tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 6, 2019 1:59pm-4:00pm EST
ouse will be in order. members. members, please carry your conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? the speaker: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized. the speaker: mr. speaker, i rise to mark an historic moment in our institution as don
young, the dean of the house, becomes the longest serving republican in the house's history. is he -- is that a blushing don young that we see behind the beard there? on behalf of the entire house, mr. speaker, i congratulate congressman young on this honor and on your 46 years of proud service on behalf of the people of alaska. don young has served alongside, from alaska, six senators, and 11 governors of his proud
state. eight presidents signing his bills into law, proudly cover the walls of his rayburn office. despite -- he is -- despite the length of time, every single day he serves here, it is clear that don is passionate about his patriotism and about working in this institution to make a difference for america. as he set said becoming dean -- remember, we celebrated his becoming dean not too long ago -- he said, i love this body, i believe in this body, my heart is in the house. just over two months ago, dean honored one of the special traditions of our institution when he, as dean, administered the oath of office to me, a woman speaker of the house.
that oath began, i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. as don's name becomes further etched in the history of this house, his caucus and this congress, we will look to him for leadership to protect our constitution, to defend our institution, and to drive progress for the american people. just so you know, my colleagues, in becoming the longest serving republican of the house, don surpasses the record held by the legendary former speaker of the house, joseph ken. he once observed that the house is -- this is a quote -- the house is the most peculiar assembleage in the world and only a man who has had long experience there can fully know its idiosyncrasies. it's true we engage in fierce
combat. we're often intense partisans. sometimes we are unfair, yet, i venture to say that nowhere else will you find such a ready appreciation of merit and character. joseph cannon now surpassed by don young as the longest serving republican in the congress. don, thank you for being a leader of merit and character. congratulations to you and your entire family on this milestone. ongratulations, don. i please yield to the distinguished minority leader. i yield to the distinguished
republican leader of the house, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the speaker for yielding. i, too, rise to congratulate representative don young, the dean of the house who, today, as stated, becomes the longest serving republican in the history of congress. as the speaker noted, surpassed joe cannon. don young doesn't quote joe cannon but he reminds me, they named a building after him. now, like me, don was born in california. and he got to know alaska the y many of us, he read jack london's "the call of the wild," and he moved there right when it became a state. as of today, don has represented alaska for 46 years. over 75% of the entire time it's been a state. his career is an important reminder of how young this
wonderful experience we call america truly is. they lied to me during freshman orientation. they told me nobody has an assigned seat in this house. that's how i got to know don young. i made the mistake of coming in and sitting down right over by that door. i also learned another valuable lesson. don keeps a knife. now, don has been a very effective member. he's been chair of resources, chair of transportation. he's worked with nine presidents, nine speakers. he has numerous bills on his wall in between all the animals. but don was prepared for this job. you see, when he was in alaska, he was a riverboat captain. he was a mayor, but he told me
the job to prepare him the most to become a member of congress, he taught the fifth grade. i don't know what type of -- how well a teacher you were but i imagine it was good. but don has been a mentor to many of us. you see, yeah, you can watch him how he carries himself. in conference how he carries himself on the floor, but the part he can mentor all of us, the love and respect that he always had for his spouse. lulu was always next to him and ann is there now. he's been a member of congress, but he's been a father, he's been a very, very great husband. mr. speaker, we all travel far and wide to be here to represent our constituents, but no one travels further, no one has the challenge to match don. there's times the weather requires he takes a dogsled and it's no joking man.
that's his dedication. don also makes sure this institution stays running on time. i noticed that last vote went a little long. i do like to monitor the difference when we're in the minority. on average the votes lasted five to 10 minutes less when we were in the majority. not by anything i did, but by the calls of don young. but on a serious note, madam speaker, i always heard if you find a job you love, you will not work a day in your life. and it's clear that don young loves what he does. because he loves this institution and he loves the people's house. so to don, we say congratulations on this incredible accomplishment. something nobody probably sitting here today will ever be able to achieve. but you did it for your
passion, you did it for the love, but more importantly, you did it for your country. i thank you. i yield back to the speaker. the speaker: as usual, the distinguished dean is eager to take to the microphone but not yet. more to come. when the distinguished republican leader of the house referenced the animals in your office, the manifestations, i was reminded of one of your ties i shared the stories with members on the day you became the dean of the house, now the longest serving republican today. but i saw you with a tie that really gave me hope because it was an owl and an eagle and a baby seal on it and i said, oh, mr. chairman, i'm so happy to
see you paying tribute to these endangered species to which you said, i call this tie lunch. i knew you were only kidding, right? in any event, we all had our stories. the chairman, we all respect and admire him. i yield now to the distinguished democratic leader hoyer, to e, mr. comment on the distinguished dean, longest serving republican in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank hoyer, to comment the gentleman. i thank the leader for the -- the speaker for yielding. i rise to congratulate don young who the majority leader and the speaker have both indicated loves this house. the majority leader then added apparently you haven't worked a day in your life.
at least that's how i interpreted it, don. liberal interpretation. you know, this side of the isle, what can i tell you? we just lost the longest serving member of the house i a few weeks ago, and as sat here i thought what a resemblance there is between the longest serving democrat of the house and the longest serving republican of the house. eracible comes to mind. caring about this institution comes to mind. faithful to principle comes to mind. blunt. speaks truth. not only to power but to everybody else as well. don young has made a difference
. don young comes from alaska, as all of us know, although the speaker and the majority -- minority leader recognized that he came from california. don, you made a difference. and particularly for your state. as chairman of the natural resources, you were focused like a laser on making sure that your state was treated fairly. i know there are still some things you didn't accomplish that you would have like to accomplish and you have much time left to do that, but the fact is, all of us have benefited, i think, from your honesty, your recognition of how the house ought to work, and, yes, your regular order. which you demanded and didn't always get. and, of course, you took that with just very low-key
response, as i recall, walking by your seat from time to time. but don young is an institution. don young is an institutionalist. don young is the kind of member that makes this house over the decades work as constructively as it can. not as constructively as it should, and hopefully we will follow don young and john dingell's example, because both them are lions of partisanship but also both of them were not only willing but thought it appropriate to work across the aisle to reach objectives that they could hold in common. so, don, i rise to say thank you. thank you for your service. you and i have served together for 37 years. . between us we have a little bit of time on us. and i look forward to serving
with you for some years to come. god bless, you godspeed. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. the speaker: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished republican whip of the house, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: i thank the speaker for yielding. really a special moment for all of us to pay tribute to don young for this great achievement, being the longest serving republican in the house, especially for someone who loves this institution so much. as we talked about john dingell and had the honor of serving with john dingell in the house energy and commerce committee and seeing his passion, not just for the issues he believes in in fighting for the auto industry and so many other issues, but for his love of the people's house. and don young has that same
love. anybody that knows don young knows that his secrets to longevity are always speaking his mind, fighting every day to be a champion for the great people of alaska, and always speaking his mind. on a somber note, don started his career out of a tragedy. a lot of you remember back in october of 1972 there was a plane crash in alaska. and begich and boggs who at the time was the majority leader went down in a plane crash. and there was a massive search to try to find the plane. they never did find that plane. but ultimately when he they finally recognized that we had lost two great leaders, they had special elections. and i get to serve and actual-l work every day in the office
that hail boggs once worked in. same office that the majority leader hoyer worked in as well. and i think about hale a lot. i know as we think about nichlas begism as well. don was elected in a special election. that's when he came to congress. somebody else came to congress, hale boggs' wife, lynndie boggs, who some of you may have served with. and probably two very different personalities. but they formed a special bond because of the unique nature in which they came to congress. he shared with me some of those stories. it just shows you how sometimes our differences can ultimately bring us together to at least pay tribute not only to an institution but respect our backgrounds and how we all come from here different walks of life. ultimately it's our desire to serve the people that we represent. that's the thing i love the most about serving with don young is that he has such a
passion and he fights for his beliefs. and he works with other people. we all know that for 37 years one of his great causes was to open up anwr. and finally when we were on the white house lawn in december of 2017 to have that ceremony and watch don young giddy as a school child as the president was making that announcement, and then to see him still this day and every day come to work with the passion of representing the great people of alaska and continuing to work with all of us on all of the different issues that we come here to address. as we celebrate this great achievement, i think as we all know he comes and sits in that same spot, and he yells order, and he yells a few other things, and pushes us all to do our job in a much more efficient way, how fitting is it that the states, the united
states states' largest state has such a larger than life personality as its representative. congratulation, don. it's an honor to serve with you. i yield back to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. the speaker: mr. speaker, it is clear from listening to the comments of the bipartisan leadership of the house of representatives that as speaker i can say on behalf of the entire house of representatives thank you, don young, and congratulations. i yield the floor to the distinguished longest serving probable in history in the congress, don young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: thank you, madam speaker. and thanks for the kind words and republican leaders and kind words. all my colleagues. it was mentioned that i love this institution and i do. this is a great united states of america. and we're representative of our districts. and one thing i learned during my 46 years that each one of you represent your people.
and i respect it. i may not agree with some of the things you stand for, but i respect the ability you were elected by your people. hi the privilege of traveling a lot, and still do, into members' districts. not to campaign against them. but to find out why and how they are elected and what they stand for in that community. this democracy, this house is the people's house. and i have to sort of confess to one thing that was alluded to by kevin, the fact that i was a school teacher and prepared me for this job as a fifth grade teacher. there is some truth in that because i have to tell you i have timed it as a teacher the average attention span of a fifth grader is seven minutes. an average attention span of most congressmen, about 4 1/2. because because you are so busy trying to o do everything you can can. are you so busy representing your people. john dingell was mentioned, debbie, god bless you for him, he was mentioned.
he was one of my dear friends. everybody says that, but he he was a dear friend because i met him in 1964 in my hometown of fort yukon. he was on the fish and wildlife committee. he was a nine-year congressman. i met with him, talked to him about an issue i was interested in. and of course when i got elected, he came to me, i went to see him. we had one thing in common, we loved to hunt. we hunted on weengds because we stayed here. we fished on weekends. and we became dear friends. as the strongest thankfully congressman i served with. we had one thing in common, he respected my beliefs and i respected his. and i'd say john, this is the right thing to do. and he would do it it. i think a lot of us here today have to learn that and quit watching the media. that person that represents that district listen to what they have to say and support them. that makes this house work. a lot better, frankly, than it is right now. and this is nothing new.
but we have to do this for this country to retain the control of the congress to run this nation. if not, we will lose our democracy. so i want to thank all of you in this room for recognizing my tenure. i want to especially thank my ife, ann, up in the stand. i have within trying -- i have been trying to get the state of alaska to pay her. when i lost my dear lu, i thought i would day. she came and supported me and cherishes me and makes me want to work every day to serve the great state of alaska. thank you-all. god bless you. god bless, america. hank you, madam speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is ecognized. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks. ms. lofgren: and insert extraneous material on h.r. 1. the speaker pro tempore: without objection so ordered.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 962, the born alive abortion survivors protection act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under
the guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. the gentleman is recognized. >> if this unanimous consent request cannot be entertained, i urge the speaker and the majority leader to immediately chedule a vote on the board -- born alive bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized for ebate. pursuant to house resolution 17 and rule 18 -- 17 and rule 1, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1. the chair appoints the
gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, to he preside over the committee of the whole. -- to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to expand america's access to the bat local box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority members of the committee on house administration. the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, each will control 60 minutes. the chair now recognizes the the gentlewoman from
california, ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in strong -- the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i rise in strong support of h.r. 1. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and add ir remarks extraneous material on h.r. 1, the for the people act of 2019. the chair: that particular request was granted already. ms. lofgren: h.r. 1 will begin the process of returning the government to the people. many provisions of h.r. 1 have been pending and ignored for years in this house. no more. h.r. 1 itself hags been the subject of hearings -- itself has been the subject of hearings in five committees and 15 hours of testimony from witnesses. throughout these hearings, we have heard our republican friends beknown a rushed process when in fact they have had eight years to consider these proposals but failed to
do so. today we deliver on our promise to the american people. h.r. 1 is critically important at this point in our history. trust in government and many institutions has eroded because of years of putting profit before the people and letting politicians pick their voters. dark money has been allowed to o poison our system, drowning out the voices of the very people who we were sent here to represent. access to the ballot box has been impeded by arbitrary obstacles that have made voting a privilege not a right. without trust, our representative system suffers. too many americans view themselves as shut out from our democracy. others cannot participate because of election administration procedures that fail to account for how americans live and work in the 21st century. some of these barriers make it
harder for certain populations, including communities of color and other unrepresented -- underrepresented groups to vote. this is especially the case after the supreme court gutted core provisions of the voting rights act in shelby county vs. holder. meanwhile, the supreme court's 2010 citizens united decision has further empowered wealthy special interests and ushered in nearly $1 billion in money from undisclosed sources, even though the court affirmed the importance of dishe closure by a vote of 8-1. h.r. 1 reverses course and strengthens our democracy. it makes it easier and more convenient for all eligible americans to vote. solutions to the big the
money in politics. it ensures public officials will work in the public interest. one of the things that has been discussed is the proposal for a freedom from influence fund that will allow for small of s to reclaim control candidates through $200 or less donations. i want to make it clear that no taxpayer funds are permitted to flow into this freedom from influence fund. instead, as was approved in our st vote, a modest additional sessment of 2.75% on federal fines, penalties, and settlements for certain tax crimes and corporate malfeasance will be the sole source of funding for this freedom from influence fund. fact, the bad guys will be
funding the clean system. lower barriers to voting for all eligible americans. it will save costs, bolster the integrity of election administration and, for ample, lower barriers it wille voter registration systems by enabling automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration, taking voter registration advantage of technology to ensure all americans can register and update their voter registration status online. automatic voter registration alone may bring up to $50 million new americans onto the rolls and able to vote. it helps voters with isabilities as well as our overseas and military voters. it will require states to use voter verified paper ballots.
this is a commonsense safeguard to cybersecurity threats, especially after the 2016 election showed vulnerabilities in our systems. h.r. 1 will reform redistricting to ensure fairness in the process to guard against partisanship and spect communities of interest. this legislation will shine a light on dark secret money that influences campaigns and will protect everyone's right to know who is influencing their votes and their views. as i mentioned earlier, it provides an alternative voluntary system for candidates to finance their campaigns by empowering small dollar contributors, all without taxpayer money. is will reduce candidates' alie -- alliance. this will create a government for the people. h.r. 1 will implement high
ethical standards and boost confidence in self-government. it has been said that we should not take these steps but article 1, section 4 of the united states constitution provides that congress may, by law, regulate votes in federal elections. it is time we take this step. democracy is resilient, but it requires our continual work to ensure that it lives up to its promise. h.r. 1 is a major comprehensive a step that we must take if we are going to be true to our promise of our representative government. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chairman, 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, transparentsy and election security. however, h.r. 1 was developed to serve the special interest of democrats and the outside organizations that support the democratic party and will not accomplish its alleged goal of being for the people. the greatest threat to our nation's election system is partisanship, and that's what we're seeing right here in h.r. 1. it misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from states to administrator their own elections and threatens -- administer their own elections d h.r. 1 imposes vague standards that disadvantage citizens who wish to advocate on behalf of any public policy issue. every american has a right to support causes they believe in, and that's exactly why the american civil liberties union echoes my concern. the aclu say this impinges on
the free speech right of american citizens and public interest organizations. when groups who have traditionally supported the democratic party cannot support h.r. 1, it underscores why election reform legislation should not be developed in a partisan manner. h.r. 1 overreaches our constitution by taking power away from states that decide how their election should be administered. states that know their residents election needs much more than a federal democracy does. we shouldn't enforce a federally mandated one-size-fits-all approach that will be costly and ineffective. this bill also fails to include safeguards while implementing many new voter registration and voting practices. i cannot stress enough that congress should absolutely be in favor of increasing access to the polls, but we do that by adding the necessary checks and balances to ensure these votes and that access are protected. we should allow states to
maintain their own voter rolls in order to process voters in a timely manner on election day. avoid unfunded mandates and manage voter lists to avoid voting irregularities. a few irregularities can change the outcome of an election, especially when you live in a competitive district like i do. if we pass the new voter registration practices in h.r. 1 without creating safeguards to prevent voting irregularities in these practices, we risk taking away choice from the american people. h.r. 1 is taking away the voice of each american voter. if we want to increase our election security, congress should support states choosing their own methods and machines. multiple points of entry are more secure than one system. federalizing election security, as this legislation does, will not protect voters. h.r. 1 was referred to 10 committees in the house. this bill, which is now over
600 pages, will now have gone from introduction to general debate on the floor of the house with only half of those 10 committees holding a single hearing and only one of those committees holding a markup. he democrats promise greater transparency but we are not seeing that. we just received the c.b.o. score of h.r. 1, which egregiously underestimates h.r. 1's cost to the taxpayers by conveniently leaving out many of the legislation's most expensive provisions. h.r. 1's campaign match provision is what is being left out. c.b.o. said they need more time to develop a more comprehensive score. that was ignored. though my democratic colleagues may have changed were exactly the bucket is, they're still using h.r. 1 to put more money into politicians' campaigns. h.r. 1 is creating public subsidies through the 6-1 government match campaign on small dollar campaign
contributions of up to $200. for every $200, the federal government, the taxpayers will now pay $1,200 to a politician, to members of congress' campaigns. while my colleagues across the aisle now say this will be of cost to the taxpayer, the yesterday, they did and make no mistake, the new majority wants to put your hard-earned tax dollars into their own campaigns. while they may have changed the route to get there, that's their fundamental goal with this obvious sham campaign finance reform. they say they want to get money out of politics, but they're using this bill, h.r. 1, to funnel more in. provisions like this do not belong in any campaign finance or election reforms. election reforms should be bipartisan, not serving the interest of partisan
politicians. as we move forward with the debate today, i hope my colleagues across the aisle will thoughtfully reconsider their eager support of a bill that will harm the american voter and taxpayer and not simply vote, as we've seen roughout this non-not-open process, vote on party lines. everyone vote should be counted and protected, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the baffle his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to recognize the chairman of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, the right to vote has been called protective of
all other rights. without it you can't protect your rights. that right has been eroded in recent years. we've seen many attempts on the state and local level to limit the right to vote for minorities, to close polling places, to put in phony requirements that prevent people from voting. we must restore, as this bill will do, the protections of the 1965 voting rights act that guarantee the right to vote that stopped local politicians from choosing their own electorates. we must eliminate the poison of large campaign contributions, large campaign contributions of hidden money. the dominance in our politics of large campaign contributions, when someone anonymously can give $20,000, $30,000, or millions of dollars to various p.a.c.'s which funnel money to politicians is subversive of our democracy.
it's a metastasize cancer on american democracy. and if we don't excise this cancer through this bill, historians will eventually write, i fear, that the american republic looked like the roman republic, had a good tool 250-year run with democracy but then evolved into an oligarchy, which is a direction we're headed in. we must damn those huge campaign systems. have small contributions by ordinary people that will be matched so that the public, not the pluto kratts, will dominate will plutocrats, dominate our politician. ese restrictions were put in specifically to guarantee white supremacy. read the debates in the various state conventions in 1900, 1910. this bill will help strengthen americans' faith in their
government institutions, ensure everyone has the voice in determining how our country is governed. i urge all of my colleagues to support this landmark legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to my colleague on the house administration committee and good friend, mr. walker from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. walker: thank you. and thank you for the ranking member to his work. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition of h.r. 1. while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have deemed this bill to be for the people, a more proper characterization would be for the politicians. voting is a foundational right for all americans, and the egregious provisions of this bill will jeopardize our freedoms. in particular, this legislation fails to address the issue of ballot harvesting. as we've seen in california and my own state of north carolina, ballot harvesting has created
troubling irregularities in several elections due to the lack of oversight and opportunities for voter manipulation and intimidation. ballot harvesting allows political operatives with a partisan agenda to get involved in the collection and submission of votes, creating an opportunity for organizations of -- or campaign workers to exploit voters and violate our fundamental rights. americans should have choice on how they want to vote, who they want to support, and if they want to vote at all. not only would h.r. 1 manipulate the voting process but would also restrict our rights as americans to donate to campaigns of our choosing and would allow the federal government to use our taxpayers' dollars to subsidize elections. aside from the proposed matching donations with a 6-1 ratio, h.r. 1 would create a pilot program to provide $25 vouchers to eligible voters. in practice, this means taxpayer money from hardworking americans could be used to finance campaigns for candidates they do not support.
if this doesn't limit free speech enough, another provision of the bill politicizes the f.e.c. commission by reducing membership from six to five. this makes a traditionally nonpartisan organization political, giving one party the power to make partisan decisions about elections communications. with the vague standards created by h.r. 1, this would affect any group wishing to advocate on behalf of any legislative issue. in short, this legislation violates the first amendment, even the aclu has problems with it. it creates an avenue for fraud and subjects voters to potential exploitation. while my colleagues across the aisle will support this bill to subsidize their own elections and keep their party in the majority, i will stand up for our rights as americans and vote against one of the worst bills ever, this assault on our election system. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california
is recognized. . ms. lofgren: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a pioneer and leader in clean government and that is the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i thank my colleague and i rise in strong support of h.r. 1. it is a comprehensive, once in a generation blueprint for reforming our democratic system. ranging from gerrymandering, to voter suppression and voting rights, to the dominance of unaccountable big money in our politics. it's an urgent priority, rightly numbered h.r. 1. basic to everything else we need to do. if our democracy doesn't work, nothing works. it represents a culmination of issues i have worked on during my entire time in congress, particularly the way mooneyed interests can can corrupt our
politics -- can corrupt our politics and down out the voices of everyone else. the for the people act will modernize our presidential public finance financing system. it will establish a new public matching system for congressional races to empower small donors t will crack down on improper superp.a.c. coordination with campaigns. it also includes my legislation to repeal the i.r.s. dark money rule. and it expands my original stand by your ad provision to require corporations and other groups to disclose the top funders when they run political ads over the air or on the internet. these reforms will empower american voters, encourage more diverse candidates to run for office, and help break the stranglehold of big money on our politics. let's deliver on the promises we have made to restore integrity, accountability, transparency to our democracy.
i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 1. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina -- yields the bag of the time. the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chair, i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend from the great state of south carolina, mr. cun can. the chair: the gentleman from being south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today strongly opposed to h.r. 1. this is an egregious assault on the fundamental rights and freedoms of americans. h.r. 1 really is a fight over liberty. this is a fight over the constitutional duties and roles of the states, one of which being the role in conducting elections. the article 1 section 4 says clearly the times and place as manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, federal offices, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. having individual states conduct election has been vital to preserving the integrity and security of elections across the country. but this debate really is about
the democrats' desire to centralize power here in one place, washington, d.c. instead of actively giving more power to washington bureaucrats, we should be divesting power away from the expanse of federal government and reserving that power for the states because that's the way the founding fathers designed our republic. but sadly this bill is nothing but a topdown power grab by the democrats using the federal government to micromanage the electoral process. impose limits on free speech, and further impose unconstitutional mandates. folks, this is not the liberty our founders intended. in fact, this is a dangerous proposal. it centralizes power, enhances big government in washington, and takes decisionmaking power out of the hands of the states and people. let's ask ourselves, is this the proper and constitutional role of the federal government? the answer to that question is no. h.r. 1 encroaches on the liberties and powers of the constitution reserved for the
states of the people and i oppose such type of power grab. i think that's what infuriates so many americans. we take an oath here, folks. to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. we shouldn't be passing bills like h.r. 1. we should be passing bills that preserve the liberty and freedom enshrined in the constitution. i encourage all members to adamantly oppose this legislation because if you take your oath seriously, because we aren't voting for a fancy title of a bill, when you read the language of this legislation, you see it undermines the constitution and the rights of every single american across the country under the guise of making elections safer. with 245 i -- with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields the balance of his time of the the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, i have to note that the last speaker failed to read the entire section. article 1, section 4 says the time, place, and manner of holding elections for senators,
representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof as was mentioned and goes on to say, but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. that's what we're doing here. why? because we have seen in states throughout the country efforts to prevent people from voting in federal elections. so a voter in one state is treated differently than in another state. that's what we're going to change with h.r. 1. i would now like to yield to the gentleman from illinois, krishnamoorthi. one minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. krishnamoorthi: i rise today in support of the for the people act which includes language from my legislation with senator corey booker, the help students vote act. young americans vote at the lowest rate of any age group. the key factor in that are the challenges of voting on a new
college campus far away from home. my legislation has three provisions to address this challenge. first, it requires every college and university to email timely voter registration information to all of its students. second, it requires every school to designate a campus vote the requisite number of words nator -- coordinator to answer students' questions about voting. third, it authorizes grants to colleges and universities that take exemplary action to promote civic engagement. i want to thank the many organizations supporting the legislation, including young invisibles and the students learn students vote coalition. by helping students rengster and vote, we can ensure our government better responds to the people it serves while encouraging our next generation of leaders. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california reserves her time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr.
chairman. i'm very privileged to o stand here with somebody who grew up in the same rural county as i did in christian county, illinois he he and yield two minutes to now the gentleman from indiana, my good friend, mr. bucshon. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon: mr. chairman, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1, the democrat politician protection act. this legislation is a radical attempt to hydrogen -- hijack our free election system and limit the voices of the american people. in h.r. 1 democrats are proposing the public financing of elections which would force americans' hard-earned tax dollars to be subsidizing political campaigns they do not support. limiting actually guaranteed freedoms of speech and association. furthermore, this one size fits all federal takeover of the election process will open the door for voting irregularities through federal mandates on voter registration and voting practices that will be forced on the states. a massive federal power grab.
last time i checked, voting happens at the state level and are the right and responsibility of the state and local governments. they say this only affects federal elections, but does anyone really believe the states will have two separate systems? i am in full support in increasing voter registration participation in our election process, unfortunately this legislation goes far beyond increasing voter participation and instead is a misguided attempt to rid our nation's electoral systems for the benefit of the democrat party by telling americans once again that the federal government and washington bureaucrats know best. i urge my colleagues to oppose this liberty and freedom limiting legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves his balance of the time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield one minute to a valued member of the house administration committee, the gentlelady from california, representative susan davis.
the chair: the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis, is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. this bill was not rushed. it is long overdue. i recently joined our colleague in the civil rights icon congressman john lewis on the edmund pettus bridge in selma, commemorating the march and fight for the right to vote. we can never forget how many people have risked and lost their lives for that right. 54 years later, our election system is still stacked against many americans. some eligible voters are still prohibited from voting by mail and can't make it to the polls. some eligible voters have still n unfairly purged from the rolls. and some communities still do not have enough polling locations leading to long lines. we need justice. we need to expand the fixes that have been proven to work in so many of our states. and that's exactly what h.r. 1
does. if we are for the people, not just the ones we think will vote for us, then we should be for this bill. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california , ms. lofgren, reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i love this country. i love this country for what it is. i love this country for the principles and the ideas of which it was founded. this -- america is not a place, it's not a government, it's not a people. it's an idea. one of the ideas of our founders is that the government is most effective when it is local, the closest to the people. i want to o correct something that i think my colleagues on the other side may not understand or just not presenting to the american people. mr. loudermilk: yes, the
constitution gives congress the ability at times to come in and modify election law. but this bill is so sweeping it strips the states of their constitutional authority that was given to them by the constitution by eliminating their influence in elections all together. the true intention of the founders when it came to this provision in the constitution was predominantly to ensure that the states could not render the congress ineffective by refusing to hold elections so it would ensure we always have a core yum -- quorom here. that was the purpose of that. we need to go back to the original intent of the founders when they added this in the constitution. mr. speaker, if you read the writings of the founding fathers, this is ultimately clear, i want to read to you something that james madison said regarding the state's authority, especially when it comes to elections. he said the power's delegated by the constitution to the
federal government are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. the powers reserved to several states will extend to all objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. and the internal order improvement and prosperity of the state. they can could not be clearer that the states should be the ones setting the laws regarding elections. this would totally undermine hat. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my good friend and colleague from georgia, mr. woodall. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. you, mr. l: thank chairman. i thank my friend from georgia for yielding the time. it's tough to get up and speak after the federalist papers have been referenced because they do go to the core of who we're. so does elech integrity.
i look around see my friends from the other side of the aisle, along with friends on my side of the aisle. and election is integrity is a shared value. you would think the solution to election integrity challenges would be a shared solution. if gi to my friends on the republican side of the house administration committee, the only one of the 10 committees this bill was referred to that marked it up, i'll find that not one republican was consulted on the drafting of this language. you have heard my colleagues talk about the wholesale changes to election laws, state election law, a across this country. you would think, mr. chairman, that we would have talked to all 50 secretaries of state. that wouldn't be true. maybe you think he we would have consulted with 25 secretaries of state. it wouldn't be true. what would be true is in the one committee that had the one markup on this bill we consulted with one state election official. my friends, this is an
opportunity for us to do something together. we can either take advantage of that opportunity or we can can poison the well. how in the world can we promise the american people election integrity when one side is writing the rules? it should be instructive to us all how this bill has come to the floor and a string of missed opportunities we have had. i'll give you just one example. i made a motion last night in the rules committee to only bring this bill to the floor as it was marked up in committee. we talked about a bill that's going to guarantee voter transparency. we don't even have legislative transparency on this bill. we couldn't get the bill brought to the floor from the one of the 10 committees that marked it up. we had managers' amendments added. we had the bill not as reported. i offered another amendment last night. if it's so important that we legislate for the first time in american history that tax returns be released by officials. let's release them at the
presidential level. let's release them at the vice-presidential level. i offered an amendment to the rule to allow a vote on whether or not they should be considered at your level, mr. chairman. that amendment was denied on a partisan line. let's not make this a partisan issue. it's an american issue. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute to my colleague on the judiciary committee committee, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady. i thank her for her leadership. mr. sarbanes, for his leadership. and for allowing us to tell our stories. let me tell you the story of texas. in 2017, right before a bond election, in my district and surrounding areas, 4,000 people were taken off the voting rolls.
in 2018, when the secretary of state's office took people off the voting rolls with absolutely no understanding, no notice. h.r. 1 expands the access to the ballot box by creating voluntary automatic voter registration access across the country. ensuring that rights of individuals that have completed felony sentences, family members, your neighbors who've done their time have the ability to register as well. and expanding early voting. be reminded of the 2000 election when those who had done their time and went to the voting polls and were told, oh, you cannot vote. it ends partisan gerrymandering but, in particular, it focuses on opportunities for voting. and so i'm here to say those provisions are crucial to providing the american public its constitutional right to vote. and we should support that
right. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas yields the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate what the gentlelady from texas brought up, but part of the responsibilities of the state is to ensure that those who have been given the right to vote are the ones voting. that's why the states and the supreme court has upheld this have not only the right but responsibility to ensure that the voters rolls are purged, who have moved, passed away, or shown ineligible. mr. loudermilk: i was able to right a note for a new immigrant of the united states. for 16 years she worked to become the citizen of the united states with the dream of voting. this next election she will be able to cast her vote as a citizen of the united states of america. part of our responsibility is to ensure that her vote
matters, and it isn't discredited by someone who's not eligible to vote casting a vote diluting her voice in this government. that's why it's more appropriate for the states, who are closing to the people, to be the ones who are setting the standards, according to our constitution, for elections. with that, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. olson: i thank my friend from georgia. back home all texans agree the 10 most terrifying and biggest lie people can hear is, quote, i'm from the federal government and i'm here to help, end quote. under that viewpoint, h.r. 1 should be called the -- well, it's called the for the people act. it should be called, quote, for the big government act, or more accurately, the big lie act. texas 22 does not want to have $6 of federal tax money given
to subsidize small donors and match every dollar they raise. they prefer that $6 of their money be used for new roads, patrol, ts, border ve schools and hurricane prevention. texas being swarm by californians. lowest income tax. zero. friendlier environment for businesses. just like we don't want tax on plastic straws, texans don't want a tax to follow california same-day registration. i ask my colleagues, respect the constitution. respect the 10th amendment. respect states' rights and vote against this terrible bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, it is my honor to recognize the democratic leader, mr. steny hoyer, the gentleman from
maryland, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this bill, h.r. 1. i thank mr. sarbanes for being the principal sponsor and proponent of h.r. 1. of -- ise as the sponsor i forget the number -- the help america vote act in 2002, which responded to the lack of performance on our voting system in the 2000 election. hanging chads and all. this bill expands upon that. but let me, at the outset, remind those who would talk about what the constitution says, to read a portion of the constitution. let me say, before i do that,
throughout my lifetime -- early in my lifetime i heard a lot about states' rights. people talk about the right to vote. i was in alabama this past weekend, and we commemorated the march over the edmund pet us bridge with our colleague ohn lewis. bridge with ttus our colleague john lewis. he was almost killed. why? because he was marching from selma to montgomery to register to vote. i remember as a child, not child -- i was a young man -- watching lester maddux on saying nobody was
ing to integrate his premises. i heard a lot about states' rights through the years. now, what did our founders say about states' rights as it relates to members of congress? the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. but -- and apparently we didn't get to this phrase -- congress ay at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations. why do our founders do that? because they wanted one nation. now, that was not our pledge at that point in time, but they wanted the colonies to come together as a nation.
they had been a federation. and it didn't work so well. so they wanted one nation to come together and at least for the federal congress they reserved to the federal congress the right to set the rules. in the constitution. mr. speaker, last december i delivered a speech outlining ouse democrats' plans to renew faith in government by enacting a seers of reforms to increase -- series of reforms to increase transparency, accountability, and ethics reform. this week, after extensive hearings, lots of witnesses, we bring to the floor a legislative package of reforms that make good on our promises to the american people last
year. we didn't make a secret of this. this was well-known to everybody. and they gave us the majority of this house. and we are redeeming today that honor and that responsibility. i want to thank, again, representative sarbanes and the co-sponsors of this bill. every single democratic member. i want to thank john lewis, a , a giant of principle, a giant who risked his very life to make sure that the protections in this bill would be available to every american and that we would promote, not prevent, accessibility to the voting booth. that we would not confront eople going over a bridge in selma, alabama, who only wanted
to register to vote to be turned around by state troopers ordered by governor wallace to do so. this pill was driven in large part by our -- this bill was driven in large part by our dynamic freshman class who were elected on a platform of making government work again for the american people. this for the people act will open government up in several critical ways. first, it includes real national redistricting reform. i am for that. ladies and gentlemen of this house, it may cost maryland a seat. i get that. but it's the right thing to to to have a level playing field.
now, we got a number of court cases that turned around redistricting in north carolina, in pennsylvania, some other states, in texas, other states as well. but i've always said, in order to be successful, redistricting reform cannot be done by a state-by-state basis, and the constitution, of course, says that congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations so that we have fair -- they don't have to do this for state elections. they don't want to do it, that's fine. but we, under the constitution, are the arbiters of federal elections. it must be a uniform process across all states. h.r. 1, the for the people act, achieves this by requiring a nonpartisan redistricting commission to oversee the process in every state. what does that mean? it means the politicians will
not do it. like iowa, california, or arizona. we'll have a fair redistricting process. next, this bill includes a much-needed expansion of voting rights to protect our democracy. it would institute automatic voter registration. in america, if you're an american citizen, you ought to have the right to vote and government ought not make it difficult for you to exercise that right. no eligible voter should ever be turned away from his or her polling place. it would also restore the vote to those who have paid their debt to society and should have a voice in their representative government. this legislation builds on the important bipartisan work we did in 2002 when we passed, as i pointed out, the help america vote act. it re-authorizes the election assistance commission, which very frankly, my republican friends tried to eliminate on a
number of occasions and transfer their authority to the election commission -- excuse me -- the finance commission, which oversees campaign finance, not election laws, campaign finance. it was a way and the fact undermine, kill in many ways, the election assistance commission, designed to make sure that our elections are secure and fair. it re-authorizes the election assistance commission which is critically important by ensuring modern, secure, successful elections. in addition, h.r. 1 will make campaign finance more transparent, requiring super p.a.c.'s to disclose their donors. again, i want to congratulate my colleague. we're very proud of john sarbanes and his dad in maryland. he's been trying to make sure that it's the people's interest
and not the financial interest that control our elections. it will end this bill -- this bill will end the era of massive amounts of dark, unaccountable money in funding ads and campaigns. the for the people act will also impose higher ethical standards on america's highest elected officials. there's only one person in government that can do something on his own. it's not the senate. it's not the house. it's not us. we need collectively. but the president can make substantial decisions on his own, and in fact has. he has done so over the wishes of the congress of the united states just recently. the people ought to know what his interests are and whether he's acting for his interests or the people's interests. president and vice president will be required to release 10
years worth of tax returns. in such ways, h.r. 1 will make strides, mr. speaker, in restoring the trust in government that unfortunately has been lost in recent years. americans need to know that their government works for them and can be a force for good for their families, their communities and our country. i rise in strong support of this legislation. i don't rise because i think it's perfect, but i rise because i think it is an excellent effort to redeem the promise of america and our democracy. it is for the people. let us vote for the people. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. loudermilk: i thank my esteemed colleague, the majority leader, with whom i have an an
immense amount of respect and i appreciate the words he has hade and his participation in the commemoration of the march in selma, which my family has participated. have we always got it right. our founders knew we would make mistakes, but they gave us the power to correct those mistakes. the lack of civil rights was a travesty and flew in the face in this. and i agree the majority leader. we do have the ability, according to the constitution, to make modifications. but h.r. 1 is not a modification, it is a sweeping takeover of the election system leaving the states with very little authority or power over their own elections as well as
the ned elections. i also would like to say, i heard that this bill has had extensive hearings. i serve on the committee of house administration. the only committee which had a hearing on this bill. the hearing lasted five hours. and the only reason it lasted that long was because the republicans submitted 28 amendments to the bill. otherwise, this bill would have gone right in and right out of committee with probably less than an hour of a committee hearing, come to this floor. it has 10 committees of jurisdiction, of which it has not gone before those committees. i submit it has not followed regular order especially of something of this magnitude, the american people have the right to hear and understand what is in this bill and they have not been afforded that opportunity. also, mr. speaker, we have 50 states. we have 50 state governors. we have 50 secretaries of state,
whom i know my governor and secretary of state have not been involved in this process and has a drastic impact not only upon the voting rights of the people in georgia but on the budget of georgia, the fiscal costs. mr. speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to my good friend and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. perry: i thank the gentleman from, mr. loudermilk for the time. and i thank the majority leader for his comments, but i don't think it should be removed from history that the governor of alabama at that time ran on segregation multiple times. ran on segregation and it was the republicans in this house, majority, republicans, that carried the day for the voting rights act. mr. speaker, this bill forces states to count votes cast outside of voter assigned
precincts. that's going to be great. that's what we all want, people who don't live in our neighborhoods voting for the people who decide our fates and policies. mr. speaker, for the people act, is it the people here or the people out there? it seems like it is for the people here when powerful voices on the left and right oppose this bill, voices like the n.r.a. and planned parenthood. maybe if you contribute to one of those organizations because you believe in their cause, you don't want the protests to show up on your doorstep. it is going to show up at your door, because the people that are opposed to the things that you believe in are going to find out you sent your five bucks in and come to your door and say, i don't agree with you, i don't like you and i don't think you should be spending your money on
those things. is that we we want? it will empower the federal elections commission to carry -- lo inchions of li s lerner. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield to the gentleman from rhode island, who has served so faithfully on the house homeland security committee, mr. langevin, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i thank the
gentlelady for yielding and i would like to thank her and chairman thompson and congressman sarbanes and the democratic members who helped craft this important legislation. h.r. 1, mr. chairman, among many things will make our elections more ethical and more secure. as a former rhode island secretary of state and member of the congressional task force, i absolutely believe we must actively address our election systems' vulnerabilities or enemies mr. williams:. this provides guidance and threat intelligence to secure systems that provide paper ballot, securing voter registration data bases and training election officials. these came from the election officials and we heard from rhode island secretary of state, who is implementing one of the nation's list limiting audit. and researchers have identified
vulnerabilities and helping us to close them. with the 2020 elections around the corner, i'm proud to support this legislation because we must act now to protect our democracy. i thamp the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back. ms. lofgren: may i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentlewoman from california has 44 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from gay, 38 minutes. ms. lofgren: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. loudermilk: i yield two minutes at this time to the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. upton: i have been a long supporter of campaign finance reform and voted for the motor voter and mccain-feingold and
supported help america vote act in 2002 and there are plenty of flaws in the current system, that is for sure. and we need to fix it. but you know what? we have a democratic house and we have a republican senate and the only way that we are reasonably going to fix this issue is with a bipartisan bill. i'm the only republican here today that was here in 1993 when we passed the motor voter bill. this was patterned after what michigan has had in place for decades. when you get your driver's license, you are asked to register to vote. it works. this bill, h.r. 1, it's not bipartisan. and one of our big objections is truly the taxpayer finance campaign element of this bill. if you do a poll coose the country, you are going to hear voters say campaigns are too expensive, too negative and yes, they are too long.
we are going to have thousands of candidates running for congress. they are all going to be eligible for this match from the treasury for any contribution under $200 with a six-to-one ratio. we will have more money in politics and we are not going to have the transparency that i think all of us want. if we are going to fix the problem, let's sit down, let's have regular order, let's have all the committees with some jurisdiction to sit down and have republicans and democrats work together on the committee process that we can pass on a bipartisan vote that will get the attention of the senate and maybe we can do something about the problems today. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, there is one person who has worked probably harder than anyone else
on this bill and that's the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes and i would like to yield to him two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. mr. speaker, last year in the 2018 election, a powerful message was sent to this congress that the public wants us to clean up our politics, fight corruption, unrig the system and make sure voting rights are protected. i think part of the reason the message was so strong is that for the last eight years under republican congress, there has been no progress made on any of those priorities. so there's this pent-up demand out there. they want the voice back. and h.r. 1 is the opportunity. the message they are sending is very simple.
the first message is, make it possible for us to get to the ballot box without running an obstacle course. it is incomprehensible that more than 50 years after john lewis, our colleague, was bloodied on the edmund pet ties bridge protesting for voting rights. that's ridiculous. we need to make it more possible to register and vote in this country so people can get to the ballot box. the other thing they are saying to us, when you get to washington, if you are lawmaker and serve in an office of public trust, behave yourself, be accountable to the people. remember who sent you there. be transparent. so we have provisions in h.r. 1 that strengthens ethics and accountability, as we should. and the third thing they said to us loud and clear, when you get to washington, don't get tangled up in the money and don't let
the special interests and the insiders call the shots on priorities, in congress. remember who sent you. fight for us. so we have measures in here to lean up the campaign finance system, create more disclosure and transparency so we know where the secret money is coming from and building a new system that is not opened by the special interests and big money. 15 more seconds. ms. lofgren: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: an america that is not owned by the special interests and the big money and the insiders. let's build a system that is owned by the american people, where they call the shots, where small donors can have their small contributions matched so their voice is amplified so candidates go to them and listen to what they have to say instead of hanging out with the big
money and lobbyist crowd. that's what this bill offers. the other side says this is taxpayer money. find me the provision -- there is no provision in this bill that says that any taxpayer money is going to go to this system, because it is not. we have come up with a solution that we go to the law breakers, the people that are leaning on our system and breaking the law and we asked them with a small surcharge to contribute to this fund and that's where the match will come from. we are going to the people who aren't playing fair with our system and asking them to underwrite a clean election system. that's how it should work. let's restore the voice of the people and pass h.r. 1, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. loudermilk: i appreciate the author of the bill and his comment. are there some good ideas in this bill? absolutely. the states have them implemented. early voting.
georgia did that many years ago and includes saturday voting. it is improper for the federal -- ar ent to be the ar i by trait ire. that is something reserved for the states and the states are doing this well. at this time, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. smucker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . . mr. smucker: the ugly truth is this bill is not for the people. it's for the democratic party. ugly truth is that this bill is a massive federal overreach. the ugly truth is that this bill won't make our elections safer or more democratic. the ugly truth is that this bill will fundamentally change the principles of our election system, all at a cost to the average american taxpayer. and this bill would infringe on the rights of our colleges and universities where so many students go to learn and grow
outside of the influence of politics. instead of promoting the freedom of ideas, this bill limits the right to free speech. the ugly truth is this bill violates the u.s. constitution, the document which makes our country so great. instead of calling this bill the for the people act, it should be called the democrat politician protection act. this bill is nothing but a top-down power grab to take our election system, reverse it, and send it completely off course. beyond that, this bill contains numerous provisions attempting to weaponize our institutions of higher learning, where people go to learn. h.r. 1 forces our colleges and universities to divert resources to election-related tasks, including provisions for colleges and universities to automatically register students to vote. students could also establish a second residency, which is essentially another way of weakening the voting system and giving them potentially the
right to vote not once but twice. you heard that right. there are no other people in our country who get to be registered to vote in two locations. under h.r. 1, this could be allowed. article 1, section article 1, section 4 of our constitution gives states the right to determine their own registration and voting practices, not our federal government. this bill blatantly violates our own constitutional rights as well as the rights of our higher education institutions. 30 more seconds? mr. loudermilk: i'd like to yield 30 more seconds. the chair: the gentleman is allowed 30 more seconds. mr. loudermilk: as part of the workforce investment committee, we should be focusing on making colleges more affordable and helping more students complete their degrees, not subjecting them to elect earing efforts. i -- electeering efforts. students should be free to learn without the influence of politics. we must reject this overreach.
we must speak now and stand up against this power grab before it's too late. i'll be voting against this measure, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, i'd yield one minute to a leader for civil rights and justice in our country, the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank chairwoman lofgren for yielding but also for your tireless leadership on so many issues that confront our country today. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1, for the people act. it's a historic bill to restore the promise of our nation's democracy and repair our democratic institution. h.r. 1 represents the coordinated effort to protect and promote the voting rights of all americans. h.r. 1 would also end the culture of corruption in washington, reduce the role of big money in politics and make
it easier, not harder, to vote. mr. chairman, let me be clear. the right to vote is a sacred civil right in our nation, but we know there are those who want to turn the clock back on voting rights and suppress minority voters. there are those who want to undercut the power and representation of communities of color and really lock us out of the political process. with this historic bill before us, we say enough is enough. instead, h.r. 1 will ensure that every eligible voter has the chance to participate in our democracy. this bill also includes important provisions to ensure clean and fair elections. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill and vote yes to restoring our democracy once and for all. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker. i do want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for something that they have accomplished with h.r. 1 and that's unity. because this bill has brought the american civil liberties
union, the national right to life, heritage foundation, and u.s. chamber in unity in opposition to this bill, something i thought i would never see happen here in washington, d.c. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield four minutes to my good friend and colleague from the state of georgia, mr. collins. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you. i do appreciate that because i'm very concerned after two straight weeks of democrat bills i am going to have 100% voting record with the aclu. that's something new as we go forward. although i think they do good work. i didn't think we'd agree so soon on this. mr. speaker, i'll describe the terrible policies behind the provisions of h.r. 1 and the judiciary committee. it is amazing, also, we just did this without going through because we didn't want to mark this up in areas because we didn't want to see what's in it. because here's what's going to half. -- , the bill creates a the bill allows anyone to sue anybody if they don't like the way an election was conducted in a locality, state, or nationwide. do you all remember the lawsuit
bush v. gore? in 2000 presidential candidate al gore didn't like the results in florida. if he could get it overturned he would win presidency. the case went all the way up to the supreme court which finally stopped the recount of legal wrangling that made it look ike that the election was by lawyers and we bring it back. we will see cases like gore v. bush. it is everybody versus everybody. do candidate needs 1,000 more votes to win? they can sue to see if a judge will get it. under this bill they can sue in a dozen counties. need a million votes? this bill, after allowing the losing candidate, to sue in all 50 states. go v. georgia. gore v. oklahoma.
taking time and money away from state and local officials who desperately need that money to administer free and fair elections, not pay bogus legal fees. prevent n 2002 would things like gore v. florida. this will deny states voters their constitutional right to limit voting by people who have been convicted of murder, violent felonies including, by the way, get this, voter fraud. these provisions are patently unconstitutional. the supreme court, including liberal justice ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, should nothing in the constitution lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal election are to be set by congress. further, the 14th amendment of the constitution itself explicitly recognizes the right to states to deny the vote for,
nd i quote, participation in crime. third, this is what happens when you bypass the committee process. i spoke about this one on the floor already last week. here we go again. the new majority doesn't like committees. a provision in the bill, page 99, listen to me clearly, line 7-20 states, no person, whether acting under the color of law or otherwise, shall intentionally hinder, interfere with, or prevent another from registering to vote or aiding another person to vote in an election. that text, if read strictly, says, it makes it illegal to prevent a 4-year-old from voting to prevent an illegal alien and prevent another nonqualified person from voting. it appears in pages 102 and 103 and adds the criminal penalty up to five years in prison, $100,000 fine. now, here's the problem. the problem is that provision, as i just quoted, doesn't refer to a person's exercising the right to vote.
that is voting when they have a legal right to vote. the standard term when used in the statutory provision is aimed at protecting legitimate voters from voters referred to or denial or abridgement of the right to vote. now, listen, because this provision doesn't contain those key terms, meaning the provisions would literally make it illegal to prevent illegal voters from voting, we shouldn't be making it a crime for -- could i have 30 more seconds? mr. loudermilk: yes. i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. mr. collins: we shouldn't be making it a crime for election officials to do their job. remember, we can't prevent illegal voters from voting under this bill. which makes it -- they have no legal right to vote illegally. this was recognized in supreme court reynolds v. symms. in that case, the right to vote cannot be denied by the debasement or disillusion of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively or as wholly prohibited by the free exercise of that franchise.
look, an illegally vote negate the vote of a legal voter. my colleagues, this could negate legal voting. i could go on for days. this is why committees matter. this is why this bill is bad. why do we keep doing this? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer. the chair: the gentleman from the state of washington is recognized. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairwoman for yielding. also want to start by saying thank you to congressman sarbanes for his important work on leading this legislation. i'm proud that we're bringing forward h.r. 1, to restore faith in the legislative branch, because right now congress' less popular than head lice and colonoscopies. that's because every time my constituent sees a bills written behind closed doors,
see floor debate that looks like "the jerry springer show," they need to see a restoration of faith in government. this bill will protect voting rights, strengthen ethics rules, and reduce the role of big money in politics. it will refresh our democracy and that's why the new democrat coalition has endorsed this bill. listen, we don't talk enough about it. this bill includes bipartisan provisions in support of good government. it includes a bipartisan bill that i am leading, the restoring integrity to americans elections act, which would reform the federal election commission, enable it to weed out campaign finance abuse, and hold those who skirt the rules accountable. it includes the honest ads act, my bipartisan bill -- could i have 30 more seconds? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kilmer: thank you. i appreciate it. it includes the honest ads act, my bipartisan bill that would shine a light on the murky world of online political advertising. by requiring digital ads to meet the same disclosure requirements as print or broadcast ads. americans deserve to know who's
paying for political ads that thee see online. they deserve to know the nation's election watchdog is back on the beat. they deserve to have their voices heard in congress, again. that's why this bill is important. that's why i urge my colleagues to support this bill. and i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from -- the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to now recognize my good friend from kentucky, mr. barr, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barr: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1. this is the my fourth term in the u.s. house of representatives, and i can say without reservation or equivocation, h.r. 1 is the single worst most unsound, most unconstitutional legislation that i've seen in my 6 1/2 years in congress. the bill federalizes elections in violation of basic constitutional principles, yuesurping states' authority over elections, including federal elections. the bill legalizes voter fraud and destroys integrity of
elections by degrading the accuracy of registration lists, ensuring duplication of registration and registration of ineligible voters. it rations core free speech protected by the first amendment by allowing a partisan bureaucracy to have compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, and nonprofit organizations. these provisions violate the first amendment. they protect incumbents and they diminish accountability to politicians to the public. finally, worse of all, the bill gives welfare to politicians coercing americans to support candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree. this doesn't enhance democracy. the idea that we the people establish a government based on the consent of the government. it corrupts democracy by taking away the fundamental right of the people to choose their own representatives and giving it to a partisan election bureaucracy in washington, d.c. mr. speaker, soviet dictator josef stalin once famously said, the people who cast the votes don't decide an election.
the people who count the votes do. h.r. 1 would stalinize american elections by legalizing voter fraud, giving partisan election bureaucrats the power to ration free speech and by coercing americans to support candidates and causes with whom they fundamentally disagree. i urge everyone for the sake of the first amendment and for our constitution, vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. chairman. i just -- before yielding to the gentlelady from michigan -- i'd just like to quote the -- one of the most conservative justices who said that the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election. that was in the citizens united decision. i didn't agree with that decision, but the court said the solution to the dark money
that they were unleashing on the country was disclosure. and that's what this bill does. i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from michigan, ms. talib, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for one minute. ms. talib: thank you so much, mr. speaker. today i rise in support of h.r. 1, for the people act. h.r. 1 will restore our democracy. we need a comprehensive bill, mr. chairman, that takes action on what the people sent us to congress to do, to work on their behalf, to ensure that government is truly for, by, and of the people. and we must demand it immediately. we know that today many people, especially those at home in my congressional district in the 13th, various communities of color across this country, continue to face voter disenfranchisement while trying to exercise their right to vote and make their voices heard. we must acknowledge this injustice and remedy it immediately.
when it comes to the office of the president, vice president and the appointees and the reaffirmation of the requirement to divest from business interests. we do that with h.r. 1 and i commend my colleague requiring that language for the executive branch, trading individual stocks and so forth. the chair: the gentlelady's time is expired. ms. lofgren: an additional 15 seconds. ms. tlaib: we cannot allow our democracy to be tainted and must demand that our government is more transparent and more access i will for all americans. the chair: the gentlelady resevers. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let's be clear, h.r. 1, takes
money from hardworking american taxpayers and puts it straight in the poggets of politicians. let me be abundantly clear, this bill that the democrats have proposed provides taxpayer funding for federal campaigns. the democrats are voting to take the american hardworking taxpayers' money and actually give it back to be used for their own campaigns. by voting for this bill, the democrats are saying we deserve to stay elected. this is a money grab for politicians. this unfairly benefits legitimated incumbents. it protects career politicians under the guise of campaign finance rearm. his 600-paged bill fills the campaign covers of people that
have been legitimated. not om that, this bill now includes a tax stuck in last night as a manager's amendment in rules. yes, they are wanting to tax american citizens to make sure that they get re-elected and put money back in their own campaign. mr. speaker, this is how the majority party believes we are going to get transparency in congress. it's not doing it. it is not living up to that. i find it even interesting because it seems to trample on our first amendment rights to speak freely and voluntarily participate in the process that we hold as a privilege of electing our elected leaders. and to top it off, mr. speaker, they want you and every hardworking american taxpayer to pay for it. i can see it coming up because it's going to come very soon and may say about all the wonderful virtues of this particular bill,
but when they vote for it, they are actually voting to send taxpayer monies to get me re-elected. i look for that end game when we say democrats vote to give $3.5 million to re-elect the freedom caucus chairman. i don't think that's what america is all about and i yield back. mr. davis: how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has 24 minutes. the gentlewoman from california has 37 1/4 minutes. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: before yielding to the chairman of the homeland security committee, i would just to say that saying it's tax money does not make it so. we prohibited appropriations into the freedom from influence fund, the total source of funding is a 2.75% assessment on
people who have committed tax crimes or corporate mall feesance. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentlelady from california for giving me the time. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1. last congress, house democrats sought to address russia's meddling in the presidential election. unfortunately, the then majority would not prioritize the issue, so democrats formed a congressional task force on election security, which i co-chair. in february, 2018, after a series of public meetings with experts and national security, cybersecurity and election administration, the task force released a report charting a course for how we could better
protect our election infrastructure. i'm pleased that h.r. 1 includes the election security act, legislation i introduced to implement the task force's recommendation. under the election security act, states are provided surge funding to replace decades' old outdated election equipment with more modern secure technologies. additionally, to move the nation off the crisis model we have been on, it provides grants ongoing maintenance and security. it also improves transparency with election infrastructure developed ires and provides cybersecurity training to election officials. last month at my committee's hearing on election security, some of my republican colleagues bawked at the bill's price tag. mr. speaker, to put the bill's cost in context. the $1.8 billion provided here
to secure our elections from the russians and other foreign adverse areas is half of what congress provided in response to the hanging chads. for the sake of our democracy we cannot let state and local officials to defend for themselves against adverse areas like russia. we have to help. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. mr. thompson: before i close, i thank speaker pelosi, chairwoman lofgren and mr. sarbanes they have done to bring this important measure to the floor. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: with great pleasure, i get to yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. bacon. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized. mr. bacon: i rise in opposition of this hostile takeover of our elections. h.r. 1 is nothing less than an attempt by the majority party to federalize our election system and create government funded political campaigns. this increases ability for fraud and restrict free speech. the legislation we consider today will have a devastating impact. h.r. 1 will create a six-to-one all small donor contributions. more tv, more radio ads. americans will bank roll candidates they don't support. my sister, a staunch republican shouldn't have her money go to democrat candidates. her son shouldn't have his money go to a republic cap. if it becomes law, it will place limits on freedom of speech and groups who wish to advocate for
any legislative issue. the ac lmp u does not support h.r. 1. and when it doesn't support a democratic election bill, you know it's wrong. our nation was built on individuals advocating for their beliefs. it's our right to advocate for a cause we believe in. a survivor of domestic violence wants to donate to a cause fighting domestic violence, should the federal government publicize their donation? and some states have done it recently. we have seen zone onors be harassed and chased out of their jobs. one secretary of -- not one secretary of state was consulted. our founding fathers gave the authority to the states to regulate their own elections. simply put, this is a power grab by democrats. i urge my colleagues to not support this legislation. i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: before yielding to the gentleman from new jersey, i would just like to address a couple of simple points. the disclose act really pivots off the supreme court decision insight sense united and as they said in that decision, disclosure, disclaimer and disclosure requirements and do not prevent anyone from speaking. concern has been expressed about the ability to remain private. that is provided for in this bill. it's simple. if you don't want to be disclosed, note that your donation is not for campaign purposes and you will not be disclosed. further, there is an expressed protection provided for any donor who fears they may face a threat of harassment or reprisal. we thought of this and we dealt with this.
i would like to turn to mr. pass grell from new jersey and recognize him for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: the legislation on the floor today contains within it a presidential transparency act, a bill that i lead with our prime sponsor representative eshoo. this requires sitting presidents and future presidential and vice president presidential candidates to release 10 years of their tax returns. the manager's amendment is right returns. tax these commonsense transparency measures will codify into law the precedent of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns. president trump broke with more than 40 years of this precedent when it declined to release his tax returns despite promising to
release them. he has yet to do so and recent polls show that 64% of americans support the release. thanks to the oversight committee. we have on the record testimony and evidence that this president may have committed crimes as president. michael cohen received reimbursement for illegal campaign contributions from trump directly. if president trump wrote these payments off as a business expense, that would constitute fraud. and his returns will show that. in addition, the trump organization allegedly inflated their revenue in financial documents to obtain loans. the business and tax returns would show whether the profits are accurate or they filed fraudulent documents. the conflicts of interest must be investigated. h.r. 1 is setting down a marker that we expect standards of
ethics and transparency for all presidents going forward. with norms and precedents being shattered daily, congress must cod if i certain norms into law. he law is on our side, 6103. ms. lofgren: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 go seconds. mr. pascrell: i support h.r. 1 to get foreign money out of our politics, restore voting rights, to improve our election security, as you heard the last gentleman say and restore integrity to our democratic process. in too many states the clock is being turned back. voter suppression has been a scurge. these reforms are long overdue. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i would like to recognize my good friend from california for two minutes, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: concept of the governed is the cornerstone of our democracy. in america, the people are somp and we govern through the votes we cast. at the very core is fair and free elections. every citizen should be free to express themselves and to vote and no citizen should ever be muzzled or have their legitimate vote canceled out by a fraudulent one. by definition, one side is always going to be disappointed with the outcome. that's why it is essential that both sides are confident that they were treated fairly. democracies die when onrt