FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 41
(House of Representatives - March 07, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H2555-H2571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 172 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1.
  Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1735


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1) to expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce 
the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for 
public servants, and for other purposes, with Mr. Peters (Acting Chair) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 49 printed in part B of House Report 116-16 offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown) had been disposed of.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
116-16 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
  Amendment No. 24 by Ms. Pressley of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Green of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 33 by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Raskin

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Raskin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 215, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 109]

                               AYES--219

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     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)
     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)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--215

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Casten (IL)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     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)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     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
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trone
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Clay
     Rogers (AL)
     San Nicolas

                              {time}  1742

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


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cole

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 235, not voting 3, as follows:

[[Page H2556]]

  


                             [Roll No. 110]

                               AYES--199

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     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)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     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
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--235

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     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
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Clay
     Rogers (AL)
     San Nicolas


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1747

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


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 305, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 111]

                               AYES--126

     Adams
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Burgess
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Correa
     Crist
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     DeFazio
     DelBene
     Delgado
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Sean
     McGovern
     Meng
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--305

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Allred
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cisneros
     Cleaver
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Demings
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Jeffries
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger

[[Page H2557]]


     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lesko
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luria
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Morelle
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Posey
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trone
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Himes
     Porter
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clay
     Gomez
     Rogers (AL)
     San Nicolas


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1754

  Mmes. PLASKETT, SPEIER, WATERS, and Mr. CICILLINE changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote Number 111 on H.R. 
1, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted 
``no'' on amendment No. 24 from Ms. Pressley.


           Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Green of Tennessee

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Green) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 233, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                               AYES--200

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     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)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     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
     Peters
     Peterson
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--233

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     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
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clay
     Rogers (AL)
     San Nicolas
     Watkins


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1759

  Mr. MARSHALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Davidson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H2558]]

  



                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 238, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 113]

                               AYES--194

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

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     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
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Clay
     O'Halleran
     Omar
     Rogers (AL)
     San Nicolas


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1804

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Davidson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 237, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 114]

                               AYES--195

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     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
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham

[[Page H2559]]


     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     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
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Clay
     Cole
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     San Nicolas

                              {time}  1809

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


                Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Brindisi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54 
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 184, insert after line 2 the following:

     SEC. 1908. LIMITING VARIATIONS ON NUMBER OF HOURS OF 
                   OPERATION FOR POLLING PLACES WITHIN A STATE.

       (a) Limiting Variations.--Subtitle A of title III of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.), as 
     amended by section 1031(a), section 1101(a), section 1611(a), 
     and section 1621(a), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 308 and 309 as sections 309 
     and 310; and
       (2) by inserting after section 307 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 308. LIMITING VARIATIONS ON NUMBER OF HOURS OF 
                   OPERATION OF POLLING PLACES WITH A STATE.

       ``(a) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     subsection (b), each State shall establish hours of operation 
     for all polling places in the State on the date of any 
     election for Federal office held in the State such that the 
     polling place with the greatest number of hours of operation 
     on such date is not in operation for more than 2 hours longer 
     than the polling place with the fewest number of hours of 
     operation on such date.
       ``(2) Permitting variance on basis of population.--
     Paragraph (1) does not apply to the extent that the State 
     establishes variations in the hours of operation of polling 
     places on the basis of the overall population or the voting 
     age population (as the State may select) of the unit of local 
     government in which such polling places are located.
       ``(b) Exceptions for Polling Places With Hours Established 
     by Units of Local Government.--Subsection (a) does not apply 
     in the case of a polling place--
       ``(1) whose hours of operation are established, in 
     accordance with State law, by the unit of local government in 
     which the polling place is located; or
       ``(2) which is required pursuant to an order by a court to 
     extend its hours of operation beyond the hours otherwise 
     established.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act, 
     as amended by section 1031(c), section 1101(d), section 
     1611(c), and section 1621(c), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the items relating to sections 308 and 
     309 as relating to sections 309 and 310; and
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 307 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 308. Limiting variations on number of hours of operation of 
              polling places with a State.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Brindisi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for his work on this important topic, and I also want to thank 
him for his willingness to work with Members of this body to address 
our concerns regarding the finance of this bill.
  Thanks to the changes that I supported and pushed for, we have 
ensured that no taxpayer dollars will go towards financing political 
campaigns. It is a testament to what we can accomplish when we work 
together and compromise.
  This bill has many important provisions which will make it easier for 
working families to have their voices heard. My amendment would extend 
these wins to the people of upstate New York who have been treated 
unfairly for years by arbitrary restrictions on polling hours.
  In New York State, voters in New York City and neighboring downstate 
counties have 6 more hours to vote in Federal primary elections 
compared to voters in my district. A voter in New York City can vote on 
their way to work when the polls open at 6 a.m. A voter in Binghamton, 
on the other hand, can't vote in that very same election until their 
polls open at noon.
  My amendment would fix this situation and institute some basic rules 
to prevent States from reducing polling hours for people based solely 
on where they live. This is an important step to ensure that all voters 
across the State are treated fairly.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I again thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for his leadership on this bill, and I urge our colleagues to 
pass the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, as we look at H.R. 1, at least the 
limited amount of time that we have had to actually consider H.R. 1 as 
it has been rushed through the committee process and it has been rushed 
to the House floor--it grew from 571 pages when we had the opportunity 
to briefly review it on one day for 5 hours when it was before the 
House Administration Committee. It has significantly grown since then 
before it even came to the floor.
  But as those who do take a look at it realize, yes, there may be some 
good ideas in H.R. 1. And what is interesting, those good ideas that 
are in H.R. 1 are things that are already in States. They are ideas 
that States have implemented.
  This amendment, when you look at it, it sounds like a good idea. 
Well, let's put all of the polling places on the same timeframe.
  I submit to my good colleague from New York, if there is an issue in 
New York, then the gentleman ought to lobby his State legislature to 
make that change because the Constitution gives that power to the State 
legislatures.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was coming to Washington again this week, I left 
my home early on Tuesday morning, and I went to the State capitol in 
Georgia where I had the opportunity to address both the statehouse and 
the State legislature, which I served in both of those bodies.
  What was amazing, as I talked about this bill, there was bipartisan 
opposition to this bill. Why? Because this bill strips away the 
authority of States to actually set their own laws regarding elections.
  Some may think it is a good idea to centralize that power here in 
Washington, D.C., but the problem is the landscape of America is 
diverse. The geography of America is diverse, and the States are more 
well-suited to actually meet the constituencies' needs of that State.
  Some would say that the Federal Government is more powerful; we can 
actually enforce this across the board.

[[Page H2560]]

Well, the one-size-fits-all doesn't work, and besides that, we don't do 
very much very efficiently.
  As I was looking at the State legislature, there is one thing that I 
know: Their session in Georgia is going to end in a few days, and by 
the end of that session, they will have passed a budget and 
appropriations to fund the State of Georgia for the next year, and it 
will balance.
  Mr. Chairman, do you know the last time that we did that by our 
deadline? Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. We can't even pass 
our own appropriations here. We are not even following our own laws, 
but we want to take on more laws and force the States to follow what we 
think is a good idea?
  Early voting, we established that in Georgia years ago, and it has 
worked well, and we have worked to perfect that.
  Mr. Chairman, while this amendment may sound good and it may be well-
needed in New York, I would submit to my colleague that this is 
something that the New York Legislature should take up. This is not 
something that should be under the purview of Congress.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I again urge adoption of my amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, again, I love this country. I love what 
this country has stood for. I love the idea of our Founding Fathers, 
who made this Nation the greatest Nation in the history of the entire 
world. It is unique because our Founders understood that a government 
that is closest to the people is the most effective and the most 
efficient. This bill will undo 220-plus years of States setting their 
own voting requirements, running their own voter laws.
  As I have stated, there is little that we do efficiently here, and we 
have already uncovered that there are a lot of unintended consequences 
in this bill. If the States make mistakes, they are much faster, much 
quicker, and more responsive to correct those mistakes than we would be 
here.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and vote 
against the underlying measure.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Brindisi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Case

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56 
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 453, line 16, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 453, line 19, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 493, insert after line 8 the following new subtitle 
     (and redesignate the succeeding subtitle accordingly):

             Subtitle E--Empowering Small Dollar Donations

     SEC. 5401. PERMITTING POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE 
                   ENHANCED SUPPORT FOR CANDIDATES THROUGH USE OF 
                   SEPARATE SMALL DOLLAR ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Increase in Limit on Contributions to Candidates.--
     Section 315(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``exceed $5,000'' and inserting ``exceed $5,000 or, in the 
     case of a contribution made by a national committee of a 
     political party from an account described in paragraph (11), 
     exceed $10,000''.
       (b) Elimination of Limit on Coordinated Expenditures.--
     Section 315(d)(5) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(5)) is 
     amended by striking ``subsection (a)(9)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(9) or subsection (a)(11)''.
       (c) Accounts Described.--Section 315(a) of such Act (52 
     U.S.C. 30116(a)), as amended by section 5112(a), is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) An account described in this paragraph is a 
     separate, segregated account of a national committee of a 
     political party (including a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party) consisting exclusively of 
     contributions made during a calendar year by individuals 
     whose aggregate contributions to the committee during the 
     year do not exceed $200.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections held on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Case) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in favor of my proposed 
amendment.
  This amendment will empower small dollar donors to participate in our 
elections process and focus the attention of candidates and political 
parties on earning financial support from a broader base of voters.
  All across our political spectrum, we decry the historically low 
esteem in which Congress is now held, as well as the utter absence of 
many, if not most, of our fellow citizens from their government, as if 
the two were unrelated. For, of course, low esteem breeds absence, and 
absence breeds low esteem. Most Americans simply feel left out, without 
a voice, unvested, unwanted, and, thus, the downward cycle.
  Nor is this just about low esteem and absence. For the vast majority 
of Americans are not vested in our government, and if our government is 
only supported and is only representative of the very few, mostly 
moneyed and influential, interests of our country, then that does not 
lead to representative decisions and erodes the consent of the 
governed, the political and social consensus on which our democracy is 
based.
  As just one manifestation of this dangerous and worsening syndrome, 
the Center for Responsive Politics reviewed 2018 election-cycle 
contributions and found that, still again: ``Only a tiny fraction of 
Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, 
parties, or PACs. The ones who give contributions large enough to be 
itemized, over $200, is even smaller. The impact of these donations, 
however, is huge.''
  In fact, according to the center, while less than a half percent of 
the population contributed $200 or more, their contributions totaled 71 
percent of all individual contributions in 2018 to candidates, PACs, 
parties, and outside groups.
  The clear corollary is that the vast majority of Americans do not 
participate in our elections with their financial support and that, of 
those who do contribute, their voices are drowned out in a sea of 
larger contributions from a precariously narrow interest base.
  This is why leading reform groups such as Issue One and its ReFormers 
Caucus, a fully bipartisan group of now over 200 former Members of 
Congress, Governors, and Cabinet members committed to nonpartisan 
solutions to fixing our broken system, cites increased and broadened 
voter participation in the election process through means such as 
amplifying the voices of small donors as key to returning our 
government to the people.
  My amendment would take one small but meaningful step in that 
direction by authorizing national political party committees of any 
party to contribute up to $10,000 to a candidate, twice the amount 
currently authorized, if the amount consists solely of individual 
contributions of less than $200, and by making corresponding changes in 
the limit on coordinated expenses.
  By permitting such committees to provide enhanced support to their 
candidates through use of separate, small dollar amounts, this change 
would incentivize greater attention by committees of all parties to 
small dollar donors, greater participation by such donors in the 
political process, and representation of a broader and more 
representative America by those elected.
  I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend, one of our 
newest Members, and a great guy.

[[Page H2561]]

  

  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1.
  The people have a right to know what this bill truly is: a Big 
Government, central command takeover of our elections by the new House 
majority. This bill should be called the Democratic Politician 
Protection Act.
  This legislation is virtually a complete takeover by the Federal 
Government of State and local voting jurisdictions. It imposes new 
mandates, including more than 2 weeks of mandatory early voting and 
same-day registration, and diminishes the process of election day 
voting by expanding absentee voting and allowing both current and newly 
registered voters to cast their ballot by mail, with no additional 
safeguards to that process.
  The bill also allows felons to vote, violating our Constitution by 
usurping the 14th Amendment ability of States to determine whether 
felons may vote or not.
  An example of its impracticality can be seen in Lenhartsville 
Borough, Berks County, in my district, a small borough with a polling 
place that averages 60 voters each election. This bill would mandate 
that Lenhartsville open and operate a polling place for 15 days of 
early voting. That is absurd.
  Astonishingly, this bill also includes a 6-to-1 match of public funds 
to the campaign of a candidate that individual taxpayers may not even 
support on contributions up to $200. That is a possible $1,200 match of 
public funds going to fund political campaigns for each contribution.

                              {time}  1830

  This legislation is not for the people. It is for partisan power. 
H.R. 1 isn't just terrible policy, it is an attempt to rewrite the 
rules of the political process itself and change the rules to favor one 
side.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I hope they will 
stand with me in defending the Constitution and the sanctity of our 
elections. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, but I did not 
detect in his comments any objection to the amendment, and I hope that 
that means that he would agree that a much broader and more 
representative group of Americans should, in fact, be incentivized to 
participate in the political process.
  I hope he would agree that one of the basic problems we have in this 
country today is the disincentivizement and the disenfranchizement of 
too many people who just simply don't feel a heart and zone of 
participation. I hope he would agree that this amendment, at least, is 
one way to accomplish that.
  Speaking also to the broader purpose, he made reference to the fact 
that this was a partisan bill, and I would refer him to Issue One, 
which I referenced in my comments, and to the ReFormers Caucus, which 
is about 100 each, Republicans and Democrats, Members that he would 
recognize, leaders of both parties, now retired, who have looked back 
on their service in this Congress and have concluded that many of the 
provisions in this bill are the right way to go, not just this 
amendment, but many, many of those provisions, and I hope he would 
reference those leaders of the party for guidance going forward with 
respect to the intent of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for participating in the process, 
and I would like to ask the gentleman a question about the amendment.
  I know you have been here before. We haven't had the chance to really 
meet, but congratulations. I look forward to working with you.
  Is this just raising the limit that political parties can give from 
$5,000 to $10,000?
  Mr. CASE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. CASE. No, that is not correct. It provides that if contributions 
are received from donors of $200 or less, those may effectively be 
pooled into a segregated account by either political party and then 
contributed to candidates in an amount over and above the amount 
allowed for contributions of over $200. So, therefore, you will see 
that that would incentivize both parties to start to think a little 
more seriously about getting contributions from donors at less than 
$200.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
the clarification. I appreciate that.
  I am still opposed to the amendment because, unfortunately, these 
incentivization programs that are code word incentivized are part of 
H.R. 1, and instead I think they are going to be gamed by many of the 
same people who are gaming the system right now.
  Many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle said they 
want to get money out of politics, and we are talking about putting 
more in. The amendment here is just a small part of a big problem of 
what this bill is about.
  Mr. Meuser talked about how bad this bill is going to be about 
getting money back into politics. If the goal is to take money out of 
politics, then H.R. 1 clearly is not the answer. This amendment, while 
great intentions to my colleague from Hawaii trying to do what we can, 
I would love to sit down with the gentleman in a bipartisan way to talk 
about how we can make campaign finance reforms work.
  But the clear fact is we have been shown zero consideration as 
Republicans over here to try and work out solutions in this bill. We 
weren't asked to even be considered to help write provisions in this 
bill. No one was even called, none of us, no one on our side. As a 
matter of fact, I guess we didn't know the special interest groups who 
helped write this bill and who were touted in the press conference when 
this bill was announced.
  We got zero Republican amendments passed during our markup in only 
one committee, which left 40 percent of the bill out from being marked 
up. That is not the regular order that the Democrats promised when you 
took the majority. That is what we get.
  Today, the olive branch has been extended numerous times. I have 
accepted Democrat amendments, and do you know what? Not a single 
Republican amendment has passed, even one during the last round of 
votes that all it did was give a sense of Congress that we like free 
speech.
  Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. You couldn't even accept 
that amendment? How partisan can this new Democrat majority be?
  This is why this bill is terrible. It is the biggest terrible bill I 
have ever seen in my time here in Congress.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, to my colleague, I accept the 
gentleman's offer to work in a bipartisan way to fix some of these 
major problems. I look forward to it, number one.
  Number two, the gentleman referenced that special interest groups had 
drafted this amendment. If there is a special interest group, it is the 
ReFormers Caucus, on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Real quick, I was not referring to the 
amendment. It was the bill itself.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 57 Offered by Ms. Houlahan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 136, line 1, strike ``4 hours'' and insert ``10 
     hours''.
       Page 136, line 3, strike ``4 hours'' and insert ``10 
     hours''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I was sent to Congress by the Sixth District of 
Pennsylvania

[[Page H2562]]

to fix the broken culture in Washington. H.R. 1 will help to reduce the 
role of money in politics and address the culture of corruption in 
Congress. I rise today to support my amendment, No. 57.
  This bill also takes key steps to expand voting access to eligible 
voters. Currently, my constituents in Pennsylvania have no access to 
early voting and have severe absentee restrictions on voting by mail. 
This bill will introduce early voting and vote by mail to all 50 
States, which will greatly help working families who may have trouble 
voting around their working schedules on election day.
  I am introducing an amendment to further expand this early voting 
provision to mandate at least 10 hours of early voting each day for the 
final 15 days before election.
  Expanding access to early voting, especially in Pennsylvania, is a 
key component to bringing the government back to the people by helping 
people with inflexible hours or people who work shift work to exercise 
their right to vote. This ensures that their voice is heard and that 
they are represented in our government.
  This week, with H.R. 1, we are taking a big step to returning us to 
government of, by, and for the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is great to have you in the chair again tonight.
  I rise to oppose this amendment; although, again, I want to 
compliment my new colleague, Ms. Houlahan, for coming down here and 
being a participant in the legislative process. It has been great to 
get to know the gentlewoman and work with her, and I look forward to 
working together on a bipartisan basis as we move forward during this 
term.
  I have got to oppose this amendment because I have opposed others 
that are just like it.
  We want every American to be able to cast their vote, to be 
registered to vote, and to be able to have their vote counted and their 
vote protected. My issue is with a top-down approach from the Federal 
Government versus the State and local governments. This amendment, 
though well-intentioned, just, again, infringes on our State and local 
officials' ability to determine how best to run their elections.
  Additionally, this mandate increases the cost of all election 
offices, as it is tasked to recruit, train, and deploy additional poll 
workers, where we already know we have a shortage.
  I would love to work with my colleague, Ms. Houlahan, moving forward 
to address many issues involving election reform. Unfortunately, I just 
don't think H.R. 1 is the answer, and I don't think it is going to be 
passed into law, so there are going to be opportunities for us to work 
together. Again, my bipartisan olive branch is reaching out, once 
again, to the gentlewoman's side, and I certainly hope we can do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the bipartisan 
spirit and the olive branch that the gentleman has reached out to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding her time, and I want to commend her on this amendment.
  I want to respond to this idea of this kind of top-down 
federalization of our voting. That is not what is happening here. The 
States are going to continue to have the authority to put together how 
elections operate. What we are doing is we are collecting best 
practices and then making a policy decision at the Federal level that 
those best practices ought to extend across the country.
  If you think about it, Mr. Chairman, that is our role as Federal 
legislators. Our purpose here is to gather up wisdom from all parts of 
the country, figure out what things work and what things don't work, 
and if it rises to a level of being a good policy suggestion, then 
putting that into legislation. That is what we are doing, and that is 
what this particular change would do, and it would make it much easier 
for people to access the ballot box.
  So, again, I want to thank Congresswoman Houlahan for this amendment, 
and I support it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the author of this bill. 
He and I have had some spirited discussions over the last day and a 
half, but I appreciate his willingness to want to address issues. I 
just don't think this bill is the answer.
  To respond to the author of the bill, there is a big difference 
between offering best practices to our State and local officials about 
how best to run their elections, there is a big difference between best 
practices and suggestions versus mandates, and that is clearly what 
H.R. 1 is. It is going to be a mandate.
  It is so nebulous. We get answers one day that change the next. There 
is zero bipartisanship. We haven't been included. All of a sudden, we 
get a new shell game: Move over; we are going to fund it by doing this 
and put corporate money now into congressional campaigns, which is 
illegal now, but I guess it is a solution for getting money out of 
politics to the majority.
  I don't understand this. This has got to be one of the most 
discombobulated processes that I have ever been a part of. I can't help 
myself to think there is no way that every Democrat who cosponsored 
this bill on day one thinking they were going to talk about election 
reform had any idea of so many of the terrible, terrible provisions for 
taxpayers that are in this bill.

  Again, Mr. Chairman, if you vote for this bill, you are putting 
corporate cash into congressional campaigns. There is no way the 
billions upon billions of promises that are made to congressional 
candidates and incumbents are going to be able to be fulfilled with 
this new, nebulous corporate malfeasance fund that we haven't even had 
scored by the CBO.
  Billions of dollars of taxpayer money are going to fund a revamp of 
how public money goes into congressional campaigns. This is the worst 
of the worst of the worst of what the D.C. swamp is all about.
  I am going to lightly oppose this amendment because I really respect 
Ms. Houlahan and her efforts. I just have a big problem with the bill, 
as I think you can tell.
  Mr. Chairman, I will give Ms. Houlahan, likely, the last word. I 
reserve my right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge the adoption of my 
amendment and also the adoption of H.R. 1 so that we can once again 
restore the faith of the people and focus on the working Americans of 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, if you do a shift or even if you have a 9 to 5 job, it 
is very, very hard to get to the polls, particularly in Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to support of my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I think every American 
who is eligible to vote deserves to have the right to vote, to have 
their vote counted, and to have their vote be protected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1845


                Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Phillips

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 514, insert after line 17 the following new section 
     (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):

     SECTION 6008. CLARIFYING AUTHORITY OF FEC ATTORNEYS TO 
                   REPRESENT FEC IN SUPREME COURT.

       (a) Clarifying Authority.--Section 306(f)(4) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30106(f)(4)) is 
     amended

[[Page H2563]]

     by striking ``any action instituted under this Act, either 
     (A) by attorneys'' and inserting ``any action instituted 
     under this Act, including an action before the Supreme Court 
     of the United States, either (A) by the General Counsel of 
     the Commission and other attorneys''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to actions instituted before, on, or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Phillips) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that 
would allow the Federal Election Commission to represent itself in 
actions before the United States Supreme Court so that it may fulfill 
its role as the people's top election watchdog.
  Under current law, the FEC is almost always represented by the 
solicitor general when it has business before the U.S. Supreme Court, 
effectively removing the FEC attorneys from the process and 
centralizing litigation within the Department of Justice.
  It is a revelation that troubles me and many and should worry us all.
  Unfortunately, we have seen the President use the Department of 
Justice and its appointees not to promote truth and accountability, but 
as a political tool with which to suppress those who challenge his 
unilateral approach to campaigning and governing.
  The identity, priorities, skills, and role of lawyers representing 
the government play a significant role in determining the nature and 
outcome of litigation.
  These cases are often charged with partisan politics, and the 
American people need an advocate who operates with a degree of 
separation from a particular party or administration and can faithfully 
execute the unique mandate bestowed upon the FEC.
  As the people's last line of election oversight, the FEC must have 
the power to act independently in its business before the courts so 
that it may hold this administration, and all administrations to come, 
accountable to the people, the law, and the Constitution.
  My amendment would ensure that it can.
  At a time when campaign finance law has become increasingly complex 
and dangers of direct conflicts of interest have become more prevalent, 
my amendment will strengthen the FEC's enforcement powers and help the 
court navigate the increasingly blurry boundaries of what is and what 
is not legal during Federal elections by having a subject matter expert 
empowered to present arguments.
  Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, once again, I claim time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, the language of the 
amendment is pretty innocuous. The problem I have is the portion of the 
bill that it is amending, the sheer fact that, in this now almost 700-
page, mammoth bill that anyone thinks it is a good idea to weaponize 
the FEC by making it partisan. It is the furthest thing from where we 
should be as an institution.
  This amendment is going to do nothing to address this partisan FEC 
that the bill establishes.
  The biggest threat to our elections is actually partisanship, and a 
partisan FEC will undermine the neutrality that voters expect of an 
agency that oversees Federal elections, especially when the billions 
upon billions upon billions of new dollars come in from the programs 
that are created in this bill.
  A partisan FEC is going to give enhanced powers to the chairman to 
make decisions on behalf of the commission that have been reserved for 
years for the full commission.
  I fully expect a lower standard of protection of free speech to be 
embraced by a partisan FEC.
  As a former chairman of our own Franking Commission here in the House 
of Representatives, I think bipartisan agencies can work together, 
bipartisan commissions can work together.
  Heck, we are not even allowed to send a bulk mail piece out of this 
institution without Republicans and Democrats signing off on it. If we 
can't send bulk mail out without it being bipartisan, why in the world 
would we want to make the FEC partisan?
  Do the Democrats really want the Trump administration to have a 
partisan FEC? I don't want any party to have a partisan FEC. I want it 
to remain an institution where it takes bipartisanship to get results.
  I would urge my good friend, Mr. Phillips, if he hasn't, to sit down 
with some of the FEC commissioners and talk to them about their opinion 
of why the FEC is bipartisan, and I would urge the gentleman to work 
with them.
  This bill is not going to pass. The amendment, likely, will get ruled 
by the chairman to be a part of this bill. The bill is not going to 
become law. It is going to go die in the Senate. But I would urge the 
gentleman to work with the FEC, talk with them on the reason why, why 
it is bipartisan.
  We don't want our Ethics Committee here in the House to have a 
partisan edge. We don't want our Franking Commission to have a partisan 
edge.
  Why in the world do we want the FEC to have a partisan edge?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from Illinois.
  However, to say that this weaponizes the FEC I do take exception to 
because, indeed, it is just the opposite.
  It empowers the FEC to actually do its job, which is to look out for 
voters. That is quite simple and quite apparent to me.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, it is a good amendment because it allows the 
FEC to be represented in an effective way.
  As to the underlying bill, I can't think of another agency of the 
Federal Government, commission, where you have an even number. Most 
have an uneven number so you don't have deadlocks.
  We are deadlocked at the FEC. They are dead in the water.

  Is it because of bipartisanship? Right now there are two Republican 
commissioners, one Democratic commissioner, one independent 
commissioner, and two vacancies. They can't make a decision.
  There are backlogged cases that go on for years. This is really a 
disservice to America to not be able to play that cop on the beat, 
because it is a completely dysfunctional agency.
  We need to change that. And that is what the underlying bill does. It 
allows a nonpartisan career staff to make initial fundings. It provides 
that there can be no more than two commissioners in the same party, so 
we are not going to have a partisan takeover. And then it allows the 
commission to overrule the nonpartisan staff, if necessary.
  We need reform at the FEC. This amendment is part of it, and I credit 
the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representative Sarbanes for 
his tireless work in bringing this important legislation to the floor 
and Chairman McGovern for making my amendment in order.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, again, I have a problem with 
the underlying bill and the FEC issue.
  It is not that hard to be bipartisan when we send bulk mail in the 
House. It may take a little longer. It may be a little more difficult. 
But, you know what, bipartisanship works. There is a reason for it 
here.
  Frankly, if the FEC isn't working, if the FEC is such an agency that 
has zero credibility in the mind of the majority right now, then why in 
the world are we spending time marking up a 700-page, mammoth bill in 
the House Administration Committee when we ought to just reauthorize 
the FEC?
  I certainly hope that our committee can work toward making that 
happen. And that is something that has not been done that we should be 
able to get bipartisanship on. I look forward to working with 
Chairperson Lofgren when that day comes over the next 2 years.
  Mr. Chair, I am going to oppose the amendment because of the 
underlying language regarding the FEC.

[[Page H2564]]

  I commend Mr. Phillips for being here to legislate. I welcome the 
gentleman to Congress, and I look forward to working with him and 
appreciate his opportunity to be a part of the process. I thank the 
gentleman for letting me be a part of it with him.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 220, insert after line 16 the following:
       (E) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an 
     immediate family member of the individual paid a civil money 
     penalty or criminal fine, or was sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment, for violating any provision of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1, 
the For the People Act.
  This historic package of democracy and anticorruption reforms will 
put power back in the hands of the people and restore the American 
people's faith that government works for the public interest, not the 
special interests.
  I am pleased that my bill, the Transparency in Corporate Political 
Spending Act, is included in H.R. 1. I am also proud today to present 
an amendment to prohibit violators of our Federal election campaign 
laws from serving on critically important redistricting commissions in 
the States.
  Our democracy has been under attack from foreign interference, 
gerrymandering, hidden corporate money, and voter suppression. Today, 
the time has come to reform our system and restore faith in our 
political process.
  I believe we have a duty to transform our democracy from a spectator 
sport into a true dialogue in which we all participate to debate the 
issues, defend our interests, and demand our rights.
  By passing H.R. 1, we will move one step closer to that 
transformation by breaking the grip of special interests and ensuring 
that the American people come first in our democracy.
  Among its many important provisions, this historic democracy reform 
package includes my Transparency in Corporate Political Spending Act, 
which will eliminate the policy rider that lets corporations keep their 
unlimited political spending secret.
  In addition, I look forward to this Chamber's consideration of my 
amendment to H.R. 1. This amendment would protect our democracy by 
prohibiting campaign finance law violators and their immediate family 
members from serving on redistricting commissions.
  Congress needs to ensure that we set out commonsense minimum criteria 
for people who will serve on redistricting commissions in States across 
the country. My amendment will ensure that redistricting commissions 
nationwide are free of individuals and immediate relatives of 
individuals who have knowingly and willfully committed a violation of 
the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  In November 2018, the people of Michigan overwhelmingly passed Voters 
Not Politicians, a ballot initiative that sets up a nonpartisan 
redistricting commission to create State legislative and congressional 
districts after the 2020 census. About seven or eight States have 
already done this, and more are considering it.
  If we are going to transform our democracy, we need to do it right. I 
could not be more proud to vote to end the dominance of big money in 
our political system, to guarantee free and fair elections that are 
open to all, and to ensure public officials work for the public 
interest.
  I would like to thank Congressman Sarbanes and the members of the 
Democracy Reform Task Force for their unrelenting efforts to reclaim 
our democracy as one for and by the people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the For the People Act and 
to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to rise in 
opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this 
amendment.
  I just want to take the time to welcome our new colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I would like the gentleman to 
give my utmost thanks to his dad, who we stood on this floor, with 
these same microphones, and I was able to work in a bipartisan way with 
him to pass the EACH Act that allowed for a religious exemption from 
the individual mandates of ObamaCare, of the Affordable Care Act.
  That is now law, and that is a sign of bipartisanship that I hope to 
be able to continue while we work together.
  Give him my best. The Christian Scientists that are in my district at 
Principia College, one of the largest Christian Science institutions in 
the Nation, are very thankful that they are not now being penalized by 
the Tax Code for a religious exemption from seeking medical care from 
doctors and medical professionals.
  So my thanks to the gentleman's father, and I thank the gentleman for 
being here.
  Mr. Chair, I am not going to oppose this amendment. I will reserve 
just in case somebody wants to come up and talk about something else 
and I can rebut them, but I am ready to close if the gentleman is.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I deeply appreciate the gentleman 
from Illinois' kind remarks. I will absolutely give my dad his regards. 
I will call him tonight and tell him, seriously, that the gentleman 
said that.
  I really appreciate the incredible honor and opportunity to be here 
working with the gentleman to do the people's business.
  I really hope we will get a chance to work together on any number of 
bills to perfect and expand our democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to be bipartisan 
once again. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mrs. Trahan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 220, insert after line 16 the following:
       (E) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an 
     immediate family member of the individual is an agent of a 
     foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 
     of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend my friend, the Congressman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for offering one of the most significant 
reforms to our election system in a generation. I am particularly 
pleased that H.R. 1 puts redistricting in the hands of independent 
commissions, where it belongs.
  Under the bill, each State will create 15-person independent 
redistricting commissions that represent the public's interests first 
and foremost, without consideration of political party advantage.
  However, to prevent the real or perceived risk of bias, H.R. 1 
excludes several categories of people from serving

[[Page H2565]]

on these commissions, including political candidates or officeholders, 
campaign officials, big donors, and lobbyists.
  My amendment would simply add to this list those individuals who are 
registered agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA.
  FARA has been in law since the 1930s. It requires disclosure when an 
individual is acting as a political representative of foreign 
governments.
  As with H.R. 1's current exclusions, adding foreign agents will help 
ensure that those serving on the independent redistricting commissions 
are not at risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
  Coming from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which gave our Nation 
the term ``gerrymander,'' I am pleased that H.R. 1 will put an end to 
this device by allowing voters to choose their representatives rather 
than the other way around.
  My amendment aims to close a loophole by ensuring that registered 
foreign agents, like lobbyists and big donors, may not serve on 
redistricting commissions.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts. It is great to see her, and I thank her for putting this 
amendment forward.
  I have a problem with the underlying provisions of the bill. I 
actually support redistricting reforms.
  I am from Illinois. I am a Republican. We are not going to have a 
single say in how the Democrats in the supermajority Illinois House and 
the supermajority Illinois Senate, and our newly elected Democratic 
Governor, we are not going to have a say in how these maps are drawn.
  I certainly hope we can get an independent redistricting commission 
because, since this bill is not going to pass the Senate, it is not 
going to become law. I certainly hope that we could come together and 
work on some independent redistricting issues.
  Mr. Chair, I will, again, not oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts for simply an excellent amendment. This strengthens the 
provisions in the underlying bill to make sure that agents of foreign 
principals would have no role in these commissions.
  I think it is important that we understand that the citizens who 
serve on these commissions have no agenda, not for one party or the 
other, and certainly not for some foreign country.
  It is really a very good amendment. I am so glad that she offered it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am highly concerned 
with the redistricting provisions in this bill now. It seems that now, 
as part of the bill, that one State is going to be exempted out.
  At what point, then, do we not question why everyone doesn't have the 
same ability to opt out of provisions of this bill, just like the State 
of Iowa has done in an amendment that was accepted.
  The sheer fact that if Iowa's independent redistricting commission is 
better and, thus, we shouldn't have to apply the same standards as the 
other 49 States in this great Nation, then why don't we use Iowa's 
independent redistricting commission standards for everyone? Why don't 
we make the whole bill about Iowa?
  I mean, I have been talking about federalism and States having to 
follow top-down Federal mandates, in most cases, that are going to be 
unfunded or nebulously funded because we really don't know how they are 
going to get those funds to our States and localities. But the sheer 
fact that we are debating a bill that has a provision about independent 
redistricting that could have been very, very bipartisan, now we have 
exempted one State out, it basically tells all of us that is a better 
commission.
  I hope that when we come back, after this bill passes the House, 
unfortunately for many of my colleagues who are going to vote for it on 
the other side of the aisle, I hope we can come together and have the 
debate on whether Iowa's commission is better than what was proposed in 
this bill.
  You cannot have a 700-page bill that talks about how gloriously good 
for the people it is, for all of the provisions that are this top-down 
approach, and then, all of a sudden, you exempt one State out of what 
could have been one of the most bipartisan provisions, and that is 
independent redistricting.
  If you are serious about governing, the majority ought to offer an 
amendment, ought to offer a change, to make Iowa's independent 
commission the language of this bill. Make it work in States, even 
where they have independent commissions.
  I would sure like it to work in Illinois. Maybe California would want 
to use Iowa's commission because clearly it is better than what you 
have in the bill, or we wouldn't have had to take an amendment on it.

  Well, I think I got my point across.
  I say to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), your 
amendment is a good amendment. I apologize I had to use this time to 
address an issue that is very frustrating, but the gentlewoman is 
talking about redistricting.
  I appreciate what she has done. I welcome her to the floor of the 
House, and I look forward to working with her.
  Again, my offer to the gentlewoman is the same as others. When this 
bill fails in the Senate, let's come together on some provisions. I 
will continue to throw the bipartisan olive branch out toward that side 
of the aisle, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman. 
Congratulations. I won't oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I 
also look forward to working in a bipartisan way to restore our 
government to the people.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I urge a ``yes'' on H.R. 1. 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mrs. Trahan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In subtitle J of title I, insert after section 1704 the 
     following (and redesignate the succeeding provision 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 1705. EXTENDING GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR VOTING 
                   PURPOSES TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF ABSENT MILITARY 
                   PERSONNEL.

       Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 
     Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20302) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Guarantee of Residency for Spouses and Dependents of 
     Absent Members of Uniformed Service.--For the purposes of 
     voting for in any election for any Federal office or any 
     State or local office, a spouse or dependent of an individual 
     who is an absent uniformed services voter described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 107(1) shall not, solely 
     by reason of that individual's absence and without regard to 
     whether or not such spouse or dependent is accompanying that 
     individual--
       ``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in 
     that State, without regard to whether or not that individual 
     intends to return to that State;
       ``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in 
     any other State; or
       ``(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident 
     of any other State.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, under current law, our brave men and women 
serving our country in uniform are able to maintain their residency 
status for the purposes of voting during deployment. Current law also 
protects voting residency status if a spouse of a servicemember is 
absent from their State in order to accompany the servicemember on a 
deployment.

[[Page H2566]]

  However, current law does not protect the residency status of a 
spouse if he or she is absent but without accompanying the deployed 
servicemember.
  My amendment fixes this loophole. It will ensure that these spouses 
may maintain their voting residency status, regardless of whether they 
accompany their spouse. Moreover, my amendment would extend the same 
protection to voting-age dependents.
  The absence of a servicemember who is deployed can be an enormous 
hardship on a family. It means a caregiver is no longer at home to 
share in parenting duties. In these cases, it is natural to rely upon 
friends and family, even those in another State, for support. However, 
these families should not lose the right to vote in their home district 
if they are absent while their spouse is deployed. Furthermore, my 
amendment extends those same protections to voting-age children.
  This is an amendment about ensuring those who sacrifice the most for 
the defense of our Nation are treated fairly and that they have a voice 
and a vote in our elections.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, although, once again, I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this is a great 
amendment. I commend Mrs. Trahan because it is vitally important that 
we protect the families of our Nation's military. It is very important 
we remember those who sacrifice everything to serve us, and we should 
ensure that they are able to weigh in to whomever represents them in 
government.
  I am going to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, again, an olive branch 
to the other side of the aisle.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness to legislate. It is great 
to work with her, and I will be supporting this amendment.
  Since I see the chair up, in case she says something I have to rebut, 
I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say what a smart amendment this 
is, and I am so grateful that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts has 
taken the time to put this together.
  We all care about our men and women in the armed services, to make 
sure they are treated fairly. But over the years we have been here, 
none of us came up with this amendment before this evening.
  I really thank the gentlewoman. Great kudos to her. We are lucky that 
she is a Member of our House of Representatives.
  Like the ranking member, I will be happy to vote ``aye'' on this 
amendment. I think it is very important, and I am grateful to the 
gentlewoman for offering it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let the Record show that 
I liked the amendment first. I liked it before the chairperson.
  Listen, it is a great amendment, and I look forward to voting for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois once 
again. I thank the gentlewoman from California. She made this easy on 
me, and I appreciate that.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1915


                  Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Kim

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In subtitle F of title I of the bill--
       (1) redesignate section 1505 as section 1506; and
       (2) insert after section 1504 the following new section:

     SEC. 1505. PAPER BALLOT PRINTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 
     U.S.C. 21081(a)), as amended by section 1504, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Printing requirements for ballots.--All paper ballots 
     used in an election for Federal office shall be printed in 
     the United States on paper manufactured in the United 
     States.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Kim) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 1.
  Mr. Chair, our democracy isn't working for the majority of Americans. 
This is a simple message I hear from the people in my district every 
single day: there are too many barriers to participate in our 
democracy; there is too much dark money influencing our politics; there 
are too many loopholes for bad actors to skirt our ethics laws and use 
the revolving door of politics to enrich themselves instead of 
empowering the American people.
  H.R. 1 isn't just a step in the right direction, it is a massive 
shift that takes power and puts it back in the hands of our 
constituents. It is legislation that reminds us that our government 
must be for the people, but just as importantly, our democracy must be 
by the people.
  That is why I rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 1, which 
will require Federal election ballots to be made in America.
  In short, this is a win-win for the American people. It will help 
protect and create American jobs by ensuring that manufacturing stays 
right here in America. It will help protect the integrity of our 
Federal elections, which are increasingly under attack by foreign 
powers.
  We have an opportunity today to not only help clean up our 
government, but create jobs and secure our elections.
  I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will come 
together to make the democracy we swore to protect truly of, by, and 
for the people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense made-in-
America amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I don't know if I have had a 
chance to formally meet Mr. Kim. I welcome him and thank him for being 
here to participate in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess I would like to have some details on what 
percentage of ballots that are used in the United States right now are 
not printed in the U.S.
  The issue I have is not with United-States-made printing materials, 
it is with the sheer fact that we are having a top-down approach once 
again.
  I mean, there is always going to be extenuating circumstances. Some 
of our territories may raise the cost of importing paper to be able to 
now live up to the paper ballot marking whatever requirements that are 
in this 700-page bill.
  We can work together on these provisions, but we also might want to 
work together as this bill fails in the Senate.
  Mr. Chair, if this is something Mr. Kim wants to work on together, I 
am willing to work on it with him, but let's have some room in there 
for some exceptions.
  I mean, let's say it is almost election day, you have got wildfires 
roaring all over California and there is a paper shortage in the 
country. We can't stop the election, so maybe we need some exceptions. 
We can't stop the election, maybe we need an exception.
  So let's work together, let's do something like that so that nobody 
loses a chance to be able to cast their vote on election day, to have 
their vote counted, and even just as importantly, to have their vote 
protected.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I have got to 
oppose this, because there are no exceptions in here, but I appreciate 
the gentleman's willingness to work together after this is done.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2567]]

  

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I just want to start by saying that I am very 
much looking forward to being able to continue to work with the 
gentleman from Illinois throughout my time here. I appreciate his 
welcome to me here on the House floor.
  Mr. Chair, for me, as we go about this, it is essential that we 
understand that our ballots are the most fundamental form of our 
democracy that citizens here are engaged in, that we understand them as 
a tangible manifestation of that participation that each and every 
voter plays.
  So this is a manifestation of our value, our collective value that 
with this most important symbol of our democracy, this tangible form 
that our voters take, that this should be something of, by, and for the 
American people.
  That is something that I think would be an important signal from the 
United States Congress across this country that we recognize the 
importance of that and we want to hold and commit to making sure that 
this tangible piece of our democracy is something that is made in 
America.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey.
  Look, I am all for increasing American manufacturing, I am all for 
building new paper plants, but I would urge my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to remember they are probably going to burn more 
fossil fuels. You know, if we are going to have to cut down more trees, 
maybe we will get some bipartisanship when it comes to deforestation, 
which could help cut down on forest fires that may cause the problems 
that would need the exceptions that we talked about earlier.
  So I certainly hope this fits into the New Green Deal provisions that 
are going to be voted on in the Senate.
  There is a lot of talk about paper in this bill. And in this bill, 
actually the paper keeps growing. It is upwards of 700 pages now.
  Mr. Chair, I just got a very important piece of paper with the new 
CBO score, so I assume we are going to be talking about that soon.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentleman of the recycled 
ballot amendment that had passed earlier today relative to the issue of 
cutting down trees.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am all for more paper 
production. Those paper plants that exist in my district, you know, 
they use recycled materials, too. I am more than happy to have more 
trees be deforested out of areas that are caught up in wildfires on an 
annual basis.
  If we could have the paper that is going to work, if the other side 
is okay with burning more fossil fuels to make this happen, hey, maybe 
we won't need those exceptions I talked about, maybe we will have 
enough American manufacturing and paper jobs. Some of the best paying 
jobs in my district are at the paper mills.
  Mr. Chair, I am certainly looking forward to working with the 
gentleman when this bill fails. Especially after seeing some of the 
preliminary numbers out of this new CBO score. I don't know how many 
cosponsors of this bill are going to actually be able to cast a vote 
for it, but I will reserve judgment until I see the board tomorrow.
  Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, but since I have the right to close, 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the perspective on the other end, 
and I understand our common value that, of course, we would want to see 
things made in America, and I want to make sure that I constantly, as I 
will every time on this House floor, seek bipartisanship as we move 
forward.
  I reiterate that this is a commonsense amendment that is simply good 
policy. My amendment would give a leg up to domestic supply chains and 
ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to support local middle-class 
jobs and boost our economy.
  Amendments like mine also ensure that when Federal agencies buy 
products to carry out their responsibilities, that they put American 
manufacturers first.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Kim).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Spanberger

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 291, insert after line 20 the following:

     SEC. 3106. PRE-ELECTION THREAT ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Submission of Assessment by DNI.--Not later than 180 
     days before the date of each regularly scheduled general 
     election for Federal office, the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall submit an assessment of the full scope of 
     threats to election infrastructure, including cybersecurity 
     threats posed by state actors and terrorist groups, and 
     recommendations to address or mitigate the threats, as 
     developed by the Secretary and Chairman, to--
       (1) the chief State election official of each State;
       (2) the Committees on Homeland Security and House 
     Administration of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and 
     Rules and Administration of the Senate; and
       (3) any other appropriate congressional committees.
       (b) Updates to Initial Assessments.--If, at any time after 
     submitting an assessment with respect to an election under 
     subsection (a), the Director of National Intelligence 
     determines that the assessment should be updated to reflect 
     new information regarding the threats involved, the Director 
     shall submit a revised assessment under such subsection.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) The term ``Chairman'' means the chair of the Election 
     Assistance Commission.
       (2) The term ``chief State election official'' means, with 
     respect to a State, the individual designated by the State 
     under section 10 of the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993 (52 U.S.C. 20509) to be responsible for coordination of 
     the State's responsibilities under such Act.
       (3) The term ``election infrastructure'' means storage 
     facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulation 
     locations used to support the administration of elections for 
     public office, as well as related information and 
     communications technology, including voter registration 
     databases, voting machines, electronic mail and other 
     communications systems (including electronic mail and other 
     systems of vendors who have entered into contracts with 
     election agencies to support the administration of elections, 
     manage the election process, and report and display election 
     results), and other systems used to manage the election 
     process and to report and display election results on behalf 
     of an election agency.
       (4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.
       (5) The term ``State'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 901 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 
     21141).
       (d) Effective Date.--This Act shall apply with respect to 
     the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office 
     held in November 2020 and each succeeding regularly scheduled 
     general election for Federal office.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
1.
  This week, we are focused on fighting for the public interest, 
fighting for transparency, and fighting for accountability. We have a 
rare opportunity to restore faith and trust in our system of 
government.
  Mr. Chair, I thank all those who have fought to bring us to this 
point and for our upcoming major historic vote on H.R. 1.
  As we speak, I am working under a mandate from the people of central 
Virginia. They expect me to fight back against a broken Washington and 
to work to protect our democracy, whether from special interests, 
barriers to voting, or foreign influence.
  Right now, we are seeing an uptick in hostile attacks against 
election systems across the globe, with the rise of the internet, 
anonymous hackers, non-state actors, and foreign intelligence 
operatives, as they rise as formidable and dangerous adversaries.
  Our elections are the bedrock of our democracy.

[[Page H2568]]

  If our voting infrastructure is compromised or attacked, the entire 
integrity of our electoral system could come into question.
  This was especially clear following Russia's interference in the 2016 
election, and it is almost certain that nefarious actors will continue 
their deliberate attempts to attack our elections or put in doubt the 
outcome of those elections.
  During this time, it is critical that the U.S. election officials 
have accurate and up-to-date information about where our election 
security systems are most vulnerable.
  This amendment pushes back against foreign attempts to interfere in 
our electoral process and helps identify any potential threats that may 
exist.
  This amendment would use the invaluable expertise of public servants 
in the intelligence community and Department of Homeland Security to 
strengthen the security of Federal and State election systems.
  My amendment would require a Federal assessment of the scope of 
potential threats to the security of America's election system, 
including cyber, terror, and state actor threats.
  This assessment would happen 180 days prior to every general election 
to allow the States the opportunity to respond and strengthen their 
voting system.
  Additionally, this legislation would direct the Director of National 
Intelligence and DHS to update Federal and State officials on possible 
vulnerabilities and to provide assessments on how best to stop these 
threats.
  As a former CIA case officer, I greatly appreciate the objective and 
nonpartisan work of the national security and intelligence communities. 
With their help, we can fight back against foreign interference, we can 
safeguard our elections.
  The dedicated men and women of our national security agencies and of 
our intelligence agencies have demonstrated their ability to collect 
information on foreign actors' intentions and provide election security 
assessments that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and 
useful to the States they would provide them to.
  As we are having an important discussion about safeguarding the 
integrity of the vote, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
to H.R. 1.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it. I 
think this is a darn good amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, it is great to work with Ms. Spanberger, and I thank her 
for her service as an intelligence officer for our great Nation. This 
is an issue that she knows better than me and she knows better than 
most of us here in this institution. I look forward to supporting this 
amendment, and I welcome the gentlewoman to the U.S. House of 
Representatives and look forward to working with her.
  Mr. Chair, I would love to work with the gentlewoman on issues like 
this when this bill does not pass the Senate and is signed into law and 
we can work together in a bipartisan way. I will continue to show 
bipartisanship. I congratulate and welcome the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis) for his comments and for his support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), 
my colleague.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this just goes to show how lucky we are 
that someone with the background of Congresswoman Spanberger has been 
elected to the House. With her background in the CIA, we gain a special 
expertise on issues of national security.
  You know, States don't have a CIA, they don't have an NSA, and if 
foreign actors are attacking us, they are not in a position to find 
that out.
  I think that the gentlewoman from Virginia understands the workings 
of our national security agencies and the importance of giving them 
metrics on what to do and with whom so that we are completely safe.
  Mr. Chair, I am so delighted that she has offered this very smart 
amendment, and I look forward to approving it, and I thank her so much 
for the wisdom that she brings to the House.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, again, let the Record 
show I was for the amendment once again before the chairperson. I 
should get kudos.
  Listen, this is a good amendment. I congratulate the gentlewoman on 
her election, being a Member of Congress, and helping to legislate and 
participate.
  I also want to use a few seconds to really highlight the work of our 
intelligence officials in the administration and our Department of 
Homeland Security, especially Secretary Nielsen and her team, working 
with our local officials in Illinois before the last election to ensure 
that there was no nefarious activity that could have come about in our 
home State.
  Our home State election officials got a lot of accolades from the 
Department of Homeland Security, and I think the Department of Homeland 
Security and their team, especially Secretary Nielsen, deserve the 
accolades, also.
  So, with that, I am ready to close. I congratulate Ms. Spanberger.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman yields back.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. May I reclaim my time, Mr. Chair?
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. May I reclaim my time?
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois and the 
gentlewoman from Virginia both reclaim their time.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Virginia is recognized.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Actually, I want to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois 
and the remarks of the gentlewoman from California in congratulating 
Congresswoman Spanberger on this excellent amendment and emphasizing, 
as they did, how lucky we are to have the benefit of the expertise that 
is brought to this Chamber by Congresswoman Spanberger, based on her 
national security experience. We need to maximize what people can offer 
here, and this amendment is a perfect example of that.
  There is increasing anxiety out there among the populace about these 
attempts to hack into our election infrastructure. This measure will 
make sure that we are all on alert to that. I thank the gentlewoman for 
the amendment.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have 
left?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am having a lot of fun 
down here, but I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 69 Offered by Ms. Slotkin

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-16.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 323, insert after line 6 the following:

     SEC. 4103. DISBURSEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO FOREIGN 
                   MONEY BAN.

       (a) Disbursements Described.--Section 319(a)(1) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign

[[Page H2569]]

     Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) an expenditure;
       ``(D) an independent expenditure;
       ``(E) a disbursement for an electioneering communication 
     (within the meaning of section 304(f)(3));
       ``(F) a disbursement for a paid internet or paid digital 
     communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate 
     for election for Federal office and is disseminated within 60 
     days before a general, special or runoff election for the 
     office sought by the candidate or 30 days before a primary or 
     preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political 
     party that has authority to nominate a candidate for the 
     office sought by the candidate;
       ``(G) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable or satellite 
     communication, or for a paid internet or paid digital 
     communication, that promotes, supports, attacks or opposes 
     the election of a clearly identified candidate for Federal, 
     State, or local office (regardless of whether the 
     communication contains express advocacy or the functional 
     equivalent of express advocacy); or
       ``(H) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication, or for a paid internet or paid digital 
     communication, that discusses a national legislative issue of 
     public importance in year in which a regularly scheduled 
     general election for Federal office is held and is made for 
     the purpose of influencing an election held during that year, 
     but only if the disbursement is made by a foreign principal 
     who is a government of a foreign country or a foreign 
     political party or an agent of such a foreign principal under 
     the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to disbursements made on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, the legislation before us today, the For the 
People Act of 2019, represents a major step forward toward improving 
government transparency and accountability, expanding voting rights, 
and draining the corrosive influence of money in our politics.
  These are the very issues I hear about over and over again as I 
travel across my district in mid-Michigan, and these are the issues 
that my constituents sent me to Washington to address.
  Simply put, people in Michigan and across the country know in their 
bones that the current system isn't working and want a return to 
honesty and decency in our politics. Passing H.R. 1 is a huge step 
forward in increasing confidence in our system.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment today would add important provisions to close 
a loophole in our current campaign finance laws that allows foreign 
governments and foreign nationals to influence American elections 
through campaign ads. Right now, a foreign entity can legally buy an ad 
through social media that supports or attacks a candidate. Right now, a 
foreign entity can legally purchase an ad that focuses on an issue of 
legislative importance.
  My amendment would close this loophole by implementing new 
requirements to ensure that foreign governments don't influence our 
elections.
  The amendment specifically would prohibit a foreign entity from 
buying a campaign ad, on digital media or on TV, that supports or 
attacks a candidate or an ad that focuses on an issue that is meant to 
divide us rather than unite us.
  Mr. Chair, I am a former CIA officer, a former Pentagon official. I 
have spent my life preventing homeland attacks and preserving the 
democratic system that we all love. I am introducing this amendment 
because the attempts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections 
targeted vulnerable voters and took advantage of the lack of disclosure 
in our laws. During the 2016 election in my home State of Michigan, we 
were specifically targeted and witnessed disturbing evidence of Russian 
interference in our elections.
  It is important to remember what we are talking about. These ads, 
which I have a bunch printed out over here, purposely divide us. They 
sow discord. They target ethnic groups. And they generally attempt to 
influence American elections.
  Some may say that these ads were a relatively small number of the ads 
in our elections and that it is a relatively meager investment. As 
defenders of American interests and our national security, we must 
ensure that our laws do not allow this to happen at any level.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing: Support preservation of 
the American democracy. Reject foreign influence in our elections.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, 
although I am going to do the right thing and not oppose this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I know our time together 
tonight is winding down. This, I think, is the last amendment we are 
going to debate tonight.
  I thank Ms. Slotkin for her amendment and thank her for her service 
to our country. It is a pleasure to be able to serve in this great 
institution with the gentlewoman.
  As I said, I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. 
Congratulations. I certainly wish this would be part of something that 
could go into law, because this bill is not going to go into law. I 
certainly look forward to working with her to address these issues as 
we move forward.
  Congratulations, and I thank the gentlewoman again for her service 
here now.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding her 
time, and I also congratulate her on this amendment and her service 
here in the House and contributing her expertise, again, as I said a 
moment ago with respect to our other colleague. Providing her insight 
and her experience here in shaping these amendments and making our 
legislation stronger is absolutely valuable. We need to make our 
democracy more resilient.
  The gentlewoman made the point that too often now these foreign 
adversaries can get into our politics and sow discord. The way we push 
back at that is by putting our antenna out, our radar, making sure we 
are keeping that kind of spending out of our politics. That is exactly 
what the gentlewoman's amendment does. I thank her for it. I support 
it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Well, I would be remiss to not thank my 
colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for being a cosponsor of this 
amendment. We have had some lively discussions back and forth. My 
apologies. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this amendment, 
too.
  I am ready to close, but congratulations once again to Ms. Slotkin.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I look forward to working across the aisle on 
this important amendment. I think it is not a partisan issue. It is an 
American issue. I look forward to talking with my Republican colleagues 
about how we can break this thing off and turn it into law.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLOTKIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I join in the celebration of the new Members 
of this House of Representatives. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 
experience in preserving our national security. Not everyone who is 
here serving has done what she has done, and the gentlewoman who 
preceded her.

  Our body is richer because of the experience that they have brought 
to this Congress, and I think this excellent amendment really is a 
product of the expertise that she brings to this institution.
  I am grateful for her amendment. I look forward to joining the 
ranking member in approving it and in celebrating her service to our 
country here in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a 
list of groups such as the Hispanic Leadership Fund, The LIBRE 
Initiative, Americans for Tax Reform, Coalition to Reduce Spending, the 
National Right to Life, Heritage Action for America, and the Chamber of 
Commerce and several

[[Page H2570]]

letters in opposition to H.R. 1, obviously, or I don't think I would be 
entering them into the Record.

       The following organizations oppose H.R. 1:
       ACLU
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce along with over 300 Chamber's of 
     Commerce and industry groups
       Freedom Works
       National Right to Life
       Heritage Action for America
       Republican National Lawyers Association
       March for Life Action
       Conservative Action Project
       Club for Growth
       Americans for Tax Reform
       National Taxpayers Union
       Coalition to Reduce Spending
       Americans for Prosperity
       The LIBRE Initiative
       Concerned Veterans for America
       Faith and Freedom Coalition
       Hispanic Leadership Fund
       National Association for Gun Rights
       Goldwater Institute
       American Bankers Association
       Agricultural Retailers Association
       American Petroleum Institute
       National Grocers Association
       Associated Builders and Contractors
       National Association of Manufacturers
       Insurance Associates, Inc.
       Airlines for America
                                  ____

                                            National Right to Life


                                               Committee, Inc.

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 2019.
     Re H.R. 1, the so-called ``For the People Act of 2019''.

       Dear Representative: The National Right to Life Committee 
     (NRLC), representing state right-to-life organizations 
     nationwide, urges you to oppose the so-called ``For the 
     People Act of 2019'' (H.R. 1), introduced by Rep. John 
     Sarbanes.
       This legislation has been carefully crafted to maximize 
     short-term political benefits for the dominant faction of one 
     political party, while running roughshod over the First 
     Amendment protections for political speech that have been 
     clearly and forcefully articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court 
     in a series of landmark First Amendment rulings, culminating 
     in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) and 
     Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n, 558 U.S. 310 
     (2010).
       Because this legislation would severely impede the exercise 
     of our organization's constitutional rights, and the rights 
     and privacy of our donors and supporters, NRLC intends to 
     include any roll call that occurs on H.R. 1 in our scorecard 
     of key roll calls of the 116th Congress:
       Enactment of H.R. 1 would not be a curb on corruption, but 
     is itself a type of corruption--an abuse of the lawmaking 
     power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of 
     criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the 
     amount of private speech regarding the actions of the 
     lawmakers themselves. Further, this legislation would add a 
     commissioner to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), 
     causing a partisan takeover by significantly increasing the 
     likelihood that the agency could make decisions benefiting 
     the political party in power.


                      The true purposes of H.R. 1

       Our organization's name and contact information always 
     appear on our public communications, and we openly proclaim 
     the public policies that we advocate. But there is very 
     little in this bill, despite the pretenses, that is actually 
     intended to provide useful or necessary information to the 
     public. The overriding purpose is precisely the opposite: To 
     discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as 
     National Right to Life) from communicating about 
     officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts 
     to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering 
     organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and 
     reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and 
     criminal sanctions.


                Speech-restrictive provisions of H.R. 1

       The bill would codify, in Section 324, a vague and 
     expansive definition of ``the functional equivalent of 
     express advocacy,'' that applies to communications that 
     ``when taken as a whole, it can be interpreted by a 
     reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat 
     of a candidate for election for Federal office.'' There is 
     little that an organization could say by way of commentary on 
     the votes or positions taken by an incumbent member of 
     Congress that would not fall within this expansive 
     definition, in the eyes of some ``reasonable person''--most 
     often, an annoyed incumbent lawmaker or his operatives.
       The time periods over which the government would have 
     authority to regulate speech about those who hold or seek 
     federal office--so-called ``electioneering communications''--
     would be dramatically expanded under H.R. 1.
       H.R. 1 also contains additional provisions that would place 
     an unacceptable burden on the exercise of First Amendment 
     rights. H.R. 1 mandates burdensome disclaimers on television, 
     radio, and online advertisements that are likely to bury the 
     substantive message and make some advertising, especially 
     online, functionally impossible.


                      Partisan Takeover of the FEC

       In title VI, H.R. 1 would destroy the FEC's long-standing 
     bipartisan structure. Proponents claim that the provision is 
     aimed at ending ``frequent deadlocks,'' but this is a sham 
     argument leading down a dangerous road.
       In the excellent piece by the Institute for Free Speech 
     (IFS), titled ``Establishing a Campaign Speech Czar and 
     Enabling Partisan Enforcement: An Altered FEC Structure Poses 
     Risks to First Amendment Speech Rights'' issued on January 
     31, Brad Smith comments,
       But, in fact, tie votes have always been a small percentage 
     of FEC votes. Historically, they have totaled approximately 
     one percent to four percent of Commission votes on 
     enforcement matters. . . . Although critics claim that tie-
     votes sap the FEC's ability to enforce campaign finance laws, 
     in fact, it is assuredly the opposite. The only reason that 
     the FEC has any legitimacy is its bipartisan makeup. 
     Particularly in the current environment, it is inconceivable 
     that an agency empowered to make prosecutorial decisions 
     about the legality of campaign tactics, communications, 
     funding, and activities on a straight party-line vote would 
     have any legitimacy.


                          Disclosure of Donors

       Our members and supporters have a right to support our 
     public advocacy about important and controversial issues 
     without having their identifying information posted online, 
     exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may 
     disagree with their beliefs.
       In an additional piece from the IFS, titled ``For the 
     People Act'' Replete with Provisions for the Politicians, by 
     Eric Wang, issued on January 23 he writes,
       The right to associate oneself with a nonprofit group's 
     mission and to support the group financially in private is a 
     bedrock principle of the First Amendment that the government 
     may not abridge casually. This is particularly true when the 
     cause is contentious, such as abortion, gun control, LGBTQ 
     rights, or civil rights, and association with either side on 
     any of these issues may subject a member or donor to 
     retaliation, harassment, threats, and even physical attack, 
     as recent events have tragically reminded us. The potential 
     divisiveness of these issues does not diminish their social 
     importance and the need to hash out these debates in public 
     while preserving donors' privacy.
       It should be self-evident that the real purpose of such 
     burdensome requirements is not to inform the public, but to 
     deter potential donors from financially supporting the work 
     of groups such as National Right to Life in the first place.
       We strongly urge you to oppose this pernicious, 
     unprincipled, and constitutionally defective legislation. In 
     our scorecard and advocacy materials, the legislation will be 
     accurately characterized as a blatant political attack on the 
     First Amendment rights of National Right to Life, our state 
     affiliates, and our members and donors.
           Sincerely,
     Carol Tobias,
       President.
     David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.,
       Executive Director.
     Jennifer Popik, J.D.,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                                    March 5, 2019.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of March for Life Action and 
     the millions of pro-life Americans who march to end abortion, 
     I am writing to voice our opposition to H.R. 1, the 
     misnomered ``For the People Act of 2019.'' Many aspects of 
     the bill seek to put an undue burden on organizations and 
     individuals who speak out for the unborn--discouraging these 
     people from participating in the political process. When H.R. 
     1 reaches the House floor March for Life Action will score a 
     ``yes'' vote negatively in our scorecard for the First 
     Session of the 116th Congress.
       H.R. 1 would regulate a new category of speech--
     communications that ``promote,'' ``attack,'' ``support,'' or 
     ``oppose'' (``PASO'') federal candidates and elected 
     officials. Under this broad and vague standard, groups that 
     merely speak about federal legislation or policy issues could 
     be forced to file FEC reports that they did not have to file 
     before. This is conflicting to Supreme Court precedent 
     limiting the regulation of speech to communications that 
     could have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the 
     election or defeat of a candidate.
       The main beneficiaries of H.R. 1 would be incumbent 
     politicians and campaign finance attorneys while those who 
     would suffer most would be grassroots activists. The 
     legislation would greatly increase the already onerous legal 
     and administrative compliance costs, liability risk, and 
     costs to donor and associational privacy for public groups 
     that help inform citizens speak about policy issues and 
     politicians. Instead of being able to inform the public 
     organizations will have to divert resources away from their 
     advocacy activities to pay for compliance staff and lawyers. 
     Some groups will not be able to afford these costs or will 
     violate the law unwittingly. Less speech by private citizens 
     and organizations means politicians will be able to act with 
     less accountability to public opinion and criticism.
       When our great nation's founders articulated the rights of 
     Americans, they not only included the right to life but also 
     the right to free speech. As those who speak up for the 
     unborn, we uniquely combine those two rights. H.R. 1 would 
     take away one of those rights, the freedom of speech, making 
     it almost impossible for us to speak up for those

[[Page H2571]]

     who cannot speak for themselves. For these reasons, March for 
     Life Action will score against the legislation our annual 
     scorecard for the First Session of the 116th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Thomas McClusky,
     President, March for Life Action.
                                  ____



                                  Heritage Action for America,

                                                    March 6, 2019.


        KEY VOTE: ``NO'' ON THE ``FOR THE PEOPLE ACT'' (H.R. 1)

   Heritage Action opposes the For The People Act (H.R. 1) and will 
         include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

       This week, the House will vote on H.R. 1, the ``For The 
     People Act.'' Lawmakers should not let this legislation's 
     misleading name fool them--it is comprised of 
     unconstitutional and ill-advised policy mandates that the 
     Democratic Party would use to hijack America's election 
     processes. H.R. 1 is a very long, complex bill that is a 
     liberal wish list of ``reforms'' ranging from voter 
     registration and elections to campaign finance, lobbying, and 
     judicial ethics.
       Free and fair elections are the bedrock of American 
     government. They are fundamental to our way of life and 
     confidence in our representative system. H.R. 1 cloaks itself 
     in the guise of transparency and fairness but in reality is a 
     partisan scheme to choke off dissent and squelch Republican 
     candidates and conservative political voices. This bill is 
     aptly ``renamed'' by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 
     as the ``Democrat Politician Protection Act.'' It is an 
     unprecedented attempt to seize control of elections through 
     federal government power.
       This fundamentally flawed legislation establishes a new 
     taxpayer-funded bailout of political campaigns, weaponizes 
     the Federal Elections Commission by destroying the current 
     bipartisan makeup, and creates a new, subjective category of 
     ``campaign-related'' speech that is regulated by Washington 
     bureaucrats who are empowered to enforce these regulations 
     with penalties and censorship.
       According to The Heritage Foundation, H.R. 1 would 
     implement the following changes:
       1. Makes it easier to commit fraud and promotes chaos at 
     the polls through same-day registration, as election 
     officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter 
     registration information and cannot anticipate the number of 
     voters, ballots, and precinct workers that will be needed to 
     ensure a safe and secure election process.
       2. Degrades the accuracy of registration lists by 
     automatically registering individuals from state databases, 
     such as DMV and welfare offices, which provides an 
     opportunity to register large numbers of ineligible voters, 
     including aliens as well as multiple or duplicate 
     registrations of the same individuals.
       3. Constitutes a recipe for massive voter registration 
     fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter 
     registration not tied to an existing state record, such as a 
     driver's license.
       4. Requires states to count ballots cast by voters outside 
     of their assigned precinct, overriding the precinct system 
     used by almost all states that allows election officials to 
     monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, 
     and prevent election fraud.
       5. Prevents election officials from checking the 
     eligibility and qualifications of voters and from removing 
     ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the 
     U.S. Postal Service's national change-of-address system to 
     verify the address of registered voters; participating in 
     state programs that compare voter registration lists to 
     detect individuals registered in multiple states; or ever 
     removing registrants due to a failure to vote.
       6. Cripples the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by 
     allowing individuals to vote without an ID and to merely sign 
     a statement in which they claim they are who they say they 
     are.
       7. Expands regulation and government censorship of 
     campaigns and political activity and speech, including online 
     and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 imposes onerous legal and 
     administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, 
     citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit 
     organizations.
       8. Requires states to unconstitutionally restore the 
     ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison. 
     Section 2 of the 14th Amendment gives states the 
     constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed 
     crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress 
     cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
       9. Transfers the right to draw congressional districts from 
     state legislatures to``independent'' commissions whose 
     members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 makes it a 
     violation of federal law to engage in ``partisan'' 
     redistricting and mandates inclusion of alien population, 
     both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an 
     anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that takes away the 
     ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decision 
     about redistricting.
       10. Violates separation of powers and directly interfere 
     with the President's constitutional duties. H.R. 1 bans his 
     political appointees, such as the Attorney General, from 
     participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in 
     any matter (including lawsuits against a President's 
     policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of 
     the law) in which the President is named as a party.''
       Although Democrats are promoting H.R. 1 as a bill that 
     would ``strengthen our democracy and return political power 
     to the people'', it is an anti-democratic bill that would 
     wreak havoc on our election system by manipulating election 
     rules in favor of Democrats. It is nothing but a progressive 
     power grab and Heritage Action urges all House Members to 
     vote against it.
       Heritage Action opposes the For the People Act (H.R. 1) and 
     will include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I am not going to oppose this 
amendment, and it has been great debating with the other side tonight. 
I look forward to a livelier debate tomorrow.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the spirit of the gentleman from 
Illinois and look forward to working with everyone.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Hill of California) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) to 
expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big 
money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________