FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 42
(House of Representatives - March 08, 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 H2591-H2602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Underwood). 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 gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  0917


                     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 Ms. DeGette (Acting 
Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
March 7, 2019, amendment No. 69 printed in part B of House Report 116-
16 offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) had been 
disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Neguse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70 
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title I of the bill, insert the 
     following:

                  PART 8--VOTER REGISTRATION OF MINORS

     SEC. 1081. ACCEPTANCE OF VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS FROM 
                   INDIVIDUALS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) Acceptance of Applications.--Section 8 of the National 
     Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20507) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (k), as redesignated by 
     section 1004, as subsection (l); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (j), as inserted by such 
     section 1004, the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Acceptance of Applications From Individuals Under 18 
     Years of Age.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may not refuse to accept or 
     process an individual's application to register to vote in 
     elections for Federal office on the grounds that the 
     individual is under 18 years of age at the time the 
     individual submits the application, so long as the individual 
     is at least 16 years of age at such time.
       ``(2) No effect on state voting age requirements.--Nothing 
     in paragraph (1) may be construed to require a State to 
     permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time 
     of an election for Federal office to vote in the election.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring on or after 
     January 1, 2020.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I am proud to offer an amendment today to 
ensure early registration, or pre-registration, for all 16- and 17-
year-olds

[[Page H2592]]

across the country ahead of their 18th birthday.
  To be clear, my amendment does not lower the voting age; it simply 
allows individuals to pre-register so they are registered and ready to 
vote when they turn 18.
  Today, 14 States, including my home State, the great State of 
Colorado, as well as the District of Columbia, permit pre-registration 
beginning at 16 years old. Four States permit pre-registration 
beginning at 17 years old, and five other States allow for pre-
registration a few months ahead of voters' 18th birthday.
  States across the Nation are taking up pre-registration to integrate 
young people in the democratic process early, and I think it is time 
for us to take up these reforms at the Federal level.
  We see young people interacting with the government agencies most 
frequently when they are 16 and getting their driver's license or 
learner's permit. This is common sense to allow our young folks to 
register early when they are already at the Department of Motor 
Vehicles in their respective State, where voter registration services 
are typically offered, to ensure that when they turn 18, they have no 
barriers to casting their ballot on election day.
  Madam Chair, the foundation of our democracy is built on the ability 
of our citizens to vote. We must hold this right precious and sacred, 
and we must encourage, in my view, our citizens of every age, from 
every background and every locality and every local party to engage in 
our political process. Pre-registration helps us do that by investing 
in our next generation and by encouraging democratic participation from 
an early age.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my new colleague, 
Mr. Neguse, and welcome him. I am glad he is participating in the 
process.
  I am going to oppose the gentleman's amendment; not because of the 
process, just because it adds another layer of burden to our States and 
our localities.
  Many States already accept pre-registration forms, and that is within 
their State's jurisdiction to do so. I just don't like this top-down 
approach which this now upwards of 700-page mammoth bill called H.R. 1 
is putting on to our States and our local election officials.
  Our county offices, our local officials, they are bleeding from 
unfunded mandates from State and Federal Governments, and this is one 
more of those.
  I agree, we ought to get more 16- and 17-year-olds interested in 
government. I have got twin boys who are 18; I try and get them 
interested. Sometimes they are not even interested in me and what we 
do.
  But the key is we, as Members of Congress, ought to go take our 
message to the high schools. And I just recently was in Boston with a 
bipartisan group in and around our colleague, Joe Kennedy's district.
  Joe, Markwayne Mullin, and Lisa Blunt Rochester and I, we visited 
numerous high schools. And I hope all four of us standing there in a 
bipartisan way actually inspired some young people in the Boston area 
to get engaged.
  My colleague,   Jimmy Panetta and I visited schools in my district 
last fall to do the exact same thing, to show people that we can work 
together in a bipartisan way.
  Unfortunately, this process in H.R. 1 has been nothing but partisan; 
and that is not the message that we need to send to 16- and 17-year-
olds.
  I have put my hand out with an olive branch. I have accepted many 
Democratic amendments throughout the last few days, and not one single 
amendment, either in the markup of the only committee that marked this 
bill up, House Administration, where we offered 28, not one Republican 
amendment to this bill that is now 700 pages has been accepted. Every 
amendment has been a Democrat-led amendment.
  I thought the new Democratic majority was going to be bipartisan. I 
thought the new Democratic majority was going to be transparent. I 
thought the new Democratic majority was going to not work with special 
interests to write mammoth 700-page bills. But I guess, Madam Chair, I 
was mistaken.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from the other side of 
the aisle for his thoughtful comments. I would say that I think this 
amendment is a bipartisan amendment in the sense that it will apply 
equally to every 16- and 17-year-old across the country, irrespective 
of their political affiliation.
  In Colorado actually, in some months we have had more Republican 16- 
and 17-year-olds pre-register than Democrat 16- and 17-year-olds. So 
really what this is all about is just ensuring that young folks in our 
country are able to integrate into the political process and engage in 
their civic duties at an earlier age.
  From my perspective--I appreciate the gentleman's comments with 
respect to visiting high schools. I certainly do that quite a bit in my 
district, to meet with young folks, to talk to them about how to become 
better citizens and engaged in their community. And often the question 
I get is, How? And I think this is a great answer.
  The ability to say to them that if they go, when they get their 
driver's license, and pre-register to vote so that, ultimately, when 
they turn 18 they are automatically registered and ready to participate 
in our elections; I think that, at the end of the day, it will do a 
great service to our country and get more young people involved in our 
political process.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren), a distinguished colleague and the chair of our Immigration 
Subcommittee and, of course, the chair of the House Administration 
Committee. Ms. Lofgren.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I just want to express my thanks to the 
gentleman from Colorado for offering this refining amendment. I think 
he is exactly right. In order to fully engage the American people, we 
need to make every effort for them to participate.
  And for young people who feel that they really don't have a say, 
allowing them to pre-register helps them buy in to our American system 
of government.
  You know, somebody on the other side of the building said, well, this 
is a power grab, to make sure that--H.R. 1 is a power grab. It is. It 
is a power grab for the American people, to take the power away from 
the special interests and give it to the American people. The 
gentleman's amendment helps further that worthy goal, and I thank him 
for offering it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. 
Neguse, again. I admire his tenacity, and admire his willingness to 
come down and legislate. I stand ready to come to his district and talk 
to high schoolers with him, and I would hope he would reciprocate, come 
to mine. If the gentleman will have his team call mine, we will figure 
out a way to work something out. I think that is the best way for us to 
send a message to high schoolers to get them engaged, get them 
involved.
  This is just an administrative burden that is going to affect our 
State and local officials. To process--I mean, there are provisions in 
this 700-page mammoth bill that don't allow our local election 
officials to clean voters off the rolls that they know no longer may 
live in their jurisdiction. So we are hindering local officials' 
ability to clean up their rolls; and then decide, you know, later on, 
that we are going to be ahead and pre-register people that we don't 
know, may or may not want to vote in their college town of residence.
  So it just is a burden that I think is unnecessary. Although, again, 
I respect the gentleman's willingness to come down here and debate; 
this is an issue that goes further than Mr. Neguse's amendment.
  I am going to oppose the amendment. I urge folks to vote ``no'' on 
it. But more importantly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
bill that is going to eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars and 
add billions upon billions to the campaign coffers of Members of 
Congress. That is not what the taxpayers in my district are asking

[[Page H2593]]

for. It is not what the taxpayers of America are asking for. It is only 
what the Democratic majority is asking for.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I certainly will take my colleague up on his 
invitation, and look forward to visiting his district and having him 
come to Boulder and Fort Collins, where I know there are plenty of 16- 
and 17-year-olds who are very eager to be able to advocate for other 
young folks to be able to pre-register in other States, as they have 
been able to in Colorado, thanks to the incredible election reforms 
that we have enacted in our State.
  I understand that we have a respectful disagreement with respect to 
the merits of the underlying bill, but I would hope that, on this 
particular amendment that is not particularly controversial and that, 
as I said, is really a nonpartisan approach to just getting young folks 
of all political affiliations involved in our political process.
  I would hope and trust that colleagues in both parties here in this 
Chamber would think about this amendment thoughtfully, and I would 
certainly urge them to support it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, we know this bill is not 
going to be signed into law. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman on other amendments that we might be able to come up with 
some good plans to engage our 16- and 17-year-olds, engage the next 
generation of leaders.
  I hope maybe a visit that we can do together could inspire somebody 
to do what we do one day, and that would be that we would manage to 
call ourselves successful in legislating to inspire the next 
generation.
  This bill, H.R. 1, is not going to inspire the next generation. I 
appreciate Mr. Neguse; I appreciate his willingness to serve.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mrs. Kirkpatrick

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71 
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, 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 365, strike lines 15 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(6) Safe harbor for platforms making best efforts to 
     identify requests which are subject to record maintenance 
     requirements.--
       ``(A) Availability of safe harbor.--In accordance with 
     rules established by the Commission, if an online platform 
     shows that the platform used best efforts to determine 
     whether or not a request to purchase a qualified political 
     advertisement was subject to the requirements of this 
     subsection, the online platform shall not be considered to be 
     in violation of such requirements.
       ``(B) Special rules for disbursement paid with credit 
     card.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), an online platform 
     shall be considered to have used best efforts in the case of 
     a purchase of a qualified political advertisement which is 
     made with a credit card if--
       ``(i) the individual or entity making such purchase is 
     required, at the time of making such purchase, to disclose 
     the credit verification value of such credit card; and
       ``(ii) the billing address associated with such credit card 
     is located in the United States or, in the case of a purchase 
     made by an individual who is a United States citizen living 
     outside of the United States, the individual provides the 
     online platform with the United States mailing address the 
     individual uses for voter registration purposes.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, I strongly support H.R. 1, and I 
commend Congressman   John Sarbanes for his persistent work on this 
legislation. We have an opportunity here to reduce the role of dark 
money in politics and make it easier for Americans to participate in 
our democracy.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is an American democracy issue, 
and H.R. 1 is the best solution to cleaning up corruption in 
Washington.
  I am proud of my colleagues for working on this historic and 
necessary package.

                              {time}  0930

  You see, Madam Chair, I ran as a publicly funded candidate in Arizona 
under our public financing law called Clean Elections when I first ran 
for the legislature. This meant I had to go out and get a certain 
number of $5 contributions from constituents in my district, which I 
then turned in to get my public financing.
  It was the same for everyone who was running as a Clean Election 
candidate, regardless of party. It equalized everything.
  One of my favorite stories is that I was walking from my law office 
down to the post office to check my mail, and this cowboy pulled up in 
his pickup truck at a stoplight and rolled down the window, and he 
said, ``Hey, Ann. You don't know me, but I gave you $5.''
  So he felt empowered in my election. I walked over, and we had a 
conversation in the middle of the street.
  That is the way it should be. This puts power in the pocket of the 
people, not special interests, and that is the way it should be.
  It is the For the People Act, and that empowers people, and that 
makes our democracy work.
  I offer my amendment because it creates transparency in the process. 
This amendment was actually suggested by a Republican colleague. It 
requires the disclosure of credit card verification value and billing 
address information for purchases of online advertising. The credit 
card verification value is an antifraud security technology designed to 
protect us and to reduce fraudulent activity.
  We know that there are bad actors and foreign nationals out there 
that have an interest in influencing our American elections through 
online advertising. Haven't we seen that very, very well in the last 
couple of years. We have loopholes that allow them to do so, but we can 
fix that. Not only can we fix it, we must fix it.
  This amendment is a commonsense solution to help protect the 
integrity of our elections and prevent bad players from compromising 
our outcomes. This amendment is focused on protecting our democracy 
through transparency in the digital age.
  Madam Chair, I urge you and all my colleagues to support my amendment 
and the entire H.R. 1 package to clean up Washington and put the 
American people first.
  Remember that cowboy who stopped me in the middle of the road who 
felt like he was empowered in his election and in his selection of his 
representative. That is the way it should be.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I welcome back my 
colleague, Mrs. Kirkpatrick. It is great to have her back in this 
institution.
  The gentlewoman's amendment is an amendment that I support. However, 
the underlying bill, H.R. 1, is the furthest thing that can be 
considered ``for the people.'' This bill is nothing but a bill that is 
for loading billions upon billions of dollars into the coffers of 
Members of Congress.
  I don't think anybody in my district who stops me in the street is 
saying, ``Hey, we want you to take taxpayer dollars away from investing 
in infrastructure, take taxpayer dollars away from investing in 
pediatric cancer research, and you know what, load up your campaign 
coffers with that so you can go enrich some political operatives and 
maybe buy some more TV commercials and radio ads, send some more mail 
pieces that get thrown away immediately when they come into your 
house.''

[[Page H2594]]

  This has to be one of the worst examples of self-preservation that I 
have ever witnessed in my 22 years working for the U.S. House of 
Representatives and serving in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  I can't think of one person in my district who has come up and said, 
``I want you to take tax dollars away from building bridges and roads, 
finding cures for deadly diseases, and put it in your campaign fund.''
  That is why this bill is terrible.
  This bill has not been open; it has not been a bipartisan process; it 
has not been regular order, all the things that the Democratic majority 
promised us that they would do when they took over.
  This bill was introduced on January 3. I certainly hope every 
Democratic Member actually read the bill before they signed on as a 
cosponsor, but I think they are reading it now. And there are a lot of 
problems, which is why we have so many amendments.
  Let me go through some of the process. We requested a CBO score--it 
was delivered last Friday; it was updated yesterday--which actually 
agrees with me that taxpayer dollars are going to be taken away from 
other priorities that we can spend here in Congress, like roads and 
bridges, cancer research, Alzheimer's research, and others, and go 
toward Members of Congress' campaigns.
  Hours before the only committee markup that we saw with the majority, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute with new text, including a 
magical, new freedom from influence fund that would supposedly support 
the enrichment of Members of Congress' campaigns, it had no details on 
how that fund would be filled.
  We went through the markup. Only one committee, the smallest 
committee in Congress, House Administration, it was the only committee 
that marked this up. That is not regular order. Forty percent of the 
bill has never gone through regular order.
  Yet we see now 72 amendments over the last few days. Twenty-eight of 
them that we offered to try to make the bill better in committee were 
all turned down on a partisan roll call.
  Then we went to Rules. I actually had a good time in Rules. I have to 
thank my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren, for that debate during the 
Rules Committee.
  We again received new text of the bill 10 minutes before I walked in, 
10 minutes before, including 51 new pages. Where was this in the markup 
process?

  After the Rules hearing and before consideration on the floor, we 
learned through leaks to the press that the new freedom from influence 
fund would be filled with some magical surcharges of corporate fines, 
but we had no details.
  I had no idea that the Democrats' solution to campaign finance reform 
and their goal to take corporate money out of politics was to use 
corporate money to now fund our campaigns, which we now legally cannot 
accept.
  That is the height of hypocrisy. No one is asking for more corporate 
dollars to line the campaign coffers of Members of Congress.
  This bill and the process are just a sham. Look, a joint committee 
report with revenue stream projections for this new magical freedom 
from influence fund was not shown to us. It was just submitted for the 
Record. We found it. We saw it.
  The new CBO report clearly says this fund will be out of money in 
just a few years after it becomes activated, because the costs are 
going to exponentially rise, and clearly, taxpayer dollars will have to 
bail it out.
  The corporate fund, even the CBO and The Washington Post realize that 
that corporate tax fund, the tax rate of corporate dollars now being 
funneled into our campaigns that we can't take right now, those 
corporate dollars and fines will take away from being able to be spent 
on the priorities of my constituents who stop me in the streets. They 
say, ``We want to build new bridges. We want new roadways. We want to 
make sure that this bill goes down, because it is a travesty on the 
American people and the American taxpayer.''
  Madam Chair, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, while I have the utmost respect and 
admiration for my colleague across the aisle--in fact, he is one of my 
favorite Members of Congress--I strongly disagree with his 
characterization of H.R. 1.
  No one knows more than I about dark money, secret money being spent 
in elections. I have had tens of millions of dollars spent to defeat 
me, yet I prevail because I have the power of the people.
  That is what this bill does. It empowers people just like that cowboy 
who stopped me with his pickup and contributed $5 to my legislative 
election.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this election. There is 
nothing more important than elections in our democracy and empowering 
the people to participate, nothing. That is the cornerstone of our 
democracy.
  Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), my esteemed colleague.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Kirkpatrick) on this very smart amendment. I am not surprised. It 
is typical that she would make this a bipartisan amendment. It is very 
helpful. It is very smart. I am glad that she is back here in Congress 
to show this leadership.
  Just one word on the CBO: It shows that there is indeed no tax money 
involved in the freedom from influence fund.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Golden

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72 
printed in part B of House Report 116-16.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to introduce my amendment to 
H.R. 1.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 449, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(c) Prohibiting Certain Candidates From Qualifying as 
     Participating Candidates.--
       ``(1) Candidates with multiple civil penalties.--If the 
     Commission assesses 3 or more civil penalties under 
     subsection (a) against a candidate (with respect to either a 
     single election or multiple elections), the Commission may 
     refuse to certify the candidate as a participating candidate 
     under this title with respect to any subsequent election, 
     except that if each of the penalties were assessed as the 
     result of a knowing and willful violation of any provision of 
     this Act, the candidate is not eligible to be certified as a 
     participating candidate under this title with respect to any 
     subsequent election.
       ``(2) Candidates subject to criminal penalty.--A candidate 
     is not eligible to be certified as a participating candidate 
     under this title with respect to an election if a penalty has 
     been assessed against the candidate under section 309(d) with 
     respect to any previous election.
       ``(d) Imposition of Criminal Penalties.--For criminal 
     penalties for the failure of a participating candidate to 
     comply with the requirements of this title, see section 
     309(d).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 172, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, before I talk about my amendment, I would 
first like to thank Congressman Sarbanes for his work on this bill.
  H.R. 1 is a comprehensive, good government bill that goes a long way 
in wresting power away from elites who abuse our political system for 
narrow self-interests. This legislation would return power where it 
belongs: in the hands of working people.
  As long as corporations and mega-donors finance campaigns, well-
connected insiders will continue to call the shots.
  Mainers have seen firsthand what can happen when the power is 
returned to the people. In 1996, our State's voters passed a referendum 
establishing the Maine Clean Elections Act.
  By collecting small donations from people in their communities, Maine 
candidates refuse the donations of lobbyists and the well-heeled, and 
concentrate instead on face-to-face conversations with their neighbors. 
This empowers a community to choose a representative in a battle of 
ideas instead of a battle of bank accounts.
  Maine's clean election reforms have been supported and used by 
candidates of all parties in my State. Republican,

[[Page H2595]]

Democratic, Green Party, and independent candidates have used our clean 
election system.
  In fact, in 2018, a Republican candidate for Governor used the system 
because he understood that it was going to free him up to spend his 
time going door to door and talking to the very people who he wanted to 
represent as Governor of the State of Maine.
  Today, we have the opportunity to follow Maine's lead and bring 
needed reform to the rest of the country.
  H.R. 1 allows candidates to refuse donations from mega-donors by 
implementing a matching system for small-dollar donations from everyday 
people.
  As we have seen in Maine, candidates who use this system are good 
stewards of the funds they receive. But as with any system, there is 
potential for bad actors, and it is important that they be held 
accountable.
  My amendment to H.R. 1 ensures that any bad actors are cut off from 
the matching system and sets high standards for participation. The 
legislation bars a candidate from using matching funds if the FEC 
assesses three or more civil penalties against a candidate for 
violating election laws.
  More importantly, if a candidate willfully, knowingly violates the 
law, my amendment permanently bars them from the program.
  Finally, my provision reaffirms that egregious violations of campaign 
finance laws should result in imprisonment of up to 1 to 5 years.
  With H.R. 1 and my amendment, we are creating an accountable election 
system.
  The funds for the matching program, as was just discussed, come from 
bad corporate actors. These are fines, penalties, and settlements from 
corporate malfeasance, tax crimes, and other breaches of the public 
trust. That money can be used to ensure that everyday people who don't 
have a network of deep money around them, just everyday, working 
people, will be given the opportunity to compete in a campaign, to go 
out and represent their people, to go out and spend their time talking 
to them face-to-face instead of spending their time dialing for dollars 
and talking to just the very wealthy.
  It is time that the people take the power back. By passing my 
amendment and H.R. 1, we will take that first step. Americans aren't 
going to let our democracy be taken out from under us any longer.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment 
and ``yes'' on final passage.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I don't have the best 
Nickelback lyrics to introduce my next speaker, but I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our Republican leader.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his work 
and his love of music.
  This new Democrat socialist majority wants the Federal Government to 
interfere in our free and fair elections. This bill today, the 
majority's most important bill, is a massive Federal Government 
takeover that would undermine the integrity of our elections. But 
before I explain why, I want to highlight how the majority has gone to 
great steps to actually hide their prize legislation from the American 
people.
  Madam Speaker, the American public need to understand, when you 
become the majority, you reserve 1 through 10 of the numbering of 
bills, and you want to make your number one bill the most important 
thing you do for America today.
  Two years ago we were in the majority, Madam Chair, and we made the 
most important bill to make sure the people's money went back to them. 
We wanted to cut your taxes.
  The most important bill that the Democrat socialist majority has is 
to take more of your money and give it to the politicians who want to 
vote for this bill. How ironic.
  Now, because H.R. 1 has had such a broad spectrum of where to go, it 
was referred to 10 committees. Imagine that, 10 committees.
  But 40 percent of this bill has not even been marked up because, what 
did they do? They only went to one committee.
  What committee did they go to? They went to the very special 
committee, House Administration.
  This House Administration, the Members who sit on House 
Administration, I am sure they are probably selected from the 
conference committee that goes forward to select individuals for it.
  Oh, no, no, no. That is not the committee we went to. House 
Administration is selected just by two people: the Speaker and the 
leader. The Speaker and the leader.
  And do you know what? It is one of the smallest committees we have. 
Because if H.R. 1 is so important to the American public, I am sure we 
would want everybody to see it. But, no, it is just nine people of this 
House.
  And in their jurisdiction, they didn't get to mark up the whole bill. 
They only had about 60 percent of the bill to mark up.
  But I want to thank our Republican colleagues on this committee: 
first of all, Ranking Member Rodney Davis, Mark Walker, and Barry 
Loudermilk. They were very thoughtful.
  They realized, even though the chair of the House Administration, 
when asked during the markup, would the other committees mark up this 
bill, she promised--she promised--that the other nine committees would 
see it, that the other nine committees could mark up that other 40 
percent that House Administration didn't get to mark up.
  But lo and behold, that is not true. Just as this new Democrat 
socialist majority said there will be 72 hours before things come to 
the floor, no. Yesterday we learned that can mean an hour; those other 
71 don't matter.
  But what the Republicans on the other side of the aisle did, they 
wanted there to be a thoughtful approach on the issue. They provided 28 
amendments to improve H.R. 1.
  Do you know how many the Democrats on the other side that the Speaker 
selected, those six Members--they didn't vote for one of them. They 
could not find a way that, of those 28 amendments, one of them could be 
accepted.
  I guess the Speaker selected the right people for the House 
Administration.
  Now, they call this bill the For the People Act, but I want to 
explain why I actually think it is for the politicians, because 
everyone who votes for this bill today, they are all going to go home a 
little more excited. Do you know why? They just got the taxpayers to 
actually fund their elections, and they picked it in a manner where you 
don't even know, and the multiplying effect of the 6 to 1, who provided 
it.
  So let's talk about ``For the Politicians Act.''
  First, H.R. 1 wants to give American taxpayer dollars to political 
candidates and campaigns, regardless of whether you support it. We are 
not talking just Republicans or Democrats running. Any view they want 
with any impression they want to say.
  We just had a bill on the floor yesterday about hate. I imagine there 
are going to be quite a few people who run for office who get 
taxpayers' money who talk a lot of hate. I don't think America wants 
their money spent on that.
  This bill will give candidates a government match of 6 to 1, not a 
dollar for dollar. No, no, no, no. The ``For the Politicians Act'' 
multiplies it. So, if a citizen gives $200, the government gives 
$1,200.
  That is why the new Democrat socialist party is so excited by this 
bill. That is why they made it their number one priority. Hard-earned 
taxpayer money should go toward building roads, bridges, or giving a 
boost to struggling Americans, not just to political campaigns.
  I am not sure about these other districts, but when I campaigned, no 
one came to me and said: ``Let's make sure you take more of my taxpayer 
money to give to you to run.'' I can't remember one time anybody on any 
side of the aisle asked for that.
  Worse, this bill would allow political candidates to profit off 
actually running for office on the American taxpayers' dime. The bill 
expands the use of taxpayer funds to include the childcare, the rent, 
the mortgage, or even professional development.

[[Page H2596]]

  We have now just created a new industry. Think of the individual who 
just wants to run for office, who wants to spew hate, and says: ``The 
taxpayers are going to pay for it. I am just going to keep doing it.''
  Second, H.R. 1 legalizes the vote for convicted felons, even if that 
person was convicted of election fraud. Can you imagine that? We are 
going to vote on a bill today that provides more taxpayer money to 
politicians, that is going to allow felons to vote, because we don't 
care what States say. But even if you are convicted of election fraud, 
come on down; we have got something special for you.

  And this wasn't created by one new member of this Democrat socialist 
party. It is the most important bill that they selected. It is H.R. 1. 
No other bill matters to them but this. It just doesn't make sense to 
me.
  Third, H.R. 1 would weaken the security of our elections and make it 
harder to protect against voter fraud. It automatically registers 
voters from the DMV.
  Voting is a right. It is not a mandate.
  This legislation would also prevent officials from ever removing 
ineligible voters from the rolls or even verifying the accuracy of 
voter information.
  To that point, H.R. 1 exposes our election system to widespread 
fraud. Take ballot harvesting, for example. We have one less Member in 
this body because of the harvesting of ballots, a practice where a 
third-party activist can collect your absentee ballot from other voters 
and turn them in for you, or potentially not even turn them in at all.
  Can you imagine putting the trust of your vote in the hand of a 
stranger? If that doesn't scare you, it should.
  Sadly, this practice was weaponized in California and North Carolina 
not so long ago, but now we want to make it everywhere.
  You know, The Washington Post highlighted the peril of this practice. 
Let me read you the headline: ``Don't Be Shocked by the North Carolina 
Fraud Allegations. Absentee Ballots Are Much Less Secure Than Polling 
Places.''
  Absentee ballots are less secure than polling places.
  The piece goes on to say: ``No one oversees voters filling out 
absentee ballots to ensure that they fill out the ballot and return it 
without tampering.
  ``Campaigns and parties have taken advantage of this by turning to 
campaign and party workers to deliver and return absentee ballot 
materials for voters--on the honor system.''
  And, finally, this bill wants to stack the deck in favor of the party 
in power at the Federal Election Commission.
  We talk a lot about bipartisanship. We have talked a lot about it in 
different ways. The committee that could only mark up 60 percent of 
this bill, you might say it is bipartisan. But it is not level. It is 
six to three. That is why not one of the 28 amendments got adopted.
  But the Federal Election Commission is an even six Commissioners, a 
panel of three on one side and three on the other.
  So what does this bill do that the new Democrat socialist majority 
cares most about? Let's stack the deck. Let's stack the deck a little 
further. Let's not make it three and three. Let's put the party in 
power to get that one more, to put the thumb on the scale a little 
further. So they want to make it a five-member panel.
  This week, The New York Times wrote:

       Republicans, arguably, have spent more time trying to 
     define this bill than Democrat socialists have spent trying 
     to promote it.

  I wonder why. If it is your most important bill, the bill that is 
going to define your Congress, let's look at what it is. They want to 
take more taxpayer money. They want to give you less freedom.
  Those who vote for it today, I guess they walk away with a raise in 
their campaign. They are asking the taxpayer to give them 6 to 1. 
Pretty good return, I would say. But it doesn't even matter if the 
taxpayer supports you or not because you are just going to make 
government larger and take the money away.
  It is going to let people who are convicted felons open the door. 
Come on and vote, even if you are convicted of election fraud.
  It is kind of interesting to me that you would make it your number 
one priority. It is kind of interesting to me, a structure of Congress, 
if you referred to a committee, that you wouldn't have it all marked 
up. It is kind of interesting to me the only committee you would pick 
to mark it up is the one chosen by the Speaker. It is interesting to me 
that this is where you spend your time.
  We can do better, and I hope today we have a big voice to say 
taxpayers should not pay for our elections, that politicians should not 
vote to take more of taxpayers' hard-earned money so they could say 
things that people disagree with.
  The Acting CHAIR. All Members are reminded to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I think I am going to go home this weekend 
to my district feeling comfortable that I understand what my 
constituents want.
  As I said earlier, in 1996, Maine voters actually voted for a public 
funding program in the State of Maine. They liked the program so much 
that they actually upped the ante in 2015 through another voter 
referendum where Maine voters actually voted that they wanted to 
continue this program and they wanted to increase the funding to keep 
regular people competitive against the dark money that was flown into 
elections in the State of Maine.
  In the State of Maine, we actually allow convicted felons to vote. 
They do it from prison. Because while we believe in holding people 
accountable for their crimes, we don't feel the need, in Maine, to take 
their voice away from them.
  So I am going to go home knowing that I understand my district.
  I also just want to take a moment--you know, some of the comments 
from the Republican leader, whom I respect very much, but you want to 
talk about spewing hate. H.R. 1 is a piece of legislation that 
Democrats have put forward to show that one of their top priorities is 
to protect our democracy, and I know a little something about it.
  I fought in two wars for this country, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I 
reject this socialist rhetoric. I am an American. Democrats are 
Americans. Republicans are Americans. We need to put this 
hateful speech behind us and talk about how we can work together.

  I understand that there is some frustration being expressed by other 
side about amendments and whether or not Republicans are involved in 
this process. Look, I will wrap it up, but let me just say: I have 
voted for a number of Republican amendments in the last couple of 
weeks, so I would encourage them to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Golden for his 
service to our country. Our country thanks the gentleman, and everyone 
in this institution thanks him for that service.
  This bill, however, is a very bad idea. Public funding of elections 
is a very bad idea.
  At the last second before we vote on H.R. 1, Democrats have decided 
they are afraid of the CBO score for their massively expensive bill. We 
haven't even debated it and want to hide it from consideration in this 
Chamber.
  So they created this gimmick called the freedom from influence fund, 
which is proposed to add an additional 2.75 percent penalty against 
law-breaking or malfeasant corporations and officials at corporations. 
They claimed it would generate enough funds to pay the massive cost of 
funding political campaigns for Members of Congress.
  Late last night, we got that CBO report, and the score for H.R. 1 
that projects the impact of this new shell game called the freedom from 
influence fund and its proposed funding source, corporate fines--again, 
voting for this bill will allow corporate money to, for the first time, 
lawfully flow into the campaigns of each and every one of us in this 
institution.

                              {time}  1000

  The CBO score tells a very different story from what Democrats want 
you to believe. According to the CBO, this new fund will result in a 
reduction of income and payroll taxes, meaning corporations will have 
less money to spend on their payrolls, which equates to less jobs.
  To quote the CBO report:


[[Page H2597]]


  

       The assessment on civil monetary penalties and settlements 
     would reduce the base for income and payroll taxes. 
     Consequently, the revenues from the assessments will be 
     partially offset by lower income and payroll taxes.

  Put another way, H.R. 1 takes American jobs away in order to fund the 
campaign coffers of Members of Congress.
  Furthermore, the CBO notes that, as a result of this funding source, 
less money will be available for other government programs that we want 
to prioritize in this institution.
  I quote again from the CBO report:

       CBO and JCT expect the increased assessment of criminal and 
     civil penalties would reduce the amount of penalties and 
     settlements collected under current law.

  The CBO report confirms what Republicans have been saying all along: 
H.R. 1 is a shell game that will, in the end, hurt taxpayers because 
this proposal to publicly fund campaigns will be funded by the 
taxpayers.
  However, you are going to likely hear Democrats say, instead, that 
this fund will run at a surplus over the first few years of its 
existence, which is true because they designed the bill to not make any 
expenditures for the first 6 years of this program.
  But pay very close attention. What the Democrats won't tell you is 
that, once the fund starts making its expenditures, the fund will be 
nearly broke in 5 years, and that is assuming that the cost of running 
campaigns will stay static today and not exponentially increase like it 
has.
  Again, this Democratic funding gimmick was concocted just to result 
in a more desirable CBO score. I don't see that as a result.
  The new fund will collect money for 6 years with no expenditures, 
resulting in the accumulation of a large balance. Then, once the money 
starts flowing to every Member of Congress in this institution, it is 
going to run out in 5 years.
  Democrats should be ashamed for making this bill H.R. 1.
  When Republicans took over this institution, after 50 years in the 
minority, our H.R. 1 was the Congressional Accountability Act, to make 
Congress work better.
  H.R. 1 in the last Congress, put more money in the pockets of middle-
class taxpayers, families back home.
  This H.R. 1 will do nothing but put taxpayer dollars in the campaign 
funds of every Member of Congress, and that is not acceptable to me, 
and that is why we should have a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    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. 54 by Mr. Brindisi of New York.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Neguse of Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Brindisi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Brindisi) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 188, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               AYES--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
     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
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     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
     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
     Stefanik
     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

                               NOES--188

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     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
     Crenshaw
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     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)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (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
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     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
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bilirakis
     Clay
     Crawford
     Curtis
     Dunn
     Khanna
     Radewagen
     Rogers (AL)
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Stivers
     Yoho

                              {time}  1027

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

[[Page H2598]]

  Stated for:
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Chair, I was late with my kids sick. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 115.
  Stated against:
  Mr. YOHO. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' 
on rollcall No. 115.
  Mr. CURTIS. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 115.


                 Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Neguse

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Neguse) 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 239, 
noes 186, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               AYES--239

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     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)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     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 (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.
     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
     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
     Stauber
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--186

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     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--12

     Cicilline
     Clay
     Crawford
     Dunn
     Johnson (GA)
     Maloney, Sean
     Radewagen
     Rogers (AL)
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Stivers
     Van Drew


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1033

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 116.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, on rollcall Number 116, my vote is recorded as 
``yea.'' My intention was to vote ``nay.''


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to 
consider a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on House Administration.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, for 8 years, this Chamber has been silent, a silence 
that harms people. We have allowed measures to reduce people's access 
to vote, measures that caused the Fourth Circuit to find that African 
American voters were targeted with surgical precision, measures that 
excluded voters on Indian reservations and that wrongfully tried to 
remove 95,000 naturalized Texans from the rolls.
  Today that silence ends. This bill is not for its own sake. A Member 
of the U.S. Senate said that H.R. 1 is a power grab. He is right. It 
grabs power away from the special interests, the elites, and the 1 
percent and gives it to the American people.
  I tell you plainly what it does: automatic voter registration to 
allow 50 million eligible citizens to vote, prohibits deceptive 
practices, increases access to polls for voters with disabilities, 
helps States replace outdated voting machines, and requires disclosure 
of dark money donors, not limiting their speech but simply asking them 
to stand by it. These reforms aren't difficult, but they will require 
courage to make.
  Mr. Frederick Douglass saw what our democracy was and what our 
democracy could be and said: ``Where all is plain there is nothing to 
be argued.''
  For that reason, I do not argue. But I look forward to joining and 
doing the will of the people and supporting this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Haaland). The Chair will remind all persons in 
the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.

[[Page H2599]]

  

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, before I get started, I 
ask for a point of personal privilege to have the Members of this 
institution and the gallery recognize the Chair as the first Native 
American woman to ever chair the House proceedings.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois.
  The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, as my home State President 
Ronald Reagan once said: The most terrifying words in the English 
language are: ``I'm from the government and I'm here to help.''
  I am for the American voter. I support every eligible voter having 
easier ways to register to vote and easier access to the polls. What I 
am not for is Washington, D.C. taking over our elections.
  I have said it before: I agree with my colleagues across the aisle 
that there is a role for the Federal Government to play in election 
infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access, 
transparency, and, most importantly, election security. However, H.R. 
1, misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from the States to 
administer their own elections, and threatens to limit Americans' 
constitutional rights. I cannot support this legislation.
  This bill, a 700-page mammoth bill, takes power away from States 
given to them by the U.S. Constitution to designate the time, place, 
and the manner of their elections. I know the author of this 
legislation said yesterday that H.R. 1 is simply implementing the best 
practices of States, but that is federalizing our election system, no 
matter how nicely you phrase it.
  Congress should partner with the States who understand the unique 
needs of their own residents and provide support to increase voter 
registration and improve election security instead of federally 
mandating, what this bill does, which is a one-size-fits-all approach.
  There is a limited role for the Federal Government to play in 
elections when patterns of discrimination have occurred, and when we 
will continue to address those patterns, we can do it in a bipartisan 
way through the Voting Rights Act.
  I cannot stress enough that Congress should absolutely be in favor of 
increasing access to the polls, but we cannot do that without adding 
the necessary checks and balances to ensure that these accesses are 
protected.
  We should allow States to maintain their own voter rolls to help them 
process voters in a timely manner, avoid unfunded mandates, and manage 
voter lists to avoid registration and voting irregularities. A few 
voting irregularities can change the outcome of a single election.
  Just look at what happened recently in North Carolina. A political 
operative working for a Republican candidate illegally harvested 
ballots which led to the North Carolina State Board of Elections 
calling for a new special election. Ballot harvesting is the practice 
when a political operative or volunteer can come to your home, pick up 
your ballot, and deliver it to the polling precinct. This process, 
while illegal in most States like North Carolina, is a perfectly legal 
practice in places like California.
  Republicans, both at the House Administration Committee markup and at 
Rules Committee, offered amendments to prohibit ballot harvesting, and 
both attempts were rejected by Democrats. We can no longer be naive to 
think that this is a practice that will simply help your elderly 
neighbor who can no longer get to the polls. Just ask my former 
colleagues from California. Ballot harvesting is an unguarded 
instrument that is occurring on a large scale as a practice used by 
political operatives to manipulate the outcome of elections.

  If we want to improve election security, we must eliminate ballot 
harvesting and its risks to taking away the choice of the American 
people. Every American deserves their vote to be counted and protected.
  H.R. 1 limits free speech and imposes vague standards that 
disadvantage American citizens who want to advocate on behalf of what 
they believe in. Organizations like the National Right to Life, the 
Chamber of Commerce, and even the ACLU have spoken out against this 
bill for that very reason. Every American should be able to speak on an 
issue that they are passionate about.
  We also recently received the revised CBO score of H.R. 1 which 
egregiously underestimated H.R. 1's cost to the taxpayers because the 
Congressional Budget Office said they needed more time to develop a 
comprehensive score. Instead of giving them more time, we are preparing 
right now to vote on this 700-page bill.
  My colleagues across the aisle are all about transparency--at least 
that is what I keep hearing. But I have yet to see it in action, 
especially when it comes to funding their own campaigns. H.R. 1 is 
creating public subsidies through the new government match program. For 
every $200, $1,200 will be going to a politician's campaign. The 
majority has changed this provision so many times throughout the last 
couple weeks. This money will come from the U.S. Treasury through 
corporate fines and go into this nebulous Freedom From Influence Fund, 
but the bottom line is it is going into Members of Congress' own 
campaigns.
  Why are we allocating money to go to politicians when there are so 
many other causes like transportation, infrastructure, and cancer 
research that our tax dollars, your tax dollars, and the Americans' tax 
dollars should be funding?

                              {time}  1045

  The Democratic majority claims they want to take money out of 
politics but have created a scheme that will, for the first time ever, 
make it legal for Members of Congress to take corporate money into 
their own campaigns.
  This is exactly why we need to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1. It is a 
travesty.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), leader of H.R. 1, the author of the bill.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chair, my colleagues, somewhere in America there 
is a family in their living room looking at the television, hearing 
another report about how billionaires and super-PACs and insiders and 
lobbyists are running Washington and calling the shots on what happens 
in their lives.
  And they are asking themselves: Do we matter anymore? Do we count? 
Will our voice be heard?
  H.R. 1 says to that family and millions of families across the 
country who feel the same way: We get it. We hear you. We want to 
change this place and give you your voice back by restoring ethics and 
integrity, by pushing back on the influence of big money in our 
politics and by making sure that, when you go to vote, you don't have 
to run an obstacle course to the ballot box in America.
  That is what we stand for.
  Our colleague   John Lewis reminds us all the time that we have to 
keep our eyes on the prize. Well, on this day, at this moment, in this 
House, the prize is H.R. 1. Let's pass H.R. 1.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable   John Lewis, hero of the voting 
rights and civil rights movement.
  Mr. LEWIS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support on H.R. 1, and I 
urge each and every one of our colleagues to support this bill.
  Madam Chair, you have heard me say on occasion that the right to vote 
is precious--almost sacred. In a democratic society, it the most 
powerful nonviolent instrument or tool that we have.
  In my heart of hearts, I believe we have a moral responsibility to 
restore access for all of our citizens who desire to participate in the 
democratic process.
  Many people marched and protested for the right to vote. Some gave a 
little blood. Others gave their very lives.
  This weekend, many of our colleagues traveled with us to Alabama--to 
Birmingham, to Montgomery, and to Selma. They saw the signs in the 
museums that said, ``White only.'' ``Colored only.''
  They visited the First Baptist Church in downtown Montgomery

[[Page H2600]]

where we feared for our lives as a mob waited outside to attack and 
kill us.
  They stood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge--crossing the Alabama River--
where we were beaten, trampled, and tear-gassed for attempting to march 
from Selma to Montgomery to dramatize the need for voting rights.
  Madam Chair, you have heard me tell this story before, and you know 
our work is not finished. It makes me sad. It makes me feel like crying 
when people are denied the right to vote.
  We all know that this is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It 
is an American one.
  For the past few days, I listened to the debate on this bill. I spent 
some time having what I call an executive session with myself.
  The words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., came to mind. He would 
often say that the ``arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends 
toward justice.''
  This vote is an opportunity to be on the right side of history. It is 
a chance to cast a vote by the people, of the people, and for the 
people.
  So I ask you: If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
  The time has arrived to tear down the barriers to the ballot box. 
Today, we are able to do our part in this long fight for the very soul 
of our Nation. Let's save our Nation and redeem the soul of America.
  Ms. LOFGREN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
DeGette) having assumed the chair, Ms. Haaland, Acting 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 172, she reported 
the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry 
further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from 
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Crenshaw moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

               DIVISION D--UPHOLDING SUFFRAGE IN AMERICA

                TITLE XI--UPHOLDING SUFFRAGE IN AMERICA

     SEC. 11001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Upholding Suffrage in 
     America Act'' or the ``USA Act''.

     SEC. 11002. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy.
       (2) The Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting 
     based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age.
       (3) It is of paramount importance that the United States 
     maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them 
     from interference, including interference from foreign 
     threats and illegal voting.
       (4) The city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-
     citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote 
     in school board elections.
       (5) Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in 
     elections for Federal office.

     SEC. 11003. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that allowing illegal 
     immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and 
     diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.

  Ms. LOFGREN (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. 
It will not kill the bill. If adopted, the bill will immediately 
proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Much has been made of election security as of late, much of it for 
good reason. In the end, these concerns, the concerns that many 
Americans rightfully share, are built around the fundamental notion 
that our vote should count, our vote should mean something; and we 
should know that, when we cast it, it is sacred and unchanging.
  Our vote is a signal of what direction we want our country to move 
toward, and that vote is an element of trust that we place in the men 
or women elected to take it in that direction.
  We vote because this country is governed by the people, by the 
citizens of this country. We in this body humbly serve at their 
pleasure.
  The quickest way to erode a democracy, erode faith in our 
institutions, is to erode that trust, erode the notion that your vote 
truly counts.
  The truth is this is already happening. In places like San Francisco, 
Democrats have fought hard to ensure that U.S. citizens must share 
their civic duty, their vote, with illegal immigrants. The city of San 
Francisco has effectively canceled out the votes of its citizens and 
replaced it with illegals.
  When I say it out loud, it sounds like I am making it up, because 
what kind of government would cancel out the votes of its own citizens 
and replace them with noncitizens--but not just any noncitizens, ones 
who entered our country illegally.
  It is with this in mind, this sacred duty to protect our citizens, 
protect their vote, protect their voice, that I propose this motion to 
recommit.
  This motion to recommit would show the American people that, despite 
the deep and growing differences between us, we can at least agree that 
the people who vote for us are citizens of this country.
  Madam Speaker, this is a simple affirmation. It is an affirmation of 
the fact that the elected representatives of this body answer to the 
citizens of this country who voted for us. We will not stand by and let 
their voices be muted. We will not let their trust be eroded. We will 
not let our democracy be questioned.
  Last year, Congress voted on this very idea. Forty-nine Democrats 
crossed the aisle to vote with us.
  It should not be a partisan idea that the people who do not legally 
live in our country cannot legally vote in our elections. If you are 
not legally here, if you entered our country against the laws and 
wishes of our citizens, then you should not vote for representation in 
our government, diluting the voices of Americans.
  I am proposing this MTR not because it feels good, not because we 
want to attack anyone, but because it is clear to all of us that voter 
integrity actually needs to be defended.
  It has become clear because San Francisco is not the only 
municipality that has fallen into this radicalism. Other cities have 
done or attempted to do the same.
  The men and women in this body are here because we were duly elected 
as such.
  Our citizens expect much of us. They expect us to protect their most 
fundamental rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. They expect us to respect their voice. Often, the only way 
they have to express that voice is through their vote.
  If we no longer agree to protect that voice, as we did last 
Congress--if we don't, in this moment, agree that their voice should 
not be canceled out but protected, then I worry a great deal

[[Page H2601]]

about our democracy. I worry that radicalism has made its way into this 
sacred body, as it already has in so many other places across our great 
country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to 
protect the voices of your constituents. Vote to preserve the notion 
that our Nation's government is elected by--and only by--the citizens 
of this country. Anything less is a disservice to the very people who 
put us here.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1 already prevents noncitizens from 
voting in Federal elections, whether they are here lawfully or 
undocumented. In fact, the motion to recommit notices that. They say: 
``Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections.''
  H.R. 1 utilizes the authority in Article I, Section 4 to extend in 
Federal elections the opportunity for every American to vote.
  This motion to recommit is an effort to divert us from the mission 
that we are on to expand voting rights to every American citizen in 
Federal elections. I urge its defeat.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).
  Mr. ROSE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this motion. I rise today as a new Member who ran for office on 
cleaning up our system. And admittedly, I rise today as someone who has 
voted for Republican MTRs in the past.
  In fact, I was eager to hear how my colleagues and friends across the 
aisle would propose a solution today for how they are going to finally 
drain the swamp. I was eager to hear how they would protect and 
enshrine the rights and freedoms and liberties that we all are endowed 
in the Constitution.
  But what they have given us today does nothing to drain the swamp, 
nothing to uphold our freedoms. Only in Washington would we see a group 
of people actively trying to sabotage anticorruption measures.
  This is a political stunt meant to divide us, meant to sow hatred. It 
is a game, nothing less. Nothing less.
  This right here is why the American people hate politics. Honestly, 
if this is your strategy to win future elections, we wish you Godspeed 
because it will never work. It will never work because the question 
before us today, and the thing that this joke of an MTR that is seeking 
to distract us from is, whose side are you on?
  Let's show the American people that this is the people's House, not 
the House of corporate interests and lobbyists and dark money.
  Again, I stand in opposition to this motion.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the hero of the voting 
rights movement.
  Mr. LEWIS. Madam Speaker, I believe in the way of peace, in the way 
of love. I believe in the philosophy and the discipline of nonviolence.
  Can we come together and support a simple piece of legislation to 
open up the political process and let all of our people come in?
  I ask you to remember what I said a few moments ago. With this vote, 
we have an opportunity to be a headlight and not a taillight.
  Some of our colleagues are complaining that we didn't have enough 
time. We have the time. This piece of legislation was introduced more 
than 7 years ago, and the other party didn't do anything.
  We are prepared to act. We are prepared to open up the political 
process and let all of the people come in. It is the right thing to do. 
It is a good thing to do, to set our country on a path, a path that can 
be a model for the rest of the world.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on:
  Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 228, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               YEAS--197

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     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
     Crenshaw
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     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
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--228

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     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
     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
     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.
     Matsui
     McAdams

[[Page H2602]]


     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     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
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clay
     Crawford
     Dunn
     Maloney, Sean
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Stivers


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1111

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 117.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 193, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               YEAS--234

     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
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--193

     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
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Clay
     Crawford
     Dunn
     Rogers (AL)
     Stivers

                              {time}  1121

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

                          ____________________