[Pages H2379-H2388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 172 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 172

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1) to expand Americans' access to the ballot
box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and
strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on House Administration now printed in the
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-7, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report
of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against the further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.

[[Page H2380]]

Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on House Administration or her designee to
offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc
offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration or their designees, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. After the conclusion of consideration of the bill
for amendment and a final period of general debate, which
shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
House Administration, the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such further amendments as may have
been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of March 7, 2019, or March 8, 2019, for the
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sarbanes). The gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. 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
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 172, providing for consideration of
H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House
Administration.
The resolution self-executes Chairwoman Lofgren's manager's amendment
and provides for the consideration of 72 amendments debatable for 10
minutes each.
The rule also provides authority for en bloc amendments, debatable
for 20 minutes each.
The rule also provides 10 minutes of final general debate after
amendment consideration equally divided and controlled by the Chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or
their designees.
Lastly, the rule provides suspension authority through Friday, March
8, 2019.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, this past weekend, I had the honor of
traveling to Selma, Alabama, with over 40 of our congressional
colleagues on a pilgrimage to observe the 54th anniversary of Bloody
Sunday, the violent confrontation at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.
That confrontation seized the Nation's attention and launched one of
the most important periods in the history of our Republic, culminating
in the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
When our colleague, Representative John Lewis, along with Martin
Luther King and other civil rights pioneers, organized voters to
register, crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and marched from Selma to
Montgomery, they did so knowing that their lives and the lives of those
they loved were at risk.
The institutional opposition they faced was fierce and violent, but
their message of nonviolence and justice strengthened them and their
resolve.
They marched and risked their lives in order to secure the right to
vote. They understood that they would never be equal citizens of the
United States until they had a voice in their destiny, and they
understood that the United States could never be the republic it
aspired to become until all of its citizens had the right to
participate in decisions affecting their future.
We undeniably have made progress since then, but not enough, and
frighteningly, we seem to be moving backward.
In recent years, we have seen new forms of voter suppression emerge,
whether in the guise of strict voter ID laws, purges of voting rolls,
partisan gerrymandering, or unfounded allegations of voter fraud.
As an election official, election protection organizer, and voting
rights advocate for over 3 decades, I have seen all of these tactics in
play. In fact, several of us in the Pennsylvania delegation were able
to join this Congress in part because a Federal court ordered that
Pennsylvania's congressional districts had been so gerrymandered that
they must be redrawn, they were unconstitutional.
We have heard, and will undoubtedly hear again today, that Democrats
are pushing voting rights reform because of the expectation that new
voters will likely be Democratic voters. I would hope that those with a
sense of history would resist this, recognizing that the very same
argument was used to oppose the Voting Rights Act in 1965 out of fear
that those who had been oppressed would factor that experience into
their voting decisions.
It is telling that a similar fear motivates some in this Chamber
today who would rather deprive citizens of a fundamental right than
face them at the ballot box.
The cynicism of those who would continue to place barriers in the way
of those who wish to vote goes a long way to explaining why our
citizens lack faith in us to work for them.
Those with power, voting and otherwise, too often try to preserve
that power through means that are neither transparent nor understood by
the people of this country. We have to be bold, and shed some of that
institutional power in order to regain the trust of the people.

{time} 1230

I thank my colleague, Representative John Sarbanes, who has worked
for years in tirelessly crafting this legislation. I also thank Speaker
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team for making this bill the top
priority in the House for the 116th Congress. I am so proud that the
first order of business of this Congress, our H.R. 1, is dedicated to
good government and restoring trust in our democratic institutions.
Our elections are the bedrock of our democracy. During the recent
midterm elections, the American people charged us, the new Congress, to
make sure that our government works for them. They put their trust in
us to champion our uniquely American creed: a government of the people,
by the people, and for the people.
H.R. 1, the For the People bill, is our commitment to that trust.
This reform package will address many of the barriers to democracy that
prevent too many eligible voters from having their voices heard,
including our seniors, communities of color, servicemembers, college
students, those with disabilities, and low-income families. But it is
up to us to see it through.
I am immensely proud to be part of a Caucus that is prioritizing
legislation that the people are asking for, legislation that will
protect the right to vote for every American and ensure clean and fair
elections, that will end the dominance of big money in our politics,
and that will crack down on corruption to make sure that public
servants put the public interest first.
Recent polls have found that many Americans do not vote because of
difficulty registering or accessing their polling places and that
Americans are really concerned about the ethical standards of their
elected representatives and government officials and are equally
concerned about the influence of special interests and corruption in
Washington.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority takes what the people are asking
for seriously. This is a bill that addresses their concerns and resets
our democracy so that it works for the people, not special interests.
H.R. 1 will make it easier for eligible Americans to vote. Allowing
and enabling Americans to vote should not be a divisive partisan issue.
Our Nation

[[Page H2381]]

can only stand to benefit when all eligible voters have a voice.
The very fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
greater electoral success when fewer people come out to vote is not
just a stain on our democracy but a direct threat to it.
Automatic voter registration will make it easier for young adults and
working families to make sure that they are not left out of the process
due to issues with registration.
This bill will make critical fixes to voter purging policies that
have disenfranchised millions since section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder. Over 4
million more names were purged from voter rolls after that decision
came down than they were in the years before. These purges affected
poor minority communities at a vastly disproportionate rate, further
marginalizing people who already face significant institutional
barriers to voting.
Election security has been a bipartisan concern across the country
for years, and H.R. 1 will make considerable investments to ensure our
elections are secure, independent, and free from foreign interference.
Empowering the Election Assistance Commission will allow States to get
the funding they need to upgrade or improve their election
infrastructure, and improvements in election administration will help
protect voting systems from cyber threats.
Election infrastructure is critical, and this bill finally recognizes
the role that Congress must play in protecting our elections.
A specific priority of mine that I am excited to see included in the
bill will make it easier for persons with disabilities to participate
in the electoral process. For too long, individuals with disabilities
have faced barriers that prevent them from participating in our
democracy at the ballot box. I have introduced legislation included in
H.R. 1 that will direct and assist States to improve access to voter
registration and the ballot box for persons with disabilities.
These democracy-driven policies represent just a handful of the
voting rights reforms contained in H.R. 1. They will improve access to
voting, promote integrity in the voting process, and ensure the
security of our elections.
Going further, H.R. 1 acts to shine a light and address the dark
money which the Citizens United decision unleashed into our politics.
Each year that we do not act on reversing Citizens United, more and
more untraceable money is spent on campaigns.
This bill will overhaul the Federal Election Commission, the FEC, so
that we have a real cop on the beat to enforce our campaign finance
laws.
It will upgrade political advertising disclosures and require donors
giving more than $10,000 to politically active organizations to be
publicly identified.
Simultaneously, this bill seeks to empower everyday Americans by
creating a small-dollar match system that will bring more people into
the conversation while reducing the impact large donors can have on any
one campaign. While small-dollar campaign funding is relatively new to
the Federal system, it has been trialed in States and larger cities to
great effect.
I am proud that H.R. 1 also includes a bill that I drafted to keep
Presidential inaugural funds from becoming shadowy slush funds or
opportunities for dark forces, whether foreign or domestic, to
influence our government. The bill will prohibit donations to inaugural
funds by foreign nationals or corporations, ban personal use of
inaugural funds by a candidate, and require disclosure of all donations
and disbursements.
H.R. 1 will also help to restore voter confidence in our democracy by
codifying ethics standards for all three branches of government. The
bill requires the development of a code of ethics for Supreme Court
Justices, mandatory recusal of Presidential appointees from matters
that concern the President, and increased enforcement of the
registration of foreign agents.

The bill will prohibit Members of Congress from using taxpayer funds
to settle employment discrimination cases against them, preventing
Members of Congress from hiding this conduct and protecting taxpayer
money from being misused.
Finally, H.R. 1 will address Presidential conflicts of interest by
requiring sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, to release their tax
returns. Those occupying the highest office in the land should be
required to show if they have financial interests that would influence
their decisionmaking. Having an executive beholden in any way to a
private company or a nation only serves to undermine our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we had quite the debate on this bill in the Rules
Committee last night, and I expect the debate on the floor today will
be along similar lines. Today's bill is H.R. 1, which my friends on the
other side of the aisle are calling by the misnomer ``For the People
Act.'' Unfortunately, this bill is completely misnamed.
It is not for the people. It is, instead, for the Democratic
majority, by the Democratic majority, in hopes of maintaining the
Democratic majority for many years to come. Every provision in this
bill reflects that goal.
That began with the process the majority used to put this bill
together. H.R. 1 was referred to 10 different committees, yet only one,
House Administration, held a markup. My friends hold a 2-to-1 advantage
on that committee. There are only three Republicans who can
participate.
Later, we will be hearing from some of the Republican ranking members
of these committees, each of whom will talk about provisions that they
had hoped to address, had their respective committees marked up the
bill. This failure to allow other committees with jurisdiction to mark
up the bill reinforces the desire of the majority to push this bill
through as quickly as possible without any additional consideration.
Without further hearings and markups, it is all too easy for the
majority to sweep the bill's flaws under the rug and pass it quickly
without allowing the American people to see what they are up to.
This bill would be more aptly named the ``For the Politicians Act''
or ``Welfare for Politicians Act.'' It reinforces the idea that the
majority cares only about passing a bill that will lead to more
Democrats in the House of Representatives.
We do not have time today to go over every provision in this bill,
but for now, I will take a moment to point out some of the bigger flaws
in this product.
First, H.R. 1 takes taxpayer dollars and uses them to create a
special piggy bank for campaigns. That is right, Democrats want to use
taxpayer dollars of the American people to finance their political
campaigns. H.R. 1 creates a matching program for small-dollar campaign
contributions, thereby shifting taxpayer dollars to politicians to run
their campaigns. In essence, Democrats are demanding that your tax
dollars be used to subsidize and fund political candidates.
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, since 2000, total spending
on Federal elections has exploded, going from $2.7 billion that cycle
to $6.4 billion in 2016. With so much money being raised from private
sources, one wonders why the majority wants to waste taxpayer dollars
adding even more money into campaigns.
Second, H.R. 1 completely takes over elections, removing authority
from States and local election boards and giving it to Washington, D.C.
Currently, States have the authority to determine how they want to
structure their own elections, including voter registration, timing,
and even redistricting. But all that goes away under H.R. 1. States
would no longer be able to set voter registration requirements, nor
hold elections where and how often they want, nor reapportion voters
into appropriate districts. Instead, under H.R. 1, Washington, D.C.,
takes over all these functions.
I doubt any secretary of state or supervisor of elections in America
supports this federalization of the election process. In fact, last
night in the Rules Committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, I entered into the
record a letter from the

[[Page H2382]]

Oklahoma State Election Board opposing H.R. 1 on precisely these
grounds.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that letter again today.

Oklahoma State Election Board,

Oklahoma City, OK, March 4, 2019.
Re Election Administration Provisions of H.R. 1.

Hon. Tom Cole,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Cole: As Oklahoma's chief state
election official, I am very proud of Oklahoma's election
system. Our state has one of the most effective and efficient
election systems in the world. It is uniform, it is fair, it
is secure, it is accurate and it is fast.
As the House of Representatives prepares to consider H.R.
1, I want to take a moment to express some concerns about
several of its provisions related to election administration.
While I believe H.R. 1 to be well-intentioned by its
sponsors, its ``one-size-fits-all'' requirements for state
election systems would require Oklahoma to make extensive
changes to the way we run elections. I am concerned that some
of H.R. 1's mandates could negatively impact the very things
Oklahoma's election system does so well.
Based on my review of H.R. 1, here is a list of my top
concerns.
``Voting by Mail'': To combat Oklahoma's past history of
absentee ballot fraud, several decades ago the Oklahoma
Legislature enacted legislation requiring most voters to have
their identity confirmed by a notary public when voting by
absentee ballot. Oklahoma law also requires absentee ballots
to be received by the county election board no later than
7:00 p.m. on Election Day. These procedures help prevent
fraud and enable county election boards to have 100% of
absentee ballots counted on election night. Unfortunately,
H.R. 1 seems to do away with these safeguards and
efficiencies, instead requiring county election boards to (1)
accept signed affidavits in lieu of notarized ones and (2) to
accept an absentee ballot postmarked on Election Day. H.R.
1's mandates would prevent Oklahoma from counting all
absentee ballots by Election Day, would require the counting
of absentee ballots to continue for days or weeks after an
election, and would take away a critical security feature of
our election system.
``Early voting'': In Oklahoma, county election boards
typically have a very small staff. (Many have only the
secretary and one assistant.) For federal and state
elections, Oklahoma currently allows ``early voting'' on the
Thursday, Friday and Saturday prior to Election Day. Most
counties have a single early voting site, but several have
two sites. Even with the assistance of absentee voting boards
paid for by the State Election Board, most counties barely
have enough budget and staff to successfully conduct early
voting on the three days currently required. H.R. 1's
requirement for FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS of early voting is
simply not feasible given the small budgets and staffing
levels of the 77 county election boards. This would make it
virtually impossible for county election board staff to
perform their other critical duties (e.g., processing mail
absentee ballots, processing voter registration applications,
and preparing supplies for precinct workers) if they are
instead conducting early voting during this time.
``Same Day Voter Registration'': Oklahoma has a very
reasonable deadline for voter registration (applications must
be submitted by the 24th day prior to an election). H.R. 1
requires county election boards to conduct voter registration
during ``early'' voting periods and on Election Day. This
mandate is not currently feasible with the current funding
and staffing levels of county election boards. The logistics
of predicting how many ballots to print and how many precinct
officials to assign to polling places, with the number of
potential voters unknown, would be extremely difficult and
inefficient. Same day voter registration increases the risk
that due to error or fraud an ineligible person is allowed to
register and vote.
``Provisional ballots'': Oklahoma has a county-based
election system. While Oklahoma uses the same voting system
statewide, for security reasons each county's system is
siloed and does not directly interact with other counties'
systems. (For example, one county cannot print or count
another county's ballot.) Oklahoma law requires a voter to
vote in the assigned polling place in the county where the
voter is registered. Provisional ballots are issued for a
variety of reasons, and, if eligible, are counted after 2:00
p.m. on the Friday following Election Day. However, H.R. 1
requires a provisional ballot to be counted even if it is
cast in the wrong county, which creates a security risk and
is not currently possible given Oklahoma's election security
features.
``Online Voter Registration'': Oklahoma will implement
online voter registration in the near future. Unfortunately,
H.R. 1 sets different requirements for its federally-mandated
online voter registration system than is required by Oklahoma
law. (For example, H.R. 1 does everything from defining
acceptable signature requirements, to mandating a telephone
version of an online voter registration system, to
micromanaging the features required for a state's customer
support system.) Further, Oklahoma's future online voter
registration system will require that a registrant's identity
be conformed by matching the person's information with an
existing driver license or state I.D., but H.R. 1 sets
different (and less secure) standards for confirming a
registrant's identity.
``Federalism'': While I believe H.R. 1's sponsors are well-
intentioned, a great many of its election provisions--even
those that are not concerns--relate to policy decisions that
are best left to the states under our federal system. I am
concerned that, in its current form, H.R. 1 could lead to
costly and lengthy litigation.
While these are not my only concerns, they are the most
serious. I appreciate your representation of our state in
Congress, and I feel it is my duty as Oklahoma's chief
election official to make you aware of some of the potential
negative impacts H.R. 1 could have on our state's election
system.
If you ever have any questions about elections in Oklahoma,
please feel free to contact me or Assistant Secretary Pam
Slater. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Ziriax, Secretary,
Oklahoma State Election Board.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that, in the case of
redistricting, if the State cannot reach a resolution, H.R. 1 hands
over the redistricting function to an unelected Federal court here in
Washington, D.C. Everywhere you look, this bill represents an erosion
of traditional State authority and a power grab for Democrats here in
Washington.
Perhaps even more egregiously, the bill places limits on freedom of
speech, criminalizing actions that we would currently describe as mere
advocacy for candidates. Not since the Sedition Act of 1798 has the
Federal Government tried to pass something that tramples so heavily on
freedom of speech as H.R. 1. The bill is so bad in this regard that
even the American Civil Liberties Union is opposing it, which is a
perfect illustration of just how bad H.R. 1 really is.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Everywhere you look, H.R. 1 fails
to do what the majority has promised. They have promised it is to be
about returning power to the people. Instead, this bill only gives
power and money to Democratic politicians. It takes away authority from
States and gives it to the Federal Government, wastes taxpayer dollars
on political campaigns, weakens the voting system, and limits freedom
of speech.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how any Member can stand up
with a straight face and support this bill. I urge opposition to the
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the
Rules Committee for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the For the People Act, H.R. 1, and
the rule.
We promised the American people, and our neighbors back home have
urged us on, to strengthen America's ethics laws, to fix our broken
campaign finance system, and to empower American voters.
I represent the State of Florida, and you better believe that we have
to protect access to the ballot box, ensure the voting rights of
everyone, and count every vote.
I thank the Rules Committee for including a bipartisan amendment that
I have worked on to address the abuse of zombie campaigns. Many folks
don't understand this, but sometimes Members who retire from Congress
keep their campaign accounts, and they live on for decades, hence the
title ``zombie campaigns.'' Oftentimes, they will misuse the unspent
campaign funds. It is wrong for campaign accounts to live on forever,
and we are going to address that abuse as well.
This bill has important reforms that strengthen American democracy,
root out corruption, and ensure that our government here in the United
States of America works for the people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), my good friend.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution for consideration
of H.R. 1.
H.R. 1 includes provisions that fall under the jurisdiction of the
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, of which I am ranking
member.
Buried in the 600-page bill are requirements that would greatly
expand

[[Page H2383]]

the role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST,
in election security. NIST is an important agency under our committee's
jurisdiction. NIST also plays an important nonregulatory role,
providing guidance to State and local governments to help ensure that
election results are secure and accurate.
Keeping our elections safe from cyberattacks and fraud is not a
partisan priority. It is a priority for all of us.
Unlike the more partisan parts of H.R. 1, I believe that if we had
been given a chance on the committee, Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson
and I would have been able to come to an agreement on bipartisan
legislation to update NIST election security activities.

{time} 1245

However, the Democratic leadership has rushed this legislation to the
floor without giving our committee an opportunity to even hold a single
hearing on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, all of the issues raised from
NIST were ignored. The opportunity to have a hearing on this subject
matter in the committee was ignored.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the
underlying bill. We can do better.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and,
of course, in support of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which would
provide the most significant reform to our democratic system in
decades.
This landmark legislation represents the fulfillment of a promise to
the American people to restore our democracy by expanding access to the
ballot, reducing the corrupting influence of corporate money and
political campaigns, and restoring ethics, integrity, and transparency
to government.
We live in a time in our Nation's history where Americans have a deep
sense that government does not work for them, and they are right. That
cynicism is caused by policies that respond to the voices of the rich
and powerful while ignoring those of ordinary Americans and practices
that seek to reduce and restrict participation in our electoral
process.
Americans are sick and tired of corruption and mismanagement here in
Washington, and they elected us with the expectation that we will take
real steps to clean up the mess and return power to the people of our
great country.
H.R. 1 provides us with the opportunity to do this by offering the
most sweeping reforms to our democracy since Watergate, and it makes
real strides in rooting out corruption, strengthening voting rights,
and restoring government by and for the people.
I want to particularly thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your extraordinary
leadership in shaping this bill and drafting it and working with our
colleagues all across the Caucus and producing this product.
H.R. 1 includes the DISCLOSE Act, which I introduced to shine the
light on unlimited corporate spending that has overrun our elections.
Without fixing our broken campaign finance system and taking power
from the powerful special interests and returning it to the people of
this country, it will also be impossible to make progress on the other
issues that are important to the American people.
The DISCLOSE Act will require organizations that spend money on
elections to promptly disclose donors who give $10,000 or more during
the election cycle and prevent political operatives from actions meant
to conceal the identity of donors.
I have also introduced legislation which would require motor vehicle
registries to automatically register all eligible citizens to vote when
they obtain services from their motor vehicle registries.
In 2006, at least 32.6 million eligible Americans were not registered
to vote and, thus, unable to cast a ballot.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, making registration automatic will ensure
that everyone who wishes to be added to the voter rolls will not have
to think twice about it, and I am proud that H.R. 1 will implement
automatic voter registration.
For too long, Mr. Speaker, Washington has acted on behalf of wealthy
and powerful special interests. Last Congress, Republicans passed
legislation to take away healthcare from 23 million Americans, to give
billions in tax cuts to billionaires, and to ease gun restrictions in
the wake of the deadliest shooting in modern America. Americans
responded by voting them out and entrusting us to clean up this culture
of corruption. Let us repay that trust by passing this landmark
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the For the People Act,
and I urge adoption of the rule.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is about what is called the For the People
Act, but, to me, it should be called the ``For the Swamp Act.''
Now, we are going to have plenty of time later to debate the
particulars of the bill, but right now we are talking about the rule
and what brings this to the floor.
I just want to remind everybody that this bill was given jurisdiction
in 10 committees--10 committees--but 1 committee marked it up; one
committee took a look at it and said: Well, this is wrong. Let's fix
this. Let's change that.
One committee with nine people--2 percent of Congress--has been
involved in this bill.
Now, we understand we are in the minority here. We get that. We get
that we are not going to get our way, but we are asking to have a say.
That is all we are asking for here.
This bill is about shutting down the open process and honest debate--
this rule resolution, which actually makes sense, because the
underlying bill does the same thing for the American people.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee of Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, in 1997, I stood on this floor and urged action to fix
our broken campaign finance system. I spoke then about how newspapers
were filled with daily stories detailing how unregulated campaign
contributions were corrupting our political system and threatening the
very essence of our democracy. That was my first year serving in this
institution.

I am sorry to say that this problem hasn't only persisted, it has
gotten worse than many of us could have ever imagined.
Who could have thought that the Supreme Court would issue a disaster
ruling like Citizens United? that some would try to have us believe
that corporations are people? that we would have a President in the
White House who has taken the Republican culture of corruption to a
whole new level?
Now, I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. The news that once made the
front page of the newspaper is now in front of us on our smartphones
nonstop.
We see over and over again how big money has infected our political
process and prevented action on things that the American people care
most about, how new roadblocks are being put in place to prevent some
eligible Americans from casting their ballots, and how some have used
their office to side with special interests over the public interest.
This legislation is about finally fixing our broken democracy,
including modernizing and securing our election system. We care so much
about this that the For the People Act is literally our top priority.
That is why it is H.R. 1.
Now, my Republican friends are talking about process like it is
something

[[Page H2384]]

to be ashamed of. Are they kidding? I mean, these are crocodile tears.
When they were in charge at the last Congress, their priority, their
H.R. 1, was a tax cut for the superrich. Ours is literally a bill for
the people.
And their H.R. 1, by the way, as you can see from this chart, had
zero hearings. None. Our H.R. 1 had five.
Our H.R. 1 had 15 hours of hearings. Do you know how many hours of
hearings their H.R. 1 had? Zero, a big fat zero. No hearings at all.
We had expert witnesses come to testify and give their input, pro and
con. They had none when they did H.R. 1.
Our bill, as we have a structured rule, we have made over 70
amendments in order. When they had their H.R. 1 bill to help the
superrich, do you know how many amendments they made in order? Zero.
None. A big fat closed rule.
The cost of our legislation to kind of cleanup our democracy is zero.
Do you know how much theirs was? At least $1.5 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is how the legislative process is
supposed to work. And imagine what we could achieve once we get special
interests out of the way, whether it is lowering the cost of
prescription drugs or strengthening our healthcare system or passing
sensible gun safety legislation or protecting the Dreamers.
This is about ensuring that our elections actually reflect the
Constitution my friends on the other side of the aisle so often talk
about. The Preamble does not begin with ``We, the corporations'' or
``We, the special interests.'' It says, ``We, the People.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with the majority in
supporting this rule and the underlying legislation so we can finally
put our government back in the hands of the people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan), my good friend and distinguished Republican ranking
member on the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding
and thank him for his service on the important Rules Committee as our
ranking member and for his service in Congress and on that particular
committee.
Much of this grab bag of Democratic party favors in this bill are
entirely unrelated to each other. How, for example, does imposing
unfunded Federal mandates on State administration of elections relate
to mandating the President divest from business holdings?
The House Administration Committee is the only committee to mark up
this legislation. However, House Administration only marked up the
portions of the bill that were in their jurisdiction.
The amendment in the nature of the substitute was 447 pages; the
Rules print was 622 pages.
The Committee on Oversight and Reform had substantial jurisdiction
over this legislation. We sent a letter to the chairman asking for a
markup. We got a letter back from him saying we would do that after the
vote on the bill. Now, how the heck does that work? How the heck does
that work?
So this needs to slow down. I think the underlying legislation is
wrong for the country. The idea that every single taxpayer is now going
to have to finance public campaigns, finance election campaigns--just
what the voters wanted, just what they need. The very people who are in
this swamp, you now have to pay for them to get reelected to stay in
this swamp.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio an additional
15 seconds.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we oppose the rule. If the rule
does pass, I would certainly urge that we oppose the legislation as
well.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Texas is ground zero for voter suppression.
Texas Republicans enacted the most stringent voter ID law in the
country. They slashed communities across our State through partisan
gerrymandering. And now, this year, in what a Federal court has just
described as a ``ham-handed move'' which ``exemplifies the power of
government to strike fear and anxiety and to intimidate the least
powerful among us,'' the Abbott administration has initiated a massive
voter purge by making the false claim that tens of thousands of people
have voted illegally in our State.
Our State has a problem. It is not too many people voting illegally;
it is too few people voting at all. The difference that you see in this
debate is that we believe elections should be won for one party or the
other based on turning out the voters, and too often, our Republican
colleagues believe they are won by throwing out the voters.
I believe that the important reform that we are considering today
will replace these purges with the urge to have voters participate by
removing the many obstacles that stand in their way.
It makes the right to vote more than a paper guarantee. It makes it a
reality by allowing people to know their own power, to shape our
democracy, and hold every public official accountable. ``For the
People'' means stopping the steady Trump erosion of our democracy by
empowering the people to make their voices heard.
I am so pleased that this legislation includes a provision that I
authored to ensure that we seek the business tax returns, as well as
the personal individual returns, of candidates for President.
Now, this particular amendment is directed not specifically at Mr.
Trump, but his conduct underscores why we must require it. He had his
personal law firm review his tax returns, and they awarded him an all-
clear from any Russian connection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, they noted that he was the sole or
principal owner of 500 separate business entities that stretched from
Azerbaijan to Miami, and they gave him an all-clear, upon which he
asked us to rely without noting that the same firm had proudly boasted
that it was ``the Russia law firm of the year.''
Some of us believe we need a little more credible source to review
his conduct. But not just review his conduct, that of anyone, for
either party, who aspires to be the most powerful person in the entire
world.
Even President Nixon invited the Joint Committee on Taxation to
review his tax returns, explaining that the people have got to know
whether their President is a crook--something very relevant to our
times. Candidates who cannot meet the very low Richard Nixon standard
have no right to our highest office.
If left untouchable and unreachable, without exposure to sunlight, we
will find business tax returns hide the darkest secrets. It is good
that we have a strong act demanding disclosure of those returns.

{time} 1300

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Burgess), my good friend, fellow member of the Rules Committee,
and classmate.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 years ago, President Trump stood on the
west front of this Capitol and pledged to dedicate his administration
to taking care of the forgotten men and women of this country. This
bill does not take seriously the plight of those forgotten men and
women. It does take seriously the plight of protecting Democratic
incumbents and candidates.
This bill can't become law. It is never going to pass in the Senate.
It is never going to be signed by the President. But it is important to
talk about it because it reveals the agenda of the Democratic majority
here in the House of Representatives.
This bill, things like the Green New Deal, things like a massive
single-payer healthcare system, and it is pretty clear that Democrats
don't care about the economy. They don't care about the middle class.
Every election I have been in, people talk about rebuilding the middle
class.
My gosh, Donald Trump has rebuilt the middle class, but you don't
care

[[Page H2385]]

about that. You don't care about jobs. You don't care about what people
earn in those jobs, otherwise you wouldn't be opening the borders the
way you are. You care about your own power. You care about maintaining
your own power. It is our job to notify and magnify what is going on
with the Democratic leadership of this House of Representatives. That
is why I am speaking out about it today.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me the time.
Our friends across the aisle are nothing if not courageous. They have
got the brazen temerity to raise the question of process after running
the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of
America; the most closed House of Representatives that anyone has ever
seen.
Let's compare their H.R. 1 when they got started with our H.R. 1.
Well, their's was filed, marked up, and passed in 2 weeks with no
hearings, no amendments made in order, and no expert testimony at all.
Our H.R. 1 was filed on the first day of the new Congress for all of
the public to read. There have been hearings in five different
committees with over 15 hours of expert testimony, culminating in a
full committee markup in House Administration. Sixty days later, we are
now on the floor for consideration in an open and transparent way.
You would think they would have the decency not to raise the question
of process after running the House of Representatives like King Kong
over the last 2 years. But the people who ran it like King Kong now
want to turn it into a Quaker meeting house somehow. They should be
thanking us for the openness of our proceedings.
Their H.R. 1 blew a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit, a staggering
and unprecedented assault on the fiscal integrity of the United States
of America, to shower tax cuts on the wealthy and well-connected.
Our H.R. 1 is an effort to reclaim our democracy from the wealthy and
well-connected people who were the beneficiaries of their H.R. 1 by
creating a 21st century campaign finance system that responds to the
people.
On the substance of the matter, it is amazing to me that my
colleagues raise the question of the swamp. They got elected 2.5 years
ago campaigning against the swamp. It was a great slogan they borrowed
from Nancy Pelosi. They moved to Washington. They moved into the swamp.
They built a hotel on it, and they have turned the Government of the
United States into a money-making operation for the President, and the
President's family, and the President's friends and business
associates.
Now, what are we doing in H.R. 1? We are trying to reclaim American
democracy. This legislation is anti-gerrymandering legislation. This
legislation says that every State in the Union will have to have an
independent redistricting commission. No politicians involved.
They want the politicians to be involved. Amazingly, they embrace the
title of being the gerrymander party. They want to keep gerrymandering
because that is how they maintain their stranglehold on political
power.
The whole purpose of H.R. 1 is to liberate us from the gerrymandering
of our elections. That is why we start with independent redistricting
commissions. We move to publicly financed elections, because either the
big, wealthy, special interests are going to own the elections, or else
the people are going to own them through a small, donor-leveraged
system. And that is what we are doing. We have got ethics reform in
this legislation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I encourage, everyone to actually read the
terms of this landmark reform legislation, which insists upon ethics
reform at the Supreme Court, ethics reform in the executive branch,
empowering the Office of Government Ethics to have real subpoena power,
and to actually be able to ferret out the corruption which is engulfing
the Trump administration today, and to prevent corruption in the
future.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my friend and the ranking
Republican Member on the House Administration Committee.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here and
follow my colleague on the House Administration Committee, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Obviously, as you will hear over the next 1 minute and 50 seconds, we
disagree. This bill was rushed. This bill does not live up to the
promises that the Democratic majority said they were going to do when
they ran the House and how open, how bipartisan, and how transparent
they were supposed to be.
H.R. 1 means this is the Democrat majority's priority. This bill was
introduced on January 3, and at a press conference introducing this
bill, many different outside, special interest groups were noted for
having helped craft this piece of legislation.
It was 571 pages. It has turned into 622 pages. It has turned into 72
amendments that were ruled in order.
Now, let's take a step back. Ten committees of this House had
jurisdiction within this bill. One committee, the smallest committee in
the House of Representatives, the House Administration Committee is the
only one to mark this bill up.
That is not regular order. That is not an open process. And, frankly,
it is a process that the American people should demand be much
different.
We Republicans were not consulted during the drafting of this piece
of legislation. We Republicans during the only markup that lasted 5
hours, offered 28 amendments that would have made this bill better, and
not a single one was passed. All failed on a party-line vote.
That is not bipartisanship. That is not openness. That is not a
process that is inclusive, and, frankly, the American people should be
very petrified what this bill will do. It is not a bill that responds
to people, as my colleague, Mr. Raskin, just mentioned. This is a bill
that is going to cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars,
creating a mandatory program that is going to line the campaign coffers
of every single Member of Congress with government money.
That is not what the American taxpayers are wanting. That is not what
this institution should be doing. We want every single person in this
country to be able to cast their vote and make sure that they have the
right to do it, the ability to do it, and to ensure that that vote is
protected. This bill does nothing to make sure that happens.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am confused when I listen to the
gentleman from Illinois when he complains about process. He complains
that we have over 70 amendments in order, as if that were a bad thing.
We think that is a good thing. And when they did their H.R. 1, which
was a big, fat giveaway to big corporate special interests in this
country, they had no amendments. They had no hearings in any
committees.
The House Administration Committee happens to be the main committee
of jurisdiction, and they did a hearing and a markup. So did the other
committees. They all did hearings. I don't understand what the problem
is.
The problem is, you don't like this bill because it undercuts your
stranglehold on the political system where all of the big money,
corporate special interests can basically get their way with the
Republican majority. Enough.
People, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents,
have had enough of this corrupt political system that my Republican
friends have embraced. We are sick of it. They are sick of it. We are
going to change it and it begins here today with passing H.R. 1.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle: stand
with us, clean up our political system and support H.R. 1.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules
Committee.

[[Page H2386]]

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Cole, the
ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time to speak on
this most important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I tell those of you who are here today and throughout
America, this is a terrible bill. I have to tell you, the more that I
read about it, the more that I study about it, the worse I think that
it is.
First of all, it is a total overreach of the Federal Government into
States' rights. In this bill, the majority didn't even consult with the
secretaries of States and the election officials throughout the entire
country to see if they even liked it. And so you are mandating to the
States how they should run their elections.
Not only that, it is mandating to the States how they should run
redistricting. Now, in the State of Arizona, the voters of Arizona set
up a redistricting commission and determined how it should be run. But
in this bill it says, no, no, it shouldn't be up to the State. It
shouldn't be up to the voters. We know better here in Washington, D.C.
how to do your business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Arizona.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that it subsidizes
politicians with public money, a 6-to-1 matching ratio giving millions,
billions more dollars to candidates. My constituents don't want to see
any more of those TV commercials at all; no more signs; no more
robocalls. This bill would add more money to those nasty things.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the distinguished Republican ranking member on
the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican leader on the Rules
Committee for yielding.
It is unfortunate we are here today to debate a bill like this. This
bill is nothing more than a partisan power grab. That is the sum and
substance of what has been offered here as H.R. 1.
This is about the priorities of Democrats in the House, and the
priorities of Democrats in the House is to change our election laws in
such a way as to benefit their party and hurt the American voters and
their will at the ballot box. That is the deep problem here with H.R.
1.
This is a partisan power grab by one party to seize power by
manipulating our laws to get an outcome counter to the will of the
people.
It is not about fairness. It is just the opposite. This is a problem,
the process that the Democrats went through, the majority went through
for this bill. We had one markup in one committee even though we had
multiple committees, including the House Financial Services Committee.
That is how big this bill is. It had multiple committees of
jurisdiction that were supposed to have markups on this, and they did
not go through that full process.
This bill, at the end of the day, seeks to limit free speech. It uses
taxpayer dollars to fund partisan campaign efforts, and mandates
outcomes designed to get more Democrats into power.
This is not about fairness. It is just the opposite. Let's vote
against this rule, and let's vote down this bad bill.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I am hearing from my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
Against higher ethics in Congress, they are, what, accepting any kind
of corruption in this institution and what corrupts our democracy? You
are for gerrymandering? You want dark money to continue?
This is absurd. This is about strengthening our democracy. This
should have 435 votes. I am so proud that two of my bills have been
incorporated into H.R. 1; one is that we have a national holiday for
our national elections. People shouldn't have to choose between their
job or their families. They should be able to go and vote.

{time} 1315

Presidents and all Presidential candidates should be mandated to put
out 10 years of their tax returns so that the American people can vet
them in their own minds to see if they are worthy of the highest office
in the land.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to add a provision that bars candidates from
receiving matching funds under this bill unless that candidate
certifies that no tax lien exists on any property owned by that
candidate by reason of a failure of the candidate to pay any Federal,
State, or local tax.
Mr. Speaker, the logic of this is simple. If the majority is going to
insist that millions--really, billions--of Federal tax dollars should
be spent subsidizing campaigns, then the candidates should also certify
that they have paid all the taxes due from them. If a candidate has a
tax lien against them, then they should not receive taxpayer dollars to
subsidize their campaign. This is common sense and simple fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from
Oklahoma has any more speakers.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying
measure. The majority has brought up a misnamed bill that instead
serves only to preserve its own power. H.R. 1 will create a taxpayer-
funded ATM to waste Federal dollars on political campaigns.
Let me say that again: to waste Federal dollars on campaigns.
My friends are worried about the power of money, but they are
injecting billions of new taxpayer dollars into this. And not only
that, the taxpayer has no say in where those dollars go. They don't get
to pick a candidate or whatever. We are just going to willy-nilly have
their dollars support candidates whom they may or may not agree with.
This does not only apply to Democrats and Republicans. There are
fringe candidates who will get funding under this, too, candidates,
quite frankly, who will probably embarrass my friends and ourselves.
So I think this is an enormously misguided idea. It will take over
elections and voter registration from States and transfer power to
Washington.
Let me say that again. My friends are voting to literally turn over
the State election operations of 50 separate States and federalize
them. They haven't talked to very many secretaries of state. I think
there was only one who actually was allowed to testify in opposition to
this bill.
Instead, we are going to foist off billions of dollars in unpaid
mandates on every State in the country so my friends can continue this
misguided effort to alter the political landscape of the greatest
Republic and democracy in the world.
This bill will weaken voting systems and weaken the enforcement
mechanism that guards against fraud, and it will undermine Americans'
fundamental First Amendment rights.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my friends on the other side to
reconsider their course of action. This bill is not going to be heard
by the Senate; it will never be signed by the President of the United
States; and instead of building a bipartisan coalition for election and
campaign reform, it will partisanize this process further.
There was and still is an opportunity to have this bill considered in
markups across every committee of jurisdiction. Instead, the majority
is simply ramming it through, using a committee where they hold a 2-to-
1 majority and limiting, frankly, the ability of Members to participate
in the process of writing the bill.

[[Page H2387]]

We can do better than this, Mr. Speaker, and we should strive to do
better than this now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the reforms in H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will
remove barriers to our democracy that drown out the voices of too many
Americans.
H.R. 1 will put the people back in charge. These reforms will bring
about systemic change which, in turn, will lead to policy outcomes that
improve the lives of all Americans.
From lowering the cost of prescription drugs to rebuilding our
Nation's infrastructure to raising wages and creating better job
opportunities, each of these policies requires the voice of the people
to be fully heard and respected. They all rest on fixing our broken
democracy.
We have heard the call for change from our friends, neighbors, and
constituents. That is how I got here and how so many of my colleagues
did, too.
To those people who voted for such historic change, know that
Democrats hear you, and we are ready to give you the government you
deserve.
Crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma last weekend was a
poignant reminder that change does not come quickly, and it certainly
does not come easily. Heroes like Representative John Lewis remind us
of the sacrifices that were made in order to preserve our uniquely
American creed: ``of the people, by the people, for the people.''
H.R. 1 is the top priority of Democrats because it will strengthen
the very core of our democracy. It is a mandate with which we were
entrusted by voters this past November, and it is the first step in
restoring faith in our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to support this rule to
show that you want big money out of politics. Support this bill to show
that you believe voting should be made easier--not harder--for eligible
voters, and support this rule to show that you believe those elected to
public positions deserve to be held to the highest possible ethical
standards.
In the words of our esteemed colleague, Representative Lewis: ``The
fight to vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful
nonviolent tool or instrument that we have in a democratic society.''
To the American people: We hear you. In the words of the civil rights
anthem, we must keep our eyes on the prize and hold on to the vision of
a more perfect Union, one in which the voices of the people are heard
and respected. Our Caucus is eager to restore the promise of our
democracy and give you the government you deserve. That is why we are
urging passage of H.R. 1--``For the People.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 7 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution if offered by Representative Cole of Oklahoma or a
designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
Sec. 7. The amendment referred to in section 6 is as
follows:
Page 421, insert after line 11 the following:
``(5) The candidate certifies that no lien exists on any
property of the candidate by reason of a failure of the
candidate to pay any Federal, State, or local tax.''.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adoption of House Resolution 172, if ordered; and
Approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 191, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 106]

YEAS--232

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--191

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

[[Page H2388]]

Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--8

Byrne
Carter (TX)
Clark (MA)
Griffith
Horsford
Rutherford
Spano
Walden

{time} 1351

Mr. KINZINGER, Mrs. HARTZLER, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. CRAWFORD changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 106.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 192, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 107]

YEAS--232

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--192

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

NOT VOTING--7

Byrne
Carter (TX)
Clark (MA)
Rutherford
Spano
Trone
Walden

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1400

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at memorial services
following the untimely passing of Dennis Richardson, Oregon's 26th
Secretary of State, I was in Oregon and missed votes. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 106 and ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 107.

____________________