Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House General Debate on HR 1  CSPAN  March 7, 2019 11:19am-12:00pm EST

11:19 am
to vote and lessen the influence of money in politics, strengthenthics. they began debate yesterday. some 50 additional remaining amendments yet to be debated. all of that coming up at noon eastern. the house likely, too, to take up a resolution condemning anti-semitism and other forms of hate based in part on comments made last weekend by minnesota democratic representative ilhan omar. we'll have live coverage when they return here on c-span. up until noon eastern today, we'll show you some of the debate from yesterday on the house floor. the gentlewoman fro 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
11:20 am
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
11:21 am
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
11:22 am
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
11:23 am
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
11:24 am
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
11:25 am
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
11:26 am
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 --
11:27 am
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
11:28 am
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
11:29 am
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
11:30 am
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
11:31 am
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
11:32 am
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
11:33 am
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
11:34 am
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
11:35 am
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
11:36 am
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
11:37 am
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
11:38 am
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
11:39 am
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
11:40 am
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.
11:41 am
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
11:42 am
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
11:43 am
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
11:44 am
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
11:45 am
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
11:46 am
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.
11:47 am
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,
11:48 am
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
11:49 am
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.
11:50 am
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
11:51 am
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
11:52 am
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.
11:53 am
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
11:54 am
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,
11:55 am
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
11:56 am
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
11:57 am
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
11:58 am
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.
11:59 am
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 part of yesterday's floor debate. we'll leave now. the house is returning to resume considerations of the remaining 50 amendments to h.r. 1. that should get under way shortly. also we're expecting them to likely take up a resolution condemning anti-semiti


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on