[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1023-H1037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2021

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) to expand Americans' access to the 
ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen 
ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption 
measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other 
purposes, will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.


                 Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
28 printed in part B of House Report 117-9.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H1024]]


  

       Strike section 4208.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today to offer an amendment to remove section 
4208 from H.R. 1.
  Section 4208 is a dangerous provision of this bill that will put 
people's private information on display and put their personal security 
at risk.
  This section aims to forbid anonymous speech. Throughout American 
history, anonymous speech about political matters has played a vital 
role. From the Federalist Papers, to those who supported the civil 
rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, many in history had very 
legitimate fears of having their identities uncovered and relied on 
anonymous speech to show their support for certain policies and 
initiatives.
  Section 4208 removes the protection of anonymous speech forever. By 
requiring public reporting of the private information of individuals, 
partnerships, associations, and any group of people who spend $500 or 
more on political advertising--which is a very broad definition in this 
bill--we put individuals at risk.
  Furthermore, we drastically limit free speech and destroy the First 
Amendment. Notably, the courts have already begun to warn against the 
constitutionality of similar provisions in State law. We cannot allow 
this to stand. Not only will it cause a security problem for these 
individuals but, as we have seen, people could lose their jobs, be 
shamed, or even worse.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Cammack).
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for 
yielding, and I am proud to support her amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called For 
the People Act a/k/a the for the politicians act. Supporters of this 
bill claim that it is the fix needed for the problems within our 
Nation's electoral system, but in reality this bill is a power grab 
that will blur the lines between official and campaign resources and 
leave taxpayers footing the bill.
  It is shameful that this body is even considering this legislation 
that forces hardworking Americans amid an unprecedented crisis to give 
politicians money. H.R. 1 would funnel millions of taxpayer dollars 
into the campaign accounts of politicians through voucher and funding 
match programs. This bill will allow 16-year-olds to vote, give $25 
vouchers to individuals to donate to the candidate of their choice, 
redefines free speech, triggers universal mail-in ballots, creates an 
election czar, strips voter ID requirements, and so much more.
  This bill jeopardizes the future of Americans' freedom of speech with 
new requirements for public disclosure of support of political 
campaigns and candidates.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot claim to be protecting the rights and freedoms 
enshrined in our Constitution when this, the For the People Act--more 
aptly named the for the politicians act--is under consideration.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, 
and I will be supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, the underlying 
bill, the ``destroy election integrity and centralize all power in 
Washington, D.C., act'' that Democrats are, once again, pushing because 
they never have and never will believe in the rights of our States and 
the limited power of Federal Government.
  Some of my colleagues who took every opportunity to emphasize that 
democracy was on the ballot in this past election have returned to 
Congress eager to change election laws in their favor.
  H.R. 1 is wholly about control--control of free speech and control of 
how elections are conducted. And when they exercise this control, their 
purpose is to crush opposing views, because opposing views will not be 
tolerated when there are Democrat majorities at stake.
  America's strength lies in its free speech and decentralized 
elections, and we must continue to make our election system more 
resilient to natural challenges and foreign actors. H.R. 1 fails to do 
this on all fronts.
  Mr. Speaker, I was elected by the people of the 24th District of 
Texas to stand up for freedom, the rule of law, and limited government. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against this vile new form of tyranny in 
H.R. 1.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this amendment. It would 
strike section 4208 of H.R. 1 which requires online platforms to retain 
records of certain online political advertisements. According to Forbes 
magazine, political advertisers spent $1.6 billion online in the 2020 
election--almost 10 times what they spent in 2012.
  At a time when Americans are increasingly bombarded with political 
ads online, striking this provision is not useful and would harm the 
efforts of this bill to provide increased transparency in political 
advertising. Fundamentally, Americans deserve to know who is paying for 
online political ads to ensure that they are informed voters.
  Digital advertising can also have a far greater reach than broadcast 
advertising. Online political ads are relatively inexpensive to produce 
and can be disseminated instantly to vast audiences across great 
distances without regard to geographic boundaries. It is time for our 
disclosure and disclaimer laws and regulations to be updated to reflect 
how campaigns are run in the 21st century and how to keep pace with 
changing technology.
  The online platform records requirements in this section are key to 
the Honest Ads Act, which is a part of H.R. 1, designed to improve 
transparency in political advertising. By requiring online platforms to 
retain copies of political ads, everyday Americans at home will be able 
to see who is paying for what. These requirements are narrowly drawn 
and only apply to online platforms with over 50 million monthly unique 
visitors and to advertisers who run over $500 a year in political 
advertisements.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the measure and 
protect this important reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
(Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the insurrection on January 
6 had a specific purpose: to overturn our election and to violently 
disenfranchise millions of voters.
  The immediate threat to the Capitol has been quelled, but our 
democracy's future is still unclear. Across the country there are 
ongoing efforts to suppress and limit votes. Dark money fuels campaigns 
without transparency and accountability, and partisan gerrymandering 
tilts the playing field.
  A vote for H.R. 1 is a vote for equality, for transparency, and for 
returning power to the people.
  Mr. Speaker, 56 years ago on March 7, John Lewis almost lost his life 
on the Edmund Pettus Bridge for the right to vote. He said: ``Your vote 
is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we 
have to create a more perfect union.''
  Let's strive for that more perfect union. Let's confirm our democracy 
and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1.

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the late Justice 
Scalia, who was not exactly one of our liberal beacons on the Court, 
said this: ``Requiring people to stand up in public for their political 
acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposes to knock out the

[[Page H1025]]

heart of the Honest Ads Act, so the public won't know who is purchasing 
ads online. That is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. We 
need far greater transparency about who is polluting the airwaves and 
who is polluting the internet with propaganda and fake news. We should 
know who is paying for all of that.
  This used to be a very solid bipartisan commitment between Democrats 
and Republicans. Everybody agreed there should at least be disclosure 
of campaign spending.
  Now, they not only want to put out propaganda online, but they don't 
even want anybody to know who is paying for it. That is the opposite 
direction that we should be moving in America.
  We should be defending everybody's right to vote, everybody's right 
to participate against all of the schemes to undermine voting rights, 
and we should make sure that everybody knows who is putting money into 
the political system.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on that amendment.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, in Florida, we have strong 
redistricting standards that were passed by a large majority of Florida 
voters and placed in our State constitution.
  I also recognize that strong standards and criteria are provided for 
in H.R. 1.
  Would the chairperson agree to working together with the State-
adopted redistricting criteria to ensure H.R. 1 does not dilute the 
Florida requirements?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to work with the gentlewoman as 
this bill advances towards enactment.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on the Lesko amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was rejected.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                Amendment No. 37 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
37 printed in part B of House Report 117-9.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 88, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1055. LOWERING MANDATORY MINIMUM VOTING AGE IN FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS.

       (a) Lowering Voting Age to 16 Years of Age.--A State may 
     not refuse to permit an individual to register to vote or 
     vote in an election for Federal office held in the State on 
     the grounds of the individual's age if the individual will be 
     at least 16 years of age on the date of the election.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to elections held in 2022 or any succeeding year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1, the 
For the People Act.
  H.R. 1 is bold, transformative legislation, which fights voter 
suppression, promotes access to the ballot, cracks down on money in 
politics, and provides transparency to the American people.
  Passing this bill has never been more urgent. We must act to protect 
and preserve our democracy.
  My amendment gets to the heart of H.R. 1 and recognizes the 
contributions that young people continue to make to our democracy.
  By lowering the Federal voting age from 18 to 16 years of age, my 
amendment would enfranchise young Americans to help shape and form the 
policies that will set the course for our future.
  From police violence, to immigration reform, to climate change, to 
the future of work and the minimum wage, our young people are 
organizing, mobilizing, and calling us to action. They are at the 
forefront of social movements and have more than earned inclusion in 
our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, 16- and 17-year-old constituents of mine are supporting 
their families. They are working, not for enrichment or to build a 
resume, but because they have no choice. They are attending school 
full-time and taking care of loved ones in the midst of the COVID 
crisis.
  Young people are contributing both to the labor force and their local 
economies by paying taxes, and yet they are deprived of the opportunity 
to exercise their right to vote.
  Some have questioned the maturity of our youth. I don't.
  Sixteen- and 17-year-olds today possess wisdom and maturity defined 
by today's challenges, hardships, and opportunities.
  They deserve and demand a government that is accountable to them, a 
government that values their voices, and understands the depth and 
breadth of their lived experience.
  They are not a monolith. But they are nation-builders, living through 
a global pandemic, confronting racial injustice, and rebuilding our 
democracy.
  Now is the time for us to meet the moment and enfranchise 16- and 17-
year-olds.
  I would like to thank my colleagues and dear friends, Representatives 
Meng and Schakowsky, for their leadership on this issue and for 
cosponsoring my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my friend, Ayanna 
Pressley, the wonderful congresswoman from Massachusetts. I have had 
the pleasure of knowing Ayanna Pressley well before she was even 16, 
and she was ready to vote as soon as that.
  I want to say that all over the country, and especially in my 
district, I feel we see young people, young activists, who are working 
tirelessly to make their voices heard, from battling climate change, 
battling gun violence, to advocating for racial justice and economic 
equality.
  This is their century, and our national leadership should be 
accountable to them, to these young people in their generation who will 
be most impacted by the existential threats that are looming before us 
today.
  This is a serious proposal. Sixteen-year-olds are doing the work of 
adults, and they should be treated with the respect that they deserve 
and the participation that they should be able to have.
  So I heartily support this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
consider it carefully and vote for it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend.
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Speaker, our Nation faces serious challenges, 
including an ongoing pandemic, vaccine distribution hurdles, continued 
lockdowns from out-of-touch Governors, prolonged closures of our 
schools, and one-in-four small businesses face the risk of permanent 
closure.
  At a time when the American people are concerned with election 
integrity, a top priority of our Democrat leadership is to federalize 
election laws, removing the authority of State legislatures expressed 
in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution.
  H.R. 1, the bill before us today, would allow for taxpayer-funded 
campaigns through a government match on political contributions at a 6-
to-1 ratio. So a $200 contribution would be matched by the taxpayer to 
the tune of $1,200.
  H.R. 1 would also hinder the rights of States to determine their 
registration voting practices, including mandating automatic voter 
registration.
  The suggestion being made by my Democrat friends and colleagues that 
opposition to this legislation is somehow a form of voter suppression 
is ridiculous. I and my colleagues would never consider engaging in a 
course of

[[Page H1026]]

action that suppresses a citizen's legitimate right to vote.
  This is a partisan power grab that threatens election integrity. 
``One citizen, one vote'' is my solemn resolve. I oppose this amendment 
and the underlying bill.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me rise to 
support the Pressley-Meng-Schakowsky amendment. I thank Congresswoman 
Pressley for bringing this forward and to say that she is about the 
future and really about making sure that civic participation is really 
enhanced and moved forward by allowing for this amendment to come into 
this bill, H.R. 1, because this is what it is about. It is about our 
democracy, and she has been consistent in terms of inclusion and making 
sure our democracy works.

  Elections are about the future, and no one has more at stake in that 
future than our youth. By age 16, we trust our young people with a host 
of important decisions and responsibilities. It is the moment when 
lifelong habits are built and when ideas about the world become to be 
fixed. Evidence has shown that when people start voting younger, they 
are more likely to exercise their right to vote as they grow older.
  Too many of the arguments against lowering the voting age to 16 
crumble when you really examine them clearly. Often the objection is 
simply that 16-year-olds are too young to exercise good judgment. This 
is really a patronizing thought. In fact, it is downright scary to 
think that we would have our government policies decide what 
constitutes as wisdom for our young people.
  It is past time for us to elevate voting as one of the central 
responsibilities of our democracy. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), my good friend.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment en 
bloc No. 4 and the underlying bill.
  I have a long list of concerns with this bill, and at the top of this 
list is nationwide ballot harvesting.
  Democrats in California have already legalized ballot harvesting in 
our State. Despite our concerns with the practice, Republicans were 
determined to play by the rules and utilized legal ballot collection 
methods in the last election.
  One amendment in this package, offered by my California colleague, 
puts this hypocrisy on full display. Under current law, with my 
colleague's amendment, a foreign operative--maybe a Russian operative, 
maybe a Chinese spy--could still handle ballots for untold numbers of 
people. My colleague's amendment is a blatant attempt to criticize 
ballot harvesting only when the other guys do it.
  In other words, California Democrats think it is fine when their paid 
operatives collect ballots from strangers and throw them in a bag. But 
they object when churches try to collect them for members of their 
congregation and put them in a box.
  Don't be fooled. Democrats don't want to facilitate ballot collection 
for all Americans. They just want to make it easier for their 
operatives to harvest ballots and will cry foul whenever Republicans 
try to play by the same rules.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I stand in this Chamber today thanks to the 
young people of Westchester and Rockland Counties.
  When I first ran for Congress, I was joined by a small group of 
young, committed volunteers. Many of them were not eligible to vote. 
Many of them were 16 and 17 years old. And my goodness, did they know 
more about policy and national politics than people who are four and 
five times their senior.
  In this country, when you are 16 and 17 years old, we charge you as 
an adult in the courtroom. You are able to drive to the job we expect 
you to work in order to help support your family. So I think that the 
least we can do is give 16- and 17-year-olds a say in who governs them.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), another great friend.
  Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution vests primary responsibility 
in State legislatures to set the times, places, and manner of 
congressional elections, allowing States and localities to determine 
how best to conduct elections that suit the needs of voters in their 
communities.
  But the bill before us today, and this amendment also, reverses the 
longstanding history of State control over the electoral process, makes 
unconstitutional changes to our election laws through a top-down 
Federal power grab, and places unprecedented limitations on political 
speech.
  Rather than strengthening the election process by working with 
Republicans to find bipartisan solutions, H.R. 1 was written without 
any input from Republican Members. Some of the most egregious 
provisions include mandating that States allow ballot harvesting, 
mandating same-day registration in all 50 States, abolishing the 
signature requirements for mail-in ballots, mandating absentee ballots 
be accepted up to 10 days after election day, mandating that States 
send ballots in the mail proactively, and, finally, forcing taxpayers 
to pay politicians to campaign for office.
  This bill is nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to cement 
their fragile and fleeting majorities at taxpayer expense.
  The bill would limit the free speech of my voters, use my voters' tax 
dollars to fund candidates, and violate the Constitution by superseding 
the Commonwealth's ability to determine their own laws on voter 
eligibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
misguided and radical legislation.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, we must do right by the young organizers 
and activists who have fought for our democracy. They have a stake in 
our democracy, and they deserve to have a stake at the ballot box.
  Civil rights heroes like the late John Lewis taught us through 
example that no one is too young to fight for access to the ballot. In 
fact, he supported this very amendment last Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a mediocre friend, not a great 
friend.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, after a divisive election season, allegations 
of election fraud, objections to the electoral college, and 
impeachment, a friend of mine on the other side of the aisle recently 
asked what it would take to unify our country. My answer is that it is 
certainly not this legislation which, from my standpoint, is the most 
divisive, unconstitutional, and destructive piece of legislation in my 
time in Congress.
  They call it the For the People Act, but it should be called the for 
the politicians act because it would force taxpayers to fund political 
campaigns, including the campaigns of politicians with whom those 
taxpayers disagree.
  Maybe a better name would be the election power grab act because it 
would normalize the chaos, uncertainty, and irregularities surrounding 
mail-in voting in the 2020 election by centralizing the administration 
of elections in Washington, D.C., commandeering States to permanently 
expand mail-in voting without safeguards, legalize ballot harvesting, 
disregard voter ID laws, permit same-day voter registration without 
citizenship verification, among other egregious measures.
  Mr. Speaker, election laws should make it easy to vote and hard to 
cheat. This bill would not only make it easy to cheat, but it would 
also effectively make it legal to cheat.
  At a time when half of Americans have lost confidence in the 
integrity of our elections, this bill will only drive distrust and 
division higher.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of ending division in our country, I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this power grab of our elections.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon), another mediocre friend.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I have only been here 2 months, and in that

[[Page H1027]]

time, I have seen some bad legislation. To date, this is one of the 
worst that I have seen.
  The age of consent has always coincided with the franchise. For 
nearly 200 years, it was 21. Then, in the 1970s, they changed it to 18. 
Our society has agreed since then, for 50 years, that 18 is when a 
child becomes an adult. I find it interesting that our friends across 
the aisle don't want to have 16- and 17-year-olds tried as adults when 
they commit violent adult crimes, yet they want those 16- and 17-year-
olds to have the franchise. Some even, believe it or not, want 16- and 
17-year-olds who are convicted of murder to be able to vote while they 
are in prison after they have been convicted.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a horrible amendment, and I respectfully request 
that all of our Members join us in voting ``no.''
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appear to have it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House 
Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


     Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Ms. Lofgren of California.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I rise to 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 4 consisting of amendment Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 56, printed in part 
B of House Report 117-9, offered by Ms. Lofgren of California:


         Amendment No. 40 Offered by Ms. Spanberger of Virginia

       Add at the end of subtitle B of title VII the following:

     SEC. 7105. DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIALS POSTED ON 
                   ONLINE PLATFORMS BY AGENTS OF FOREIGN 
                   PRINCIPALS ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS.

       (a) Method and Form of Disclaimer; Preservation of 
     Disclaimers by Certain Social Media Platforms.--
       (1) Requirements described.--Section 4(b) of the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
     614(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(b) It shall be unlawful'' and inserting 
     ``(b)(1) It shall be unlawful''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In the case of informational materials for or in the 
     interests of a foreign principal which are transmitted or 
     caused to be transmitted by an agent of a foreign principal 
     by posting on an online platform, the agent shall ensure that 
     the conspicuous statement required to be placed in such 
     materials under this subsection is placed directly with the 
     material posted on the platform and is not accessible only 
     through a hyperlink or other reference to another source.
       ``(3) If the Attorney General determines that the 
     application of paragraph (2) to materials posted on an online 
     platform is not feasible because the length of the 
     conspicuous statement required to be placed in materials 
     under this subsection makes the inclusion of the entire 
     statement incompatible with the posting of the materials on 
     that platform, an agent may meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) by ensuring that an abbreviated version of the 
     statement, stating that the materials are distributed by a 
     foreign agent on behalf of a clearly identified foreign 
     principal, is placed directly with the material posted on the 
     platform.
       ``(4) An online platform on which informational materials 
     described in paragraph (2) are posted shall ensure that the 
     conspicuous statement described in such paragraph (or, if 
     applicable, the abbreviated statement described in paragraph 
     (3)) is maintained with such materials at all times, 
     including after the material is shared in a social media post 
     on the platform, but only if the platform has 50,000,000 or 
     more unique monthly United States visitors or users for a 
     majority of months during the 12 months preceding the 
     dissemination of the materials.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to materials disseminated on or 
     after the expiration of the 60-day period which begins on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether 
     or not the Attorney General has promulgated regulations to 
     carry out such amendments prior to the expiration of such 
     period.
       (b) Application of Requirements to Persons Outside the 
     United States.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4(b)(1) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     614(b)(1)), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by 
     striking ``any person within the United States'' and 
     inserting ``any person''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to materials disseminated on or 
     after the expiration of the 60-day period which begins on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether 
     or not the Attorney General has promulgated regulations to 
     carry out such amendments prior to the expiration of such 
     period.
       (c) Requirements for Online Platforms Disseminating 
     Informational Materials Transmitted by Agents of Foreign 
     Principals.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 614) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) If the Attorney General determines that an agent of a 
     foreign principal transmitted or caused to be transmitted 
     informational materials on an online platform for or in the 
     interests of the foreign principal and did not meet the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(2) (relating to the 
     conspicuous statement required to be placed in such 
     materials)--
       ``(1) the Attorney General shall notify the online 
     platform; and
       ``(2) the online platform shall remove such materials and 
     use reasonable efforts to inform recipients of such materials 
     that the materials were disseminated by a foreign agent on 
     behalf of a foreign principal.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to materials disseminated on or 
     after the expiration of the 60-day period which begins on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Definition.--Section 1 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 611) is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) The term `online platform' means any public-facing 
     website, web application, or digital application (including a 
     social network, ad network, or search engine).''.

     SEC. 7106. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO 
                   ENGAGE WITH THE UNITED STATES IN POLITICAL 
                   ACTIVITIES FOR A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL IN ANY PLACE 
                   AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS.

       Section 1(c)(1)(i) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act 
     of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1)(i)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``United States'' the following: ``(whether 
     within or outside of the United States)''.

     SEC. 7107. ANALYSIS AND REPORT ON CHALLENGES TO ENFORCEMENT 
                   OF FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1938.

       (a) Analysis.--The Attorney General shall conduct an 
     analysis of the legal, policy, and procedural challenges to 
     the effective enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration 
     Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the analysis conducted under subsection 
     (a), and shall include in the report such recommendations, 
     including recommendations for revisions to the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as the Attorney General considers 
     appropriate to promote the effective enforcement of such Act.


          AMENDMENT NO. 41 OFFERED BY MS. SPEIER OF CALIFORNIA

       Page 476, strike lines 5 through 9 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) a description of the audience targeted by the 
     advertisement, the number of views generated from the 
     advertisement, the number of views by unique individuals 
     generated by the advertisement, the number of times the 
     advertisement was shared, and the date and time that the 
     advertisement is first displayed and last displayed.''.


          AMENDMENT NO. 42 OFFERED BY MS. SPEIER OF CALIFORNIA

       Page 50, line 14, strike ``and'' at then end.
       Page 50, line 20, insert ``and'' at the end.
       Page 50, after line 20, insert the following:
       (G) an explanation of what information the State and local 
     election officials maintain with respect to an individual 
     voter registration status for purposes of elections for 
     Federal office in the State, how that information is shared 
     or sold and with whom, what information is automatically kept 
     confidential, what information is needed to access voter 
     information online, and what privacy programs are available, 
     such as those described in section 1055;
       Page 88, after line 8 insert the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1055. REQUIRING STATES TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE VOTER 
                   PRIVACY PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Each State shall establish and operate a 
     privacy program to enable victims of domestic violence, 
     dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, and trafficking to 
     have personally identifiable information that the State or 
     local election officials maintain with respect to an 
     individual voter registration status for purposes of 
     elections for Federal office in the State, including 
     addresses, be kept confidential.
       (b) Notice.--Each State shall notify residents of that 
     State of the information that

[[Page H1028]]

     State and local election officials maintain with respect to 
     an individual voter registration status for purposes of 
     elections for Federal office in the State, how that 
     information is shared or sold and with whom, what information 
     is automatically kept confidential, what information is 
     needed to access voter information online, and the privacy 
     programs that are available.
       (c) Public Availability.--Each State shall make information 
     about the program established under subsection (a) available 
     on a publicly accessible website.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The terms ``domestic violence'', ``stalking'', ``sexual 
     assault'', and ``dating violence'' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act 
     of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291).
       (2) The term ``trafficking'' means an act or practice 
     described in paragraph (11) or (12) of section 103 of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102).


          AMENDMENT NO. 43 OFFERED BY MS. SPEIER OF CALIFORNIA

       Page 666, insert after line 2 the following new section 
     (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):

     SECTION 6010. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR 
                   OFFENSES UNDER FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 
                   1971.

       (a) Civil Offenses.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) No person shall be subject to a civil penalty under 
     this subsection with respect to a violation of this Act 
     unless a complaint is filed with the Commission with respect 
     to the violation under paragraph (1), or the Commission 
     responds to information with respect to the violation which 
     is ascertained in the normal course of carrying out its 
     supervisory responsibilities under paragraph (2), not later 
     than 15 years after the date on which the violation 
     occurred.''.
       (b) Criminal Offenses.--Section 406(a) of such Act (52 
     U.S.C. 30145(a)) is amended by striking ``5 years'' and 
     inserting ``10 years''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.


          AMENDMENT NO. 44 OFFERED BY MS. SPEIER OF CALIFORNIA

       Page 154, beginning line 2, strike ``at least one voting 
     system'' and insert ``a sufficient number, but at least one, 
     of voting systems, as determined by the Commission in 
     consultation with the United States Access Board and the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology,''.
       Page 154, beginning line 3, strike ``for individuals with 
     disabilities'' and insert ``to serve individuals with and 
     without disabilities''.
       Page 154, beginning line 7, strike ``at each polling 
     place'' and insert ``for all in person voting options''.


         AMENDMENT NO. 45 OFFERED BY MR. SWALWELL OF CALIFORNIA

       Page 223, line 18 , insert ``, without being subjected to 
     intimidation or deceptive practices,'' after ``vote''.


         AMENDMENT NO. 46 OFFERED BY MR. SWALWELL OF CALIFORNIA

       Page 129, line 8, insert ``, including by operating a 
     polling place or ballot box that falsely purports to be an 
     official location established for such an election by a unit 
     of government'' before the period.


         AMENDMENT NO. 47 OFFERED BY MR. SWALWELL OF CALIFORNIA

       Page 220, line 20, strike ``clause'' and insert ``clause, 
     and shall include on the institution's website and boost 
     awareness on the institution's social media platforms,''.


           AMENDMENT NO. 48 OFFERED BY MS. TLAIB OF MICHIGAN

       Page 94, insert after line 25 the following (and 
     redesignate the succeeding provisions accordingly):
       (c) Priority for Schools Receiving Title I Funds.--In 
     selecting among eligible local educational agencies for 
     receiving funds under the pilot program under this part, the 
     Commission shall give priority to local educational agencies 
     that receive funds under part A of title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq).


           AMENDMENT NO. 49 OFFERED BY MS. TLAIB OF MICHIGAN

       Page 79, insert after line 9 the following (and redesignate 
     the succeeding provisions accordingly):
       ``(c) Ensuring Availability of Forms.--The State shall 
     ensure that each polling place has copies of any forms an 
     individual may be required to complete in order to register 
     to vote or revise the individual's voter registration 
     information under this section.''.


           AMENDMENT NO. 50 OFFERED BY MS. TLAIB OF MICHIGAN

       Page 248, line 15, strike the closing quotation mark and 
     the second period.
       Page 248, insert after line 15 the following:
       ``(c) Minimum Hours of Operation Outside of Typical Working 
     Hours.--Each State shall establish hours of operation for all 
     polling places in the State on the date of any election for 
     Federal office held in the State such that no polling place 
     is open for less than a total of 4 hours outside of the hours 
     between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm in time zone in which the polling 
     place is located.''.


           AMENDMENT NO. 51 OFFERED BY MR. TORRES OF NEW YORK

       Page 548, strike lines 3 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Study and Report on Impact and Effectiveness of Voucher 
     Programs.--
       (1) Study.--The Federal Election Commission shall conduct a 
     study on the efficacy of political voucher programs, 
     including the program under this part and other similar 
     programs, in expanding and diversifying the pool of 
     individuals who participate in the electoral process, 
     including those who participate as donors and those who 
     participate as candidates.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish and 
     submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), and shall include in the report such 
     recommendations as the Commission considers appropriate which 
     would enable political voucher programs to be implemented on 
     a national scale.


           AMENDMENT NO. 52 OFFERED BY MR. TORRES OF NEW YORK

       Page 255, after line 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 1909. GAO STUDY ON VOTER TURNOUT RATES.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a study on voter turnout rates delineated by age in States 
     and localities that permit voters to participate in elections 
     before reaching the age of 18, with a focus on localities 
     that permit voting upon reaching the age of 16.


           AMENDMENT NO. 53 OFFERED BY MR. TORRES OF NEW YORK

       Page 255, insert before line 17, the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1909. STUDY ON RANKED-CHOICE VOTING.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on the implementation and impact of ranked-choice voting in 
     States and localities with a focus on how to best implement a 
     model for Federal elections nationwide. The study shall 
     include the impact on voter turnout, negative campaigning, 
     and who decides to run for office.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Comptroller General shall 
     transmit to Congress a report on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), including any recommendations on how to best 
     implement a ranked-choice voting for Federal elections 
     nationwide.


         AMENDMENT NO. 54 OFFERED BY MS. UNDERWOOD OF ILLINOIS

       In section 542(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as added by section 5111 of the bill--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (2) redesignate subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); and
       (3) insert after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (E) the extent to which the program increased opportunities 
     for participation by candidates of diverse racial, gender, 
     and socio-economic backgrounds; and


          AMENDMENT NO. 55 OFFERED BY MS. WATERS OF CALIFORNIA

       On page 124, line 1, strike ``criminal penalties'' and 
     insert ``criminal, civil, or other legal penalties''.
       On page 128, line 17, strike ``criminal penalties'' and 
     insert ``criminal, civil, or other legal penalties''.


          AMENDMENT NO. 56 OFFERED BY MS. WILLIAMS OF GEORGIA

       Page 88, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1055. INCLUSION OF VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION WITH 
                   CERTAIN LEASES AND VOUCHERS FOR FEDERALLY 
                   ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING AND MORTGAGE 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Development of Uniform Statement.--The Director of the 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, in coordination with 
     the Election Assistance Commission, shall develop a uniform 
     statement designed to provide recipients of such statement 
     pursuant to this section of how they can register to vote and 
     their voting rights under law.
       (b) Leases and Vouchers for Federally Assisted Rental 
     Housing.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall require--
       (1) each public housing agency to provide a copy of the 
     uniform statement developed pursuant to subsection (a) to 
     each lessee of a dwelling unit in public housing administered 
     by such agency--
       (A) together with the lease for such a dwelling unit, at 
     the same time such lease is provided to the lessee; and
       (B) together with any income verification form, at the same 
     time such form is provided to the lessee;
       (2) each public housing agency that administers rental 
     assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher program under 
     section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(o)), including the program under paragraph (13) 
     of such section 8(o), to provide a copy of the uniform 
     statement developed pursuant to subsection (a) to each 
     assisted family or individual--
       (A) together with the voucher for such assistance, at the 
     time such voucher is issued for such family or individual; 
     and
       (B) together with any income verification form, at the same 
     time such form is provided to the applicant or assisted 
     family or individual; and
       (3) each owner of a dwelling unit assisted with Federal 
     project-based rental assistance

[[Page H1029]]

     to provide a copy of the uniform statement developed pursuant 
     to subsection (a) to provide to the lessee of such dwelling 
     unit--
       (A) together with the lease for such dwelling unit, at the 
     same time such form is provided to the lessee; and
       (B) together with any income verification form, at the same 
     time such form is provided to the applicant or tenant;
     except that the Secretary of Agriculture shall administer the 
     requirement under this paragraph with respect to Federal 
     project-based rental assistance specified in subsection 
     (e)(1)(D),
       (c) Applications for Residential Mortgage Loans.--The 
     Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection shall 
     require each creditor that receives an application (within 
     the meaning of such term as used in the Equal Credit 
     Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691)) for a residential mortgage 
     loan to provide a copy of the uniform statement developed 
     pursuant to subsection (a) in written form to the applicant 
     for such residential mortgage loan, within 5 business days of 
     the date of application.
       (d) Optional Completion of Application.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to require any individual to 
     complete an application for voter registration.
       (e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Federal project-based rental assistance.--The term 
     ``Federal project-based rental assistance'' means project-
     based rental assistance provided under--
       (A) section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f);
       (B) section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 
     1701q);
       (C) section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013);
       (D) title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471 et 
     seq.), including voucher assistance under section 542 of such 
     title (42 U.S.C. 1490r);
       (E) subtitle D of title VIII of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.);
       (F) title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12721 et seq.);
       (G) the Housing Trust Fund program under section 1338 of 
     the federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and 
     Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4588); or
       (H) subtitle C of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11381 et seq.).
       (2) Owner.--The term ``owner'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 8(f) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f(f)).
       (3) Public housing; public housing agency.--The terms 
     ``public housing'' and ``public housing agency'' have the 
     meanings given such terms in section 3(b) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)).
       (4) Residential mortgage loan.--The term ``residential 
     mortgage loan'' includes any loan which is secured by a first 
     or subordinate lien on residential real property (including 
     individual units of condominiums and cooperatives) designed 
     principally for the occupancy of from 1- to 4- families.
       (f) Regulations.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director 
     of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may issue such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bloc of amendments provides important additions to 
H.R. 1 that strengthen the bill and enhance voter access.
  Among the amendments in the bloc is an amendment from the gentlewoman 
from Virginia that would require foreign agent disclaimers to be 
included on social media content. This increases transparency by 
requiring disclaimers to be embedded on the face of a social media post 
itself, and those disclaimers must remain whenever the post is 
subsequently shared.
  There are four amendments from the gentlewoman from California, 
including one that addresses longstanding privacy concerns of survivors 
of domestic and sexual abuse who want to register to vote but do not 
want their personal information to be publicly accessible; and a second 
that requires all in-person voting locations to have a sufficient 
number of accessible voting machines for their voters.
  There is an amendment from the gentleman from California that 
clarifies prohibitions on polling places or ballot drop boxes that 
falsely purport to be an official location established for an election.
  I would note that, in California, the Republican Party in southern 
California established drop boxes that purported to be from the 
registrar of voters. That was deceptive. An agreement was reached with 
the secretary of state that they could have the boxes, but they 
couldn't hold themselves out to be the registrar of voters.
  H.R. 1 calls for all States to provide same-day voter registration. 
The gentlewoman from Michigan's amendment makes an important addition 
that will help ensure the successful carrying out of this requirement: 
States must ensure that they have adequate copies of registration forms 
and other relevant voter registration at polling places.
  There is an amendment from the gentleman from New York that requires 
the GAO to conduct a study on voter turnout rates, broken down by age 
in States and localities that permit voters to participate in elections 
before the age of 18. This is an issue that merits examination, and 
this amendment will ensure that Congress is fully equipped to debate 
the issue.
  There is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Illinois that would 
require the GAO to review small-donor campaign financing to study the 
extent to which the program increases opportunities for candidates of 
diverse racial, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
  There is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Georgia that would 
require the Director of the CFPB to work with the EAC to develop a 
statement providing certain individuals with information regarding 
voter registration and their voting rights. This commonsense reform 
ensures that tenants and homeowners will have easy access to voter 
registration and other voter-related information.
  Finally, there is an amendment from the gentlewoman from California 
that would ensure that the bill's prohibitions against election 
disinformation cover false claims that voters will face civil and other 
legal penalties for voting.
  I support these amendments, and I urge their adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the en bloc. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reed), a good friend and a problem solver.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue that is so important 
to so many of the people from my district, and that is election 
integrity.
  I am confident in the integrity of our democracy, but the fact 
remains that over 59 percent of Americans do not have confidence in the 
integrity of our election process.
  Time and time again, I have worked across the aisle with my 
Democratic colleagues to try to come together on commonsense reforms to 
address the issue of election integrity, and the issue that I am 
passionate about today is the question of voter ID.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) and I had 
an amendment that we asked to be considered and debated on this floor 
to say that funds under this bill would not go to States that did not 
have a voter ID law in place. A simple reform to make sure that we have 
voter ID cards issued across America is a simple, commonsense integrity 
measure for our election systems to make sure that our votes count and 
the people casting the votes are those individuals who are registered 
to make that vote.
  We have IDs in America for simple things like buying alcohol, renting 
a car, and going into your grocery stores to get food stamps. We issue 
government IDs for EBT cards. There are simple ways to make sure that 
people have access to identification so that they could perform one of 
the most fundamental civic duties and fundamental rights that we have, 
and that is to vote.
  To ask an individual to have an ID is a simple measure, and my 
Democratic colleagues did not allow us to have that debate and have an 
open, honest conversation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these amendments 
and continue to work with us to ensure that the election integrity of 
our country is safe and secure.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
1, the For the People Act.

[[Page H1030]]

  My amendment would require the Comptroller General to analyze the 
impact of the voluntary small-donor financing program on the racial, 
gender, and socioeconomic diversity of candidates for public office.
  As the first woman and first person of color to represent Illinois' 
14th Congressional District, I know that Americans with diverse 
backgrounds and experiences are electable everywhere in this country, 
but too often, excellent candidates without personal wealth or 
corporate backing are outspent and overpowered long before the voters 
get a say.
  The Brennan Center found that small-donor financing cannot only make 
running for public office an opportunity for more Americans, but also 
increase the racial and gender diversity of our elected officials by 
giving every candidate a fighting chance.
  My amendment would make sure H.R. 1 fulfills its promise of letting 
the people decide who represents them. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who can take you on 
a tour of the best Philly cheesesteak places in the world.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, prior to my coming to Congress, I 
dedicated my entire life as an FBI agent to fighting corruption and 
fighting for electoral reform, having overseen that program for the 
entire Nation. H.R. 1 sets us back.
  H.R. 1 should not be called For the People. It should be called for 
the politicians. We know what we need to do to fix this system, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Several of my colleagues and I have introduced legislation that would 
actually restore faith in this institution and in the electoral 
process: term limits, no budget-no pay, a balanced budget amendment, 
single-issue legislation, abolishing congressional pensions, ending 
ballot harvesting, providing free photo IDs to every registered voter, 
ensuring signature matching, and, with the exception of military 
ballots, requiring that all ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election 
night.
  Mr. Speaker, this is common sense. What this body is doing today is 
the opposite. My colleagues are further eroding trust in this system, 
and that is a real shame because we have the opportunity to fix this.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to know why House leadership refuses to put these 
issues on the floor that would unequivocally pass with overwhelming 
margins in the House and the Senate. If it is going to pass 
overwhelmingly here, that means the American people want it. Let's put 
those on the floor.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for her leadership and for adding to this legislation--my 
legislation--the For the People Act, adding the Coretta Scott King Mid-
Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act that I wrote as long ago as 2006.
  Madam Speaker, section 2402 prohibits a State that has been 
redistricted in accordance with this legislation from doing it in the 
mid-decennial, waiting till the next time, the decennial apportionment; 
so no mid-decade kind of redistricting that has been so unhelpful to 
all of us.
  Madam Speaker, I rise, as well, to support the Swalwell amendments 
regarding the college student voting, as well as prohibiting false 
voting polling places and adding colleges and universities' 
responsibility to give civic information to our students.
  I also support the privacy information required by the Speier 
amendment to ensure that there is no domestic violence and dating 
violence because your voting information gets out.
  And I also support the Waters amendment that prohibits 
misinformation, which threatens potential voters with civil or legal 
penalties if they exercise their right to vote. I can assure you, this 
happens in the minority community.
  And I do support the 16-years-of-age amendment, because if you can be 
on the front lines of civil rights and protest for justice and 
democracy, you have the right to vote.
  Madam Speaker, let's educate our young people so they can vote. I am 
very happy to support the en bloc.
  Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021,'' which expands access to the 
ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and 
strengthens ethics rules for public servants.
  Specifically, the For the People Act will:
  Make it easier, not harder, to vote by implementing automatic voter 
registration, requiring early voting and vote by mail, committing 
Congress to reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and ensuring the 
integrity of our elections by modernizing and strengthening our voting 
systems and ending partisan redistricting.
  Reform the campaign finance system by requiring all political 
organizations to disclose large donors, updating political 
advertisement laws for the digital age, establishing a public matching 
system for citizen-owned elections, and revamping the Federal Election 
Commission to ensure there's a cop on the campaign finance beat.
  Strengthen ethics laws to ensure that public officials work in the 
public interest by extending conflict of interest laws to the President 
and Vice President; requiring the release of their tax returns; closing 
loopholes that allow former members of Congress to avoid cooling-off 
periods for lobbying; closing the revolving door between industry and 
the federal government; and establishing a code of conduct for the 
Supreme Court.
  H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at 
institutional barriers to voting.
  This bill ensures that individuals who have completed felony 
sentences have their full rights restored and expands early voting and 
simplify absentee voting; and modernize the U.S. voting system.
  I am particularly proud and appreciative to Chairwoman Lofgren and 
Congressman Sarbanes that the For The People Act incorporates in 
Section 2402 of the legislation the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade 
Redistricting Prohibition Act that I first offered in 2006 during the 
Judiciary Committee markup of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
reauthorization and as standalone legislation in the 114th Congress.
  This provision, section 2402, prohibits a State that has been 
redistricted in accordance with this legislation from engaging in 
redistricting again until after the next decennial apportionment unless 
required by a court to do so to comply with the Constitution of the 
United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Constitution of the 
State, or the terms or conditions of this subtitle.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation is particularly timely because more 
than 55 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we 
are still discussing voter suppression--something which should be a 
bygone relic of the past, but yet continues to disenfranchise racial 
minorities, immigrants, women, and young people.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a watershed moment for the Civil 
Rights Movement--it liberated communities of color from legal 
restrictions barring them from exercising the fundamental right to 
civic engagement and political representation.
  But uncaged by Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which neutered the preclearance 
provision of the Voting Rights Act, 14 states, including my state of 
Texas, took extreme measures to enforce new voting restrictions before 
the 2016 presidential election.
  If is not a coincidence that many of these same states have 
experienced increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters in recent 
elections.
  If not for invidious, state-sponsored voter suppression policies like 
discriminatory voter ID laws, reduced early voting periods, and voter 
intimidation tactics that directly or indirectly target racial 
minorities, the 2016 presidential election might have had a drastically 
different outcome.
  Madam Speaker, let me list some of the salutary features of the 
legislation that will make it easier for Americans to exercise their 
right to vote, the most precious right of all because as President 
Johnson said in securing passage of the Voting Rights Act, the right to 
vote ``is preservative of all other rights.''
  H.R. 1 modernizes the voter registration system by requiring each 
state to make available online voter registration, correction, 
cancellation, and designation of party affiliation.
  In addition, H.R. 1:
  Requires states to permit voters to register on the day of a federal 
election, including during early voting.
  Limits the authority of states to remove registrants from the 
official list of eligible voters in elections for federal office in the 
state based on interstate voter registration crosschecks .
  Requires states to provide annual reports on voter registration 
statistics to the Election Assistance Commission.
  Provides HAVA funds to implement the voter registration modernization 
reforms .

[[Page H1031]]

  Makes it unlawful to hinder, interfere or prevent an individual from 
registering to vote.
  Instructs the Election Assistance Commission to develop best 
practices for states to deter and prevent such violations.
  H.R. 1 explicitly prohibits `voter caging', the pernicious practice 
of using returned non-forwardable mail as the basis for removing 
registered voters from the rolls, and it prohibits challenges to 
eligibility from individuals who are not election officials without an 
oath of good faith factual basis.
  Importantly, the legislation prohibits providing false information 
about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties 
for voter intimidation.
  I support the declaration in the legislation of the right of citizens 
to vote in federal elections will not be denied because of a criminal 
conviction unless a citizen is serving a felony sentence in a 
correctional facility and it requires states and the federal government 
to notify individuals convicted of a state or federal felony, 
respectively, of their reenfranchisement
  H.R. 1 promotes election accuracy, integrity, and security by 
requiring states to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper 
ballots and that said ballots be counted by hand or an optical 
character recognition device and that a voter be given the opportunity 
to correct his or her ballot should a mistake be made; and it also 
requires that provisional ballots from eligible voters at incorrect 
polling places be counted.
  The legitimacy and stability of democratic governance is always 
enhanced by increased voter participation in elections, so I am very 
pleased that H.R. 1 outlaws many practices resorted to by voting 
opponents to reduce election participation.
  In particular, H.R. 1 requires at least 15 consecutive days of early 
voting for federal elections and that early voting locations be near 
public transportation, in rural areas, and open for at least 10 hours 
per day.
  Additionally, the legislation prohibits a state from imposing 
restrictions on an individual's ability to vote by mail and requires a 
state to carry out a program to track and confirm the receipt of 
absentee ballots and to make this information available to the voter 
who cast the ballot.
  Also, the bill requires the prepayment of postage on return envelopes 
for voting materials, which includes any voter registration form, any 
application for an absentee ballot, and any blank absentee ballot 
transmitted by mail.
  Madam Speaker, another important feature of H.R. 1 is that it 
promotes voter access by mandating several improvements to election 
administration, including:
  Treating universities as voter registration agencies;
  Requiring states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days 
before election, if the individual's polling place has changed;
  Requiring states to allow voters to sign sworn affidavits to vote in 
lieu of presenting photo ID;
  Providing accommodations for voters residing in Indian lands;
  Ensuring equitable and efficient operation of polling places, 
reducing long lines and wait times for voters;
  Requiring states to provide secured drop boxes for voted absentee 
ballots in elections for federal office;
  Prohibiting states from restricting curbside voting;
  Imposing requirements for federal election contingency plans in 
response to natural disasters and emergencies; and
  Clarifying that failure to vote is not grounds for removing 
registered voters from the rolls.
  Of course, nothing in this legislation prohibits or restricts the 
authority of states to provide greater opportunities for voting, and 
the bill makes that explicitly clear.
  This litany of good measures demonstrates all the many ways and means 
through which H.R. 1 expands voter participation and election 
integrity, and our experience of the previous four years counsels the 
urgency of adopting them.
  I am much less confident of the ability of one component of the 
bill--the title mandating creation of ``Independent Redistricting 
Commissions''--to strengthen our democracy; in fact I believe that 
title of the legislation should be stricken because of its potential to 
negatively effective marginalized communities and minority groups.
  I am not contending that independent redistricting commissions are an 
unconstitutional usurpation of authority belonging exclusively to state 
legislatures; that argument was presented and rejected by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona. Independent 
Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).
  Instead, the nation's experience with independent redistricting 
commissions is still in its early stages, and I believe that instead of 
mandating a one-size fits all approach, Congress should allow further 
experimentation to occur in the states, the ``laboratories of 
democracy,'' as they were described by Justice Brandeis in New State 
Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
  In addition, it appears to me that the selection process laid out in 
the bill for choosing members of the independent redistricting 
commissions is too random and will not result in a commission comprised 
of members reflective of the communities directly affected by the work 
of the commission, particularly members of racial and language 
minorities.
  Madam Speaker, the issue of redistricting and how to do it fairly is 
a never-ending one, and, as most political scientists agree, it is 
virtually impossible to draw most congressional and legislative 
districts in ways that are competitive; redistricting exacerbates 
geographical polarization, but it does not create it.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1 must be passed because many of the civil rights 
that I fought for as a student and young lawyer have been undermined or 
been rolled back by reactionary forces in recent years.
  To add insult to injury, the immediately preceding Administration 
issued an Executive Order establishing a so-called ``Election 
Integrity'' Commission to investigate not voter suppression, but so-
called ``voter fraud'' in the 2016 election.
  The 45th President and his followers were unceasing in their efforts 
to perpetuate the myth of voter fraud, but it remains just that: a 
myth.
  Between 2000 and 2014, there were 35 credible allegations of voter 
fraud out of more than 834 million ballots cast--that is less than 1 in 
28 million votes.
  An extensive study by social scientists at Dartmouth College 
uncovered no evidence to support Trump's hysterical and outrageous 
allegations of widespread voter fraud ``rigging'' the 2016 election.
  Just for the record, Madam Speaker, the popular vote of the 2016 
presidential election was:

  Hillary Clinton: 65,853,5160.
  Donald Trump: 62,884,8240.

  Trump's deficit of 2.9 million was the largest of any Electoral 
College winner in history by a massive margin, and despite the 
allegations of the current Administration, there have been only 4 
documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election.
  The same is true for the 2020 presidential election, which again 
Donald Trump claimed was fraudulent after losing the popular vote to 
President Biden by more than 7 million votes, and the Electoral College 
by 306-232, the exact margin that he claimed constituted a landslide 
and epic blowout when he won the Electoral College vote in 2016.
  Again, and just for the record, Madam Speaker, the popular vote of 
the 2020 presidential election was:

  Joe Biden: 81,281,502.
  Donald Trump: 74,222,593.

  The Trump Campaign brought more than 63 legal challenges to the 2020 
election, claiming the outcomes were tainted by wide-spread and massive 
fraud but every court, whether state or federal, and nearly 90 judges, 
including Trump appointees, summarily rejected these baseless claims 
for failure of proof.
  Of course, this did not deter the reckless 45th President who then 
went on to threaten and coerce state election officials to corruptly 
change vote counts and after that ploy failed, incited his loyalists to 
storm the U.S. Capitol and use force and violence if necessary to 
prevent the Congress from conducting the constitutionally required 
Joint Meeting to count the electoral votes cast and announce the winner 
of the presidential election.
  Madam Speaker, the Trump Voter Fraud Commission, like many of Trump's 
business schemes, was a massive scam built on countless lies that did 
not hold up to any level of scrutiny.
  As Members of Congress, we should be devoting our time, energy, and 
resources addressing Russian infiltration of our election 
infrastructure and campaigns, along with other pressing issues.
  Instead of enjoying and strengthening the protections guaranteed in 
the Voting Rights Act--people of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, and 
immigrants--have been given the joyless, exhausting task of fending off 
the constant barrage of attacks leveled at our communities by Trump and 
other conspiracy theorists.
  Not only are we tasked with reversing the current dismal state of 
voter suppression against minorities; we are forced to refute the 
blatant, propagandist lie of voter fraud.
  To this end, I have been persistent in my efforts to protect the 
rights of disenfranchised communities in my district of inner-city 
Houston and across the nation.
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have cosponsored dozens of bills, 
amendments, and resolutions seeking to improve voters' rights at all 
stages and levels of the election process.
  This includes legislation aimed at:
  Increasing voter outreach and turnout;

[[Page H1032]]

  Ensuring both early and same-day registration;
  Standardizing physical and language accessibility at polling places;
  Expanding early voting periods;
  Decreasing voter wait times;
  Guaranteeing absentee ballots, especially for displaced citizens;
  Modernizing voting technologies and strengthening our voter record 
systems;
  Establishing the federal Election Day as a national holiday; and
  Condemning and criminalizing deceptive practices, voter intimidation, 
and other suppression tactics.
  Along with many of my CBC colleagues, I was an original cosponsor of 
H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, which became public law 
on July 27, 2006.
  I also authored H.R. 745 in the 110th Congress, which added the 
legendary Barbara Jordan to the list of civil rights trailblazers whose 
memories are honored in the naming of the Voting Rights Act 
Reauthorization and Amendments Act.
  This bill strengthened the original Voting Rights Act by replacing 
federal voting examiners with federal voting observers--a significant 
enhancement that made it easier to safeguard against racially biased 
voter suppression tactics.
  As noted earlier, in the 114th Congress, I introduced H.R. 75, the 
Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2015, 
which prohibits states whose congressional districts have been 
redistricted after a decennial census from redrawing their district 
lines until the next census.
  Prejudiced redistricting, or gerrymandering as it is more commonly 
known, has been used for decades to weaken the voting power of African 
Americans, Latino Americans, and other minorities since the Civil 
Rights Era.
  Immediately after the Shelby County v. Holder ruling, which lifted 
preclearance requirements for states with histories of discrimination 
seeking to change their voting laws or practices, redistricting became 
a favorite tool for Republicans who connived to unfairly gain 3 
congressional seats in Texas.
  In the 110th Congress, I was the original sponsor of H.R. 6778, the 
Ex Offenders Voting Rights Act of 2008, which prohibited denial of the 
right to vote in a federal election on the basts of an individual's 
status as a formerly incarcerated person.
  The Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act sought to reverse discriminatory 
voter restrictions that disproportionately affect the African American 
voting population, which continues to be targeted by mass 
incarceration, police profiling, and a biased criminal justice system.
  Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical 
of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes 
and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of 
seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their 
votes.
  Voter ID laws are just one of the means that can be used to abridge 
or suppress the right to vote but there are others, including:
  Curtailing or Eliminating Early Voting;
  Ending Same-Day Registration;
  Not counting povisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on 
Election Day;
  Eliminating Teenage Pre-Registration;
  Shortened Poll Hours;
  Lessening the standards governing voter challenges used by 
vigilantes, like the King Street Patriots in my city of Houston, to 
cause trouble at the polls;
  ``Voter Caging,'' to suppress the turnout of minority voters by 
sending non-forwardable mail to targeted populations and, once the mail 
is returned, using the returned mail to compile lists of voters whose 
eligibility is then challenged on the basis of residence under state 
law; and
  Employing targeted redistricting techniques to dilute minority voting 
strength, notably ``Cracking'' (i.e., fragmenting and dispersing 
concentrations of minority populations); ``Stacking'' ( combining 
concentrations of minority voters with greater concentrations of white 
populations); and ``Packing'' (i.e., overconcentrating minority voters 
in as few districts as possible).
  Madam Speaker, we must not allow our democracy to slide back into the 
worst elements of this country's past, to stand idly by as our 
treasured values of democracy, progress, and equality are poisoned and 
dismantled.
  I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 1, the ``For The 
People Act of 2021.''
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the rule governing debate of 
H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021,'' which expands access to the 
ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and 
strengthens ethics rules for public servants.
  H.R. 1 is intended to increase public confidence in our democracy by 
reducing the role of money in politics, restoring ethical standards and 
integrity to government, and strengthening laws to protect voting.
  I am particularly proud and appreciative to Chairwoman Lofgren and 
Congressman Sarbanes that the For The People Act incorporates in 
Section 2402 of the legislation the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade 
Redistricting Prohibition Act that I first offered in 2006 during the 
Judiciary Committee markup of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
reauthorization and as standalone legislation in the 114th Congress.
  This provision, section 2402, prohibits a State that has been 
redistricted in accordance with this legislation from engaging in 
redistricting again until after the next decennial apportionment unless 
required by a court to do so to comply with the Constitution of the 
United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Constitution of the 
State, or the terms or conditions of this subtitle.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation is particularly timely because more 
than 55 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we 
are still discussing voter suppression--something which should be a 
bygone relic of the past, but yet continues to disenfranchise racial 
minorities, immigrants, women, and young people.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a watershed moment for the Civil 
Rights Movement--it liberated communities of color from legal 
restrictions barring them from exercising the fundamental right to 
civic engagement and political representation.
  But uncaged by Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which neutered the preclearance 
provision of the Voting Rights Act, 14 states, including my state of 
Texas, took extreme measures to enforce new voting restrictions before 
the 2016 presidential election.
  It is not a coincidence that many of these same states have 
experienced increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters in recent 
elections.
  If not for invidious, state-sponsored voter suppression policies like 
discriminatory voter ID laws, reduced early voting periods, and voter 
intimidation tactics that directly or indirectly target racial 
minorities, the 2016 presidential election might have had a drastically 
different outcome.
  H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at 
institutional barriers to voting.
  Let me list some of the salutary features of the legislation that 
will make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, the 
most precious right of all because as President Johnson said in 
securing passage of the Voting Rights Act, the right to vote ``is 
preservative of all other rights.''
  H.R. 1 modernizes the voter registration system by requiring each 
state to make available online voter registration, correction, 
cancellation, and designation of party affiliation.
  In addition, H.R. 1:
  Requires states to permit voters to register on the day of a federal 
election, including during early voting.
  Limits the authority of states to remove registrants from the 
official list of eligible voters in elections for federal office in the 
state based on interstate voter registration crosschecks.
  Requires states to provide annual reports on voter registration 
statistics to the Election Assistance Commission.
  Provides HAVA funds to implement the voter registration modernization 
reforms.
  Makes it unlawful to hinder, interfere or prevent an individual from 
registering to vote.
  Instructs the Election Assistance Commission to develop best 
practices for states to deter and prevent such violations.
  H.R. 1 explicitly prohibits `voter caging', the pernicious practice 
of using returned non-forwardable mail as the basis for removing 
registered voters from the rolls and it prohibits challenges to 
eligibility from individuals who are not election officials without an 
oath of good faith factual basis.
  Importantly, the legislation prohibits providing false information 
about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties 
for voter intimidation.
  I support the declaration in the legislation of the right of citizens 
to vote in federal elections will not be denied because of a criminal 
conviction unless a citizen is serving a felony sentence in a 
correctional facility and it requires states and the federal government 
to notify individuals convicted of a state or federal felony, 
respectively, of their reenfranchisement.
  H.R. 1 promotes election accuracy, integrity, and security by 
requiring states to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper 
ballots and that said ballots be counted by hand or an optical 
character recognition device and that a voter be given the opportunity 
to correct his or her ballot should a mistake be made; and it also 
requires that provisional ballots from eligible voters at incorrect 
polling places be counted.
  The legitimacy and stability of democratic governance is always 
enhanced by increased voter participation in elections, so I am very

[[Page H1033]]

pleased that H.R. 1 outlaws many practices resorted to by voting 
opponents to reduce election participation.
  In particular, H.R. 1 requires at least 15 consecutive days of early 
voting for federal elections and that early voting locations be near 
public transportation, in rural areas and open for at least 10 hours 
per day.
  Additionally, the legislation prohibits a state from imposing 
restrictions on an individual's ability to vote by mail and requires a 
state to carry out a program to track and confirm the receipt of 
absentee ballots and to make this information available to the voter 
who cast the ballot.
  Also, the bill requires the prepayment of postage on return envelopes 
for voting materials, which includes any voter registration form, any 
application for an absentee ballot, and any blank absentee ballot 
transmitted by mail.
  Madam Speaker, another important feature of H.R. 1 is that it 
promotes voter access by mandating several improvements to election 
administration, including:
  Treating universities as voter registration agencies;
  Requiring states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days 
before election, if the individual's polling place has changed;
  Requiring states to allow voters to sign sworn affidavits to vote in 
lieu of presenting photo ID;
  Providing accommodations for voters residing in Indian lands;
  Ensuring equitable and efficient operation of polling places, 
reducing long lines and wait times for voters;
  Requiring states to provide secured drop boxes for voted absentee 
ballots in elections for federal office;
  Prohibiting states from restricting curbside voting;
  Imposing requirements for federal election contingency plans in 
response to natural disasters and emergencies; and
  Clarifying that failure to vote is not grounds for removing 
registered voters from the rolls.
  Of course, nothing in this legislation prohibits or restricts the 
authority of states to provide greater opportunities for voting, and 
the bill makes that explicitly clear.
  This litany of good measures demonstrates all the many ways and means 
through which H.R. 1 expands voter participation and election integrity 
and our experience of the previous four years counsels the urgency of 
adopting them.
  I am much less confident of the ability of one component of the 
bill--the title mandating creation of ``Independent Redistricting 
Commissions''--to strengthen our democracy; in fact I believe that 
title of the legislation should be stricken because of its potential to 
negatively effective marginalized communities and minority groups.
  I am not contending that independent redistricting commissions are an 
unconstitutional usurpation of authority belonging exclusively to state 
legislatures; that argument was presented and rejected by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona. Independent 
Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).
  Instead, the nation's experience with independent redistricting 
commissions is still in its early stages and I believe that instead of 
mandating a one-size fits all approach, Congress should allow further 
experimentation to occur in the states, the ``laboratories of 
democracy,'' as they were described by Justice Brandeis in New State 
Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
  In addition, it appears to me that the selection process laid out in 
the bill for choosing members of the independent redistricting 
commissions is too random and will not result in a commission comprised 
of members reflective of the communities directly affected by the work 
of the commission, particularly members of racial and language 
minorities.
  Madam Speaker, the issue of redistricting and how to do it fairly is 
a never-ending one and, as most political scientists agree, it is 
virtually impossible to draw most congressional and legislative 
districts in ways that are competitive; redistricting exacerbates 
geographical polarization, but it does not create it.
  For this reason, unlike the other titles of H.R. 1, I withhold my 
support for Title II, Subtitle E, Part 2.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Naples, Florida, (Mr. Donalds), my good friend, who 
represents many of my former constituents from Illinois who have left 
Illinois because of overtaxation.
  Mr. DONALDS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, the For 
the People Act. This is really just a takeover of elections by 
Washington, D.C.
  Madam Speaker, I got a chance to go through some of this bill--790 
pages. Most of these things would basically eviscerate Florida's 
election law.
  You see, I served in Florida's legislature. We had the responsibility 
for adjusting legislation law from time to time. Our State was a State 
that went through hanging chads in 2000, and we have made the 
adjustment systematically in the State legislature to make sure that 
Florida has the very best election laws in these United States.
  You see, on election night, November 3, we were done counting around 
9:30. We knew the results by 10 o'clock. We have absentee ballots, we 
have voter ID, we have early voting, and we have a robust count system 
on election day.
  The people of Florida have never been disenfranchised when it comes 
to elections. The people of Florida have come accustomed to having a 
voter system that works. And what this body is trying to do with H.R. 1 
is completely destroy Florida's election laws. That is, to me, 
ridiculous. This Capitol should never allow that. If we are going to do 
anything, we should replicate what Florida has actually done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Underwood). The gentleman needs to put 
his mask up.
  Mr. DONALDS. Madam Speaker, I am sorry. It keeps falling down.
  Madam Speaker, I was trying to make a point--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman is expired.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 
seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. DONALDS. Madam Speaker, the point is clear: 33 States have voter 
ID laws. Many States have already taken care of these problems 
themselves. State legislatures should be changing their laws. This 
Capitol should not. And the people of the State of Florida definitely 
do not want the things that are in this bill. Our system is the best. 
Frankly, leave Florida alone.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, before I reserve, can I 
make a parliamentary inquiry?
  When a mask falls down unintentionally from a speaker, what is the 
rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members must properly wear their masks at 
all times.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Is this being enforced equally on the 
majority and minority?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not answer a hypothetical 
question, but the Speaker's announced policy applies to all Members.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. So I should ask the second-rate 
parliamentarian off the floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 4\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Illinois has 6 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to H.R. 1 to crack down on foreign-backed disinformation and 
propaganda on social media. This amendment is the text of the 
Bipartisan Foreign Agent Disclaimer Enhancement--FADE--Act.
  Under the FADE Act, political ads, issue campaigns, and content 
funded or directed by a foreign principal and intended to influence the 
American people must be disclosed to the Department of Justice. But too 
often, this rule does not extend to the world of social media.
  Additionally, foreign agents acting from abroad too often evade 
current disclaimer requirements. Amid the pandemic and following the 
2020 general election, foreign governments continue to exploit existing 
vulnerabilities in our national security, including influencing 
Americans directly and infiltrating public discourse without their 
knowledge. Foreign adversaries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, are 
among the most active, and they are increasingly assertive in their 
efforts.
  Madam Speaker, this amendment will help protect against foreign 
influence that seeks to sow political division and promote dangerous 
information contrary to the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
  My amendment would require disclaimers--clearly stating this content 
is coming from a foreign principal.

[[Page H1034]]

  

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my good friend and best-
dressed member of our conference.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, I am not so sure about that, but I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1.
  We were warned for years about the rise of socialism. Well, here it 
is, served on a platter, using your money to pay for politicians 
campaigns.
  Do you like those robocalls during campaign season?
  How about the negative TV ads and the mailers?
  Or how about all of the political stuff that just comes out?
  Well, your tax dollars are paying for them. And, yes, this is 
taxpayer dollars, no matter how they tell you otherwise.
  Madam Speaker, this bill puts Washington, D.C., in charge of our 
States' elections and how those elections are run. It would keep the 
status quo, like we saw this past November, with voter rolls that are 
not up to date and live ballots being mailed to voters who have died, 
moved, or even multiple ballots to the same voter.
  Madam Speaker, elections do have consequences. And when leaders said 
the goal was to change America, they were telling the truth; and here 
we are.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Williams), who serves in the seat of our late, beloved 
John Lewis.
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is our duty to not only do 
the work of the people, but to ensure that people have a voice in our 
democracy.
  H.R. 1 amplifies the voice of the people, empowers individuals to 
shape our democracy, and breaks down barriers to voting. It is 
historymaking by design, as a portion of H.R. 1 was written by my 
predecessor, Congressman John Lewis. We must honor his legacy and take 
this necessary step forward because Georgians and all people in this 
country deserve to retain their right to accessible elections.
  Madam Speaker, I have added provisions to this bill that underscore 
not only the importance of voting, but making it easier for hardworking 
people to do so. And making it easier, not harder to vote, should 
always be our main concern.
  Madam Speaker, this week, Georgia's legislators moved forward to 
further restrict Black and Brown communities from voting by enacting 
new ID laws for absentee ballot applications and limiting the use of 
ballot drop boxes--old tactics, but the same tricks. We cannot let 
self-serving politicians stack the deck through voter suppression and 
discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1 
so that we can make it easier for people to cast their ballots and have 
their voices be heard.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record 
a summary of letters submitted yesterday by the Institute for Free 
Speech and others opposing 
H.R. 1.


                                    Institute for Free Speech,

                                                    March 3, 2021.
     Re H.R. 1 Would Greatly Harm Free Speech.

       Dear Representative: The Institute for Free Speech strongly 
     opposes H.R. 1, the Orwellian For the People Act. More 
     appropriately known as the For the Politicians Act, this 
     radical bill would, in fact, greatly harm the ability of the 
     people to freely speak, publish, organize into groups, and 
     petition their elected representatives in pursuit of a better 
     government.
       In particular, H.R. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable 
     standards on the ability of Americans and groups of Americans 
     to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected 
     officials and the public. Certain sections of the bill would 
     violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters, 
     limit political speech on the internet, and compel speakers 
     to recite lengthy government-mandated messages identifying 
     some of their supporters by name in their communications.
       Importantly, these restrictions would reach far beyond 
     campaign speech to regulate discussion of legislative issues 
     and public affairs. For advocacy groups, unions, and trade 
     associations, several of the limits proposed in H.R. 1 would 
     operate as a total ban on speech
       If signed into law, all of these provisions would be 
     interpreted and enforced by a newly partisan Federal Election 
     Commission. Under H.R. 1, the Commission would be radically 
     transformed from its historic and deliberately bipartisan 
     structure to one under partisan control of the president. As 
     nine former members of the Federal Election Commission with a 
     combined 60 plus years of service warned in a recent letter 
     to Congress, the likely impact would be to shrink public 
     confidence in the impartial enforcement of campaign finance 
     laws, weaponize these regulations for partisan gain, and 
     silence much political speech through new rules on groups 
     that speak about public affairs
       H.R. 1 would also force Americans to pay for speech they 
     oppose. This new financing system is a riverboat gamble on an 
     untested--and costly--scheme that would have many unforeseen 
     effects. Existing research has proven that similar schemes 
     elsewhere have failed to achieve proponents' stated goals. 
     Instead, the program will likely incentivize--and subsidize--
     candidates with hateful messages, create new avenues for 
     corruption, increase polarization, give government greater 
     control over campaigns, waste tax dollars, and fail markedly 
     at improving the quality of governance or the diversity of 
     those who are elected to higher office
       At its core, H.R. 1 would greatly increase the already high 
     legal and administrative compliance costs, liability risk, 
     and costs to donor and associational privacy for civic groups 
     that speak about policy issues. Organizations will be further 
     deterred from speaking or will have to divert additional 
     resources away from their advocacy activities to pay for 
     compliance staff and lawyers. Some groups will not be able to 
     afford these costs or will violate the law unwittingly. The 
     effect will be less speech by Americans and organizations, 
     allowing politicians to act with less accountability to 
     public opinion and criticism.
       Few bills are more antithetical to the text of and 
     principles underlying the First Amendment than H.R. 1. The 
     numerous, overlapping, and interrelated provisions in this 
     legislation combine to impose and tighten severe government 
     controls on speech about campaigns, judicial nominees, and 
     policy issues in truly shocking ways. Any American lacking 
     expertise in campaign finance law would have little to no 
     hope of understanding this bill or the voluminous 
     restrictions it proposes on political speech and association. 
     The sad result will be a political discourse dominated by 
     Washington, DC insiders. Far from being For the People, H.R. 
     1 is truly For the Politicians.
       The best way to give the American people a voice and to 
     safeguard democracy is to protect and enhance the right to 
     free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. While the 
     Institute takes no position on the myriad provisions in H.R. 
     1 that deal with election administration, voting rights, and 
     redistricting, the portions of H.R. 1 that trample on free 
     speech are sufficient to warrant our firm opposition to this 
     measure. For the above reasons, the Institute for Free Speech 
     strongly opposes passage of H.R. 1.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David Keating,
     President.
                                  ____



                            Illinois House of Representatives,

                               Springfield, IL, February 19, 2021.
     To: Illinois Federal Delegation
     Fr: Illinois Representative Joe Sosnowski, 69th District, 
         Illinois House of Representatives
       To the Illinois Federal Delegation: As a state legislator 
     elected to be a voice for the people of Illinois, I write to 
     express my opposition to H.R. 1/S. 1, an unconstitutional 
     takeover of citizens' right to free speech and association.
       As elected officials, we both have a duty to represent our 
     constituents best interests and a responsibility to defend 
     the United States Constitution. Therefore, it is my 
     obligation to urge you to oppose the deceptively named For 
     the People Act. The legislation is ill-considered and deeply 
     unconstitutional, and I have seen firsthand the chilling 
     effects of the donor disclosure provisions that it would 
     enact.
       As a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a 
     membership organization of state legislators dedicated to 
     principles of limited government, free markets and 
     federalism. In 2013, activists launched a campaign to reveal, 
     then harass and shame, the ALEC donor base. Their goal was 
     simple: Harassing ALEC donors and corporate members would 
     chill their participation with and support for the 
     organization, ultimately cutting off a funding source for 
     ALEC.
       Worse, public elected officials used their platform to 
     heighten this threat of donor disclosure in order to further 
     intimidate ALEC supporters. In 2013, every company 
     tangentially associated with ALEC received an official letter 
     from US Senator Richard Durbin, demanding to know whether it 
     had served as a member of ALEC or provided any funding to 
     ALEC, with the intent of intimidating them. Durbin wrote that 
     he would read their responses into the official Congressional 
     record, forever memorializing their support and creating a 
     public target list for activists opposed to the organization. 
     Even the Chicago Tribune, the Senator's hometown newspaper 
     that had endorsed his candidacy, rebuked Durbin's attempt at 
     creating an enemies list by using his high federal office as 
     a cudgel against his enemies.
       H.R. 1/S. 1 would institutionalize this harassment and 
     intimidation and extend it to all nonprofits, regardless of 
     their issue area or political persuasion. Whatever issues you

[[Page H1035]]

     support or oppose, this should be of serious concern to you. 
     If this legislation is enacted, passionate activists on both 
     sides of the aisle would have access to a government-run 
     database of donors who give to every organization from ALEC 
     and the Family Research Council to the ACLU and Planned 
     Parenthood. Does anyone doubt that the blunt instrument of 
     donor disclosure in H.R. 1/S. 1 would put millions of 
     Americans' peace and livelihoods at risk of significant, 
     material harm?
       These tactics are flimsy bureaucratic structures designed 
     to harass nonprofits and chill speech, despite fundamental 
     violations of the First Amendment. In keeping with today's 
     cancel culture, H.R. 1/S. 1 is a government-sanctioned 
     attempt to chill speech and participation. Good governance 
     watchdogs argue this measure increases transparency. 
     Transparency is good when applied to government, but when it 
     strips away Constitutionally protected privacy for 
     individuals, it is exceedingly dangerous. For the federal 
     government to expose our constituents as supporters of any 
     nonprofit's cause would be an enormous overreach of 
     centralized power.
       If passed, the donor disclosure provisions in H.R. 1/S. 1 
     would bludgeon our democratic institutions and threaten the 
     safety and peace of our everyday constituents. It would 
     further normalize the darkness of cancel culture and 
     intimidation through overregulation in American society. 
     Therefore, we call on you to oppose H.R. 1/S. 1.
           Sincerely,
     Representative Joe Sosnowski,
       69th District, Illinois House of Representatives, Illinois 
     ALEC State Chair.

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, over the last couple of days, I have spoken a lot 
about my opposition to this bill's creation of a public fund filled 
with dollars from corporate fines to directly fund the campaign coffers 
of every Member of this institution and candidates.
  And my Democrat colleagues have continued to say this isn't public 
funding or corporate donations because it is corporate fines.
  So what is the truth?
  I think my chart here tells the story. So we have corporate fines. 
That is corporate dollars, something that we, as Members of Congress in 
our campaigns, cannot accept right now. Those corporate dollars that 
pay these corporate fines that we set the levels of in this 
institution, they then go to the U.S. Government in this new--that H.R. 
1 creates--the Freedom From Influence Fund.
  It is really a laundering machine. So they launder that corporate 
money that we cannot accept right now into the Treasury and it comes 
out clean as public money. It is money that used to be used for things 
like the Crime Victims Fund. Instead, this new laundered money, this 
taxpayer money--because it is public, it is under the control of us--
then goes out exponentially to all of us, to our campaigns to pay for 
attack ads, fundraisers, mailers, phone calls, whatever you want.
  But either way, it is government spending--government sending 
corporate dollars directly to us. This is, and should be, prohibited, 
but H.R. 1 changes that and it puts more money into politics and not 
less.
  How about the Crime Victims Fund or victims of domestic violence get 
these dollars?
  Let's make sure that we address programs that deal with sexual 
assault, child abuse, and other crimes. This money will not go into the 
Crime Victims Fund because it is going to all of us. All 50 State 
attorneys general have told us that this vital Crime Victims Fund is 
nearly depleted. But instead of plussing it up, here we are today, 
funding our own campaigns with a ``yes'' vote.
  Madam Speaker, this bill isn't for the people. It is for the 
politicians. This is why I am offering a motion to recommit so that we 
can put forward a bill that works for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct 
the Committee on House Administration to consider an amendment to 
remove all public financing from this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, it is one reason I am 
opposed to H.R. 1, and giving Democrats another chance to join me, 
stopping this charade, stopping enriching themselves in their own 
campaign. This is one last chance before you do it again.
  Madam Speaker, another reason I oppose H.R. 1 is because the election 
mandates on States in this bill go against what our Founding Fathers 
intended and essentially nationalizes our election system.
  If signed into law, H.R. 1 would be the greatest expansion of the 
Federal Government's role in our elections than we have ever seen. By 
moving these decisions to D.C., we are further removing people from the 
laws that govern their elections. People should have more say in how 
their elections are run, not less. Our goal is to always ensure all 
eligible voters are able to vote and all lawful votes are counted. That 
is not what H.R. 1 does. And the only witness who has run an election 
before said during the single House Administration hearing held on this 
bill that H.R. 1 will undermine many of the election laws States have 
put into place to make it easier for people to vote and improve their 
election process for their voters.
  One-size-fits-all mandates from Washington will not fix the problems 
we have seen in elections across the country. They will just cause more 
chaos and confusion. These issues need to be solved at the local and 
State level. Instead of dictating to States, we should be working with 
them and localities to address these issues. And I stand ready and 
willing to work with my Democrat colleagues to do just that, but I will 
not vote for a Federal takeover of elections and I will not vote to use 
the Federal Government to put more money into my campaign. It is bad 
policy and it is bad for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I urge support for the motion to recommit at the 
appropriate time, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman 
is ready to yield back or use the rest of his time.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to request a meeting with the 
Parliamentarian. I personally witnessed one of my Democratic colleagues 
immediately remove his mask and was never told to put it back on from 
the Chair at the time. So all we ask for is consistency.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I urge support for 
the motion to recommit. I urge my Democratic colleagues: Don't vote to 
put money into your own campaigns.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
secretary of state of Colorado, with a number of other secretary of 
states, urging support for this bill; and a letter from former leaders 
of the American Civil Liberties Union and concerned first amendment 
scholars urging support.
                                                    Jena Griswold,


                                  Colorado Secretary of State,

                                                    March 2, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, and 
     Leader McCarthy: It's no accident that the 2020 elections 
     were the most secure in American history. A monumental effort 
     by election administrators--from board of elections 
     officials, to county clerks, to poll workers--ensured our 
     country's democratic process was stronger than ever, even 
     with the unique challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
       While the 2020 elections proved that our democracy is 
     resilient, the elections also showed us that they cannot be 
     taken for granted. Our elections were safe, secure, and 
     successful because countless patriotic Americans took action 
     to protect them. The policies that gave voters better options 
     to safely

[[Page H1036]]

     register to vote and cast a ballot in the face of the 
     pandemic were a resounding success and must now be made 
     permanent.
       Modernizing elections meant that eligible voters did not 
     have to choose between casting a ballot and risking their 
     health. It also resulted in record turnout for both parties. 
     Policies like vote-by mail for all and early voting saw 
     resounding success in states and municipalities across the 
     country. Now, only Congress can ensure that every eligible 
     voter across America has access to these voting options in 
     the future. That's why we need to immediately enact the For 
     The People Act (H.R. 1) into law.
       The For The People Act offers a comprehensive path to 
     securing and modernizing American democracy for generations 
     to come. The bill provides clear guidance for all 50 states 
     and the District of Columbia to implement election processes 
     that work for administrators and voters alike, and its 
     adoption into law is critical to the future of American 
     elections. Proven policies such as automatic and same-day 
     voter registration will remove administrative obstacles for 
     eligible voters while maintaining up-to-date and accurate 
     voter rolls. Voter-verified paper ballots will ensure every 
     vote is accurately recorded and allow administrators to run 
     key audits to verify election results. Other provisions, such 
     as independent redistricting commissions to combat 
     gerrymandering and shining light on dark money, will further 
     strengthen the integrity of our elections.
       As the chief elections officials in our respective states, 
     and as the administrators who will be tasked with executing 
     many of the policies proposed in H.R. 1, we can confidently 
     state that this bill is designed to make our democracy 
     stronger and safer than ever. We proudly and firmly support 
     the For The People Act, and we strongly recommend its passage 
     in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.
           Sincerely,
       Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State; Shirley Weber, 
     California Secretary of State; Jena Griswold, Colorado 
     Secretary of State; Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of 
     State; Kimberly Bassett, Secretary of the District of 
     Columbia; Shenna Bellows, Maine Secretary of State; Jocelyn 
     Benson, Michigan Secretary of State; Steve Simon, Minnesota 
     Secretary of State; Maggie Toulouse Oliver, New Mexico 
     Secretary of State; Shemia Fagan, Oregon Secretary of State; 
     Nellie Gorbea, Rhode Island Secretary of State; Jim Condos, 
     Vermont Secretary of State.
                                  ____

         Former Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and 
           Concerned First Amendment Scholars,
                                                February 18, 2021.
     Re H.R. 1, For the People Act.

     Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
     Chair, House Administration Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Sarbanes,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     Chair, House Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chair Lofgren, Chair Nadler, and Rep. Sarbanes: The 
     undersigned are former leaders of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union (ACLU) and concerned academics who have 
     devoted much of their careers to the defense of the First 
     Amendment and the protection of American democracy. We write 
     in support of speedy House enactment of H.R.1, the For the 
     People Act.
       American democracy is at a perilous crossroads. H.R.1 
     responds with sweeping reforms countering voter suppression 
     and partisan gerrymandering that have targeted communities of 
     color; overhauling our deeply inequitable campaign finance 
     system; and reducing the influence of secret ``dark money'' 
     in federal elections. We view H.R. 1 as the most significant 
     prodemocracy legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
       Some have argued that despite the overwhelmingly positive 
     content of H.R.1, enactment should be delayed in the House 
     pending legislative hearings and efforts to amend certain 
     provisions in the 700-page legislation, especially provisions 
     requiring disclosure of the identities of large donors to 
     tax-exempt organizations operating on the margins of 
     electoral politics We agree that, ordinarily, best 
     legislative practice would call for hearings designed to 
     resolve First Amendment concerns over important legislation. 
     But, given the importance of shoring up the democratic 
     process, the limited window of opportunity for passage of 
     H.R.1, the likely delay in Senate consideration, and the 
     nature of the First Amendment objections to disclosure, we 
     believe that immediate passage of H.R.1 in its present form 
     is the preferable course of action.
       Objectors to immediate passage of HR 1 appear to us to: (1) 
     underestimate the risks to enacting HR 1 posed by substantial 
     delay in House passage; (2) understate the importance of 
     closing loopholes in our campaign finance disclosure laws; 
     and (3) overstate the risks to First Amendment freedom posed 
     by the bill's disclosure provisions. We live in a democratic 
     culture saturated by great wealth. The Supreme Court has 
     rendered it almost impossible to directly regulate the role 
     of money in determining electoral outcomes. One of the few 
     practical reform windows left open is public disclosure of 
     the sources of money-driven influence over electoral 
     politics. Such disclosure is important, not only to prevent 
     corruption, but to allow ordinary citizens to evaluate the 
     truth of electoral speech by knowing who is paying for it. We 
     recognize the need to preserve anonymity for persons whose 
     speech or association might be deterred by fear of 
     disclosure. That is why the H.R.1 disclosure rules apply. 
     only to large donations exceeding $10,000. Moreover, current 
     First Amendment doctrine already provides an ``as applied'' 
     exception to disclosure rules if a genuine fear of 
     retaliatory action were to exist.
       In short, we do not view First Amendment concerns over the 
     precise scope of disclosure requirements affecting large 
     donors to tax exempt organizations operating on the margins 
     of electoral politics as outweighing the need for expeditious 
     enactment of the clearly desirable aspects of H.R.1 into law.
       We urge you to press for speedy enactment of H.R. 1 in its 
     current form.
       Respectfully submitted,
       Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus of the Open Society 
     Foundations, ACLU Executive Director, 1970-78; Burt Neuborne, 
     Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties Emeritus at NYU 
     School of Law, ACLU National Legal Director, 1981-86; Helen 
     Hershkoff, Herbert Mand. Svetlana Wachtel/Professor of 
     Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties at NYU School of Law, 
     ACLU Associate Legal Director, 1987-95; John Shattuck, Senior 
     Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard 
     Kennedy School, Professor of Practice in Diplomacy, Fletcher 
     School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Director of 
     the ACLU's Washington office, 1976-84; Judith Resnik, Arthur 
     Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School; Erwin Chemerinsky, 
     Dean and Jesse Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at 
     Berkley Law School, University of California; Robert Post, 
     Sterling Professor of Law and former Dean of Yale Law School; 
     Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service 
     Professor of Law and former Dean of the University of Chicago 
     Law School.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate that the ranking member has shown us this chart because 
he has proven that all of the Republican Members claiming that there 
was tax money funding the pilot project for the small matching donors 
were wrong.
  This is a pilot project that is funded by an additional fine on 
corporate wrongdoing. It doesn't take money away from anything else. It 
is an additional fine that, if H.R. 1 doesn't pass, will not be 
imposed.
  I was interested to hear our colleague from New Jersey say it is your 
money that will be used. Well, it is only your money if you are a 
corporate malfeasance individual, a corporate wrongdoer that gets 
fined; and I don't think very many of us have sympathy for that crew.
  I would like to just give some perspective here because all over the 
United States, because of the pandemic, efforts were made to allow for 
people to vote and not have to endanger their health. So absentee 
voting became more of the norm. There were more early voting efforts, a 
lot of things of that nature, because of the pandemic.
  And what happened?
  There was a huge increase in turnout, both among Republicans and 
Democrats. It was a safe and secure election, the most safe and secure 
election in modern history. There wasn't a bunch of fraud.
  Some of my colleagues said that people don't trust our system.
  Why is that?
  Because there are politicians in this country that are misleading the 
American public about that election. And I would say the former 
President is first among them, telling things that are not true and 
convincing people of that.
  So now that we have had this huge turnout because of the pandemic, we 
are seeing States--Republicans, I must say, unfortunately, all over the 
United States trying to cut off access to the ballot.
  In Georgia, they just passed a whole slew of voter restriction 
measures to try and tamp down turnout, and we see hundreds of bills 
being introduced to do that.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this en bloc and on the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appear to have it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 3, 2021, on page H1036, the following appeared: Mr. 
GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. GOHMERT. 
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



[[Page H1037]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 1 
is postponed.

                          ____________________