tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 7, 2019 11:59am-2:00pm EST
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-semitism and other forms of hate based in part of on comments made last weekend by minnesota democratic representative ilhan omar. now live house coverage here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the days grow longer and many impatiently wait for more spring-like warmth, we give you thanks for all the blessings we enjoyed in our favored land. we ask your blessing on the members of this people's house and the work they do. though sometimes contentious, we ask your blessing of spirit upon all that as colleagues in the important work of the house, we
might seek to find agreement on issues that will redown to the benefit of our nation. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. mr. crawford: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to commemorate triple negative breast cancer awareness today which took place on march 3. my daughter, lauren, battled triple negative breast cancer for two years with incredible strength, courage, humor, and tenacity. she shared her story publicly with tens of thousands of people on a facebook page called lauren versus cancer, underscoring the importance of the serious health issue and encouraging everyone to get tested. sadly, lauren died at the age of 31 from this horrible disease in august, 2018. mr. morrelle: in lauren's memory, i dedicated myself to efforts to eradicate the scourge of breast cancer. i want to extend my support to the thousands of women and men affected by this devastating and at times deadly disease.
we must take this opportunity to highlight the need for continued education, research, and action to finally find a cure for breast cancer. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to commend my alma mater, alaska state university, for hosting the college of agriculture agri business conference. it shows the economics in politics and farm policy. the chanceler announced a $1 million gift from the jud hill foundation. mr. crawford: farmers and those involved in the ag industry in alaska attend this to know the challenges that producers will have. the host was time morgan as well as two of my past sberms, hunter and grant. instrumental to this
conference's continued success is the conference director and co-founder. professor of ag at arkansas state also serves as director of arkansas agricultureure council. i had a pleasure of being one of his students. many others come to support this annual event. as the event grows so do the attendance. i want to extend my congratulations to everyone who contributed to the success of for gribusiness conference the last 20 years. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, this women's history month i rise to arroyo e ruth weekly of grande on her 100th birthday today. during world war ii, with
america's young men serving overseas, u.s. jobs, traditionally held by men, began to open their doors to women. while ruth's husband, harry, was away serving in the army air force, ruth stepped up to serve herself and became one of a handful of women driving rural postal routes. she drove around in los angeles county for nearly two years during the war, resigning when her husband returned from his military service in december, 1945. contributions like hers were both critical to our nation's war effort and to reshaping the role of women in our workforce and society. mr. carbajal: today, over 70 years after ruth's time with the postal service and on her 100th birthday, i recognize and ank her for her service to
our nation and to women everywhere. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask -- request to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today to honor the memory of former panama city fire chief and united states navy veteran, robert richardson. chief richardson passed away at the age of 79 on january 5. chief richardson proudly served our nation as a submariner in the navy and he went on to serve his community in bay county for 33 years, first as a firefighter and then as the panama city fire chief. he was honored by the state of florida for his work, earning the distinction of florida's firefighter of the year and florida's fire chief of the year. chief richardson was apointed by governor bob graham to serve on the florida state fire board and used that position to fight for stricter building codes. mr. dunn: he dedicated his entire life to protecting others. madam speaker, i can attest
that panama city is beater place because of the lifelong service of chief richardson. please join me in honoring the life of chief richardson, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition in -- recognition? mr. mcnerney: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: the society of neuroscience is the world's largest organizations of scientists and clinicians focused on studying the brain and the nervous system. this week we welcome them to the capitol hill to give us an update on their progress and their impact. federal funding from agencies like the national institutes of health and the national science foundation is actually critical to their work. sustained, reliable funding is critical to continuing advancements in neuroscience and to scientific advancement in general. this week, the brain awareness week, and i want to commend the brain initiative partners. the 2008 total -- 2018 total for brain initiative program at
n.i.h. is more than $400 million. i long supported research, investments in neuroscience research. it's opening up a vast understanding of our brain and is vitally important to the over 100 million americans impacted by neurological development, neurodejen tiff and neuropsychiatric brain disorders. i ask my colleagues to support robust funding for the national institutes of health so that the brain initiative can continue its outstanding achievements. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, saudi arabia has a vital role in the global war on terrorism. riyadh is a crucial counterterrorism partner, but sadly, textbooks of saudi arabia have been teaching their students to hate others for too long.
one current textbook is inflammatory against christianity, jew dism and other muslims who do not subscribe to the saudi interpretation of islam, which they describe as evil. saudi arabia has committed to reforming curriculum for over a decade. that's why congressman bill keating and i introduced h.r. 554, the saudi educational transparency and reform act. it will hold the suedies accountable by requiring an annual report on any intolerant content of their textbooks. it will also send a clear bipartisan message to end the incitement now. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, this week the house is considering h.r. 1, the for the people act. this bill takes on one of the
biggest issues facing our democracy -- campaign finance reform. the supreme court's decision in citizens united was one of the most disastrous decisions of our time. it opened the floodgates to the unlimited amounts of unregulated dark money that is now corrupting our democracy. and congress, not only has the authority to regulate the way our political campaigns are financed, but i believe we have the moral responsibility to step up. this bill would shed light on the billionaires and special interest groups who are really behind some of the candidates running for office and it would level the playing field by giving the power back to the traditional grassroots donors. this without a doubt is one of the most important issues that we as congress will take on this year, and that's why i urge all of my colleagues to get in this fight to limit unlimited dark money out of the political system once and for ll
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, saudi arabia has a vital role in the global war on terrorism. riyadh is a crucial counterterrorism partner, but sadly, textbooks of saudi arabia have been teaching their students to hate others for too long. one current textbook is inflammatory against christianity, jew dism and other muslims who do not subscribe to the saudi interpretation of islam, which they describe as evil. saudi arabia has committed to reforming curriculum for over a decade. that's why congressman bill keating and i introduced h.r. 554, the saudi educational transparency and reform act. it will hold the suedies accountable by requiring an annual report on any intolerant content of their textbooks. it will also send a clear bipartisan message to end the incitement now. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, this week the house is considering h.r. 1, the for the people act. this bill takes on one of the biggest issues facing our democracy -- campaign finance reform. the supreme court's decision in citizens united was one of the most disastrous decisions of our time. it opened the floodgates to the unlimited amounts of unregulated dark money that is
now corrupting our democracy. and congress, not only has the authority to regulate the way our political campaigns are financed, but i believe we have the moral responsibility to step up. this bill would shed light on the billionaires and special interest groups who are really behind some of the candidates running for office and it would level the playing field by giving the power back to the traditional grassroots donors. this without a doubt is one of the most important issues that we as congress will take on this year, and that's why i urge all of my colleagues to get in this fight to limit unlimited dark money out of the political system once and for all and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in opposition of h.r. 1. this bill would essentially ban the interstate crosscheck system which 27 states, including tennessee, use to prevent voter fraud by ensuring voters are not registered in multiple states. is that for the people or for the politicians? another provision would mandate that states use unaccountable, unelected commissions to draw their districts further isolating americans from their elected officials. is that for the people or for the politicians? still another section would create a 6-1 taxpayer funded match for political donations, giving politicians a massive boost for their campaign coffers from taxpayer dollars. mr. green: is that for the people or the politicians? h.r. 1 is not for the people. it's for the politicians, and i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to recognize march as national nutrition month. 1973, the american dietic negotiation started, quote, national nutrition week, end quote, as a way to deliver nutrition education message to the public. fast forward seven years and the week has become a month-long celebration thanks to the growing public interest in nutrition.
madam speaker, during the last congress, i had the honor of being chairman of the agricultural subcommittee on nutrition, from women and children who use the w.i.c. program to adults and families who utilize the supplemental nutrition assistance program, what we refer to as snap, formerly called food stamps. i know good nutrition is important at every stage of life. national nutrition month focuses on the importance of making informed food choices and developing sound eating and physical activity habits. next wednesday is registered dietitian nutritionist day and this occasion increases awareness to registered dietitian nutritionist, while recognizing their commitment to helping people enjoy healthy lives. happy nutrition month. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to recognize an outstanding patriot and advocate for tennessee veterans, james paterson of columbia,
tennessee, who recently passed away. james was a vietnam war who earned medals for his service. he had a 35-year career at union carbide, but many know him for his affiliations in life. desjarlais desjarlais james was an american legion commander and also member of the disabled americans and veterans of foreign wars. he was mary county's veterans service director and every week he led the pledge of allegiance at the rotory club. james loved his country and loved the men and women who fight for it. my staff and i worked with him often to help tennessee veterans to receive the benefits and honors they deserve. we're saddened to learn of his passing. the entire community lost a friend. my condolences to the paterson family. here in the capitol and in my home state of tennessee, i will do my best to carry on james' work on behalf of the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend the united states of
america. he set an example for all of us. thank you for your service, james. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. march is women's history month and i'm proud to honor some remarkable women in my district. ms. 'd like to recognize ade. sembings espansh joan learned some chern were food insecure on weekends when the school's program was not available to them so she decided to step in and help parents make better use of their food dollars. she founded the power packs food
program to provide food and nutritional information to low income families. not only did she help those family, but the program now extends to 45 schools in 13 districts with 350 volunteers. joan step down as president of power packs after nine years in 2014, but her vision and impact can still be seen as the program continue today. we are thankful for people like joan who remind us of the importance of caring for those in need. it's an honor to recognize her today. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mavepls. i rise today to honor the career of retiring county sheriff mike brown. the county's top law enforcement
officer since 1996, sheriff brown has devoted nearly 50 years to protecting the citizens of his home county and the commonwealth of virginia. in his time as sheriff, mike has led efforts to modernize the partment and coordinate with surrounding departments. this led to the southern virginia internet crimes against children task force, an organization whose purpose is located an prosecuting individuals who prey on our children. the task force arrested 227 individuals accused of crimes against children and iden pt -- and identified 127 child victims. over the years an untold number of children have been protected and houvens predators have been put behind bars because of the sheriff's efforts to establish the task force. in 2017, brun was appropriately named national sheriff's association sheriff of the year. mr. kline: i thank sheriff brown --
mr. kline: i thank sheriff brown -- mr. cline: i thank sheriff brown for his work. he leaves a legacy we can all be proud of. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous cob sent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to recognize bob hudzek, a constituent in my district who made a difference in his community. he began darts for kids, a nonprofit organization that hosts an annual dart tournament. the proceeds go to families of children with life-threatening illnesses, usually to contribute to the cost of unforeseen medical expenses. their first tournament in 2013 raised about $10,000 and today darts for kids has raised almost $175,000 and helped over 90 families with medical costs for
children. mr. davis: i recently co-sponsored legislation that shines a late on individuals like bob. h.r. 276, the rise act, would establish recognizing inspirational school employees award program. within the department of education to highlight the dedication of education support professionals like bob. bob is a perfect example of the people that make our communities great. i could not be prouder of all that bob has done, to better the lives of families in mount olive, illinois. keep up the great work, bob. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is ecognized. >> madam speaker, i'm here today to speak out against h.r. 1. when republicans were in the
majority we reserved h.r. 1 for legislation that actually benefited the american people by putting more money in their pockets, drawing the economy -- growing the economy through historic tax reform bill passed last year. now here we are under a new majority planning to vote on a bill telling folks that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars will be going to a political candidate that they would never support. this bill goes too far and is nothing more than a power grab from the democrats to try to ensure one party rule. mr. len: this -- mr. allen: this socialist, top-down vites states rights and limits every american's constitution right to free speech under the first amendment. we do not need the heavy overreaching hand of the federal government corrupting every single election across this great nation. madam speaker, i've said it before, i'll say it again. this legislation is not reform for the better and it is not for the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and -- for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, forcing americans to pay tax money they've already paid to state and local governments is double taxation and it's wrong. but that's what the tax law passed by by my republican colleagues in 2017 did. it passes a restriction on state and local tax deduction. according to the united states department of treasury, more than 11 million households will exceed this new cap. in my district, around 42% of filers use the deduction. i've heard from many constituents stuck this year with a higher tax bill. madam speaker, illinois already pays approximately $1.36 for every dollar we receive in federal spending. it's not right that our communities now must bear the burden for the president's
irresponsible tax law. lifting these punishing caps is a top priority for my constituents and i am pleased that there's growing bipartisan support for the effort. this week, i co-sponsored legislation introduced by chairwoman nita lowey, a democrat, and peter king, a republican, to restore the full salt deductionism urge my colleagues to join us in this effort and help bring needed tax relief to the communities we all represent. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. my esteemed colleague, representative rooney, introduced a bill, h.j.res. 20, to limit the number of terms a member of congress may serve to three temples. i signed on to co-sponsor this bill right away. term limits would take power away from special interests and lobbyists and give it back to the people.
when members stay in congress too long they lose touch with those back home. a congress out of touch with its constituents can't do a good job representing the american people. this bill would make sure our constituents will have a representative body they recognize. the power of incumbency is a counterbalance to the woifl the peopleful term limits would enkrge independent judgment and reduce incentives for wasteful government spending. this would create a much better political system by inspiring political leaders with a desire to serve constituents and not themselves. mr. riggleman: i call on my fellow members to support this bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to house resolution 172, and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1. will the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, kindly esume the chair.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to expand america's access to the ballot box, and strengthen ethings rules for public servants and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, march 6, 2019, amendment number 22 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by me the gentleman from california, mr. rouda, had been dissuppose -- disposed of. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms.-green: pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 172 i offer mendments en bloc.
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments. the clerk: amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 40, 42, and50rks51, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by ms. lofgren of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: thank you, madam chairwoman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this package of 17 important amendments was made in order by the rule. the substance of these amendments ranging p -- ranges from commonsense information gatt toring protecting our nation from foreign influence. for instance, one amendment expands an existing ban to protect against a greater universe of threats, it provides that the federal election
campaign act which already bans foreign nationals from contributing to american elections on all -- also to ban them from contributing to state or local ballot initiatives or renchda where their undue influence might allow outside control of state and local matters. our colleagues have also joined with us in efforts to understand and appreciate the different experiences of american voters and to ensure that voters of all kinds are included at the ballot box by support ofing information sharing between states and the election assistance commission. one amendment focus on greater reporting of demographic information, shaning a light on who is voting so that we can better grasp who is participating or perhaps feels left out of our diverse electorate. in states where information about age, gender, race and ethnicity is already available to the state, this amendment will simply require states to include that demographic information about voters in their annual report to the
election assistance commission on voter registration statistics. our colleagues also support efforts by the government accountability office to study the extent to which membership diversity requirements have been met in state redistricting commissions, ensuring that justice and fairness in representing the people is the priority, not partisan advantage to either party. in a similar vein of being welcoming to diverse voters, it rears that the training manual ensure services are delivered in a culturally competent manner to voters needing these services, including those with disabilities, those with limited i think learn efficiency and those with cultural and ethnic backgrounds, regardless of the gender, sexual orientation of gender identity of the voter. give access to and
engage ment with our sacred duties in this election. this amendment also contains several component parts that focus on transparency and accessibility of information to everyday citizens so they can feel confident about the integrity, prunes, and independence of this government. one amendment would stop campaign contributions providing an endless piggyback to candidates long after they left office or their campaign. another amendment gives citizens an important and accessible window into lobbying information. it would require the attorney general to establish within the department of justice a single lobbying information disclosure portal to which members of the public could obtain hard copies and electronic cop yoifs registration statements filed under the lobbying disclosure act of 1995 and the foreign agents registration act of 1938. the effect of the amendment would be to combine and make easily accessible information that is currently available from
disparate sources including the house, the senate, and the department of justice. efforts like these increase information flow, transparency, and confidence in our government. thank you, i think these amendments are worthy of our support and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my friend and chairperson of our committee, ms. lofgren. it's great to be able to work together. and show some bipartisanship as many who may have been paying attention yesterday to our long debate on this bill, that's been one of my chief complaints about h.r. 1. we haven't seen the bipartisanship that the new majority, the new democratic majority promised. every one of these amendments were offered by members of the democratic conference. while our amendments in the only markup process that we had for
this 622-page bill were all shot down on a partisan roll call. the record to show that republicans believe in bipartisanship and this en bloc amendment, group of amendments shows that. while individually i may not have supported every one of them, this is what bipartisanship and good, principled compromise leads to and it leads to us spending a lot less time on the floor debating individual amendments but also amendments -- saving time for amendments that are that much more important and i certainly hope, i certainly hope unlike i've seen throughout the process already that this en bloc of bipartisan amendments this en bloc of really democratic amendments, that are -- that have been accepted in a bipartisan basis, can be the -- can be the linchpin and as we move forward today, i hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle can accept some republican amendments. because we have yet to accept one. so i hope this is good will
gesture that will lead to more bipartisanship as the day goes on. again, while i and many members of our conference may not have supported these amendments individually, we felt it was a good faith effort to be able to work together and again i want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially with the house administration committee, committee that has done its due diligence in putting a massive, mammoth bill forward to the floor today and i still have problems with the process, i still have problems with the overall bill, but this en bloc amendment should not be one of those and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. . ms. lofgren: thank you, madam chair. a few that offered amendments would like to speak on them. first is the gentleman from california, mr. harder, who i'd like to yield to for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized for one minute. mr. harder: thank you, chair lofgren, for your support on this issue. i'd like to talk about influencing lobbyists on officials. d.c. is home to 11,000 registered lobbyists. that's 25 lobbyists per member of congress. during one of my first nights in d.c., i got invited to dinner with some of my freshman colleagues. i thought it was going to be a chance to talk about the issues but that i hear from families in my community, the cost of health care, jobs. the only thing these lobbyists want to talk about is how it would benefit their clients. this happens in this city every day. thousands of lobbyists here in one city creating an ecosystem of easy access where they can push their clients' agenda in front of elected representatives. so my amendment is simple. it says if you're a lobbyist and you reach out to a member of congress, you must make clear that you're a lobbyist. you must make clear who your
clients are, and you better tell us who pays you. this is common sense. back home i hear a common frustration, that washington doesn't listen. this problem is real, and it's got to stop. my community has had enough with back room deals, and this amendment is one step in the right direction and i urge this body to vote in favor. thank you, chair lofgren, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. >> tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> i yield back, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman doesn't have any -- i'm sorry. the gentleman does not have any time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i would like to recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. o'halleran, who has several amendments, to speak for them for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. o'halleran: thank you. as i travel throughout my district, i hear about
arizona's concerns, about integrity in our elections, our elected leaders, and those who serve them in the highest positions of our government. at a time when millions of americans feel uncertain about the state of our democracy, congress must act. i'm proud to support h.r. 1, which will strengthen our democracy and closetics loopholes. i want to thank chairwoman and ranking member for agreeing to adopt these three amendments of mine to the underlying bill. these amendments, which include my taxpayers dime act and my protecting defense dollars act, will do right by increasing transparency and accountability when it comes to travel, including on government and military aircraft. these amendments will crack down on bureaucrats abusing ethics rules in place of lavish travel, on private jets, first class flights and more. several of these amendments have previously received
bipartisan support. regardless of my party, those who serve the american public must be held to the highest ethical standard. our ability to hold government officials accountable to taxpayers is the hallmark of our democracy, and we must work to uphold that right. again, i thank my colleagues for including my commonsense amendments in this package, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i would like to recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, who has an amendment here, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schneider: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank my colleague. the american people elected a new congress to clean up corruption and make washington work for them. to that end, this week we will pass h.r. 1 to elevate the people's voice in our politics, restrict the influence of dark money in our campaigns, expand voting rights protections, and limit corporate influence. at the foundation of this effort is a commitment to increase transparency so the
american people know who is behind the money funding the political ads they see and how much these individuals are spending. currently, too many political action committees, including so-called super p.a.c.'s, have an easy way around the important disclosure requirements by organizing a p.a.c. or super p.a.c. just before an election, they can influence an election without disclosing anything until after the voting has already occurred. in another scheme borrow money for operations and incur debt that's not paid off by donors until long after the election. both of these practices are extremely troubling on obfuscate who is donating to p.a.c.'s. donors are kept in the dark until it's too late. this amendment is a simple first step by requiring the federal election commission to report recommendations to congress for how far -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. schneider: i call on my colleagues to increase transparency and support this amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california
reserves? ms. lofgren: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: sorry. i had to use the restroom. didn't mean to mess up any parliamentary procedures in the house. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: we have several our members who asked to speak but they have not yet arrived. so if the gentleman has no urther speakers and would like to yield we'll yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: madam speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. ms. lofgren: i yield back as well. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to.
it's now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. hice: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by mr. heist of georgia. the chair: pursuant -- -- the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by mr. hice of georgia. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. hice: the office of government ethics is a prevention and education agency. o.g.e. ensures requirements for ethics requirements such as financial disclosure and conflicts of interest. these are the folks that the executive branch employees call when they have an ethics question. their mission is to advise
federal employees on ethics matters. o.g.e. is not an investigative office. but that's exactly what h.r. 1 wants to turn o.g.e. into, by granting the director the authority to subpoena information and records. here's the thing. o.g.e. does not even to have subpoena power. it already has the power to request any information needed from federal agencies and the federal agencies are required to comply under the ethics and government act. the only reason, the only reason to give subpoena authority is to empower o.g.e. to harass executive branch employees, and this is not far-fetched, madam speaker. the former director of o.g.e., walter schaub, was openly hostile to the trump administration and to mr. trump personally even before he took office. under schaub, o.g.e. went so far as using its official
twitter account in an attempt to coerce president-elect trump to divest his business interests. that is not what o.g.e.'s role is supposed to be. we don't want to allow an office that has become so partisan to have subpoena authority and thereby open the door to overt has harassment to executive branch employees. and i would just remind my democrat friends, if this bill does become law -- and it won't -- but if it does, a future democratic administration will eventually also have to deal with the same type of issues with the office of government ethics. so let me just further remind everyone that the agency, the inspector general of the agency already has authority to subpoena information and documents, so we don't need to expand this and extend it to the director. at the end of the day, this bill has much bigger problems,
and this small o.g.e. subpoena authority provision, it is a bad bill and i will not be supporting it, obviously, but i know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle will be supporting this bill. frankly, there's no amendment that's made in order by the rules committee that can fix this legislation. some amendments, i believe, including this one, can at least make it marginally better, but it's a bad bill through and through. i believe the american people, frankly, are going to be outraged when they find out what's in this piece of legislation, such as public financing for congressional candidates. the american people don't want that. they don't want tax dollars oing to particularly six times going to federal candidates. and then there's the automatic voter registration requirement. i think the american people
will be irate when they find out about this. this particular provision forces states to transfer individual's personal information from government agencies and services and then transfer those over to election officials for voter registration. obviously that's a violation of the 10th amendment, but it's even worse than that. the democratic authors of this legislation will not tell the american people that this provision will lead to huge numbers of illegal aliens and noncitizens being registered to vote. and here's the problem. illegal aliens and noncitizens use government agencies and services. their information, according to h.r. 1, would then be sent to election officials, along with everyone else's, and they will be registered to vote. the only safeguard that h.r. 1 has to prevent an illegal alien from being automatically
registered to vote is if the alien proactively declines, which is not likely to happen because they don't want to draw attention to themselves to begin with because they're here illegally, so for us to expect they would go publicly and draw attention to themselves, it's just simply not going to happen. that's just flies in the face of logic. not only does h.r. 1 make it significantly more likely for ineligible voters to be registered, it also makes it next to impossible for states to remove ineligible voters from the voter registration list once they're on there. and i just doubt anyone could have diadvised a better way or -- diadvise a better way -- devise a better way or worse way -- pardon me? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. heist hy thank you, madam speaker. i urge colleagues to vote against h.r. 1. the chair: for what purpose
does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. lofgren: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, i regret i most oppose the gentleman's amendment. it strips the subpoena power of the director of office of government ethics. recent years have made it clear that the o.g.e. needs to be strengthened and the subpoena power is a key enforcement tool and a necessary one for the office of government ethics. the former head of o.g.e. said, in working with the current administration, it's become clear we need to strengthen the ethics program and that individual resigned as head of the agency in july of last year after almost five years as its head. the o.g.e. was set up in the aftermath of the 1970's watergate scandal to clean up government. some of that cleanup is relied on norms of behavior that are no longer in effect. so we need to make sure that we have the ability with the
o.g.e. head to actually obtain information so they can do their job. i do want to touch on a few other points raised by the gentleman from georgia. there's been a lot of discussion over and over that the small donor program is funded by taxpayers. that is incorrect. you can just read the bill and see that is incorrect. the freedom from influence fund is entirely funded by a nominal -- additional assessment on criminal tax fraud cases at the upper end and corporate malfeasance fines and forfeitures. that's the entire source of funding. if there's not enough funding from those sources to fully fund the program, then the program is not fully funded and that is in the bill itself so i think it's important that we all understand that. . in terms of the automatic voter
registration system, this has worked successfully in a number of states, six more are in the prosofse implementing it. there are quite a few, we think, ample safe forwards to make sure only those eligible to vote are in fact registered to vote. agencies have reliable data about sit zeppship status and age and there are separate rules for those agencies that don't collect that information. i would note also that there's been discussion about how this is an unfair federal imposition on states. this is only for federal elections. this whole bill, h.r. 1, about federal elections and why is that? article 1, section 4 gives the authority to congress to pass laws about the conduct of federal elections. we have seen over and over throughout the united states efforts to suppress the vote in
ways we think are improper. by purging eligible voters from the roles. by preventing people from registering but bogus and arcane i.d. rules. by making sure that voters can't get to the polls because they move the polls. by eliminating early voting that has so help -- that is so help to feel people who so -- who work so hard they may not be able to get to the polls before the poll closes. this is -- for federal elections and why is that important? each one of us here in the house of representatives has one vote. that's as it should be, as the founders established it. the people who send us here should have the equivalent right to vote for their representative. they shouldn't be a way that one person in one state has an adequate right to vote but the vote is suppressed in some other state. that's not democracy. that's not fair. and that's what h.r. 1 will fix.
with that, i would urge that we oppose the gentleman's amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. this question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman massachusetts seek recognition? ms. pressley: i have an amendment at the deffing. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in part b of house report 116-16, offered by ms. pressley of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house
resolution 172. the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. press lee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. pressley: i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1, the for the people act. h.r. 1 is bold, transformative legislation which seeks to restore the people's faith that government works for the public interest, not special interests. we were sent to washington with a sacred task, do everything in our power to reinstate americans' hope and faith now democracy. my amendment to h.r. 1 strikes at one of the fundamental goals of this legislation by ensuring that those who have a stake in our democracy will also have a say in our democracy. by lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years of age, my amendment will allow young people to have a say in our federal election. to help shape and inform the poll sthace will get the course for the future. from gun violence to climate change, our young people are
organizing, mobilizing, and calling us to action. they are at the forefront of legislative movements and earned inclusion at our democracy. beginning at age 16, they're contributing to the labor force and the local economy by paying income taxes yet they're defliveed opportunity exercise their right to vote. when affirm when a person walk into the voting booth and all pulls that lever, there is no meritocracy, the booth is the equalizer. my mother reminded me on each election day that on this day we were powerful. i believed her then and still do we bring the totality of our lived experience. some have questioned the maturity of our youth. i don't. a 16-year-old in 2019 possesses a wisdom and maturity that comes from 2019 challenges, hardships and threats. a 16-year-old would bring with them the 2019 fears that their
father's insulin will return out -- run out before the next paycheck. a 17-year-old will bring with them the 2019 hopes to bring -- to be the first in their family to earn a college degree. a 16-year-old will bring with them the lessons they learned picking up shifts waiting tables to support their family while their mother uh was deployed. a 16-year-old will bring with them the solemn vow to hop nor the lives of classmates stolen. now it's time for us to demonstrate 2019 courage that neaches challenge of modern day 16 and 17-year-old. i would like to thank my colleagues for they leadership on this issue and co-sponsors -- co-sponsoring this amendment. and the rules the committee for bringing my amendment to the there are for consideration and i wish to thank my staff. i respectfully request my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, i would like to yield two minutes to the entlelady from new york. chop the gentlewoman is
ecognized for two minutes. ms. meng: thank you, representative pressley, for yelleding your timism strongly agree with my friend from massachusetts, i thank her for sponsoring this important amendment and am proud to co-sponsor it with her. it addresses a crucial and often ignored issue that i have been fighting to raise awareness of during my time in congress. i have met with students across the state of new york and across the country and am incredibly impressed with their drive and passion directed at the democratic process. across the country, these students are getting involved. they are marching. they are advocating for their generation's future. an they are asserting their position in our society. this is why i'm proud to have introduced a constitutional amendment in the 115th and 116th congress to low they are voting age to 16 for federal, state,
and local elections. the amendment in front of us today gives 16-year-olds the right to vote in federal elections. in localities that have already granted 16-year-olds the right to vote, we have seen an increase in voter participation and better debate. madam chair, 16-year-olds participate in our democracy already. they are legally permitted to work, they pay federal taxes on their income, and can even be tried as adults in court. it is only just that they are given the right to vote. thank you, representative pressley, for championing this cause, i know this fight will continue, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i ield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam
speaker. also, thank you, to my new colleague, ms. bress lee, for participating in the legislative process, this is why we're here. we're here to debate issues, whether we agree or disagree, that's what this institution is all about. and it's great to see new members be active on very important issues. i have to say, i think there might be a constitutional issue with this amendment. the last time we lowered the voting age in 1971, i believe we had 1818-year-olds figgetting for our country in vietnam. it seemed wrong back then that kids that were eligible for the draft, through no fault of their own, through no choice of their own, they were asked to go fight for our freedoms in a foreign country. so being one-year-old -- being 1-year-old at the time i don't remember that debate but i can tell you it was the right thing to do. however, for constitutional reason, and also i'm of the
opinion that we shouldn't arbitrarily lower the voting age, just because right now i believe democrats think they'll gain more votes. h.r. 1 is bad enough. because i believe it will institutionalize a democrat majority here in this house of representatives. but to be so brash and possibly unconstitutional to decide to try and lower the voting age only for political reasons is something that i don't think this institution should be doing. ive two 18-year-old boys who got to cast their first vote this year. there was some thought before election tai. i didn't know if i'd get their votes. since then they told me they have voted for me, in a close race like mine it made a difference. but this policy is not well thought out. it's not constitutional. and it should not be part of this bill and i'm going to urge a no vote. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves.
the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. pressley: we respectfully disagree with one another. i too appreciate the opportunity to engage in civil discourse with you. the data supports the fact that by extending the table of democracy given what we've learned in the -- in maryland, that in fact we have seen a more robust voter participation by those 16 and 17-year-old and those over the age of 18. i think that we should be cultivating -- cultivating that relationship with young people and their government and their participation as early as possible and although constitutional amendment is one approach, i do think that we have a man tait from this electorate as a congress to be bold and this is the opportunity to do exactly that and we should be acting.
and there's nothing spontaneous about this. there have been advocates who have been organizing in communities for decades on this very issue an of course colleagues in this very house. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: madam speaker, may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. davis: i'd like to yield one minute to my good friend from tennessee, mr. depreen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: thank you, madam chair, i want to share a shouth on this -- thought on this. it's interesting we just raised the alcohol purchasing age to 1. we don't allow a 16-year-old to buy a beer. and the decision making is because of their ability to reason at that age. that's why we moved their ability to buy a simple beer to age 21. now the other side wants to grant a 16-year-old the ability to decide the future of the country. i think this is foolish. i yield.
the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: is there no more time? the chair: the democratic time is -- no more time. mr. davis: it's a great debate to have. the problem we have here in this country, many 16-year-olds are still -- all 16-year-olds are still legally minors. they can't be -- they can be tried as adult -- they can't be tried as adults in a court of law except under special circumstances, heinous crimes. they can't join the military. they wouldn't be eligible for the draft that took so many of our young men to southeast asia where many never came home, the last time the voting age was lowered. some states, 16-year-olds can't even drive their car alone. they can't take out a loan. they can't take out a mortgage. can't open a credit card. and they can't even run for the offices that we would be asking them to be allowed to vote for. this is an amendment that has
political reasons behind it. it's a reason that i believe the democrats are pushing it. it's because they believe they will be able to increase the number of democrat votes that are put forth in the next election. this institution should not be used for that. this bill is political enough, this bill as a whole is nothing more than a charade to make permanent the democratic majority that just came into existence just a few months ago and that's why i believe h.r. 1 is a bill that should be voted against. please vote no on h.r. 1 and please vote no on this amendment for the reasons that i put forth but again, thank you to my colleague from massachusetts, my colleague from new york, for being here and par days pating in this process. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentlewoman request a recorded vote? ms. pressley: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts ill be postponed. caller: it is now in order to consider amendment number 25, printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition. mr. green: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. caller: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25, printed in part b of house
report number 116-16, offered by mr. green of tennessee. caller: pursuant to house resolution 1 2, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. green, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. green: i rise today to offer my amendment expressing the sense of congress that free speech should be protected. house resolution 1 is a misguided bill with many problems. one problem in particular has united everyone from the heritage foundation to the a.c.l.u. it's the bill's assault on free speech. the aclu itself says, h.r. 1 will, and i quote, chill speech essential to our public discourse, end quote. when the aclu admonishes a democrat bill, everyone should take notice. my amendment is simple. it reaffirms the first amendment
to the constitution of the united states, the first amendment after all guarantees the most fundamental right of our democratic society. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. our founding fathers knew that in order for the american experiment to work, the people must be free. free to participate in the democrat process, democratic process. free to vote in elections. free to help candidates and causes they believe in. and free to speak up when their elected officials are no longer representing them. the freedom of speech enshrined in the first amendment has helped america the -- helped make america the most exceptional country in the history of the world. unfortunately, h.r. 1 tramples on that very freedom. i offer this amendment to express the sense of congress that the freedom of speech must be preserved and protected. because without it, the american
experience -- experiment won't ever be the same again. a vote against this amendment is a vote against free speech. and if you don't believe me, ask the aclu. thank you, madam chairman. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. caller: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition. ms. lofgren: to claim time in opposition. caller: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: i rise in opposition to this amendment reluctantly because it is only the class paragraph in the amendment that causes concern. the amendment says free speech should be protected. who can can disagree. our founding fathers envisioned a robust discourse, they do not fathom speech that was unaccountable anonymous corporations that would drown out the voices of individual
americans. the concern we have on this amendment is the last paragraph, really is an attempt to protect the citizens united decision and the flow of unlimited dark money into our politics and elections. it's important to note that under the guise of free speech some are suggesting that we need to protect anonymous special interests. nothing stops people or entities from donating to political campaigns or politicians. but they must be transparent about it. justice brandeis indicated, and i i think he's very wise, that sunshine is the best disinfectant. the american people can cannot fully exercise their first amendment rights if they do not have all the information necessary to react in an informed manner. we all have the right to know who is trying to influence elections, and may well change
our mind if we know who is saying what. ultimately this amendment is flawed because disclosure does not limit speech. in citizens united, the court affirmed holdings in other cases that disclaimer and disclosure requirements imposes no ceiling on campaign related activities and do not prevent anyone from speaking. the court held, the disclosure is, quote, a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations. conservatives have long espoused this principle and the supreme court has repeatedly endorsed disclosure because it helps voters hold elected leaders accountable. in fact, eight of the nine supreme court justices upheld disclosure in the citizens united case as necessary for voters to hold leaders accountable. perhaps no one said it than
justice antonin scalia in dough v. reed, i quote him. requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters sesk courage without which democracy is doomed. much has been said about the aclu, and i appreciate what the aclu does on many scores, but they have a storied history of litigating constitutional issues that i support, however we have differed on our approach to campaign finance laws. they have upheld and supreme courted the citizens united decision, and they oppose mccain-feingold. i think while i supreme court so much of the good work they do, they are mistaken on this issue. i would submit in the record a letter from democracy 21 which is a rebuttal, a very thoughtful
rebuttal to the aclu's position. the chair: that request will be covered by general leave. ms. lofgren: i i would note also that we have just received a letter from the leadership conference on civil and human rights expressing their strong support for h.r. 1. this is an organization that no firm fault for their leadership on human and civil and constitutional rights for many, many decades. with that, madam chairwoman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. green: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. green: thank you. i want to make a few specific comments in p regard to the amendment -- in regard to the amendment and how it impacts h.r. 1 in general. first, there are no special interest protections in this amendment. none whatsoever. and i remind my colleagues of
what the aclu actually said about h.r. 1. it places a chill on speech essential to our public discourse. further, i'd like to stress that the court has long affirmed the rights of individuals and organizations to have free speech. with those comments and clarifications, madam chairman, i reserve the balance of my time the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: we have no additional speakers at this point. i would just note that -- i understand the gentleman's points one through four. i completely agree. it's number five in your amendment that causes me concern. about whether there is actually n undercutting of the h.r. 1's disclosure requirements. that is the concern we have and why i am so sorry that i cannot support the amendment.
i do think that we have a disagreement over disclosure. i don't understand why, because the supreme court, including justice scalia, recommended that to us. we never followed up with justice scalia's admonition that we should have disclosure as a remedy for concern over unlimited money. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. green: i'd just like to read that point five. this is what it actually says. political speech including the financial contributions to political or issue advocacy campaigns is a vital part of our nation's free exchange of ideas and avenues of free expression must be preserved and protected. that's all it says. let the american people decide. that's essentially what it says. that free speech should be
protected. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i understand, but the concern that's been expressed to me by a number of people who have read this, probably lawyers who spent more time on constitutional cases than i have, is that the concern is that this as a part of the bill would undercut the disclosure requirements. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lofgren: that is the reason -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lofgren: we can cannot come to an agreement. i guess my time has expired. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. green: in conclusion, madam chairman, i just, again, as i look at that point five, or paragraph five, supporting the free exchange of ideas and avenues of free expression. i struggle to see where disclosure issues are raised in that paragraph. as my colleagues have no one
else to comment on the bill, i'm ready to yield. have the amendment considered, thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. green: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote, yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 66 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26, prohibitsed in part b of house report number 116-16, offered by
mr. green of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you, madam chair. i also thank the gentle yet courageous lady from california for leading this floor iscussion, debate if you will. i think the rules committee for allowing this amendment to be in order. and i also would like to thank my staff for their stellar, outstanding job they have done to help bring this amendment to the floor. madam chair, on november 19 of 1863, the 16th president of the united states of america standing near the battlefield at gettysburg proclaimed that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not
perish from the earth. that's what our bill h.r. 1 is all about. government of the people, by the people, for the people. madam chair, you cannot have government of the people, by the people, for the people without the precious right to vote. the right to vote is something that people have fought for in this country. dr. king marched for it. john lewis went to jail for it. the honorable john lewis, member of this house. people died for the right to vote. h.r. 1 is about protecting the right to vote. his amendment is one that will help us to inculcate new, young
people into the voting process. he amendment simply allows those who are in high school to receive voter registration information while they are in school of the school campus. does not,-n-o-t, does not change the laws related to registration and qualifications to vote. it merely allows the principal at a school to go to the young people and provide them with voter registration information so that they may decide it does a n-o-t, impose upon them duty to register. but it does give them the opportunity to. this is a good thing in a
country where we believe that government of the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth. with this said, i would yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: madam speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition, although i am not opposed to the basis of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: thank you. thank you to my colleague, mr. green, from texas. i am not opposed to what this amendment does. although however i will point out once again this is another unfunded mandate. this is another cost that the c.b.o. has already said from what they can score in this bill is going to o cost taxpayers $2.8 billion. ith the with the potential for billions more, they couldn't offer a budget score for.
i have some issues with that. though i appreciate the direction my colleague is going with this i think providing voter registration materials at schools is something that's probably being done now, i would hope that local county clerks, i know mine are, are already doing that. but it's -- i'm not opposed to that language. however, i do believe -- i disagree with my colleague from texas that h.r. 1 is a bill by the people and for the people. frankly, i believe every single american who is eligible to vote should have their vote counted and they should have their vote protected. we all as americans, republicans and democrats, want every vote to count. we cant to make sure everyone can get registered to vote at a time in our country when registration and turnout is exceedingly high compared to priest generations we're doing that make no mistake about it. this bill is not by the people. it is not for the people. h.r. 1 is for the members of
congress who sit in this institution who are going to eventually get tax dollars to pay for their own campaign ads. that's why this bill is a bad bill. i appreciate the amendment that my colleague is offering, but by no means is h.r. 1 going to ensure that we have the protection to ensure that every eligible american voter has their vote counted and protected and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i yield such time as he gentlelady from california may consume to her. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. green. this is a splendid amendment. it will do a lot to allow young people to channel their excitement and to understand that they are important and they are going to be participating as voters when they turn 18. it works well with the amendment -- will be offered by mr.
that will be oured later that offers preregistration for 6 and 17-year-olds so when they turn 18 they'll automatly be registered to vote. i know there's some concern on both sides of the aisle about the idea of a 16-year-old change in the voting eligibility. we don't know how that amendment will turn out, but certainly these amendments would do much to make sure that young people are thorry connected to our government and understand that the government belongs to them and their families. i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back to mr. green. mr. green: i close with these words. this is a participatory democracy. if it is to function efficaciously, the right to vote must be protect. i join my colleague on -- my colleague on the other side in his position that all votes should be counted and that every
person who has a right to vote should be in a position to vote. this bill, this resolution if you will, this amendment, helps to assure that young people will start to participate in the participatory democracy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i'd like to thank my colleague and friend if texas, mr. green. i agree with what chairperson-green said, the excitement of students in high schools being able to understand what it means to be able to register to vote and participate in the political process. that's why i visit high schools throughout my district on a regular basis, each time we're back from washington off this floor and in our districts for a district work period. i'm going to again extend the olive branch of bipartisanship to ensure that i'm not going to oppose this amendment. i want this amendment to pass through. but i will note to many of my colleagues on the floor, madam speaker that we just had two republican amendments offered
and not one passed. the olive of bipartisanship has to work both ways. i'm again reaching out and i will continue to do so throughout the day but it is not without frustration that that olive branch has not yet been returned. so with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, madam
speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. clip amendment number 27 printed in part b of house report 116-16, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172 the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam speaker. i urge support for the underlying legislation, h.r. 1, which in my mind reaffirms the right to vote that empowers the individual citizen in our democracy and empowers their role in our democracy over the wealthy special interests that has been the trend of late. and my amendment asks that in the spirit of this bill, which is to protect voting rights, that we protect americans who opt to vote by mail from unnecessary impediments to voting. specifically, this amendment requires states to provide
voters with opportunities to return ballots at a polling place on election day. at face value this may not seem like a drastic ask but it merits by deration given efforts states to shortchange eligible voters from casting their ballot by denying them the right to return their ballot on election day. in arizona, 228,000 people dropped off ballots at the polling places in november of this yen election. a majority of which, i should add, were republican voters. the reason why i believe my amendment should be supported is to protect the vote by mail process. in 2016, 16 states combined showed a combined percentage of greater happen 50% of votes it's a every -- votes cast early by mail or absentee ballots, including my state of arizona.
as more americans chose to vote by mail, lawmakers in this chamber should facilitate rather than hinder the right to vote by mail. voting by mail allows voters to ke their time and research candidate, positionsings, issues, that align with their values and making that important informed decision on election day. that only strengthens our democracy and empowers that individual voter. vote big mail also allows voters to not be constrained by work, school, family, or other sensitive matters that would hinder their ability to wait at polling places for long periods of time. if you note, other portions of the legislation outline and address the issue of forcing voters to wait hours to cast their ballots which is unacceptable. vote big mail can help reduce these ince dens and provide more options that are considering. every -- that are considering a person's lifestyle or their particular needs. vote by mail helps relieve
underresourced polling places from having an influx on election day. by ensuring all polling sites accept vet by mail on election day, voter confidence is upheld. vote by mail is intended to increase voter participation in nonpresidential election years which tend to have overall lower voter turnout rates. the scope of the legislation is to promote and protect the right to vote of every american citizen which they are entitled to. for many constituents, vote big mail is the most practical and convenient method to exercise that right. with on fwoing efforts at all levels of government to restrict voting, now more than ever, it is important to ensure that regardless of voting in person or by mail, that that vote is cast, processed, tabulated, and accepted as valid. i would hope that you would join me in ensuring states are not able to place harmful restrictions on voters, states
should continue to do their due diligence, protect voters by allowing them to return their ball lots on election day. anything less would be a direct attack on voters' rights and disenfranchisement of a growing percentage of nontraditional voters in this nation. with that, madam speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is ecognized. mr. davis: i have a couple of questions. if the gentleman would, if he has this information i'd like to nofmente this is already the process that we follow in my home state of illinois. are there any states that don't allow this already that you're aware of? mr. grijalva: i think -- there have been efforts in my home state to begin to restrict the use of election day dropping off
of vote by mail forms. and other discussions. this is both a preventive and encouraging amendment that says prevent any of those actions. and encourage states to apply that fairly. mr. davis: thank you. i'll reclaim my time. let the record show it is not a process that's illegal in the statemark my colleague's home state. not against this process happening because it happens in my home state right now. the problem we have, we don't want somebody who is eligible to cast a ballot, who got that vote by mail pal lot and decided on election day to fill it out, we want them to go to their polling place and not wait in line, we want them to be able to turn it in. the problem we have on our side of the aisle is, it's ballot harvesting. the process in north carolina where a republican is going to likely go to jail. if convicted. but that same process that will
likely send that person to jail if convicted is legal in california. weave problem with somebody besides that volter taking absentee ballots, unwatched, not a bipartisan effort, not any control mechanisms, bringing it to the polling place or to the county clerk on election day or after election day. those are issues that we're concerned about and the bill, i don't oppose this amendment because again it's already the process we follow in my home state. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. at this point i yield to the author of the legislation h.r. 1, mr. sarbanes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you, madam speaker. i want to support this amendment. again what we're talking about here with h.r. 1 is increasing confidence, engagement,
participation on behalf of the voters, opportunity to be able to return mail-in ballots at polling places is a way to further that. i also want to say that with respect to this idea, we have to distinguish between election fraud and voter fraud. what we saw in north carolina was election fraud. by political operative. taking advantage of voters. not voters engaged in fraud. very important distinction there. i also wanted to quickly correct the record for my colleague from the other side of the aisle who mentioned a moment ago that somehow under h.r. 1, taxpayer money would be used to fund a candidate's campaign, nothing could be further from the truth. the bill provides explicitly that there'll be no taxpayer funds going to to any kind of candidate committees or candidate campaigns. i just wanted to correct the record. happy to continue doing that over the course of the debate. with that, i yield my time back. mr. grijalva: thank you. yielding the remainder of my time, madam chair, i remind
everybody that this amendment provides states with flexbility, it is providing a convenience, my colleague mentioned, and as a preventive tool, prohibiting voters that -- that no prohibition on voters returning mail ballots would occur or slow down the process. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. again, i don't oppose the process that's already in existence in my home state to ensure that every eligible american voter has their vote counted and protected. there are legitimate concerns about ballot harvesting process, otherwise somebody might not have to face a trial in north carolina. i certainly appreciate the author coming to the floor to once again talk about the bill and some of the changes made since it was introduced on january 3. first day of congress.
co-sponsored by every member of the other side of the aisle. 571-page bill. i certainly hope everybody had a chance to take a look at that bill before signing their name on the dotted line because the provision that the author put in place, if he would have reached out to any of the three republicans on the house administration committee, we would have gladly discussed some of our priorities but there was no olive branch of bipartisanship whatsoever. and the sheer fact that somehow the bill has been changed to now create this fine that's going to be corporate malfeasance dollars that's never going to be able to get the amount of money in that candidates are going to be able to expect when running for congress, candidates even like the knee yow nazi who ran against my good friend dan lipinski in the last race who now will be eligible for this corporate malfeasance money. everybody knows on that side of the aisle, when candidates were congress, including members of congress on the other side of the aisle, aren't going to get what they expect into their
campaigns, from this corporate malfeasance fund that's corporate dollars we weren't supposed to be able to take in our campaigns anyway, but now somehow it's a good idea to do, you know what's going to happen? they're going to say, i don't have the money in my campaign to run a race and they're going to ask the tax payers to pail it out. everybody on that side of the aisle knows that's going to happen. and that shell game they're playing right now is very frustrating. the c.b.o. couldn't even score this new provision. we don't know how much this is going to cost beyond the possible $3 billion-plus dollars. this is a bill designed to keep a democratic majority in this congress so that we don't have a chance to preside over these hearings anymore. that's not the way to run elections. that's not what our constitution wants. that's not what anybody should support. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and again i am not o-- i am not opposed to
this amendment. the chair: the squone the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion they have chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 prifrpblted in part b of house report 1916-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: madam speaker, i i rise today to -- i have an amendment at the desk. amendment 28. the chair: does the gentleman rise as the designee of the gentleman from florida? mr. davis: i do. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28, printed in part b of house report number 116-16, offered by mr. rodney davis of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. it's great to have many conversations with you today. this is what's great about the institution. our forefathers set up a legislative branch to debate torques cast votes, and then to legislate. we won't always agree on every issue. there are times we'll developmently disagree with each other. as you know, madam speaker, after the debate is over we move on and look forward to working with each other. today i rise in support of amendment number 28 because members of congress, all of us in the legislative branch, are appropriately held to stringent ethical standards that are designed to prevent financial or material gain for actions taken while we're legislating in this institution. we should ensure all branches of government are held to high ethical standards, too. this commonsense amendment would require the judicial conference of the united states to implement a judicial code that is at least as stringent as requirements placed on members of congress.
this amendment would be a step in the right direction for providing transparency in government, which the american people expect and deserve. and again, i give the olive branch to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the last two amendments, and i certainly hope that that olive branch can be returned on this republican amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i rise to claim opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. this amendment is well-intentioned but riddled with inconsistency that is render it ineffective and unnecessary. although judges should be held to high ethical standards, it is a false equivalence to claim that members of congress and judges face the same dilemmas. judges do not accept campaign funds, they do not represent constituents, and have no term
limits. every person who has the privilege to serve in our government should be held to a code of conduct. yet, it is a misstep to assume that all branches of government have the same prerogatives and ethical pitfalls. h.r. 1 already contains a reasonable approach to expanding ethics for the united states supreme court. and this amendment would confuse the clarity and enforcement of these standards. the judicial conference of the united states is best suited to issue a code of conduct for the courts of the united states. judges know best what predicaments judges face and how best to protect the integrity of our courts from corruption and improper conduct. we should pass h.r. 1 without this amendment so that we can can create effective, enforceable ethical standards for our courts. with that i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my colleague from georgia for debating this amendment with me. there are a lot of what i believe constitutional issues with h.r. 1. legislative overreach that defies the equal branches of government. this one does not. we're simply doing with this amendment is asking the judicial conference of the united states to implement a judicial code up and down the judicial spectrum. maybe it will actually help ensure that as judges go through the confirmation process in the senate for whatever level, federal judgeship he or she may be nominated for, it might help us understand who these judges are. this is a very commonsense amendment. we're not asking -- we're not saying congress is will go going to legislate judicial conduct. we're just saying we're the lawmakers. why don't we ask the judges, the
judicial conference, to do it for the judges. just like our standards are set by congress. anti-executive branch standards should be set by the executive branch. these are small things that make a big difference in a big bill. gain, i extended the olive branch of bipartisanship this entire day, yesterday. and i would certainly hope that will that will would be extended back to us because we have yet in this entire process of h.r. 1 , being a 622 bill yesterday, and added pages and brought pages yesterday and today, not one single republican amendment has been accepted. not one. maybe this is it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: i rise today to offer an amendment. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29, printed in part b of house report number 116-16, offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member posed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, madam chair. i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 1 for the people act, which would, among
other provisions, require federal and state governments to physically provide voting registration materials at the same time they provide note thefication of a restoration of voting rights under the bill. voting is the most powerful voices that we have in our democracy. as a wisconsinite, i'm proud to stand today to night for everyone's right to vote. wisconsin has been the petrie dish for some of the most pernicious voting suppression efforts, including partisan gerrymandering, all designed to marginalize some votes. where our voices, our votes are counted, our voices are heard. i am here to say no more. no more to suppression. anyone who works to suppress the vote does not support democracy, madam chair. anyone who limits the ability of all people to express their
voice through the bat local does not support democracy. and with that, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise. mr. davis: madam speaker, i rise this time to actually claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i was a strong supporter of the first step act and i continue to support criminal justice reform efforts. last tter of fact, just czar in the obama administration, vann jones, said that, quote, the conservative movement in this country unfortunately from his point of view is now the leader on this issue of reform. talking about criminal justice eform.
we need to make sure we don't have more petty drug users than jared the subway guy who was a pedophile. we have to review this amendment carefully. we still haven't figured out the processes and procedures of an amendment that passed -- part of h.r. 1 that's in the underlying bill that would allow felons to vote without any determination of whether that felon may be like jared the subway guy, who is to say he doesn't live near a polling place where his polling place is a school. how in the world can can we move forward on getting voter registration materials to felons without understanding who is eligible to go to the exact polling place they are supposed to go at or not? i don't want pedophiles, sex offenders, going into a polling place a in many rural areas that the only place they have is a school. with children.
the provision in the bill needs to be changed, needs to be vetted very carefully. we need to have some certainty here. i certainly do not support this amendment because i still am not sure that a felon who is not allowed around children won't be forced to cast his or her vote around children. that's why this bill needs to be put back into our committees of jurisdiction, where almost 40% of the jurisdiction was never marked up in the first place. this is a rush. i don't claim my colleagues who are here today. i think chairperson lofgren and the members of the house administration committee have done an excellent job putting a bill that is terrible forward, but the only reason we're here on the floor this week is because speaker pelosi, the democratic leadership team, are forcing this issue. the american people and the american taxpayers aren't going to stand for the provisions in this bill. i don't know why we're rushing it. and i certainly wish there was
more bipartisanship. and i certainly wish there was clarification on whether or not a former convicted felon who is a sex offender on whether or not he or she will be allowed in a polling place that happens to be a school where he they can't go into -- can't get within a certain amount of yardage to outside of election day. i can't support this amendment. and i'll i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentlelady has 3 3/4 minutes left. the chair: thank you so much, madam chair. let me commend the gentleman for his active participation in the first step back, the criminal justice reform, let me commend him on his efforts to restore freedom to felons, and as he
indicated murderers and drug dealers, and other kinds of criminals that he worked so hard to restore their right to freedom. this amendment deals with really low hanging fruit in terms of criminal justice reform. it just says that when the department has decided that someone has finished their term, when they have finished their sentence, that when they are released, that they would simply receive those instructions as to how to register to vote. and if there is a pedophile, i would have welcomed the gentleman's amendment and perhaps it can be part of the rule, to say that you must vote by -- i field to the gentlelady, the chairwoman of the committee. ms. lofgren: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. nothing in h.r. 1 impacts any state law that requires an individual who has been convicted of an offense against a child from staying away from a
school. luckily we have vote by mail and pre-- early voting at county facilities in the bill. that is really not a real issues. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. ms. moore: thank you for that claire depation. democracy demands hard work. and again the gentleman for his hard work to put criminals back on to the street. this is very low hanging fruit. there have been studies that have indicated that restoring the voting rights of felons really means they'll be more likely to not reoffend because we're bringing them back into the civil discourse of our community. . i reserve the right to have the last word. is the gentleman done talking? the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from illinois has the right to close. the gentleman from illinois is
recognized. mr. davis: i -- i certainly wish that the underlying piece of legislation actually addressed our concerns. which is why i would urge both sides of the aisle to send this back to committee to ensure that while it doesn't specifically say that state laws can't be followed when it comes to allowing sex offenders into polling places, it also doesn't prevent it. that's the problem with this top-down overreach. there's nothing in this bill, in h.r. 1, that would prevent sex offenders from walk in and demanding his or her right to vote while surrounded by children that he or she are not allowed around because of a previous conviction or sex offender registration status. i appreciate my colleague from wisconsin's work on the first step act also and i also have to
offer a correction. first step act was actually to get nonviolent offenders out of our miss. petty drug users who have within put away because maybe he or she tnt have the information that the assistant u.s. attorney wanted and all of a sudden they're ratcheted into a long jail sentence because of mandatory minimums. these are the issues that have bipartisanship. by no means is the first step act of criminal justice reform that i support or that anybody else i know would support would out of prison. that's not the case. if that's the case we have more questions about this amendment and we have more questions about this bill. we want to make sure those jail cells are reserved for the people who are the most hardened criminals. we got to work together on criminal justice reform to take the next step in the first step act. we need to make it better but it's all for nonviolent
offenders. i have serious concerns when sex offenders get out of prison or maybe don't go to prison for that long, like jared the subway guy, he may have had a lot of money the ability to hire a good lawyer. so many petty drug offenders who will be the beneficiary of the first step act. the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-nimplede gentlewoman is recognized. ms. moore: just in closing i hope my colleagues will support this amendment, it doesn't deal with murderers or pedophiles, it deals with people who are coming out of prison and being notified of their rights and responsibilities with regard to voting and with that, madam chair i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the jovepl from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agree tofment pursuant to clause -- it is now
in order to consider amendment number 30, printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 30, prinned in part b of house report 116-16, offered by ms. moore ofisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172 the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member ose o posed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from sconsin. ms. moore: thank you again, madam chair my amendment simply requires an ongoing evaluation after every federal election on the efforts to ensure that those with disabilities have successfully been able to exercise their right to vote. the government accountability office would be charged with assessing polling place accessibility. privacy issues. and the extent of poll worker training. on the rights of individuals
with disables as well as on accessible voting machines among other identified barriers. they would provide their recommendations if any to congress. i recently had a constituent come into my office and speak about the continued challenges faced by those with disabilities then it comes to exercising this fundamental right, such as inaccessible voting machines that were located and situated as to not provide privacy for the voter. and this is not just an anecdotal evidence of a problem. according to the national council on independent living, over two people with disabilities didn't vote in 2016, and this isn't just an issue of voter apathy. study after study shows that our voting system is still inaccessible. what we know is that even with laws in place, not all polling
places are accessible because of physical barriers, unprepared and untrained staff, or accessible equipment that's either not functional or turned off. let me be clear. this bill takes steps forward to address those barriers and i appreciate the addition of those measures. and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i'm not opposed to this amendment. i think we should work together. to ensure that all those who have disabilities have access to be able to cast their vote and i know my home state of illinois is doing yeoman's work to ensure -- our local county clerks are doing yeomen's work to ensure all those who need reasonable accommodations get them. i thank the gentlelady from wisconsin for offering it.
before i reserve i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend from montana, mr. gianforte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gianforte: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. we all agree americans should vote and participate in our republic. we all agree that american's votes deserve to be counted and protech the underlying bill we consider today is riddled with problems. my friends across the aisle call this bill the for the people act. but it should really be called the protect professional politicians act. one of the most egregious parts of this bill is the creation of federal funding for elections. taxpayers will pay for politicians' campaigns whether they agree with them or not. thunder bill, if someone gives a politician $00, the federal government will send $1,200 of
money to that politician. those mailers that fill your mailbox? well, under the protect the professional politicians act, you'll pay for them. those attack ads that flood your tv, well, you'll pay for them. those high priced political consultants in washington, d.c.? you'll pay for them too. since when is it a good idea to have taxpayers' hard-earned money shoveled into a trough for a politician's campaign? montanans don't want that. at a recent town hall 97% of montanans told me they oppose taxpayer funding for political campaigns. imagine republicans and democrats working together on a bipartisan bill that addresses voting and election reforms. we could have done that. we did that with election security in the last congress. but that's not what happened with h.r. 1.
the protect professional politicians act. maybe that's one of the reasons why diverse groups like the montana chamber of commerce and the aclu have opposed this bill. i join those groups and i strongly urge a no vote on h.r. 1, the protect professional politicians act. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from wisconsin ms. moore: can the chairwoman inform me about the time remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin has three mins remaining. the gentleman from illinois has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: i would be happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. sarbanes: thank you, madam speaker.
i want to support the amendment. obviously we want to make voting as accessible as we can to everybody. and this is a very, very important step in terms of supporting that with respect to people with disabilities. i want to thank my colleague for introducing the amendment. i did also just want to correct the record, the last speaker who may not have been here a few minutes ago was suggesting that under h.r. 1, taxpayer money would go to fund a political campaign -- fund political campaigns, candidates' campaigns, and i want to reiterate that the bill is explicit that that would not happen. here will be no taxpayer funds used to support a candidate's campaign. we provided for that. we've come up with another way to support the matching fund that we want to see to lift up small donors out there and give
them a voice in their own democracy. so i know the gentleman who spoke a moment ago may not have been here previously so i just wanted to make sure that got that on the record. with that, i yelled back. thank you for your amendment. ms. moore: i reserve, madam chair. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker again, thank you to my colleague from wisconsin, ms. moore. m going to ensure we have no opposition over here. i do have a problem with the bill and i appreciate the author of the bill being here. if i had that much time dedicated to authoring a 571-page bill with the help of outside special interest groups that were commended at the opening press conference, i'd be here to defend it too. but there are so many problems so many unanswered questions. the sheer fact that the shell game of corporate fines is
supposed to fund upwards of billions of dollars to the congressional campaigning, my district alone would have been eligible for six million plus just by using the last campaign. multiply that by 435, add some extra candidates in there, like the knee yow nazi candidate who ran against dan lipinski. these are issues we don't have questions answered because the c.b.o. hasn't scored it. c.b.o. already said two-plus billion dollars for sure, possibly another billion to the taxpayers under this fund. but how much is going to be raised from this dorp rat malfeasance? i have -- until this tai, until this week, i had no idea that the democratic majority is ok with putting more corporate money into their own campaign coffers. corporate dollars are not allowed in our campaigns now, as you know, madam speaker. but we're going to use corporate fines at a level we don't know
what it amounts to, we're going to use those? to fill campaign coffers of members of congress? sheersly. that's why the bill needs to go back to committee. i'd love to work with youen it. aisle one of the most bipartisan members of congress, according to the lugar center, but i never got a call. would love to help write this bill. tri-ed to make the bill better. this is another olive branch to the other side on an amendment, i'm going to continue to show bipartisanship that has yet to be reciprocated from the author and from the committee and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, madam chair. i want to thank the gentleman again for his support of this amendment. i think that america's model e pluribus ewe numb -- e num, will be x. fied by this
bill, by this process. that's what makes democracy work. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and urge a yes vote on my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in part b of hoss report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. davidson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. he clerk: amendment number 31, printed in part b of house report 116-16, offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio.