tv House Rules Committee Hearing on For the People Act - Part 2 CSPAN March 5, 2019 11:47pm-1:44am EST
there's concern that the bill was assigned to 10 committees, but markup was only done in one committee. >> they should be happy. without objection. >> thank you. , my first question is actually going to be for ms. lofgren. thank you for being here for a number of hours now. i think it is going to be maybe a number of hours longer. >> i don't think so. >> i hope not. >> fantastic. >> as you have said, california has an independent redistricting commission, and so does california has an independent redistricting commission and so does arizona. it was voted in by the voters on a ballot measure. i guess, based on the billee, d it's appropriate for the federal government to not only mandate
to states what an appropriate commission looks like, but also how the voting takes place, how a vote must be decided, because in this bill, there's a bunch of specifications of how a majority vote has to be taken. do you think that's appropriate that the federal government should be telling states what to do on that? >> i do. and as i'm sure you realize from reading the bill, both arizona and california's commissions would meet the requirements, still there would be no change necessary. but this is for redistricting of house seats only. and it really relates to the provisions found in our wonderful constitution. and i will read the sections, article i, section 4, of the united states constitution. and it says the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each
state by the legislature thereof, but the congress may at any time by law, make or alter such regulations. that is what we're doing here, to make sure that partisan redistricting is eliminated in the united states and that each member of congress has been selected by their voters without regard to partisanship, and i think that is something that would make for a much cleaner system. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, neither party has clean hands on this. i mean, mr. davis suffers from democratic districting and certain other states from the other. the point is, voters should select their elected members, not the politicians selecting the voters. >> thank you. mr. chairman, my next question
is for mr. davis. thank you for being here. ballot harvesting, that is, there's not a prohibition in this bill for ballot harvesting, as we have kind of touched on before. but i wanted to specifically ask you, is there anything in this bill that would prevent a person from let's say the democrat party from going into an area that is mostly from their opponent's party and collecting a bunch of ballots and then not turning them in? >> no, nothing in this bill would prohibit that. >> and that's very concerning for me. and that's why the state of arizona has prohibited ballot harvesting, and we have touched on before about what happened in north carolina, and in north carolina, they prohibited ballot harvesting, but as it's been
said, that it's not prohibited in california, so would something like what happened in north carolina have been stopped in california? >> well, obviously we saw many races in california decided many days after the election. ballots upon ballots coming in, and there were instances where even house administration observers observed the same individual in a certain race that was part of a campaign that ballot harvested and then was also an observer during the counting of those ballots. it's -- we want everybody to have a chance to vote. and we believe in the current state of affairs right now, to get registered to vote, to be able to cast your vote, we have so many more options than when you and i started voting just a few short years ago. the problem we have is when you know that a process has been
corrupted like in north carolina where we will now have a special election, where likely millions upon millions of dollars will come into this north carolina special election so one party can win that seat over the other. that special election is taking place because somebody took advantage of the system that was in place. if we know it is illegal and we know what they did was wrong, then why wouldn't we outlaw that process to make sure that it doesn't happen somewhere else? >> i agree. i'm sorry, i didn't mean to step on mr. davis. >> oh, you are good. >> i just wanted to note that the hypothetical outlined by the lady from arizona is illegal. i mean, that would be illegal today and would be illegal if this bill becomes law, and that in terms of california, there is an additional prohibition and criminal penalty for interfering
with the ballots themselves. i will say, and i want to talk about california just briefly because we have a system in california where if you put your ballot in the mail, election day, it still gets counted. so if it takes four or five days for the ballot to actually be delivered to the registrar of voters, it still gets counted. it is also a very lengthy procedure, because you have to compare the signature on the oth side -- on the outside of the ballot with what's on the registration thing. if there's ooh a question -- if there's a question, you have to have a process where you have two people. it is very lengthy. the vast majority of ballots that were late were delivered by the u.s. postal service, and it took a long time to count, but in the end, we got an accurate
count. there were no challenges to the counts made, in both parties and all the candidates, including house administration from both sides of the aisle had observers, and there was no question ever raised as to the validity of the count. >> my next question, mr. chairman, is also for mr. davis. the staff has helped me determine how much money does the democrats on this rules committee would get from public financing if this bill were in effect. and it's 6.3 million dollars in addition to whatever else fund-raising they got. and i have to tell you, in my own instance, i had four elections last year, and my opponent under this bill would have received another 4.3 million dollars from public financing. i would have received another
3.3 million dollars from public financing, for a total of an additional 7.6 million dollars. i have to tell you that every single -- just about every single person i talk to was so sick of tv commercials, campaign commercials, campaign signs, robo calls, with the amount of money that we spent, can you imagine their disgust if we added another 7.6 million dollars just, you know, in my election, let alone all of the arizona candidates? my question to you, mr. davis, is do you think this is a good use of public money, and do you think all of hr 1 is designed to help the democrat party? the democrat candidates? >> i certainly do. i mentioned in my opening statement that this is a bill that is designed to basically protect and fund democratic
campaigns. that's what's unfortunate because a bill that's supposed to make sure that everybody gets a chance to vote in this country, a bill to ensure that we have better processes in place for redistricting, should not be hijacked by the 6 to 1 government matching program, that has been discussed here for the majority of the entire hearing today. it's a big -- it's a major concern, and frankly, i go back to what i said earlier, i have not had one person in my district or out here come up to me outside of the sponsors of this bill and the colleagues we have who have argued for this bill, that have said we need more money in all of our congressional campaigns. i made the comment during the mark-up that my race alone would have garnered an extra 6 million dollars. my opponent would have gotten 4 million of that, and i would have gotten 2 billion because the democrats -- 2 million because the democrats did a much
better job using platforms to have money come from areas where there were not competitive races into areas where there are competitive races, like yours, like mine, like mr. woodall's. my opponent had so much money to spend, she rented an entire city block for her victory party. mr. chairman, i'm sorry it didn't work out, but i'm here. we don't need any more money in politics. i don't need any more money in this race. all this is going to do is ensure that the -- ensure that political operatives, broadcasters, members of the media get more money from more campaigns. we're not achieving the goal that the democrats said they want, which is to get money out of politics, and that's what's most unfortunate. >> thank you, mr. davis. and i agree with you. in fact, i had one of those telephone town halls today, and i asked my constituents if they supported -- it was like press 1 if you support this bill. press 2 if you oppose this bill.
and i think it was 92% of my constituents on the call opposed this bill because they don't want -- one of the reasons is they don't want public financing used for campaigns, and they certainly don't want to see more signs, more tv commercials. believe me they were sick of it. in arizona we had so many tv commercials that it jacked up the price of each commercial to a ridiculous amount. non-stop tv commercials. nobody that i've talked to wants to see more of that. so thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> need to be mindful of the time of the two witnesses here. anybody on this side have any questions? okay. mr. burgess, as i mentioned before, mr. davis had to leave at 7:00 and she needs to give a speech at 7:30. so if you can try to -- >> okay.
not a problem. we'll be able to wrap this up in pretty short order. let me just ask you, on a couple of things, on this bill, first off, does federal law currently permit -- i'm sorry, does federal law currently prohibit intimidating, threatening or coercing any person for registering to vote or voting or attempting to register to vote or urging or aiding any person to register to vote or attempting to register to vote, does federal law already prohibit that? intimidation? >> i don't know offhand. certainly that is a proviso in this bill. ordinarily registration matters are matters of state law, except this will change because we're talking about registration for federal elections, and we want to make sure that nobody is intimidated, coerced, threatened, when it comes to registration for federal
elections. >> my understanding is there are already penalties for that type of activity. monetary fine and prison time. has the department of justice indicated that somehow current law is insufficient to prosecute this type of behavior? >> the department of justice did not communicate with us one way or the other, mr. burgess. >> so mr. davis, do you agree with her assessment? >> i don't know how i can agree or disagree with her assessment that they didn't -- they didn't reach out to them, but my question would be, why wouldn't the authors of this bill, that would have -- that a bill that, you know, obviously would address many of the issues under the committee of jurisdiction of judiciary with the justice department, why didn't the authors of the bill reach out to the justice department and ask if these are redundant
procedures or not? >> well, one of the reasons i ask is several years ago, frank wolf and i took this very issue to chairman conyers when he was chairman of the judiciary. there was an election where there was some intimidation that was widely reported in the press that occurred in the 2008 election. and we took those allegations that were part of the general public knowledge to mr. conyers and he assured us that it was already in violation of federal law to do that, if it had happened, those people would surely be prosecuted. we could find no evidence that they were prosecuted, so we sort of reached a dead end, but again, it's -- i think it's already there. but you said that would have been the purview of the mark-up in the hearing in the judiciary committee. >> yeah, i don't believe unless i'm corrected by the chairperson that the house administration committee would have any jurisdiction over the provisions that the doj has to follow.
>> i think that's correct, but the bill also does provide a private right of action for individuals who have been aggrieved, and i think that should be something supported by both parties because in the instance, i don't know the details of what you sent to mr. conyers, but there has been very little enforcement of these rights through agencies, and if you're aggrieved, you need a remedy. a right without a remedy is no right whatsoever. so we're augmented the opportunity to get justice here in the bill. >> so let me ask you, i'm going to skip through some of this stuff, but reading in the text of hr 1 it has the terms hinder or interfere with the voting rights act, is that correct? >> i don't know what page you're
on. >> title 1, subtitle b, section 1301. >> could you tell me the page? >> title 1, subtitle d, section 1301, section 1301 of title 1. >> okay. i have it now. what is your question, sir? >> so it adds the term hinder or interfere to the voting rights act. >> yes. -- no. it prohibits deceptive practices and prevents voter intimidation.
>> so page 99. >> hindering or interfering with or preventing voting or regis r registering to vote, correct. >> are those terms defined in the bill? >> no, but they are defined in case law. >> you're comfortable that there would be -- be able to draw the correct parallel with case law? >> i believe so. i mean, there's a very large body of law relating to election law in this country. >> well, since they are not defined in the bill, depending on case law, i guess there is concern that there would be implications that would not be covered in the language of the bill. mr. davis, at any point during
the hearing or mark-up of this bill, have you been assured that this would not be much more far-reaching than what she assigns with previous case law? >> no, not that i'm aware of and not that anything i can recall in our mark-up. i would remind our colleagues here on this committee that the voting rights act and changes and reauthorizations have traditionally been very bipartisan. as we have already noted, this process has been anything but bipartisan. >> mr. burgess, i want to make sure -- i mean, the section says hindering, interfering with or preventing voting or registering to vote. no person whether acting under law or otherwise shall intentionally hinder, interfere with or prevent at person in voting, registering to vote, or
aiding another person to vote or register to vote in an election described in paragraph -- [inaudible] -- federal elections. is that -- are you concerned about that? >> that remains undefined in the text of the bill. >> oh, i disagree, but i just wanted to make sure we were looking at the same thing. >> mr. davis, you referenced -- [inaudible] -- a minute ago. i don't think there's any disagreement. i have to tell you i have never seen the type of nondisclosure that occurred in this last election. i mean there would be lump sum designations, large amounts of money, ostensibly drawn from small sources, but i don't know where the documentation for that did not occur in any fcc reports
that i was able to find in the elections that i studiied -- studied. is that something you encountered as well? >> it is. judging by the donations that were made that were above the threshold of itemization, in my race alone, my opponent raised over a million dollars out of areas like new york city, san francisco, los angeles, california and new york, and other major metropolitan areas, money coming into my district with no connection to my district whatsoever. that's unfortunate because it seems to me that because of this advantage, because of this small dollar advantage that the democrats figured out that they had, that their solution is to now add six times the money to that on the backs of taxpayers. >> that was going to be my question. do those dollars raised, if they get to the threshold of $50,000 to allow entrance into this 6 to 1 match, is that -- is that
correct, this undisclosed money would actually get you to that point? >> yes. >> mr. burgess, i think there's some confusion here because act blue is already required by federal law to report the details of every single contribution that comes in to and out of its platform to the federal elections commission. it is considered a conduit under federal law for individual contributions through its platform. it is a payment processor and that's why we know how much money they have processed. now the -- >> let me stop you for a minute. i was unable to find any place on the fcc data that was available in my race, where there was actually a breakdown. everything else, small dollar contributions, disclosed and that's great. should be transparency. but then there would be $73,000
from act blue. hard to know, your assessment was that was must be that perhaps was not -- your assessment was that was money that perhaps was not in your district, is that correct? >> the money that with us disclosed, we saw a clear pattern of money coming from major metropolitan areas outside of illinois's 13th district. >> you know, again, and i've heard the arguments about ample time to use this to study all the issues, i will tell you, i remain confused that this is not -- i don't know where those dollars came from. again, we look on the fcc reports that was reported in my race, there was just lump sum designations with no breakdown as to what zip code, who the individual was, what the level of contribution was. so i guess my concern is knowing that, do those contributions, if they push someone over the
$50,000 limit, to participate in the 6 to 1 match, is that okay, that those funds come through an act blue designation? >> act blue -- >> i mean, just in this -- for that matching purpose -- >> they already report every contribution. they're required to report every contribution. candidates are not required to report contributions under $200 under current law. however, if they participate in the matching program, they would be required to disclose those donors as well. >> well, maybe it's a weakness in the system, but it is very very difficult to get that granular data out of any of the websites that are publicly available at the present time. and to the extent that this is a problem that you all work on in your committee, perhaps -- and if there's just simply another place that i should be looking for that information, i would appreciate you sharing the
information, but right now, i don't think it is intuitive -- intuitively obvious to the casual observer from where those dollars are derived. >> it is indicative the process to fund this 6 to 1 match program has been changed in less than a week. it is causing more confusion to the taxpayers which is why i hope this bill can be slowed down and go back to the committees of jurisdiction and have a more thorough approach before we're forced to vote on this friday on a 622 page bill. >> yeah. well, i share your frustration there. we've heard the other arguments that there's been plenty of time to look at this. this is something that your committee -- this is work that your committee does, so again, my ask to you, separate and apart from this bill, i don't think it's readily apparent, again, that it's not intuitively obvious to the casual observer
that i can go and derive where those funds are coming from, what zip codes they are coming from, let alone what persons they are coming from. it raises the question, is everything absolutely above board here when people ask me that, i don't know how to answer the question. but because i know your time is limited, can i just ask you on the congressional ethics reform part of this, and i don't disagree with the intention and -- that members of congress would have to -- that reimbursement is required. i believe that's section a of subtitle a, requiring members of congress to reimburse treasury on page 601 of the bill. i don't know if i oom -- if i'm just not reading it correctly,
but it almost sounds like that would be a retrospective or retroactive look. is there -- it says the effective date, the amendments made by this section shall take in effect as if included the enactment of the congressional accountability act of 1995. so are these reimbursements retroactive? >> no. >> okay. i will be happy to accept that answer. again, i'm just a simple country doctor, as i read this, it looks like it goes back to 95. >> it is the act of 95. >> but the effective date of the amendment of this section, it is like they were amendments in 1995, and now we're several years past that date. i guess the other question that comes up, and again, perhaps not part of this bill, but it is a jurisdiction of your committee, and you all worked on this, in
the last congress, you spent considerable time working on what is correct and what is proper disclosure. at some point, i hope the house committee on administration will advise members, when i was in business, when i served on the board of a local hospital, we had -- you could purchase things like directors liability insurance to protect against a claim made, do we as members of congress need to purchase that type of directors liability insurance for our offices? and if so, has the committee provided us any direction in the type of policy that would be advised and where to find that? can funds be used to purchase that? >> on that point, we did have a brief meeting, myself and
mr. davis, ms. spear and bradley burn, with the house employment council to sort through some of these issues. we haven't reached a conclusion on every one of them, but that is actively being worked on a completely bipartisan basis to try and reach conclusions to give to members on those questions. >> but yet we are now with the passage of this bill on friday, if it were to become law, which it won't, but if it were, i mean, obviously i've got questions about it. i suspect other members would have questions as well. what about a payment if it's made on behalf of a member of congress not on the congressional accountability act but through some other structure, another commission that a member of congress might serve on where there's an allegation and a payment made to an employee who thought they
were wronged, is that covered under this act? >> no, this is a congressional accountability act of 1995. >> well, we're all aware of those stories where that has happened in other jurisdictions within the purview of members of congress. does the house administration committee look into that? or is that just beyond your scope and designation? >> i don't believe that's within our jurisdiction, sir. >> again, we might revisit that. mr. chairman, i will just say, and i thank you for indulging me on the time, and one of the complaints that i hear at home from constituents is look, the democrats really don't tell us what they are for. they are just really opposed to this president and everything they do is going to be against this president. but i think with this bill, hr 1, and mr. davis, you referenced -- you said in your opening statement, i apologize that i missed that, but this bill is to protect democratic
campaigns. that's the intent of this bill. it's become more obvious to me with your proper explaining as we have gone through q&a, green new deal, single payer healthcare bill that we will hear in the rules committee, it won't come through energy and commerce, it is going to be in the rules committee. it is pretty clear what the agenda is, the agenda is certainly not on the side of the people. it is on the side of the government. you know, i would like to still believe through that notion that we have a government because of the consent of the governed. it is bills like this, bills like the green new deal, bills like the single payer healthcare leads me to believe it is not longer with the consent of the governed. many things that are done here take power a way from the states. the states created the federal government. it wasn't the other way around. it does seem to me that the focus is not where it should be which is on the people.
we should be concerned about the economy. we should be concerned about jobs. it used to be every election that was run, people were concerned about i want to rebuild the middle class. we've got a president who has rebuilt the middle class and most of us seem to be insensitive to that fact, that he should get any credit for that at all. mr. chairman, i recognize that you're able to pass this bill out of the rules committee. i recognize that you are going to be able to get the votes to pass this bill on the floor. the president has already issued a veto statement. i don't know what the united states senate will do, if there's any fairness in the world, the senate will give you just as much trouble as it gave us. i worry that now they will be more accommodating. if this bill were to get to the president's desk, he would veto it. it would not be able to muster a veto override. we're going through an interesting exercise, but part of our job, and the reason this is so important, part of our job is to notify and amplify those things that are before the american people, because unlike
the constituents in some of the districts, i'm not sure the constituents around the country understand what it is that's at stake tonight, what it is we are talking about, what it is that mr. davis has so correctly explained that is contained within this bill. i appreciate the indulgence. i will yield back. >> i will disagree with you. i do think the american people know what's going on. if they have been observing this hearing they know we don't share the same goals here. we're not both committed to end the dominance of big money in politics. you had control of this institution for eight years, and you didn't do anything. we saw proliferation of big money and corporate money into our political system. proliferation of dark money, into our political system. i don't think we share the goal of protecting the rights of every single person in this country to vote, because if we did, during your eight years in control of this congress, you would have done something. we saw secretaries of states, and governors of other state
intentionally try to deny people the right to vote and try to suppress voter turnout in elections. i don't think we share the goal of restoring integrity to our elections, cracking down on corruption. i mean, people get it. i mean, they are sick and tired of big money in politics. they are sick and tired, you know, of governors and secretaries of state, you know, trying to disenfranchise voters, trying to take away their right to vote. people have had it. they know what's going on here. and i think people have a choice. you obviously disagree with this bill. and that's great. you can debate against it and vote against it. but some of us actually think it is time for a change, and i want to tell you, i think this issue not only resonates amongst democratic voters, and by the way, we're the democratic party, not the democrat party, but also amongst republican voters and independent voters. i think people have had enough. what we're doing is delivering on a promise that we're going to
restore some integrity and some accountability and some transparency to our system, and that's what we're going to do. and we look forward to a vigorous debate on the floor. i thank you both for being here. i apologize it went on so long. but it's been very very informative. you are free to leave. i appreciate you being here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're going to call up our next panel, representatives. let me say that so you know we changed some rules this year. and we're requiring hearings or mark-ups, something that this bill complied with, we're requiring 72 hours to read the bill, again, something that this bill complied with. but we also said we would give preference to amendments sponsored by 20 members from
each party. and part of that preference means that you get to go first. and so i would, you know, like to remind all of you, if you have statements, that you can provide them to our stenographer, and we will begin with the gentleman from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all the members of the committee. i know you are going to have a very long night. you have 150 amendments to go through. i'm very excited to be first of all the amendments. >> you would never know it given -- >> i will try and set a precedent of trying to be as brief as possible. i was joined by congressman gothimer, the co chair of the problem solvers caucus. congressman tom reed, and vice chairman of the problem solvers caucus, brian fitzpatrick, the co lead on this bill. we have received a preference from the rules committee because we have 24 democrats and 20
republicans that have cosponsored this bill. this is something the problem solvers negotiated with the leadership that if you can get 20 democrats and 20 republicans to cosponsor an amendment, it would receive preference from this committee. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, especially on behalf of everyone from the problem solvers caucus. we have enjoyed working with you and your staff, to not only negotiate this 2020 rule as part of our break the gridlock proposal to enhance transparency and bipartisanship in the congress, but also now as authors of the 1st amendment to ever receive preferential treatment under the 2020 rule. our bipartisan amendment, number 112, with 24 democrats and 20 republican cosponsors would require the federal elections commission to conduct an audit after each federal elections cycle to determine the incidence of illicit foreign money in the election. campaign finance law has loopholes, leaving the american electoral process susceptible to
illicit funding from foreign nationals, corporations and government. foreign money easily influences our elections by passing funds through shell corporations, u.s. subsidiaries, trade associations and shell corporations. this is of great concern to me and more importantly my cosponsors and to the american people. 89% of voters express concern that foreigners are able to donate money in secret to federal campaigns. 79% of voters believe foreign influence in american elections, quote, very often or somewhat often. this issue is not just of importance to democrats, when discussing the need for campaign finance reform, the ability to spend foreign money in our elections was the top reason, top testing reason by republican respondents to overturn citizens united. support for undisclosed money which can lead foreign money in elections gave independents and republicans doubts about a candidate more than any other issue overall. regardless of party, we must all work together to stop the flow
of foreign money into our elections so we may safeguard our democracy. within 180 days of an election, the fec will submit to congress a report containing audit results and recommendations to address the presence of illicit foreign money. i commend you, mr. chairman, and your staff, and this committee, ranking member and everyone on this committee for taking this rule into consideration and taking of the working members of the problem solvers caucus and other pragmatic members to foster a bipartisan inclusive process. confidence in our electoral process is essentially in the faith of our government institutions. i urge the committee to add this bipartisan amendment to hr 1 so we can end one of the largest vulnerabilities to our electoral process. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i actually have three amendments. i don't know how -- >> go through all of them. >> thank you very much. i appreciate you allowing me to be here.
this first one is from whip scalise, myself, and mike johnson, it's been passed a couple times, previously in the house, did not go there the senate, the free speech fairness act, this is an amendment that will allow pastors and religious leaders across the nation to address their membership without encumbrance by the federal government. the 1st amendment to our constitution as we all know states explicitly that congress shall make no law that bridges the freedom of speech. and yet since 1954, our government has restricted that freedom in churches, synagogues, and mosques across the country. i myself a pastor for 25 years prior to coming here personally experienced this. thomas jefferson said that to take a single step beyond the boundaries, especially drawn around the powers of congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power no longer susceptible to definition.
and what we're trying to do is return to the intended definition of the 1st amendment and free our religious congregations from the icy glaze of the irs. hr 1, the bill before us, in this committee, espouses the ideals of freedom of speech. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated that this bill is about giving every citizen of our country the right to express that freedom. i wholeheartedly agree that the right of freedom of speech must be respected by our government because my amendment seeks to protect the rights of free speech, while providing safeguards for the delineation of the nonprofit sector in our tax code. i strongly believe that this deserves our vote. i yield back on that. by the way, that is amendment 83. amendment 122, this amendment is very very simple. it simply says that no
individual may be registered to vote unless they have provided a written affirmation under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen of the united states. while simple, this is a critical addition to this legislation. under the provisions of hr 1, states would be required to automatically register people to vote by transferring all their information held by government agencies to election officials unless someone proactively opts out. but here's the problem, non-citizens use government services too. their information will be transferred to election officials for voter registration right along with every one else's. the only safeguard under hr 1 to prevent an illegal alien from being automatically registered is if the alien proactively declines. given that folks -- that these particular individuals are in the united states illegally,
typically they don't want to try to call attention to themselves. and so do we really believe that they are going to deliberately declare themselves by admitting they are here illegally and therefore ineligible to vote in federal elections? to me, that just flies in the face of common sense. the people of the united states who are here illegally should not vote in our federal elections. that used to be widely accepted and is still against federal law. encouraging the registration of persons not eligible to vote dilutes the voting power of american citizens. i hope my colleagues here tonight will make this amendment in order and allow the house to consider this simple improvement to hr 1. the third amendment is number 125, dealing with the office of government ethics, which of course is an education agency.
oge is responsible for ensuring compliance with ethics requirement such as financial disclosures and conflict of interest rules. yet hr 1 wants to turn oge into an investigative office by granting the director the authority to subpoena information and records. my amendment would remove the granting of subpoena authority to the oge director. oge already has the power to request needed information from federal agencies and agencies are required to comply with these requests under the ethics and government act. the office of government ethics does not require subpoena authority. furthermore, during the trump administration, oge has been openly hostile towards the republican administration. oge has become a partisan actor. its former director walter shaub clashed openly with the president as we all know. oge went so far even using its
official twitter account in an attempt to force president elect trump to divest his business interests. we do not want to allow an office that has been so partisan to have the legal authority to issue subpoenas and open the door to overt harassment of executive branch employees. i should note that agency inspector generals currently have the authority to subpoena information and documents from the agencies they oversee. igs should continue to retain this power. so i urge again the committee to make this amendment in order and allow the full house an opportunity to weigh in on this matter. i yield back. thank you. >> mr. green? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member and all of the members of this committee. i have a very simple amendment. it does not change voter registration requirements. it does not require
participation of an education agency. what it does is what we've been doing in texas since 1985, and that is it allows school districts to provide voter registration information twice a year to young children, children who are eligible to vote. it's a common sense amendment. it will help us to get our young people into the process, immediately upon being eligible to vote. i can say a lot more, but because i have a great deal of respect for you and what you're doing, i will let this be my statement. >> thank you very much. mr. davidson? >> thank you, with apologies to the committee and to my colleagues who have very short amendments, i have a fair number.
i think 13. mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today on this very important legislation. federalism is the heart of the system our founders created -- >> hold on one second. before you go, does anybody have any questions for the three people who just testified? or can we let them go? >> one question. >> we're going to wait till after mr. davidson finishes then. kind of the rule here is that if anyone has any questions -- who is your question for? we'll make an exception here because we'll try to make it -- >> a quick one. i was curious whether or not the foreign -- i was looking it up in the amendment, but i couldn't pull it out, but the foreign entity, does that include dollars spent by a foreign government? or is it just private donations?
>> [inaudible]. >> yes, it would also include -- any illicit foreign money, and money from a foreign government would be illicit foreign money. >> and that would involve potentially our security apparatus, national security, national intelligence, to determine whether or not they've been able to determine whether or not federal -- or foreign governments have participated? weighing influence in our elections? >> it would be an audit by the fec. it would be a randomized audit to look for illicit money and money from foreign governments would also be illicit foreign contributions >> thank you. >> you guys can go. >> thank you. >> not that your amendments aren't great, but i just figu d figured -- i'm sorry to interrupt you. >> i appreciate it, chairman. it makes me feel a little better about not delaying these folks further. >> we have a whole bunch of people waiting. >> i understand. >> okay. >> i'd be happy for the committee to rule hr 1 out of
order and make my amendments unnecessary? by unanimous consent? but nevertheless, federalism is an important part of the system our founders created. and this bill certainly impinges on it. we have differences of opinion about how it does. but in the spirit of trying to make it better, i've offered a host of amendments. i will try to be brief in summarizing them into why i think they are important. i look forward to answering whatever questions the committee may have. i would also emphasize the point made in the letter from chairman meadows and ms. lesko entered into the record which this bill has been marked up by a single committee with only three members of the minority party. it would be a mistake to restrict the peoples representative in the peoples house from participating in the amendment process for the people act. so i'm urging an expansive amendment process. ::
participation america we should reward states that have seen that rise and not burden them with additional mandates. in many states we have seen more than a 5 percent increase. we are all concerned, my next amendment is 123. we are all consumed a foreign interference in the election process the presence of large numbers of illegal aliens and noncitizens to give a congressional district should be cause for concern resulting in mal apportionment by non- counties citizens for apportionment states like ohio which have lower populations of noncitizens are deprived of representation and states like california or other border states are rewarded with additional apportionment. one person one vote is a principle we should strive for when the constitution permits it and this is the spirit of
that amendment. the next amendment is 138, and continuing in that vein it would require documentary proof of sediment - - citizenship at the point of registration. in texas there is some legitimate concern with illegal voting. illegal alien voting the automatic voter registration mandate in this bill may worsen this concern which is why the underlying bill ensures aliens who are registered to vote automatically are not held liable. my amendment would ensure this isn't an issue going forward those that are not diluted by illegal votes. the next amendment is 173.
i'm sorry. 170. i'm sorry. 176. this bill requires preregistration for 16 -year-olds if the individuals registered my amendment on this topic would ensure 16 -year-olds are not required by federal law to be preregistered until election officials certify there is sufficient safeguards in place just to be clear somehow preregistration this would do nothing to affect for what is already the practice it just gives states the ample. to go through safeguards to protect the integrity of the registration process. i have an additional amendment that would make it clear it is perjury to falsify information on the voter registration form.
number 173. while requiring states to verify the information provided to require suitable federal assistance be provided to ensure that they are able to do that. it strikes me as it is already the law that some states where for example, with voter registration has enabled people to be registered who should not have been. so there are some current flaws in those existing safeguards. next in regards to the provisional ballot, amendment 170, the bill contains a requirement but that method used in california to allow the ballot anywhere in the state have it counted in 2016 the latest year for the full survey is available it is estimated two.5 million provisional ballots were cast
nearly half in california. only four states saw provisional ballots in excess of 100,000 arizona california new york and ohio all for it wasn't counted partially or in full. texas and florida that reject casting provisional ballots by not casting the correct precinct there are many fewer provisional ballots. it takes a complex safeguard to ensure that it would only be corrected in elections for their precinct that if they vote with the north part of the state where there are actually residents in the south part they would have a different congressional district for different member
of congress and that safeguard is supposed to be at the heart of this bill. while we care about access we certainly care about the integrity of the election. the amendment would allow the states to follow more restrictive models so we will sum up by suggesting democrats are very concerned with access to the ballot. they are wise to be concerned and share concern about access but it has to be balanced with integrity against ensuring the elections are timely and accurate. i believe the balance of the bill is set far away from integrity i would urge the members to allow their own members to determine how this might be set by allowing a vote with my division a amendments. next to very concern the provisions under the campaign-finance transparency portion on first amendment rights organizations and
individuals to engage in issue advocacy. this is removed from election communications. that concern is shared by the foremost civil liberties organizations so the organizations in the political spectrum from planned parenthood would be publicly disclosed disclose the investors not just the name of the candidate. the vague standards apply to these issues forcing organizations to think twice we cover that extensively earlier another amendment to remove that standby section number 167 this subtitle repeats all of the same privacy and first amendment violations with the added
effect distracting from an organization's message and potentially having donors listed on as in which they disagree. for example, many of us donated money to organizations we agree with their overall mission or we would not support them but at in any given case we may not agree with a particular issue prickly donors name is listed and they could be in complete disagreement that would give the perception so it is a significant impact on the person that is disclosed. also an amendment to remove the instructions - - restrictions on speech it is a broad definition of paid content to use a staffer to use one - - manage their presence mentioning a candidate to run a valid disclaimer to trigger reporting requirements for the entire organization.
next, 159 the financial services committee has jurisdiction where we served the sec provision concerns me. securities laws have a place in the united states they are in place to protect investors and consumers and prevent fraud and ensure orderly functioning of financial markets michael they are not in place for social purposes and what was that as recently as today mary jo white refused to issue this rule and since 2005 regulations have been defunded in the relevant appropriations bill why would we go back on that? amendment 160. i have something similar working on the irs 501(c)4
provision the irs record on the social welfare groups is horrible. we saw a major scandal under the previous administration they had to withdraw with rulemaking on the political activity with their donor disclosure rules was not keeping in the spirit of free association. we should not go backward and that is what my amendment gets at. i have three separate elements with political parties have the additional disclaimer and disclosure requirements and urge that those in a progressive camp in the blue dog camp to consider it would be much less restricted by campaign-finance laws and what that means for enforcement so nonconformity to the party could be severely punished
unless you are a conservative we have great concerns the way this would affect conservatives. they should become more uniform less argumentative with debate and basically keep more of america feeling congress does not represent that more people like them. those ideologies would be represented in congress that goes against the spirit of the bill that makes the spirit of the bill far worse than what is purported. thank you for your patience with these numerous amendments that we can be accelerated by unanimous consent of their adoption. >> i just want to make one.i want to know one thing you have four amendments and then four were on time and 15 were late and we sat and listened
to you that you make a better effort to get them under a reasonable time so now we will yield to my new colleague from massachusetts which i admire greatly for your testimony to mac mister chairman and committee members thank you for the opportunity on my amendment to hr one throw my life i have abided by the mantra we should never make assumptions who desires to have a stakeholder or a seat at the table of our democracy but i do believe it is my amendment to serve to reengage to recognize those in the democracy to for those that are left out and left behind. young people are leading the way for every social movement throughout our history organizing and mobilizing and calling us to action so the
high-stakes the next generation faces to climate change in the future of war and the solvency of social security for activist leaders like a constituent of mine and a student at boston latin for the march for our lives movement to stem the tide of gun violence. it is young people who march, organize and remind us daily how in the halls of this institution what is at stake and just how high those stakes are. since the days of abolitionist and suffragist, young people had been pushing progress forward these views of our young people who inherit the nation we decide by virtue of our policy or default of our policies, these very same young people should also have a say in who represents them for your consideration amendment number one to seven to lower the minimum voting
age from 18 down at 16 years of age progress the age of 16 young people have the opportunity and responsibility to drive a vehicle, gain employment and pay taxes. in fact, according to the bureau of labor statistics 2018 nearly 2 million young people between 16 and 17 were employed contributing to the labor force communities the local economy by paying taxes. to be clear this is not simply enhancing income but critical income to stabilize a household. even though i'm introducing this amendment i am not the first to post this idea as is so often the case history repeats itself when we do not learn from it. in fact,, 49 years ago to this very week of march 7th , 1970s senator kennedy argued before his colleagues the subcommittee of the united states senate in favor of
lowering the voting age from 21 down at 18 as an effort to bring our youth into full participation in our institutions of democratic government. to remind you contextually where we were at the time in the midst of the vietnam war , fundamental question was being asked that if they are young enough to fight in a war thousands of miles of war one - - away but not old enough to have their voices heard in our democracy by casting a vote. one would argue we are at a critical moment in time of a similar crossroads as a nation when young people are at the forefront of our most extensional crisis facing communities and societies at large. the time has come car young people deserve to have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote and we celebrate them often we thank them for their sweat equity that they extend they should also have
the opportunity to be respected and celebrated as valid but i hope you'll join me to extend this of a representative government to an up-and-coming generation. not only the future but the present i respectfully request your support for amendment number one to seven and thank you for your leadership on this critical issue. >> thank you very much. . >> thank you chairman mcgovern and ranking member and the entire committee thank you for the opportunity to testify on my amendment 127 and 175 which i submitted for your consideration to hr one. also i am grateful for your staff for their hard work on hr one. i also want to say thank you to speaker pelosi and
representatives are beans to craft the landmark legislation. 127 which i submitted with our freshman representatives, this amendment with the where the voting age to 16 years old goes 16 and 17 -year-olds are legally permitted to work , they pay federal income taxes on their earnings and they are permitted to drive motor vehicles. it is only right and fair 1216 and 17 -year-olds a place in our democracy. that's why i have separately introduced resolution 23 a event that would lower the voting age to 16 years old. throughout the nation's history, through the vietnam war movements that prompted the 26th amendment that reignited the gun violence prevention movement and youth activism has profoundly impacted social and political movements in the united
states. i have also submitted two additional amendments 131 and 175 both of which would ensure greater competency with respect to poll workers. the first of these two amendments would ensure the training manuals include the strategies to assist the voters in competent manners to pay special attention with those with diverse needs and backgrounds including voters who have limited efficiency and my final amendment would include a recording of cultural competency training carried out and that allows us the opportunity for all us citizens. and then to diversity training will do just that thank you
for the opportunity to come before your committee. >> i have six amendments and i will be very brief. amendment number five is disclosure to ensure that all social networks to sell political advertisements are subject to the transparency rules outlined in hr one primarily by lowering the monthly site visits from the current number of 50 million down a 5 million which will help ensure that those would be prevented so with inappropriate transparency. amendment number 87 political ad national disclosure to halt interference by mandating the residency of political advertisement buyers be made available to the public.
amendment number 89 social media companion is this ensures the audio advertisements with a companion advertisement are subject to the same disclosure rules bottom line is this covers videos with a still photo that should be covered under the bill. amendment number 91 recycled paper ballots as we move across the country to greater use of paper ballots and a request we use recycled paper with fewer greenhouse gases 26 percent less energy and 43 percent less waterways than 91 - - non- recycled paper. amendment number 93 to optimize design although there is some progress made before it gained national attention
in 2000 when americans become unwilling experts with butterfly ballots and hanging chad's we lose hundreds of thousands of votes every election year due to poor ballot design. our hope is that we would address this by having the proper committee how to make sure we have the best ballots we can have for american voters and then adding voter changes is simply putting a moniker to remind people to change their voter registration. >> thank you all for being here we agree with your amendment lowering the voting age to 16 under regular order i hope we do but i have no questions.
>> i have one question the amendment that i support particularly number 29 and i agree i am fond of making election day a federal holiday but in the state of ohio do you really want to move it to november or sunday when cincinnati and cleveland are playing in ohio crack. >> every day we pick as a challenge. in ohio we have a very generous early voting provision that you could go in person and vote early, but unlike some jurisdictions that you are accused of you cannot vote often. >> have you talked to mister stivers? i guarantee they are tailgating. >> however through workweeks
and shift workers there is no perfect time to have an election and frankly the amendment was offered before the committee rightly decided to adopt it does not add federal holidays which would be disproportionately advantage government workers are small public sector employers. >> i represent the university of oklahoma and i know what this would do. [laughter] i'm just going to go on record record to be against anything that interferes with college and saturday football. >> fair points. >> a couple comments. with the amendment to have good per capita voting ohio is only second to minnesota in the past election for quite a know how we lost to minnesota but there is a certain allure to that amendment that i have
to think about a little bit and with the 16 -year-old voters, i endorsed a 16 -year-old voting for the city of golden where i live. i supported it. we got clobbered in that election 65 percent / 35 percent i have to think twice about that i generally support the concept but obviously my constituents were not particularly crazy. this is a college town. i have to think a little bit about that spin i think you mister chairman i just want to comment on this amendments that i remember very well just a few weeks after my 21st birthday and send then they diluted my voting streak so i appreciate that sincerity with
the fact that taxes are collected from that age group that is important and i hope the chairman and then just to be sure that directly into asked to our other panel but i was already up again some time constraints. are all provisional ballots to be counted regardless quick. >> there is a requirement to collect provisional ballots states like texas do things different than my california. someone in california votes in the wrong precinct if they happen to be in business and say i don't remember to vote in the a resident of los angeles and still have that counted it is incumbent on the board of elections not just to
count the ballot you are eligible to vote we will go through the ballot and say you can vote for governor. you can vote for senator but you cannot vote for a member of congress from san francisco because you are from los angeles. in texas they don't have that conflict so it lets them stay in control of elections. >> the only reason i bring it up is to cast a provisional ballot, i just moved and it turned out i was in a school district that was not having an election and they cannot find my name. of course, they were significantly upset and embarrassed a member of congress were showing up to vote and they let me cast a provisional ballot three or four weeks later he came back in the mail and said i was supposed to vote in another school district that did not have an election that day so
my ballot was discounted. there is nothing that would have keynoted that in mind - - counted that in hr one quick. >> there is not supposed to me it would just let them stay in control of their election process. >> that doesn't and the requirement to collect for provisional ballots for just that it's done the way in washington d.c. decided. >> that's the point. i think it is important that we include that in our final report. i yield back to mac i have long favored 16 -year-olds to be able to vote and with the
parkland kids and their magnificent leadership i want to lend my support to any amendment that supports 16 -year-olds. >> thank you for being here. mister meadows you have the whole table to your self. >>. >> anybody else. >> mister chairman thank you ranking member and members of the committee thank you for your intestinal fortitude as a point of personal privilege i continue to pray for you and good health. i want to make two quick comments on the amendment that was spoken to about briefly as
a cosponsor of those two amendments to encourage for their inclusion and the biggest thing for me is what i want to focus on is subtitle a and subtitle b on the campaign-finance oversight. when you read through the bell that brings up great concerns when you start looking at unintended consequences of this particular bill. for example, the changing the bipartisan fec commission to the partisan is very problematic and i cannot imagine that my democratic friends that are here tonight would want to see a headline that says democrats give donald trump the ability to choose the fec chairman but that impact is what this bill
does. to take the fec from a bipartisan six-member panel to a five-member panel where the president picks the fec chairma chairman, i don't think it's good government and i encourage all of you to look at the amendment that we put forward to strike that provision and if it is donald trump or barack obama i think we all believe campaign-finance issues should be handled in a nonpartisan way and this bill does not encourage that. so going further on subtitle b at the heart of the coordination issue, i'll love this if we look at what is happening with the super packs and finances the
campaign-finance aspect actually goes into the standard for what coordination means. i really am very concerned what we are doing in this particular bill is actually making a coordination standard that is so low whether anyone comes to office a union leader or lobbyist or anyone else, it is a coordinating activity with subject to fines and couple that with the partisan nature and we have a number of areas in the spillway or the very essence of people advocating on policy is a campaign violation. i don't think that is what the authors intended that is what i would encourage the committee to have the support in a bipartisan way that would
be amendment 165 and 166 if the committee would consider that it would be a step in the right direction i would also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the associated builders and contractors be made part of the record in their oppositions and concerns that are in hr one. >> last week trying to speed to this i have a few amendments i will go over very quickly. number 39 which is the super pack elimination act a bill that we introduced last congress that we think would be a good part of this package to provide for transparency and allows for that cap to be done away for individual contributions but immediately acknowledgment of those that
are making campaign contributions and for what it does for all of us is eliminate super packs with the very nature that we have full disclosure and it comes to an individual candidate maybe not all of us that many of us have experienced those that do spending. we have no ability to support or not support because we are not coordinating this would have way through transparency to eliminate that the last two are amendments that go to the heart of the voter registration aspect amendment number 40 and amendment number 41. here is my concern looking at the consensus data and people voting, as far as the 2016
election, four.4 percent of the people because of registration issues. to go beyond that that all voter registration needs to be automatic but really it is away from the privacy aspect. with a voter registration roll that is public information so to suggest it is mandatory and automatic now you tell everybody with the registration and putting it out there. those that can come together to talk about privacy and where we fight with that so my encouragement would be to look at eliminating that in the same day registration. we actually have same-day registration in north carolina the day of we do not have that. so if we make a federal
standard then we need to look at more than just voter registration i find it ripe for fraud and being from north carolina we can understand what has happened. but if we set a national standard then why do we not set that for ballot harvesting as well? but yet we seem to ignore that and want to go to same-day registration for all those reasons i would encourage the adoption and inclusion of the amendment from this esteemed body to mac i am here for hr one for the people act to represent a series of bold reforms the for the people act will strengthen our democracy
to ensure every american can exercise his or her way to vote and to bring greater availability in the process. i want to build on a significant piece of legislation to strengthen safeguards against the undue influence with those legislative changes and with that legislative tent at hr one but now there are no laws limiting then to hold onto the surplus after the campaign ends in several members of
congress remain in their campaign accounts that are not seeking elected office in the future while others turned to washington's revolving door and then become a powerful well-connected lobbyist. also how the zombie campaign or campaign accounts looking for surplus funds and the stresses the urgency for campaign-finance laws. even with a government official has passed away their accounts have remain active. how long can surplus funds remain and how long the former official should not be using surplus campaign funds for personal benefit or with the political process it is not
their money. with a let it go act establishes a fair way to resolve campaign donations. and at the end of the campaign would need to make reasonable attempts to donate the money to charity or send the funds to another committee. and then to be within one year. and it is disrupting progress and with the well-being of the country hr one will shift the balance of power with those powerful few and then to include that amendment the piece of legislation i urge my
with your support for the recor record. >> i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record from south carolina regarding his amendment number two. >> mister burgess quick. >> in the spirit of what has been authored amendment 67 and 68 as unanimous consent. >> thank you mister chair i will be very brief the number one oh three amendment strikes requirements to treat voter one - - mail-in registration
the same as online and they set their own requirements for online and internet voter registration as is necessary to ensure security to prevent fraudulent registration as well as stated before to do a better job at conducting elections in a federal bureaucracy. number 100 amendment strike the subtitle relating to the my voice pilot voucher program that is a public financing match for contributions as stated before i do not believe we should be using public money or candidates campaign and most of my constituents object to that. the number one oh four amendment relating to
independent restricting commissions for echo again , believe the states are better equipped to re- decide the redistricting lines in the state of arizona and the voters have decided the independence commission and how it would run and they are in a better place to determine the federal government then to allow the state to remove the name of a voter if the state has reason to believe the voter is registered in another state fraudulently or as an illegal alien i believe we need to uphold the integrity of our election system. spin i thank you very much are there any other members that want to testify? [laughter] this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. at this time the woman from
pennsylvania. >> mister chairman granting hr one the structured rule that has two hours of general debate equally divided by the chair and ranking minority member of the house administration to have points of order against consideration of the bill the amendment 11 - - 67 with part a shall be considered that the bill as amended bird amended should be considered as read with all points of order as amended. only those further amendments
to be described in section three. each such an amendment could be offered only when printed in the report the only designated in the report to be considered as read and debatable as specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent shall not be subject to the amendment and the demand under the provision of question. the rule has no points of order or against amendments on block under the rule. the chair of the committee of the house of administration can offer the amendment on block they are considered as red shall be debatable for 20 minutes before we divide to the ranking minority member shall not be subject to amendment or division of the
house or the committee as a whole the rule provides after the conclusion the bill a final period of general debate shall not exceed ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member the rule provides one motion with or without instruction it should be in order at any time for the speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rule and the speaker or the designee has that designation pursuant to this section. >> thank you very much this role - - this rule for the people act the rule is to help the committee make 72 men each available for 72 minutes it is
a major part of two hours of general debate with the speak on the bill it has ten additional minutes of debate and provide suspension and authority on the seventh and the eight for the gentleman of pennsylvania. . >> i have three amendments at the desk. >> i moved to postpone consideration until march 12th this issue is frankly too important to rush forward and while technically complying with the new rules of the house to say this is regular order is disingenuous at best i am concerned in this case we are literally changing the election system of 50 states i don't think any of them have
[roll call] . >> and then to provide an additional two hours of debate one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair the members of the committee on oversight reform equally divided and controlled with the lead republican on the judiciary committee. that process by the majority fails with oversight and reform both of which has
that they all are printed in the portion of the congressional record one day before the amendment with that process that has major jurisdiction of hr one this is my ideal candidate they should be afforded the opportunity to amend the legislation. >> and i think there is a single modified rule and having said that they should vote their conscience. >> the gentleman from oklahoma? all those in favor? those opposed? the clerk will call the role.
[roll call] . >> mister chairman i have a motion and then to be inserted into the text as reported and then to ask the ranking member what was in the rules committee there's only been one hearing on this bill that is a product that came out of the house administration to allow the rules committee from
all of the jurisdictions. >> but if the gentleman got his way if he knows all the amendments and then to validate without whole process. and then we had that debate and there again i don't recall seeing a lot of other rules all those in favor? all those opposed? . >> and i have a rollcall? [roll call]
colorado and amendment number 130 from california number 135 and arizona as you know, mister chairman they apply to the house rules you have actively described that they do not have any points of order those issues that require waivers and that is the process. >> thank you. any order of the discussion? all those in favor? those opposed? rollcall please. [roll call]
. >> thank you mister chairman the first is number 67 and this requires the speaker of the house 15 days after elected speaker to submit a copy of individual tax returns to the fec i am not certain i agree with the principle and with the tax returns but it does seem to make sense that the speaker should also comply with consideration of my amendment. >> any debate or discussion?
go down that road perhaps we should require that of every member of the united states house of representatives and i will admit when i ran for office as an early primary i filed my income taxes and then i was faced with this exposure i had never seen before it was difficult it was not specific it would be very straightforward to go down the road to require those taxes in every single member of congress and as a candidate. >> i appreciate the gentleman's amendment and it is interesting but also i am
i will vote no. >> any further amendments? >> thank you mr. chairman. i have an amendment to the rule to make an order. amendment number 104 and amendment 105 offered by myself as a reminder title he and two of the redistricting submissio submissions. number five allows the states to remove the name from a list of the state has a reason to believe the voter is registered
>> the noes have it. is there any other amendment or discussion? let me just say that i note we have a vigorous discussion and the rules committee but i think that this is an important bill and i want to thank mr. sarbanes for introducing it. it's about protecting the rights of all americans and it cracks down on corruption and makes sure they put the public interest ahead of special-interest, and i'm looking forward to this passing on the house floor and i think most people in the country no matter what their political party is n know what we are doig is right and the other concern ais it took us so long to get here. having said that, the question for the gentleman from pennsylvania all of those in favor, i mac. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the