Republican Senate and House Members on H.R. 1 CSPAN March 7, 2019 2:52am-3:14am EST
court in citizened united suggested that we do. it empowers small donors so the big money guys don't own the government. it reforms the process, the ethics process for the president, for the congress, and for the judiciary. ou know, i'm sorry to say that some candidates win only when they suppress the vote. and we've seen that happen across the united states. we're not going to allow that to happen. every american has a right to vote, to have their vote counted, and let the chips fall where they may. that's what h.r. 1 will do. and i urge its passage presidential candidates, senate candidates and also house >> will have more live coverage of the health when they return her 10:00 a.m..
republican leaders held a news conference to discuss h.r. 1. from capitol hill, this is 20 minutes. week to address campaign finance voting rights and ethics rules, republican leaders news conference to discuss their opposition to the bill known as h.r.1. from capital hill this is 20 minutes. >> just in case there's not enough discussion going on side that on the other of the building. was at a local election official before that so for dailyrs, part of my responsibilities, every day was to run elections and to to elections that.continued to do
>> frankly, i think one of of ourat strengths system is the fact that the in control of administering elections are highly answerable to the see everyt they day. other job, i don't know of anything i ever took more seriously than being sure that when people left the polling place, and when people heard results, they had absolute confidence that that's what happened on election day. i don't think that would
happen if you remove that connection between local responsibility and what election day. the other thing we need to think about is if the government begins to give lots of direction is the federal government going to give lots of money and the federal government gives lots of money the federal government always gives lots of control. place wherea the federal government is arguing in this bill, we need to have lots of got to, but you've come up, state and local governments with lots of money to do whatever it is think is the best thing to do in your jurisdiction so we want to talk about that a little bit today. house rules committee would have some jurisdiction elections and looking at results of house -- and rodney davis is the top republican on that committee.
just to be clear, this got h.r.1 to the floor today was nowhere and openpartisan and transparent process. the democrats when they took the majority said they wanted to be more bipartisan, they wanted more openness and they wanted to order.k to regular 10 committees have this bill.n over the smallest committee in the house of houseentatives, the administration committee marked this bill up. we were promised by the during that markup that the other committees would be able to mark up their portion of the bill and this bill is being on us because this is the democrats' number one not aboutnd it's just getting people registered. it's not about making sure
cast theiran vote and that that vote is protected. we all share the values of making those things happen, but what this bill is is a elect moresh to democrats and to put money members pockets of of congress and anyone running for election. bill, because it was only marked up in our committee, has not been vetted through the others and therefore, the provisions in place that have now changed seemingly result instill the same thing: it results ofmillions upon millions dollars going to congressional candidates campaign guys of finance reform. i have not met anyone in my district or anywhere else in saidcountry that has the key to reforming our campaign finance system is money in the campaigns of members of congress. that's exactly what the six to one match program does and make no bones about it. no matter how they move a
shell game around to try to say they're funding it through some other source, the cost will be borne as mandatory spending program in washington, the borne on the taxpayers of this country. every vote should be counted, every vote should be protected and h.r. 1 clearly does not accomplish those goals. >> i would like to introduce our house republican conference chair, the honorable and good friend cheney. >> thank you very much. you know, we have seen now of twoe course months that the democrats have been in the majority in the house, very clear agenda. their agenda is to strip power away from the people andto enhance the power authority of the federal government in washington, d.c. you they're for andpeople, but again,
again, across the board, seen them attempt to take power from the people and give it to the federal government. this instance they're trying to empower the federal government to control what all of us can political perspective. it would empower the state. house in the .epublican conference we know republicans believe republicans stand for the kind of individual freedoms that are enshrined
in the constitution. freedom of speech is at the top of that list. we will not support this legislation. thatll make sure everybody across this country understands fundamentally what it is and do to ouruld ability to participate in our electoral process and toh that i would like i introduce our house minority scalise. steve >> we have a choice between inedom and socialism this country right now and if you look at the hard left shift that nancy pelosi has taken since she's been speaker look at the last two weeks. last week they brought a appointinfringe second amendment rights of americans and they passed that bill. in fact, speaker pelosi has unifyw managed to groups. the aclu and national right
life have come out strongly against this bill because of what it would to take away the first amendment rights of american synthesises. that, it would dollars.llions of -- in fact you can't even willout how much this cost the taxpayers of the country because they haven't pot formal score to it. many estimates that it will be billions of dollars of taxpayer money that will go into political campaign accounts. i don't think that that's what americans want us to be doing in washington. that's think that what nancy pelosi said she would do when she pushed to yetme speaker, but that's what they're doing with this bill. some of the other things does thatbilling are dangerous for people all across the country that want fair elections. who'st everybody legally eligible to vote to have the opportunity to vote. cases, they would undermine the voter protection laws that states
to ensure that only people who are legally allowed to vote can vote one time. in fact, under this bill, you could have people who are here in this country illegally forced onto voter rolls of some states and if the state tries to remove here people that are illegally the state would be in violation of this law. in thisually allow bill people who went to federal prison for voter vote in be able to federal elections. nobody has been able to explain how if needed having an election in your state and you have both federal state and local elections all on the same ballot, but federalthe .lections to get worse as they bring scores of amendments, nobody knows what the final bill is going to look like, but we already how bad it will be to undermine the voting rights
of so many millions of would dod what it to funnel billions of dollars into political campaign accounts. this is bad legislation for abilityho want the to speak freely and vote fairly in elections, and now, i would like to bring up the majority leader of senate, leader income college. >> for quite a while i've involved in the debates campaign over .inance reform issue that i've decades.h for obviously, blowing in politics for some time. this bill is a target rich environment, but i would give you some of the highlights that i think are
particularly offensive to average voters. number one, using government to subsidize campaigns. collected money from all of us either in ands or fees or fines giving it to candidates that with. not agree they're taking government money and underwriting candidates that we disagree with. you've heard for quite a while now, democrats always claim there's no election in america. i would refer you to the carolina house election. just set aside in north of electionause fraud. the reason it was set aside of something called ballot harvesting, in northillegal carolina, but is legal in california. members of the house would probably tell you is
widely thought that ballot investing, legal california is the reason only seven republicans in the delegation from california. ballot harvesting mysteriously is not a part of this parade of horribles. somehow, overlooked. in all of us. another point i would emphasize is the federal election commission has been the post watergate period. this is a period during which democrats had massive house and in the senate, could have done anything they wanted to, but it never occurred to them the federal election commission to administer the law would be done on a partisan basis. been three republicans and three democrats to prevent either partisan taking advantage of the other.
well in h.r.1 it's no longer even. the party of the president will have a majority on the thereby further able to terrorize and intimidate the opposition with impunity. so this is a terrible proposal. not get any floor time in the senate, but it to understand what they're trying to do here. taxpayer funding of .lections
question] >> an obvious example of voter fraud, which they've been arguing doesn't exist america. for myself i don't see salvag in here salvageable. what is the problem that we're trying to solve here? turnouthe highest last year since 1966 in an off-year election. people are flooding to the polls. they're flooding to the polls because they're animated. they're interested. and this is a solution in
search of a problem. what it really is is a bill designed to make it more likely democrats win more often. nothing else. so if they want to talk about getting rid of ballot harvesting i would be open to that. [inaudible question] >> some comments about that earlier in the year. whatever policy prescriptions senator mcsally may come up with open to.be changes fored
congress that were dealt senator bloun. it is obviously a big can find a if we further way to address it we should. provisions in h.r. 1 requires that presidential and vice presidential candidates release 10 years of their returns. does that get support? >> they're presenting this package. if they decide to start i'veting it up, indicated where i think we ought to start. be ought to get rid of harvesting everywhere in america to deal with election fraud, which they claim is nonexistent. send us other individual pieces of legislation, we'll be happy to take a look at it. >> democrats say they're day a election federal holiday in order to
incentivize businesses to it also a holiday and bring out people to the polls. why is incentivizing people to vote a power grab? >> what is the problem. we had the biggest election turnout since 1966 last year. out numbers is interest and competition. the more money that's spent on a race the higher the turnout. the less money, the lower. wwe have a lot of federal in america. i don't see any point in having any more. opposedusly, you're to the bill and the green new deal. why is the green new deal senate a vote in the when h.r.1 is not? >> because i get to decide what we vote on. [inaudible question]
took a constitutional amendment to lower the 18.ng age to largelytitution -- howo the states you vote. wouldn't it take a constitutional amendment did -- this is the kind of thing that states decide. prior to the constitutional amendment, lowering to voting age to 18, there were two states in america that had a voting age lower than 21, kentucky was one of them at 18, georgia was the other at 19 so i think the feeling it took a constitutional amendment to set that kind standard. i'll take one more. >> i wanted to ask congressman scalise a question.
>> many of the democrats ran onipped seats this bill and they're celebrating the fact that it's on the floor. how do you respond? mcconnellator said he would like to run against them in 2020. in 2018 and won. >> there are some democrats who ran on a proposal to taxes and they're proposing many things and they ought to bring those bills up for a vote because taxesseen how cutting has gotten our economy back on track and if they want to for moreord being government control and digging into your pockets even deeper then we ought to debate.t as far as the green new deal, many ran on that issue. frankly, there are a lot of democrats who flipped seats from republican to democrat that are scared to iath to vote on it and share senator mcconnell's feelings, we ought to have a vote on that, too, and fully debate it, but if you look at this bill, let's keep in mind a lot of the seats that flipped from republican to democrat were won by people who ran saying they were going to be pro-life and pro-gun. many of them already now have an f. rating with the
rifle association and have voted for more gun control. by this friday, they will have an opportunity to vote on a bill that will get them an f. rating with the national right to life. it's hard to go back home ratingu have an f. with the national right to life and an f. rating with [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> kate ackley is the senior roll call.er with cq foris hr one a big priority democratic leadership? >> well, it was on the campaign well, it was on the campaign trail. they talked about the components that have made their way into h.r. it was really a siur