Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H64-H74]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5746, NASA
ENHANCED USE LEASING EXTENSION ACT OF 2021

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 868

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
5746) to amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the
authority of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to enter into leases of non-excess property of
the Administration, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
House Administration or her designee that the House concur in
the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text
of Rules Committee Print 117-28. The Senate amendment and the
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration or their respective designees. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its
adoption without intervening motion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.

[[Page H65]]

Fischbach), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today the Committee on Rules met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 868, providing for consideration of
the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746.
The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on House Administration or her designee that the House concur
in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of the
Freedom to Vote, John R. Lewis Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate
on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their
designees.
Madam Speaker, this is about more than a bill, and it is about more
than a process. This is a rescue mission to save American democracy.
Because right now, we are in the midst of the most significant period
of voter suppression in recent history.
All across the country, in service to a lie started by the former
President and spread by some in this very body, State legislatures are
moving to make it harder for people to cast their ballot. Polling
places are being closed so the nearest location is now miles and miles
away. Early voting times are being slashed during this global pandemic,
so it is now too unsafe for some people to vote. Purges of voting
rolls, including faulty voter purges, are becoming more likely and more
common. And strict voter ID laws are being used to disenfranchise more
and more people from casting their ballots.
Madam Speaker, in one State, it has even become illegal to provide
voters waiting in line with food and water. That is why we are here
today, because some believe that the only way for them to win is to rig
an election. This is voter nullification pure and simple.
Now, many on the other side want us to turn a blind eye to all of
this, just like they turned a blind eye to the insurrection and the
creeping authoritarianism. Well, I am not willing to look away. People
fought and died for the freedom to vote in this country. We served with
someone who nearly gave his life for the right to vote--Congressman
John Lewis.
He was beaten by mobs using baseball bats and chains, attacked by
racist members of the KKK, and even thrown in jail. But still, still he
fought for the freedom to vote. If he was willing to withstand all that
to do what is right, then certainly we can cast a vote to defend our
democracy.
John once said, ``Change often takes time. It rarely happens all at
once. In the movement, we didn't know how history would play itself
out. When we were getting arrested or waiting in jail or standing in
unmovable lines on the courthouse steps, we didn't know what would
happen, but we knew it had to happen.''
Madam Speaker, I don't know what will happen in the Senate, but I
know that this vote has to happen, because the freedom to vote is under
assault. We have a system today that undermines the civil rights of the
young, the poor, and those who don't look like me. It is a system that
has allowed Presidents to win elections despite losing the popular
vote. It is a system that has allowed politicians to gerrymander their
way into office. And it is a system that gives the 26 least popular
States, representing just 17 percent of the country, the chance to
derail legislation that the vast majority of Americans support.
Madam Speaker, that is the reality of the Senate filibuster. And make
no mistake, despite the claims by some, the filibuster is not
sacrosanct. It has been changed over 161 times in the last five
decades. And nowhere--nowhere--does it appear in the Constitution of
the United States.
Just recently, a bipartisan group of Senators came together to
advance a filibuster carveout to raise the debt ceiling. Now, I am glad
that they did. That was the right thing to do. A default would have
been catastrophic for our economy. Certainly, allowing a carveout for
voting rights is also the right thing to do.
We need to pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to ensure that
every American has the ability to make their voice and vote heard in
our democracy. And I wish we could get a majority of Republicans to
support voting rights. You know, they used to. The Voting Rights Act
was reauthorized four times with overwhelming bipartisan support,
including in 2006 under the Presidency of Republican George W. Bush.
But something has changed. This isn't your grandfather's Republican
Party anymore. It is a party defined by the big lie, wild conspiracy
theories, and winning elections by trying to suppress the vote. To set
a standard that we must act on this bill or that the Senate should act
on filibuster reform only if Republicans come along is a fool's errand.
Madam Speaker, on what planet are the people causing the problem
going to help solve it?
Now, I would rather be on the side of John Lewis than cast my lot
with the big lie. I would rather go it alone to defend our democracy
than do nothing together. And yes, I would rather lose an election than
win by rigging the outcome. This fight may not be new but it has never
been more urgent.
Madam Speaker, history is watching. And this moment is bigger than
any of us. With the future of our democracy in the balance, I pray that
my colleagues join me in saying the same and supporting this rule and
the underlying measure.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank the Representative from Massachusetts for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, today we were informed by the majority at the last
minute that we would be brought in to discuss the NASA Enhanced Use
Leasing Extension Act of 2021, which was amended by the Senate and will
be amended yet again here in the House, if this rule passes.
I don't think anyone here is surprised by yet another last-minute
meeting, but I am starting to feel the effects from all of the whiplash
over the last year. This time, House Democrats seek to insert the
Freedom to Vote Act and the Voting Rights Advancement Act as a last-
ditch effort to cater to the Senate majority's sporadic attempts to get
something passed for their radical base, even though we all know
neither of these bills will pass through the Senate.
House Democrats and Senator Schumer still need bipartisan support for
this partisan bill. And certain other Senators in their party have yet
to cede to the fringe of their party and go nuclear on a longstanding
Senate principle, the filibuster. Whatever the thought process behind
this effort tonight, it is disappointing that it is yet another deeply
partisan attempt to Federalize all elections.
Madam Speaker, the Constitution places the responsibility for
elections at the State level and has a long history of letting each
State run their own elections. But H.R. 4, a component of this bill,
would grant the Federal Government unprecedented control over State and
local elections. It would empower the Attorney General to bully States
and force them to seek Federal approval before making changes to their
own voting laws.
Madam Speaker, this is an assault on the rights of States and local
governments to manage their own elections. The right to vote is one of
our most fundamental rights as citizens. It is upsetting to see the
majority take advantage of this important issue because they are so
desperate to maintain their power. This can be seen almost explicitly
in the Freedom to Vote Act, which includes a new campaign finance
provision that would ensure certain candidates receive millions of
dollars in public funding for running a campaign.
The majority does not discuss this provision very often, but do the
American people really want public dollars to go to fund campaigns?
State oversight in elections is important. Like so many things, the
majority fails to recognize what works best for one State is not
necessarily going to work in another State or across the

[[Page H66]]

country. States know what practices work best for their voters, as they
have done throughout history. It was not hard to find many flaws in
this bill, and I was able to do so with less than an hour's time. But I
remained disappointed in the priorities and practices of this majority.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2140

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, today is my birthday, and I could not
think of a better gift for the American people.
In the last 24 hours, we found that five States--Republicans--decided
to put in false certifications to determine that Trump actually won the
November 2020 election. In a bill in Texas that was passed after the
big lie, they allowed the legislature to overturn a duly held election.
Do you not think there is a siege on the rightful vote of Americans
no matter who they are, of people of color and young people?
I am so happy that we decided to move forward on the Freedom to Vote:
John R. Lewis Act that will stop the detrimental gerrymandering that
wants to eliminate Members of color.
It is time now that the relic of the filibuster no longer promotes
discrimination and racism but frankly that we move on protecting
democracy, on cradling democracy, on recognizing that we are patriots
who stand to support the idea of the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I support this rule because the Constitution rules and
the American people deserve the right to vote.
Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Homeland Security, and Terrorism, and a senior member of the Homeland
Security, and Budget Committees, I rise in strong support of the rule
governing debate for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746, the ``Freedom
to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.''
We are here tonight because we must act, and this legislation
provides the tools to address discriminatory practices and seeks to
protect all Americans' right to vote.
On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol, President Johnson
addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act--considered
the most effective civil rights statute ever enacted by Congress:
``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for
breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which
imprison men because they are different from other men.''
This bill is the result of tireless work and compromise by my
colleagues in the House and my colleagues in the Senate.
The signing of the Voting Rights Act came after, in that same year,
in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for
freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their
participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,''
``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to
Montgomery.
Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women,
boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so
much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to
bring it even closer to its founding ideals.
The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have
dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the
making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to
vote.
On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights
demonstrators, including our beloved former colleague, the late
Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and
local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to
Montgomery in support of the right to vote.
``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because
it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and
effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.
However, since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the
right to vote has been under constant assault.
The Voting Rights Act was enacted at a time when many African
Americans in southern states had been denied the right to vote, and
when attempting to register, organize, or even assist others in their
attempt to register to vote meant risking their jobs, homes, and racial
violence.
Prior to the enactment of the VRA, litigation initiated under the
Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 failed to eliminate discrimination
in voting because jurisdictions simply shifted to different tactics in
order to disenfranchise African Americans.
Nearly fifty-seven years later, we face another turning point in the
life of the nation and for the dignity of men and women and the destiny
of democracy.
Although the Supreme Court has described the right to vote as the one
right that is preservative of all others, this ``powerful instrument
that can break down the walls of injustice'' faces grave threats.
The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme
Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which
invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of
the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.
According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down
Section 4(b) was that ``times change.''
Now, the Court was right; times have changed.
But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive
changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, and that is why the Voting Rights
Act is still needed.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder,
``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to
work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella
in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
The current Supreme Court majority has simply never understood, or
refuses to accept, the fundamental importance of the right to vote,
free of discriminatory hurdles and obstacles.
In fact, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say that
this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes and
literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v. DNC.
Protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression schemes are
two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy.
Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to
the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of
millions silenced.
And this is exactly what we have seen over this past year.
The polarization of Americans is ever increasing, as seen during the
2020 election through tactics meant to impede the right of certain
Americans to vote, such as the removal of mailboxes and the closing of
postal stations in order to impede mail-in voting.
After the former president was soundly defeated at the ballot box in
what experts unanimously proclaim was the most secure election in
history, still the former president and his cronies propagated the Big
Lie that the election was illegitimate because it was rife with fraud.
The former president persisted in this specious claim even though,
despite ample opportunities to do so, they produced not a scintilla of
evidence to persuade any of the 61 state and federal courts that
entertained the claims.
But to this has been added reactionary state laws passed or
introduced to suppress, abridge, restrict, or deny the right to vote of
millions of eligible Americans, particularly persons of color, young
persons and persons with disabilities, and working parents, precisely
the constellation of persons whose votes determined the outcome of the
2020 presidential election.
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, according to the Brennan
Center For Justice, between January 1 and July 14, 2021, at least 18
states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote, some making
mail voting and early voting more difficult, others imposing harsher
voter ID requirements, and making faulty voter purges more likely.
In total, more than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting
access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative
sessions.
My home state of Texas is ground zero for this desperate effort to
hold back an American future led by the ascendant coalition of young,
racially diverse and all other tolerant, imaginative, and innovative
voters who became energized and inspired by Barack Obama in 2008 and
the belief in a new and just America.
To combat not their ideas but instead their increasing numbers, the
Republican legislature and Governor of Texas passed and signed into law
SB1, which:
Bans drive-thru voting, 24-hour voting, and the distribution of
mailin ballot applications;
imposes new and extraneous ID requirements for voting by mail;
authorizing ``free movement'' to partisan poll watchers, effectively
turning them into vote suppression vigilantes;
requires monthly checks of voting rolls to facilitate purging
unwanted voters; and
imposes onerous new rules for voter assistance.
All of this is more than enough to sound the warning bell that we are
now engaged, as President Lincoln observed at Gettysburg, in a

[[Page H67]]

great contest testing the proposition that this nation, or any nation
conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men and
women are created equal, can long endure.
This is the present crisis in which we find ourselves and it indeed
is soul trying.
But as Thomas Paine wrote on Christmas Eve in 1776:
``The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis,
shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now,
deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is
not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the
harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too
cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything
its value.''
The work for civil rights and voting rights involved tens of
thousands of individuals who fought to correct the course of the nation
by setting it on a path of equal rights and justice for all.
The efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young,
Hosea Williams, Coretta Scott King, and John Robert Lewis, among
others, as well as the thousands of foot soldiers in the civil rights
movement succeeded in waking the nation to the idea that change was
needed.
The result of their work was the establishment of protections that
allowed voters of every race, creed, color, and political belief to
cast ballots free of interference or threat.
The blood spilled during these difficult times is not forgotten by
the communities that saw and experienced these battles, which is why
laws like Texas SB1 cannot go unanswered by the United States House of
Representatives and Senate.
To meet the challenge we have been called upon to face and overcome,
what is needed is for men and women of courage, conscience, and
conviction to step forward and come to the aid of their country by
passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to strengthen the
foundation of our democracy upon which all else depends, including the
important necessary investments to Build Back Better and mitigate the
effects of Climate Change.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule governing
debate of Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I am prevented by House rules from using
the profanity that I would like to because I stand here absolutely
outraged. I am outraged because the Democrats have outdone themselves
with this lie. I am outraged because the Democrats have made a mockery
of bipartisan collaboration for cheap political gain. I am outraged
because Democrats have not an ounce of respect for this institution or
the rules or the consequences of their actions in this Chamber.
A few hours ago, H.R. 5746 was the NASA Enhanced Use Leasing
Extension Act, a simple three-page bill that was good for NASA, good
for our space industry, and good for our taxpayers, a bill that I was
very proud to cosponsor.
Now, in the dark of night, this bill has been hijacked and mutilated
to become the latest iteration of the Democrats' Federal takeover of
our election system--a wolf in sheep's clothing. In fact, the only
thing left from this original bill is its number.
What is worse, I can't even remove my name as a cosponsor. Isn't it
ironic that the same bill the Democrats are using as a vehicle to steal
elections in perpetuity was itself stolen? I can't say that I am
surprised. Just like with elections, if they can't do it legally,
Democrats will find a way to hijack and steal it--all of this from the
party who claims Republicans are the obstructionists. Give me a break.
Madam Speaker, I demand that my name be removed from this Trojan
horse, and I urge every single one of my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's
request.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am not going to be lectured about
respect for this institution by anybody who after a violent attack
against this Capitol, the people who work here, this democracy--after a
violent attack, them then coming to this House floor and voting to
overturn, to nullify the will of the American people with no basis of
fact at all to do that. I will not be lectured by anybody who would do
such a thing. Quite frankly, I think it is unconscionable.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts,
the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee, for his leadership in
bringing this important legislation to the floor tonight to enable us
to fight for voting rights tomorrow when we vote for the legislation.
Many of us will have more to say tomorrow on the substance of that
bill, but I just want to place this action in time.
Today is a historic day because we are taking a big step forward
thanks to the leadership of the distinguished majority leader in the
Senate, Chuck Schumer. We are in a position now to take a step forward
with this rule to enable us to debate the bill tomorrow to fight for
voting rights.
Yesterday, President Biden made it crystal clear that the Senate must
find a path forward to enshrine critical voting rights legislation into
law. That was yesterday.
Today, House Democrats will take another step to defend our democracy
with legislation called the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. We will
send it to the Senate for urgent consideration after we debate it and
vote on it tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank John Sarbanes from Maryland. This is
a bill that we have voted on in the last Congress but also in this
Congress, in this House of Representatives. We voted for the For the
People Act, which is the essence of the legislation we are considering
now. It was H.R. 1 in the House.
In addition to that, it is attached to H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act, which will be part of this package
tomorrow because of the leadership of Chuck Schumer; John Sarbanes;
Zoe Lofgren; Terri Sewell, who has carried this legislation again and
again; Mr. Butterfield; the distinguished chair of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Nadler; and so many people.

{time} 2150

We have had this debate over and over again in the House and in this
Congress, so when I hear people say, ``Oh, here comes a bill that has
never seen the light of day,'' no. We had a vote in the House on this
already. We had a vote on this in the House already, and this is as it
came back to us this time from the Senate.
Yesterday, as I said, the President made it crystal clear that we had
to get something done. Again, Mr. McGovern is giving us that
opportunity now. So I just want to say that is why this is necessary.
It has been said in the gentleman's committee this evening--but let me
just be brief because the night is getting on--since we passed the bill
before, and in the course of the year, the Republicans have continued
their assault on voting rights in our country.
Nearly 400 bills were introduced, 20 of them enacted into law, which
not only suppressed the vote, making it harder for people of color and
people with disabilities--people--to vote, but also legislation to
nullify the vote.
It doesn't matter how the people vote; it matters how the people we
appoint decide how they vote. That is not a democracy. It strikes to
the heart of a democracy.
It strikes to the heart of a democracy, and that is why this
legislation is even more necessary than when it was first introduced.
It is a continuation in legislatures across the country of the assault
that was made on this Capitol to undermine the Constitution, the
Capitol, the Congress, and our democracy on January 6.
As the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned earlier,
there was not even a vote to accept on the part of many on the other
side of the aisle the results of that election. I thank Mr. McGovern
not only for his leadership tonight but for that dangerous day for him
to take over the chair after the security spirited me out because of
threats on my life.
So, again, this is urgent. It is a repeat of what we have done and
done again and again. We are glad that the Senate is ready to receive
this next iteration with very little change from what we had passed
before.
In Georgia, when President Biden delivered a clarion call to defend
our democracy, he said: ``I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will
defend your right,'' he said to folks, ``to vote and our democracy
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And so the question

[[Page H68]]

is: Where will the institution of the United States Senate stand?''
Well, we will see. We had the question of the filibuster. Now, until
we had this debate on this voting rights and filibuster has become a
discussion, what was your view, Madam Speaker, of what that word meant?
When somebody said they were going to filibuster something or they
were engaged in a filibuster, you thought they were going to talk for a
long time, to filibuster, to talk for a long time, not to obstruct
justice, not to obstruct debate, not to obstruct the majority to be
able to take a vote, to discuss something.
By passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, the Democratic
House will make clear that we in this House stand with the President,
yes, but with the American people to fight for voting rights.
Nothing less is at stake than our democracy. The sanctity of the vote
and the integrity of our elections is what is at stake.
I thank all of our colleagues who participated in this for their
committed leadership for the people in the fight for voting rights.
Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I am glad that it was brought up tonight, those who
have served and been willing to give their lives for this country.
If we are going to talk about numbers, let's talk about the numbers
in 2020. More people voted in 2020 than ever in the history of this
country before, yet we are talking about suppression.
Well, under Democratic leadership, our country is breaking records:
record-high inflation, record-high illegal border crossings, historic
levels of drug and human trafficking across the border, skyrocketing
energy prices, surging crime rates, and countless empty shelves in
grocery stores across the country.
Americans are watching the dollar of their paycheck literally shrink
before their eyes in real time as inflation spikes to the highest
levels that we have seen in 40 years.
The border is an absolute disaster. I was there last week. Illegal
border crossings are, again, the highest ever, with close to 2 million
illegal apprehensions under President Biden's watch. Fentanyl has
crossed our southern border at levels that we have never seen before,
and it is the leading killer of young adults in this country--100,000-
plus lives in 2021.

Instead of bolstering American energy security, the White House is
spending their time lobbying for a Russian pipeline that will most
certainly be used as a weapon against our allies in Eastern Europe.
The policies of this administration and the Democratic Congress have
led us into a record-breaking season of crises. But instead of working
to fix these issues, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
attempting to distract the American people.
Do we really think that Americans aren't paying attention?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PFLUGER. Tonight, Democrats are twisting the rules to pass a bill
to nationalize our election system, allowing for hard-earned taxpayer
dollars to finance political campaigns and handing control of
congressional district boundaries to the powers that be in Washington,
requiring States to allow felons to vote, and overriding wildly popular
voter ID laws.
To reference the President's disappointing speech yesterday,
supporting voter ID or opposing this Washington power grab does not
make you George Wallace or Jefferson Davis. That is nonsense. Americans
deserve a President and a government that will lead us out of crises,
not create them.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just remind my colleagues that voter suppression takes many
forms. Sometimes it is Republican State legislatures making it more
difficult for people to vote. Sometimes it is members of bodies like
this that, on one hand, brag about the record turnout in the last
election but have been working overtime to try to nullify and to try to
disqualify the votes of the people of this country. It is stunning.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a July 2, 2021, U.S. News and
World Report article titled ``Report: Republican-Led State Legislatures
Pass Dozens of Restrictive Voting Laws in 2021.''

[From U.S. News, July 2, 2021]

Report: Republican-Led State Legislatures Pass Dozens of Restrictive
Voting Laws in 2021

(By Horus Alas)

States with Republican legislatures have passed waves of new laws
making it harder for constituents to vote in response to the 2020
election, experts say

The Supreme Court issued a new ruling on Thursday that
upheld two Arizona laws restricting organizations' ability to
collect mail-in ballots as well as invalidating ballots cast
in the wrong precinct. Critics say the court's decision
further erodes landmark voting protections codified by the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The court's ruling follows a report finding that as of mid-
June, 17 states had passed 28 laws making it harder for
constituents to vote in 2021, according to the Brennan Center
for Justice at New York University's School of Law. The
report notes that the last year a similar number of laws
passed restricting access to the ballot was 2011--when 14
states had enacted 19 such measures by October.
Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights and elections counsel
at the Brennan Center, called the new wave of voting laws
``an unprecedented assault on voting rights'' as well as ``a
voter suppression effort we haven't seen since the likes of
Jim Crow.''
The nation's high court previously gutted a key provision
of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, when Chief Justice John
Roberts wrote a majority opinion arguing that jurisdictions
with a history of racial discrimination in voting should no
longer be subject to oversight from the Department of Justice
before effecting changes to their voting laws.
The Brennan Center report attributes this year's batch of
restrictive voting laws to ``racist voter fraud allegations
behind the Big Lie (a reference to former President Donald
Trump's repeated false claims of a rigged election) and a
desire to prevent future elections from achieving the
historic turnout seen in 2020.''
Commenting on the former president's claims of mass voter
fraud, Sweren-Becker says, ``We know that's false, but we
have officials at the state level passing these laws making
it harder for people to vote.''
Some of the specific provisions in these laws that can have
a negative impact on voter turnout according to the Brennan
Center include restrictions on voting by mail--some 63.9
million ballots had been sent as of Election Day 2020, data
from the U.S. Elections Project indicated--challenges to in-
person voting, and limitations on the number of mail ballot
drop boxes in precincts.
According to Sweren-Becker, Republican lawmakers in state
legislatures across the country are capitalizing on Trump's
repeated claims of voter fraud to pass these measures.
``What is very clear is that we had a very successful
election last year with historic turnout that was certified
as one of the safest, most secure elections,'' she says.
``And we are hearing (about claims of voter fraud) as
pretextual motives .... These laws are being enacted in
Republican-controlled legislatures, in many cases on purely
party-line votes.''
States differ in their structuring of these laws as well.
The report specifically calls out Florida, Georgia and Iowa
for passing comprehensive omnibus bills that ``undertake a
full-fledged assault on voting.'' In contrast, certain states
including Arkansas and Montana have passed piecemeal voting
restrictions through four separate bills each.
Sweren-Becker says advocates are considering two primary
avenues to challenge some of these new voting laws: court
litigation and federal voting reform legislation.
``Litigation is happening already, in states like Georgia,
Iowa, Florida. But that is a piecemeal state-by-state
approach,'' she says. ``And that's why a federal policy like
the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act
are so necessary because they will be applicable to people
across the country.''
As of mid-June, Senate Democrats were still wrangling the
necessary votes to pass either of these voting rights
measures in the face of expected unified Republican
opposition.
But even as some states face litigation for measures
they've passed, others still have active legislative sessions
where observers worry that more voting restriction measures
may follow.
Sweren-Becker says voting rights advocates should focus on
pressuring state lawmakers in Pennsylvania--a state with a
Republican-controlled legislature that adjourns in December--
and Texas, where a special session will begin July 8, after
Democrats walked out on a vote for a bill that would increase
vote by mail restrictions and limit early voting hours at the
end of the regular session.

[[Page H69]]

Despite outcry from Democrats, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has
struck a defiant tone on his state's omnibus voting measure,
SB7. In response to a tweet from the Texas Attorney General
detailing the booking of a suspect charged with voter fraud,
Abbott wrote: ``Voter fraud is real and Texas will prosecute
it whenever and wherever it happens. We will continue to make
it easy to vote but hard to cheat.''
Sweren-Becker says the frenetic pace of this year's
restrictive voting bills--the Brennan Center's report noted
61 bills with restrictive provisions continuing to move
through 18 state legislatures as of June 21--makes it
``essential to pass federal democracy reform that ensures
that people can freely and safely cast their ballots.''
And while these bills' language tends to omit race, Sweren-
Becker says that several of their provisions do end up
targeting access to the ballot for voters of color.
She notes ``the policy in the Texas bill that banned early
voting hours during the Sunday before Election Day, which
very clearly targets souls to the polls efforts that are
clearly organized by Black churches,'' as well as increased
challenges to voting by mail, ``after a wave of increased
mail voting last year, and particularly by voters of color
and young voters.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, one voting rights expert said in this
piece that we are in the midst of ``a voter suppression effort we
haven't seen since the likes of Jim Crow.''
To suggest that this isn't happening is to ignore reality.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this bill we got in short order tonight does not
reflect the actual text, and once again, the Rules Committee had very
short notice to consider the text without really any chance of being
able to read it. Certainly, we are now on the floor with no chance to
amend it.
It is supposed to be a NASA-focused bill, but it is actually a Trojan
horse, a Trojan horse the Democrats are using to drastically change
election law and do it without any input from Republicans, no input in
the Rules Committee, no input here on the floor, and no chance to amend
it in the House Administration Committee.
It is a messaging bill from Democrats to get a bill quickly passed in
the Senate while they have an agreement. We saw how difficult their
chaotic attempts to pass Build Back Better became and how that bill
eventually failed.
It is ridiculous that such large changes to longstanding law would
happen approaching the middle of the night when the American people
likely won't realize until after the fact what we have done. And that
could be no surprise.
Does anybody really think the American people voted for 8 percent
inflation, for gas lines, for gas at over $4 a gallon, and for a
chaotic foreign policy that has caused the death of many of our allies
and many of our servicemen as the exit from Afghanistan showed?
No. No one voted for that. Yet we are told that there is no problem,
that we will just push ahead and we are going to get this done.
We have a lot of issues that we could face, that Americans are facing
right now. There is no oversight of the COVID relief bills amid
reporting of waste and abuse. Inflation is sky-high; grocery shelves
are empty; and the crisis continues on our southern border.

{time} 2200

Congress has provided over $5 trillion in coronavirus relief funds,
but no oversight. Billions of dollars remain unspent, and inflation is
at its highest level in decades.
Right before Christmas the President said everybody ought to get a
COVID test and, by golly, he would make them available. They are not
available today. I went online and ordered some because I thought, this
may be important. I received them 2\1/2\ weeks later. Of course, I paid
for them. These weren't free from the government.
But there aren't enough COVID tests, and the hospitals and healthcare
facilities are on life support.
What is our administration doing? What is our Democratic leadership
in Congress doing? Nothing.
Our response should not be so uncoordinated and ineffective going
into the third year of this pandemic. And let me just point out, we
have not had a single hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee,
where we have jurisdiction over this, on this very issue.
Another national crisis are the hundreds of thousands of migrants
pouring over our southern border since President Biden took office and
declared an open border. Our frontline border officials are overwhelmed
and under-resourced. The open now sign remains on.
And even more concerning, we require our Federal agents to take a
vaccine. It is a mandated vaccine. And yet, the people coming in, it is
voluntary. We will give them a vaccine if they would like, but of
course, they don't have to take it.
And I will tell you, being down in El Paso last week, it is all about
getting these kids in the ORR facility, getting them pushed through and
getting them placed with families. The average length of stay now at
Fort Bliss is down to 12 days. That means no background check.
What are you going to do when the stories start emerging about how
these children have been misplaced and abused in the locations that we
now--the government--are sending them? We are providing the last mile
to the cartels' business.
These crises remain unresolved. Congress could work on these. We are
supposed to do that. We are the people's Representatives, and yet we
spend our time in the middle of the night doing something that will
never become law.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a December 24,
2021 Guardian Article entitled ``Report Shows the Extent of Republican
Efforts to Sabotage Democracy.''

[From The Guardian, Dec, 24, 2021]

Report Shows the Extent of Republican Efforts To Sabotage Democracy

The Republican assault on free and fair elections
instigated by Donald Trump is gathering pace, with efforts to
sabotage the normal workings of American democracy sweeping
state legislatures across the US.
A year that began with the violent insurrection at the US
Capitol is ending with an unprecedented push to politicize,
criminalize or in other ways subvert the nonpartisan
administration of elections. A year-end report from pro-
democracy groups identifies no fewer than 262 bills
introduced in 41 states that hijack the election process.
Of those, 32 bills have become law in 17 states.
The largest number of bills is concentrated in precisely
those states that became the focus of Trump's Stop the Steal
campaign to block the peaceful transfer of power after he
lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. Arizona,
where Trump supporters insisted on an ``audit'' to challenge
Biden's victory in the state, has introduced 20 subversion
bills, and Georgia where Trump attempted to browbeat the top
election official to find extra votes for him has introduced
15 bills.
Texas, whose ultra-right Republican group has made the
state the ground zero of voter suppression and election
interference, has introduced as many as 59 bills.
``We're seeing an effort to hijack elections in this
country, and ultimately, to take power away from the American
people. If we don't want politicians deciding our elections,
we all need to start paying attention,'' said Joanna Lydgate,
CEO of the States United Democracy Center which is one of the
three groups behind the report. Protect Democracy and Law
Forward also participated.
One of the key ways that Trump-inspired state lawmakers
have tried to sabotage future elections is by changing the
rules to give legislatures control over vote counts. In
Pennsylvania, a bill passed in the wake of Trump's defeat
that sought to rewrite the state's election law was vetoed by
Democratic governor Tom Wolf.
Now hard-right lawmakers are trying to bypass Wolf's veto
power by proposing a constitutional amendment that would give
the legislature the power to overrule the state's chief
elections officer and create a permanent audit of election
counts subject to its own will.
In several states, nonpartisan election officials who for
years have administered ballots impartially are being
replaced by hyper-partisan conspiracy theorists and advocates
of Trump's false claims that the election was rigged. In
Michigan, county Republican groups in eight of the 11 largest
counties have systematically replaced professional
administration officials with ``stop the steal'' extremists.
Several secretaries of state, the top election officials
responsible for presidential election counts, are being
challenged by extreme Republicans who participated in trying
to overturn the 2020 result. Trump has endorsed for the role
Mark Finchem in Arizona, Jody Hice in Georgia and Kristina
Karamo in Michigan who have all claimed falsely that Trump
won and should now be in his second term in the White House.
Jess Marsden, Counsel at Protect Democracy, said that the
nationwide trend of state legislatures attempting to
interfere with the

[[Page H70]]

work of nonpartisan election officials was gaining momentum.
`It's leading us down an antidemocratic path toward an
election crisis,'' she said.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, more than 260 bills were introduced in
41 States last year to hijack the election process. If this isn't a
national emergency, I don't know what the hell is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question,
Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the
immediate consideration of H. Res. 866.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, this resolution states clearly that
the right to vote is fundamental to democracy, and that legitimate
elections are those which are safe from foreign interference, including
illegal votes from foreigners.
The resolution denounces the practice by some cities in America of
giving the right to vote to noncitizens, including foreigners who have
violated our laws by being here illegally in the U.S.
The resolution states firmly that the House of Representatives
recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues
the vote of every United States citizen.
Madam Speaker, I present this amendment, and I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question so that we can bring up my resolution, H.
Res. 866, to highlight how imperative it is for election integrity and
voter confidence that only American citizens vote in our elections.
As Members of Congress, most of us have attended a naturalization
ceremony or two during our time of service. We have watched these very
moving ceremonies as these prospective Americans take the oath of
allegiance to the United States of America. They pledge their
allegiance to our country. They swear to support and defend the
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is one of those moments that makes America the greatest country on
Earth. They have earned the right to vote in our elections.
What New York City and others are doing, by allowing nearly a million
noncitizens to vote, is a slap in the face to those who worked hard for
that sacred right. While I don't support what New York is doing by any
means, it is our job that we protect Federal elections.
Common sense will tell you that combining noncitizens and eligible
American voters on the same voter rolls is ripe for abuse. It is really
just not practical.
Currently, in Illinois, noncitizens cannot vote, and if they do, they
face major legal consequences and could be deported. But in 2016,
Illinois' Automatic Voter Registration program mistakenly registered to
vote more than 500 noncitizens who had done the right thing by checking
the box stating they are not citizens on their driver's license
applications.
However, several of these noncitizens voted in the 2018 and 2019
elections. This does nothing to bolster voter confidence in our
elections. In fact, Madam Speaker, it does the opposite.
Not only does this undermine the integrity of our elections, but the
mistake by Illinois could also have had dire consequences for these
individuals if they seek citizenship in the future.
All of this could be prevented if States were actually maintaining
accurate voter rolls, which has been required by Federal law for nearly
30 years.
Whether intentional or not, we know this is happening. It is
undermining the integrity of our elections. This amendment would simply
ensure those who are noncitizens, who do not have the right to vote in
Federal elections, are removed from States' voter rolls. This is
especially critical as my friends on the other side of the aisle push
for a Federal takeover of elections.
Let's defeat the previous question so that we can take a stand with
my resolution to support only citizens voting in our elections and
encourage States to adopt reforms that don't put noncitizens at risk of
intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law by illegally voting
in Federal elections.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say to my colleagues, this is kind of pathetic. It is a
nonbinding resolution that does nothing, and I guess attacks immigrant
parents who are involved in local school boards, I guess.
But I mean, really? I mean, this is your response to what is
happening all across this country in terms of the attacks on voting
rights?
The bill that we are talking about bringing to the floor, let me just
tell you some of the things it does. Our bill, which will become law,
would enhance protections for individuals with disabilities.
It would make Election Day a national holiday. It would improve
election security by requiring post-election audits and voter-
verifiable paper records of votes.
It would protect elections from foreign interference. It would
promote digital ad transparency.
It would end partisan gerrymandering. I can go on and on and on and
on.
But the difference here is that I think we recognize, and I think,
unfortunately, this has become a partisan issue because I think there
are a lot of Independent voters and Republican voters across the
country who are concerned, like Democrats in the House are, about the
attacks on voting rights.
I mean, the idea that we have one State that passed a law that said
it is going to be illegal to give people water who wait in a line to be
able to cast their vote? And we know in some States, people have to
wait for hours and hours and hours to vote. But somehow, that would be
criminalized; that that would be forbidden? I mean, give me a break.
I mean, I don't know what the hell happened to the Republican Party.
I mean, I don't know when they decided that the basis for who they are
was a big lie.
We had an election in 2020. As one of my colleagues pointed out, a
lot of people showed up and voted. I mean, the people who voted
returned me and returned my Republican colleagues and brought new
Members to this body.
And yet, they have been working overtime to embrace a big lie, after
a violent insurrection, where people's lives were threatened. Our
staff, the people who work here, their lives were threatened. Madam
Speaker, 140 Capitol police officers were injured. After all of that,
they still embraced the big lie and are working to try to nullify the
legitimate votes of the people of this country.

{time} 2210

It is stunning to me.
So, yeah, to take this, whatever it is, meaningless, nonbinding
resolution, and, I guess, maybe you can say you are for something. But
it is nothing. It is pathetic. Or we can actually do something about
protecting the right of every single person in this country to vote.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague
from Massachusetts that I believe in 2016 he also objected to
certification of the election. It doesn't always sound like that when
he speaks about the objections.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, just this morning, we
learned that inflation rose 7 percent over the past year, the highest
rate since 1982. We have empty shelves, and we have unfilled jobs due
to the labor shortages across the country. Schools are shutting down
again, crime is soaring in our cities, and faith in our institutions is
in rapid decline.
What are Washington Democrats focused on? They want to blow up the
rules of Congress so they can pass their extremist agenda to federalize
local elections, legalize ballot harvesting,

[[Page H71]]

ban voter ID requirements, and fund their own campaigns with precious
taxpayer dollars. It is truly unbelievable to the people back home.
Chuck Schumer says this is a response to the 2020 election and the
State election laws passed in 2021. That is obviously not a true
statement, because the bill they are peddling was first introduced in
2019.
Joe Biden says it is to stave off the reemergence of a second Jim
Crow era in States like Texas and Georgia which passed election
integrity measures this year. But that is a ridiculous charge.
Literally, it is the opposite of the facts that any person can verify
with a single internet search.
The truth is, Georgia's law has more days of early, in-person voting
than Joe Biden's own home State of Delaware.
The 2020 election saw the highest turnout of voters in 120 years, and
according to the Pew Research Center, 94 percent of Americans agree it
is ``easy to vote.''
There is no widespread voter suppression in this country, and
everybody knows it. In fact, voter registration disparities between
minority and nonminority voters in States like Texas, Florida, North
Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana are below the national average and
lower than Democrat-run States like New York, California, and Delaware.
Those are the facts.
For Democrats, the only problem they are seeking to solve is the
problem of how to secure for themselves more votes.
We have heard in New York, Democrats recently voted to allow foreign
citizens to vote in American elections. You heard it right. It is a
blatantly unconstitutional scheme that defies the most basic rule of
our system. Seventh grade civics: American elections should be decided
by American citizens. New York's ridiculous new law has been challenged
in court. We don't know what the outcome of that is going to be, but we
can all take a stand here tonight to reaffirm to the people of this
great Nation that their legally cast votes will not be watered down and
negated by the ballots of noncitizens.
Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, Republicans will
amend the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that
acknowledges this simple truth: Allowing illegal immigrants and
noncitizens the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the
voting power of United States citizens.
We all have an opportunity to go on record right here tonight to make
our positions on that issue clear. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm the
rights of U.S. citizens and vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me remind everybody: If you vote ``no'' on the previous question
like my Republican colleagues would like you to do, you get to pass a
meaningless, nonbinding resolution. Wow, what a courageous thing my
friends are doing today.
Let me just say to my colleague from Minnesota, Mrs. Fischbach, whom
I have a lot of respect for, yes, some of us raised objections in 2016
because we were concerned about Russian interference in our election. I
think the Mueller report actually proved that we were right on that.
But let me ask her: How many votes did we have? None. Of all the
people that objected, how much time did it take? Less than 8 minutes.
How many Capitol Police, Mrs. Fischbach, were wounded that day? None.
How much violence occurred in this Capitol that day? There was none.
How much property was destroyed that day? None.
Compare that to what happened here, when many of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, after a violent insurrection, after an attack
on this democracy, came here, with absolutely no basis of fact or
evidence, and voted to nullify the results of a free and fair election
in the United States of America.
So when people in this country express concern--not just Democrats,
but Independents and Republicans--when people express concern about the
future of our democracy, that is what they are talking about.
Voting rights are under attack in State after State after State. We
see what State legislatures are doing. But the right to vote is also
being attacked when we have Members of this Chamber who actively try to
subvert the will of the American people.
So you may think it is no big deal. Maybe you think that is what you
have to do to try to maintain power. But the bottom line is, as John
Lewis said, the right to vote is precious; it is almost sacred. We all
have to come together, Democrats and Republicans, and we have to stand
up and we have to protect it. That is what this is about.
So talk about whatever you want to talk about, but the bottom line
is, we need to do this. This is the right thing to do. And by
proceeding in this way, we will at least ensure that there is a debate
in the United States Senate, and hopefully there will be a vote to
actually make this into the law of the land.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that
the issue here is the Federal takeover of elections. The statement that
was made was about someone objecting to the certification and how that
was somehow wrong. I just wanted to simply remind my colleague that he
himself had voted that way and many of the Democrats have, over the
years, voted to object to certification.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Tenney).
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, once again, we find ourselves on the floor
of the House of Representatives debating legislation to enact the great
takeover of elections by partisan Federal bureaucrats and their friends
across the aisle and prohibit the most basic voting rights and security
measures entrusted to the States and the American people.
The so-called Freedom to Vote Act: John R. Lewis Act, which Democrats
hope to attach as a rider to nongermane legislation, will undermine the
very integrity of our elections, not improve and increase access to
voting, a mission we all share.
The right to vote is sacred and represents the most important
expression of self-governance as American citizens. This legislation
will further erode the confidence of the voters who have already lost
faith in our ability to ensure free and fair elections.
President Biden and his allies in Congress are yet again pushing
unconstitutional legislation to ban popular voter ID laws and mandate
ballot harvesting. This includes States that have already passed these
commonsense laws to bolster election integrity and guarantee that each
citizen is guaranteed one vote in each election, not more than one.
This legislation also burdens the American taxpayer with the
obligation to fund political campaigns, even for those whom they don't
support. Worse, this pair of bills will open the door for noncitizens
to vote, thus undermining and diluting the power of sworn citizens to
control their government.
In my home State, Democrats--one-party rule in New York City; one-
party rule in Albany--are already enacting these radical policies that
drive a dagger into the heart of self-governance. This deliberate act
to erode our democracy and to weaken the voting power of American
citizens is not only wrong; it is unconstitutional.
Article II of the New York State Constitution explicitly states that:
``Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election . . .''
Section 5-102 of New York Election Law states: ``No person shall be
qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he'' or she
``is a citizen of the United States . . .'' Finally, the 15th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution also protects the right of all eligible
citizens to vote.
Subversive legislation, such as the law allowing noncitizens to vote
signed recently into law in New York City, and most of the provisions
that we are debating today, will, if passed, undermine the core
principles of freedom and individual rights that are enshrined and
protected by our constitutional Republic.
In fact, a recent ABC News/Ipsos poll found that a mere 20 percent of
the public was very confident in the integrity of our election system.
Our democratic principles and the belief in the idea of ``one person,
one

[[Page H72]]

vote'' are under attack. When our citizens lose faith in the integrity
of our elections, this is what happens.
We are at a crossroads.

{time} 2220

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional
20 seconds.
Ms. TENNEY. Too many precious American souls have sacrificed life and
limb to protect our sacred right to vote. Now is the time to choose
self-governance by, of, and for the people, not a takeover and
surrender to partisan bureaucrats.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just a few quick things. One is, you know, I got a little whiplash
here because, on the one hand, I am hearing my friends say they don't
want Federal interference in local elections, yet that is what they are
proposing here. Except I guess they are not because this is nonbinding
and doesn't mean anything. I just point that out for the record.
Secondly, I know my colleague from Minnesota. I may have misheard her
when she said that I voted to nullify the election in 2016. There were
no votes on any of the State electoral college results. I am a stickler
for accuracy on things like that.
Thirdly, let me remind people why we are here today. We are here to
pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which would expand
automatic voter registration and same-day registration. It would expand
early voting. It would enhance protections for individuals with
disabilities. It would make election day a national holiday. It would
improve election security. It would protect elections from foreign
interference.
It will do things that, quite frankly, I think most reasonable
people--I don't care what their politics may be--would think is the
right thing to do.
Unfortunately, what is reasonable amongst the American people is not
always reasonable here in the Congress. I think the effort that my
Republican colleagues are engaged in really is about nullifying results
that they don't like.
Well, do you know what? We all want to win elections, but sometimes
we lose. It is not pleasant. But if that is what the people want, then
the people should get what they want.
Madam Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support what we are
doing here today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
to close.
I have not heard any compelling arguments for pushing either of these
bills forward because the flaws are clear. We cannot create a one-size-
fits-all election system imposed from Washington that requires States
to provide automatic same-day voter registration, prevents States from
removing dormant voters from rolls, and overrides State ID laws.
The Freedom to Vote Act would also guarantee public dollars would go
into certain candidates' coffers. This is all nothing more than a
partisan play for the Democrats to federalize all of America's
elections. They are pushing it because they think it will help them
stay in power. Historically, States have had oversight of their own
elections.
While there is always room for improvement, let's keep the Federal
Government out of it and leave the States to handle their own
elections, as has been done in the past.
I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues
to do the same.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for her service in
this Congress and her service on the Rules Committee.
She said that she hasn't heard any compelling arguments why we should
pass these bills. Maybe she wasn't listening to me because I think I
made a lot of compelling arguments here today about why these bills are
incredibly important.
Something is badly, badly broken, and we must have the courage to fix
it, even if that means fixing it alone. That is what it means to do the
right thing, politics be damned.
This is about more than petty partisanship. This is about whether we
defend democracy or we sit back and watch its demise. I could never
live with myself if I did nothing, and I think I speak for a lot of my
colleagues on this side of the aisle. I wish there were more colleagues
on the other side of the aisle who felt that way.
Working with my colleagues, I am going to try to do everything
possible to stem the insidious tide of voter suppression in this
country and the attempts to nullify the will of the American people
because there is no guarantee that America will forever be a democracy.
It isn't planted in our soil. It isn't floating through our air. It is
us. We are the only ones who can guarantee democracy prevails, and this
vote is about nothing less.
I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying
measure.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 868

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H.Res. 866) recognizing that allowing illegal
immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and
diminishes the voting power of United States citizens. All
points of order against consideration of the resolution are
waived. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.Res. 866.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 201, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 7]

YEAS--220

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff

[[Page H73]]

Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--201

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Roy
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--12

Cartwright
Cline
Harris
Higgins (LA)
McClintock
Palmer
Rogers (AL)
Rouzer
Rutherford
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
Wittman

{time} 2302

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. TORRES of California changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

Adams (Ross)
Auchincloss (Clark (MA))
Barragan (Beyer)
Bass (Cicilline)
Bera (Kilmer)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Bonamici (Kuster)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Gallego)
Brooks (Moore (AL))
Brownley (Kuster)
Bush (Bowman)
Butterfield (Kildee)
Cardenas (Soto)
Casten (Underwood)
Castor (Soto)
Chu (Clark (MA))
Cleaver (Davids (KS))
Cohen (Beyer)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Crawford (Stewart)
Crist (Soto)
Cuellar (Jackson Lee)
DeFazio (Brown (MD))
DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
DelBene (Kilmer)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Doggett (Raskin)
Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
Evans (Mfume)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gaetz (Boebert)
Garamendi (Sherman)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gomez (Gallego)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Granger (Carter (TX))
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Grothman (Fitzgerald)
Hagedorn (Carl)
Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
Hudson (McHenry)
Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Joyce (PA) (Keller)
Kahele (Case)
Katko (Meijer)
Kim (CA) (Steel)
Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
Kind (Connolly)
Kinzinger (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lamborn (McHenry)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Lee (CA) (Khanna)
Leger Fernandez (Clark (MA))
Lesko (Miller (WV))
Lieu (Beyer)
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Mace (Timmons)
Maloney, Carolyn B. (Wasserman Schultz)
Maloney, Sean Patrick (Jeffries)
Matsui (Thompson (CA))
McCaul (Ellzey)
McCollum (Craig)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Kuster)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Beyer)
Nadler (Pallone)
Napolitano (Correa)
Ocasio-Cortez (Bowman)
Panetta (Kildee)
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Cicilline)
Pocan (Raskin)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Garcia (IL))
Price (NC) (Connolly)
Reed (McHenry)
Reschenthaler (Armstrong)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Ruppersberger (Trone)
Rush (Kaptur)
Salazar (Gimenez)
Schrier (Spanberger)
Sires (Pallone)
Smucker (Keller)
Speier (Escobar)
Stansbury (Jacobs (CA))
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Suozzi (Raskin)
Swalwell (Gallego)
Titus (Connolly)
Tlaib (Khanna)
Torres (NY) (Cicilline)
Vargas (Correa)
Vela (Correa)
Waltz (Mast)
Waters (Takano)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
Wilson (SC) (Rice (SC))

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Blunt Rochester). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 202, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 8]

YEAS--220

NAYS--202

[[Page H74]]

Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--11

Cartwright
Cline
Harris
Higgins (LA)
McClintock
Palmer
Rogers (AL)
Rutherford
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
Wittman

{time} 2325

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

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

____________________