going to get
signed by the President. We haven't talked to the people that actually
are the front-line people in defending us in this process, and that is
the folks at the State and the local level.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I am always glad to be
here with my good friend from the House Administration Committee, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). And he was right in committee
during the markup of this bill that was posted late last week, and we
marked it up earlier this week after the rules notice was already
posted. It just shows you how rushed this process is.
The gentleman erroneously, and I know, because I had made a quick
joke about it afterwards, mentioned we ought to have a mandated
republican government or something like that. I said, ``You know what?
That is one mandate I can be for in our State and local authorities,''
but I knew what he was talking about.
He knows what he is talking about when it comes to what we all have
the same interest in doing, and that is protecting our election
security.
My colleague mentioned about standing together. Well, we were trying
to stand together, Madam Speaker. We were working in a bipartisan way
to put together a bipartisan election security bill, and the Democrat
majority walked away. They forced this vote.
These are areas that we can come together and find common ground.
I have been asked, what did the Republicans do when we were in the
majority? Well, we not only did $300 million in election security
upgrades and cybersecurity protections, we did $380 million. And what
was great was we were working over the last 2 years with DHS officials
and our local election officials to ensure that 2018 did not suffer the
same consequences as 2016. And it worked, even in an extensively high
midterm turnout.
Then they said, well, what else did you do over the 2 years? Well,
you know what we did? We waited for the $35-million Mueller report to
come out and tell us what else we could do.
Now we are here today. We are here today to ensure that we put
together an election security bill, not one that the Democrats want,
not one that is going to be a top-down approach. It is not what our
local secretaries of state want, it is not what our local election
officials want, and they are on the ground. Let's listen to them, but
let's make sure that we don't take away our ability to address
cybersecurity concerns.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1315
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. It has been mentioned that the Russians
used social media to strike at our election process in this country.
That is true. This bill does nothing to address that problem. The
majority's bill does absolutely nothing to address this problem. That
is something that we still need to take care of in Congress.
Let's not confuse the issue, and let's not listen to the 30,000-foot
rhetoric that somehow one party over the other is more defensive or
wants to be more offensive against nefarious actors. We are all
Americans. We are all elected to serve this great country and this
great institution.
None of us, Republicans or Democrats, want anyone to attack this
country, let alone attack our election process, but the answer to
making sure that our elections are safe are in our bill, the previous
question.
We are the ones who ensure that DHS can talk to local election
officials. Their bill does not do that.
We are the ones that make sure that we create a cybersecurity unit
and the ability to address ongoing threats. Their bill does not do
that.
That is why I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Let's come back to the table. Let's get something done.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman trying to articulate the
best he can all that the Republicans did on this issue when they were
in the majority, but I will be very honest with him: I am unimpressed,
and so are the American people.
The bottom line is my friends had unified government, Republican
control of the House, Senate, and the White House for 2 years, and
basically they did nothing.
The President, the leader of their party, routinely and continues to
do so today, refers to Russian interference in our election as a
Russian hoax. The leader of our country says that it is a hoax.
So I understand why there was inaction for the previous 2 years, but
that ends because Democrats, Republicans, Independents, people of all
political persuasions deserve to have an election system that has some
integrity.
I look forward to passing this bill, and I am urging the Senate to do
the same.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, could I inquire, I am prepared to close
whenever my friend is. If he has additional speakers, I will just
reserve.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by just submitting for the
Record the views of the National Disability Rights Network, which
actually came out against this legislation because they believe it will
make it more difficult for people with physical impairments to actually
get to the polls and vote. I know that is not the intention of my
friend on the other side, but that is the effect of one-size-fits-all
voting.
[[Page H5098]]
National Disability
Rights Network,
June 25, 2019.
Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
Chairwoman, House Administration Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member, House Administration Committee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member Davis: The
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) writes today to
express our concerns with the impact of H.R. 2722, the
Securing America's Federal Election (SAFE) Act, on voters
with disabilities. While improvements have been made to the
legislation as it has moved through the legislative process,
we continue to remain concerned that, taken as a whole, the
bill will negatively impact voters with disabilities.
NDRN is the voluntary membership association for Protection
and Advocacy
(P&A) and Client Assistance Program
(CAP) agencies. The P&A and CAP agencies are a nationwide
network of congressionally mandated, cross disability
organizations operating in every state in the United States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
and the US Virgin Islands). There is also a P&A and CAP
affiliated with the Native American Consortium which includes
the Hopi, Navajo, and San Juan Southern Paiute Nations
located in the Four Corners region of the Southwest.
The P&A/CAP Network has the authority to provide legally
based advocacy services and legal representation to all
people with disabilities. P&As and CAPs pursue legal,
administrative, and other appropriate remedies under all
applicable federal and state laws to protect and advocate for
the rights of people with disabilities. Through the
Protection and Advocacy for Voter Access (PAVA) program, P&As
provide advocacy to voters with disabilities on all facets of
the election system. Collectively, the P&A/CAP Network is the
largest provider of legally based advocacy services to people
with disabilities in the United States.
Following a contentious presidential election and
investigation into foreign interference with the electoral
process, the national public discourse on American democracy
has understandably turned to voting security. NDRN believes
that action to protect the security of our votes is necessary
to ensure the health of our electoral system. However, the
need to create accurate and secure elections must be balanced
with protecting access to the vote for all eligible
Americans. Voting systems that rely on an electorate capable
of independently marking and verifying a paper ballot have
become a preferred solution to protecting vote security.
Understandably, if all voters are able to mark their ballots
privately and independently, and visually verify that the
completed paper ballot is correct, elections officials could
routinely audit election results that are verified to have
captured voter intent. Yet, the ability to privately and
independently mark, and visually verify, and then cast a
paper ballot is simply not an option for all voters.
We have three concerns with the latest version of the SAFE
Act. First, by mandating that only voters with disabilities
can use ballot marking devices (BMDs) you are segregating
voters with disabilities away from the entire pool of voters
by making them the only group of people that use a particular
type of voting machine. Federally mandated segregation is
problematic alone. Additionally, this increases the
likelihood that poll workers will not be properly trained on
the machine, the machine not working, and if the one machine
breaks, there will be no alternative option. It will also
saddle poll workers with determining who is ``disabled
enough'' to use the BMD, a decision for which they have no
qualifications or legal right.
Second, by not requiring that the ballot marked with a BMD
be identical to the hand marked ballot, you are removing the
right of the voter with a disability to cast a private
ballot. It is possible that some smaller precincts may only
have one person with a disability that votes, making it
extremely easy to identify how the person voted. But even
where there might be tens or hundreds of people with
disabilities voting, elections personnel should not be able
to look at the ballots and know how people with disabilities
voted.
Third, assuming BMDs fully solved the accessibility issues
around marking a ballot (which they do not for all voters
with a disability) the so called solution continues to ignore
the accessibility issues around verification and the casting
of the ballot, two necessary steps in the voting process.
While some may argue that the BMDs address accessibility,
there is nothing that addresses the ability of a person with
a disability to independently and privately verify and
ultimately cast their ballot. BMDs are not the accessibility
panacea that makes federally mandated paper based voting work
for people with disabilities.
Security of our elections is an issue that is crucial to
the health of our democracy and must not be taken lightly.
Likewise, a private and independent vote is the law of the
land, and an electoral system that knowingly denies the right
to vote to any of its eligible citizens to appease others is
simply not a democracy. NDRN firmly believes that all
Americans, including people with disabilities, want secure,
accurate, and fair elections, but not at the expense of the
right to vote for people with disabilities. The SAFE Act is
an important first step in this national discourse, but the
concerns expressed above must be addressed before this
legislation can become the law of the land.
Thank you for your work on this important topic, and should
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
Eric Buehlmann, Deputy Executive Director for Public Policy.
Sincerely,
Curt Decker,
Executive Director.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, my friend is not impressed, and that is a
fair statement, and I don't question my friend ever, but I am not
impressed with legislation that can't become law because it is futile.
We come down here with a lot of sound and fury, but we don't get
anything done.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this rule. This rule
will make in order for consideration two bills: H.R. 3351 and H.R.
2722.
The first is a partisan appropriations bill that is marked to an
unrealistic number that does not reflect agreement with Republicans or
the Senate and that includes partisan policy riders that must come out
before this bill can become law.
Not to be outdone, H.R. 2722 is even more partisan, throwing out the
traditional ability of States and localities to manage their own
election procedures and, instead, imposing a one-size-fits-all
regulatory regime direct from Washington, D.C. like H.R. 1 before it,
this bill was produced without Republican input and, instead, reflects
only the partisan motivations of the current majority.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying measures.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I urge, obviously, support for this rule and the
underlying bills that will be debated.
As we are sitting here debating, we just got some news that Acting
Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Agency John Sanders has
submitted his resignation. I guess the public pressure is so great that
it is untenable for him to continue in that position, and I am sure the
President will replace him with somebody else.
The problem is the President keeps on replacing individuals with
people who continue to enforce policies that are cruel, policies that
separate children from their parents at the border, and policies that
treat children worse than animals in our custody, but I thought it
would be interesting for my colleagues to note this breaking news.
Madam Speaker, it is true that we have an ambitious agenda before us
this week, and we believe in doing our job and holding the
administration accountable. We aren't going to leave the threat of
another shutdown for another day. Maybe that is what my Republican
friends did when they were in charge, but that is how we ended up in
one shutdown after another.
And, yes, we wish we had an agreement on the caps, but it is not for
lack of trying. We have been trying to negotiate with the Senate since
we took control of the House of Representatives. We have been trying to
negotiate with the President since we took control of the House of
Representatives. But every time we sit down with the President, he has
a temper tantrum or he behaves in an erratic way and leaves the room.
We can't wait, so we are going to lead, and hopefully they will follow.
And we are not going to ignore the threats posed by Russia and others
to our elections. The President wants to cozy up to Putin instead of
defending this Nation, but this majority doesn't believe in
prioritizing the egos of dictators. We believe in accountability and
restoring the integrity of the vote.
My friend says, well, this isn't going anywhere. Well, look, we are
happy to negotiate with Republicans in the Senate, but where is their
bill? Basically, the Republicans in the Senate are following the lead
of the Republicans in the House and the previous Congress in doing
nothing.
We don't believe in doing nothing. We think our elections are
important, that they are worth defending, so we are acting. These are
serious matters, Madam Speaker, and this is why we
[[Page H5099]]
were sent here, and this is what we intend to tackle.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question. I
urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as
follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 460
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 8. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution,
the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3412) to protect the administration of Federal elections
against cybersecurity threats. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on House Administration. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3412.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________