Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  March 7, 2019 5:59pm-8:00pm EST

5:59 pm
6:00 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 200, the nays are 233. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 32 printed in house report 116-16 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, on which further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed by voice
6:01 pm
vote. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 116-16, offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
the chair: the yeas are 194 and the nays are 238.
6:06 pm
the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a vote on amendment number 33 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in part bmp of house report 116-16 offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:07 pm
6:08 pm
6:09 pm
6:10 pm
he chair: on this vote --
6:11 pm
the chair: the yeas are 195 and the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted.
6:12 pm
6:13 pm
6:14 pm
it is now in order to consider -- the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 54. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition?
6:15 pm
>> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 54 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by mr. brindisi of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentleman from new york, mr. brindisi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. brindisi. mr. brindisi: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brindisi: mr. chair, i first want to thank the gentleman from maryland for his work on this important topic. i also want to thank him for his willingness to work with members of this body to address our concerns -- the chair: the house will come o order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. brindisi: thank you. i also want to thank him for addressing the concerns regarding the financing of this bill. thanks to the changes that i support and push for, we have ensured that no taxpayer dollars
6:16 pm
will go toward financing a political campaign. it is a testament to what we can accomplish when we work together and compromise. this bill has many important provisions, which will make it easier for working families to have their voices heard. my amendment would extend these wins to the people of upstate new york, who have been treated unfairly for years by arbitrary restrictions in polling hours. in new york state, voters in new york city and neighboring down-state counties have six more hours to vote in federal primary elections compared to voters in my district. a voter in new york city can vote on their way to work when the polls open at 6:00 a.m. a voter in binghamton on the other hand can't vote in that very same election -- >> mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. brindisi: a voter in binghamton on the other hand can't vote in that very same election until their polls open at noon.
6:17 pm
my amendment would fix this situation and institute some basic rules to prevent states from reducing polling hours for people based solely on where they live. this is an important step to ensure that all voters across the states are treated fairly. i urge adoption of my amendment and i again thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on this bill, and i urge our colleagues to pass the underlying legislation. thank you, mr. chair. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as we looked at h.r. 1, at least the limited amount of time that we've had to actually consider h.r. 1, as it's been rushed through the committee process, it's been rushed to the house floor, it grew from 571 pages when we had the opportunity to briefly review it, when it was one day for five hours before the house administration
6:18 pm
committee, it has significantly grown since then. before it even came to the floor. but as those who do take a look at it realize, yeah, there may be some good ideas in h.r. 1. what's interesting is those good eas that are in h.r. 1 are things that are already in states. they're ideas that states have implemented. loud loud this here when you look at -- mr. loudermilk: this here when you look at it sounds like a good idea. let's put all the polling places on the same time frame. well, i submit to my good colleague from new york, if there is an issue in new york, then he ought to lobby his state legislature to make that change. because the constitution gives that power to the state legislatures. mr. speaker, as i was coming to washington again this week, i left my home early on tuesday morning, and went to the state capitol in georgia where i had the opportunity to address both the state house and the state legislature. which i served in both of those
6:19 pm
bodies. and it's mr. ayotte: -- and the amazing, as i talked about this bill, there was bipartisan opposition to this bill. why? because this bill strips away the authority of states to actually set their own laws regarding elections. now, some may think it's a good idea to centralize that power here in washington, d.c. but the problem is, the landscape of america is diverse. the geography of america is diverse. and the states are more well suited to actually meet the constituencies' needs of that state. now, some would say, well, the federal government's more powerful, we can actually enforce this across the board. well, the one-size-fits-all doesn't work. and besides, we don't do very much very efficiently. as i was looking at the state legislature, there's one thing that i know. their session in georgia is going to end in a few days. by the end of that session, they will have passed a budget and an appropriations to fund the state of georgia for the next year.
6:20 pm
and that will balance. mr. speaker, do you know the last time that we did that by our deadline? newt gingrich was speaker of the house. we can't even pass our own appropriations here. we're not even following our own laws, but we want to take on more laws and force the states to follow what we think is a good idea? yeah, early voting, we established that in georgia years ago and it's worked well and we've worked to perfect that. mr. speaker, while this idea -- this amendment may sound well, and it may be well-needed in new york, i would submit to my colleague that this is something the new york legislature should take up. this is not something that should be on the purview -- under the purview of congress. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. brindisi: mr. chair, i again urge adoption of my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i love this country.
6:21 pm
i love what this country has stood for. i love the idea of our founding fathers, that made this nation the greatest nation in the history of the entire world. and it's unique because our founders understood that government that is closest to the people is the most effective and the most efficient. this is going to undo, this bill will undo 220-plus years of states setting their own voting requirements, running their own voter laws, and as i have stated there is little that we do efficiently here, and, look, we've already uncovered there's a lot of unintended consequences in this bill. and if the states make mistakes, they are much faster and much quicker, more responsive to correct those mistakes than we would be here. i encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and vote against the underlying measure. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment
6:22 pm
offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. i'm sorry, in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new york. mr. brindisi: i'd request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 56 printed in part b . house report 116-16 for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? mr. case: mr. chair, i have an amendment the desk. -- at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.
6:23 pm
the clerk: amendment number 56 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by mr. ase of hawaii. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today to speak in favor -- the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentleman from hawaii, mr. case, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from hawaii. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today to speak in favor of my proposed amendment. this amendment will empower small-dollar donors to participate in our elections process and focus the attention of candidates and political parties on earning financial support from a broader base of voters. all across our political spectrum, we decry the historically low esteem in which congress is now held. as well as the utter absence of many, if not most, of our fellow citizens from their government. as if the two were unrelated. for of course low esteem breeds absence and absence breeds low esteem. most americans simply feel left
6:24 pm
out, without a voice, unvested, unwanted and thus the downward cycle. nor is this just about low esteem and absence. for the vast majority of americans are not vested in our government, and if our government is only supported and is only representative of the very few, mostly moneyed and influential, interests of our country, then that does not lead to representative decisions and erodes the consent of the governed, the political and social consensus on which our democracy is based. as just one manifestation of this, the center for responsive politics reviewed 2018 election cycle contributions and found that, still again, quote, only a tiny fraction of americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, parties or p.a.c.'s. and the ones who give contributions large enough to be itemized over $200 is even smaller. the impact of these donations, however, is huge, unquote.
6:25 pm
in fact, according to the center, while less than a half percent of the population contributed $200 or more, their contributions totaled 71% of all individual contributions in 2018 to candidates, p.a.c.'s, parties and outside groups. the clear corelary is that the vast majority of americans do not participate in our elections with their financial support, and that of those who do contribute, their voices are drowned out in a sea of larger contributions from a precariously narrow interest base. this is why leading reform groups such as issue one and its reform its caucus, a fully bipartisan group of now over 200 former members of congress, governor and cabinet members, committed to nonpartisan solutions to fixing our broken system, cites increased and broadened voter participation in the election process through means such as amplifying the voices of small donors as key to returning our government to the
6:26 pm
people. my amendment would take one small but meaningful step in that direction by authorizing national political party committees of any party to contribute up to $10,000 to a candidate, twice the amount currently authorized, if the amount consists solely of individual contributions of less than $200. and by making corresponding changes in the limit on coordinated expenses. by permitting such committees to provide enhanced support to their candidates through use of separate, small-dollar amounts, this change would incentivize greater attention by committees of all parties to small-dollar donors. greater participation by such donors in the political process, and representation of a broader and more representative america by those elected. i urge support for my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is
6:27 pm
recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield at this point in time two minutes to my good friend, one of our newest members, and a great guy from the state of pennsylvania, dan meuser. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. meuser: thank you, mr. davis. mr. chairman, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1. people have a right to know what this bill truly is. a big-government, central-command takeover of our elections by the newhouse majority. this bill should be called the democratic politician protection act. this legislation is virtually a complete takeover by the federal government of state and local voting jurisdictions. it imposes new mandates, including more than two weeks of mandatory early voting and same-day registration, and diminishes the process of election day voting by expanding absentee voting and allowing both current and newly registered voters to cast their
6:28 pm
ballot by mail, with no additional safeguards to that process. the bill also allows felons to vote, violating our constitution by usurping the 14th amendment ability of states to determine whether felons may vote or not. an example of its impracticality can be seen in a borough in my district. a small borough with a polling place that averages just 60 voters each election. this bill would mandate that they open and operate a polling place for 15 days of early voting. that is absurd. astonishingly, this bill also includes a six to one match of public funds to the campaign of a candidate. that individual taxpayers may not even support on contributions of up to $200. that's a possible $1,200 match of public funds going to fund political campaigns for each
6:29 pm
contribution. this legislation is not for the people. it is for partisan power. h.r. 1 isn't just terrible policy, it's an attempt to rewrite the rules of the political process itself. and change the rules to favor one side. i urge my colleagues to oppose it and i hope they'll stand with me in defending the constitution and the sanctity of our elections. i urge a no vote and i yield back. thank you. mr. davis: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from hawaii. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. i appreciate the comments of my colleague. but i did not detect in his comments any objection to the amendment and i hope that that means that he would agree that a much broader and more representative group of americans should in fact be incentivized to participate in the political process and i hope he would agree that one of the basic problems we have in this
6:30 pm
country today is that this and the disenfranchisement of too many people who simply don't feel a part and zone of participation, and i hope he would agree that this amendment at least is one way to accomplish that. speaking also to the broader purpose, he made reference to the fact that this was a partisan bill. and i would refer him to issue one, which i referenced in my comments, and to the reformers' caucus, which is about 100 each, republicans and democrats, members that you would recognize, leaders of both parties, now retired, who have looked back on their service in this congress and have concluded that many of the provisions in this bill are the right way to go, not just this amendment, but many, many of those provisions. and i hope he would reference those leaders of the party for guidance going forward with respect to the intent of this bill. i reserve the balance of my time.
6:31 pm
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i may ask you a question. this amendment just -- and thank you for participating in the process. and w you have been here congratulations, i look forward to working with you. is this raising the limit that parties can give? mr. case: that's not correct. it provides that if contributions are received from donors of $200 or less, those may be pooled into a segregated into either political party and contributed to candidate over and above to the amount of contributions over and above $200. that would incentive eye for parties to think about getting $200. utions under
6:32 pm
mr. davis: i'm still opposed to the amendment. unfortunately, these programs are code word incentivize, part of h.r. 1 and instead, i think they will be depained by some of the same people who are gameing the system. we are talking about putting more inment. the amendment here is just a small part of a big problem of what this bill is about. and mr. meuser talked about how bad this bill is going to be about getting money back into politics. h.r. 1 is not the answer. this amendment, while great intentions to my colleague from hawaii, trying to do what we can -- and i would love to sit down with you in a bipartisan way to talk about how to make cam paper
6:33 pm
finance reforms work. but we have been shown zero considerations to try to work out solutions in this bill. and we weren't asked to even be considered to help write considerations in this bill. no one was called. no one on our side. we, as a matter of fact, we didn't know the special interest groups who wrote this bill and touted in the press conference when this bill was announced. we got zero republican passed in one markup and one committee. that's not the regular order that the democrats promised when you took the majority. that's what we get. and today, the olive branch has been extended numerous times. accepted democrat amendments. and you know what? not a single republic cap amendment was passed.
6:34 pm
they gave us a accepts of free s that we like speech. seriously? how partisan can this new democratic majority be. it is the biggest terrible bill that i have ever seen here in my time in congress. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from hawaii. offer.e: i accept your you referenced that special interest groups that drafted this amendment and it's the reformers' caucus on a bipartisan basis. number three -- mr. davis: i was referring to the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the
6:35 pm
ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. houlahan: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 57 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by ms. houlahan of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentlewoman from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
6:36 pm
gentlewoman from pennsylvania. ms. houlahan: i was sent to congress, the pennsylvania 6th to fix the broken culture in washington. h.r. 1 will reduce the role of money and reduce the culture of corruption and i rise to support my amendment. this bill also takes key steps for eligible voters. my constituents in the pennsylvania have no access to early voting and have absentee restrictions on voting by mail. this bill will introduce early voting and vote by mail to all 50 states which will help working families who may have trouble voting on election day. i'm introducing an amendment to expand this provision to mandate 10 hours of early voting each day for the time 15 days before the election. expanding access to early voting especially in pennsylvania is a key component to bringing the government back to the people by
6:37 pm
helping people with inflexible hours or shift work to exercise their right to vote. this ensures they are represented in our government. this week, with h.r. 1, we are taking a big step to return us to the government, of, by and for the people. i reserve the remapeder of my time and i yield back. -- i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania reserves. who seeks time in recognition? time vis: i rise to claim in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to oppose this amendment, although, again, i want to
6:38 pm
compliment ms. howly han and coming down here to be. great to know you and working with you and look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis as we move forward during this term. i have to oppose this amendment because i have opposed others just like it. and we want every american to be able to cast their vote and be able to register their vote and counted and this is a top-down approach versus the state and local government. this amendment, though well intentioned, it infringes on our state and local officials' ability on how to run their elections. it is tasked to deploy additional poll workers. we have a shortage. i would love to work with
6:39 pm
mishoulahan moving forward to address mr issues. i don't think h.r. 1 is the answer and i don't think it will be passed into law. so there will be opportunities for us to work together. and my olive branch is reaching out to your side and i hope we can do so. with that, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. ms. houlahan: i appreciate the olive branch that you have reached out to me. i yield a minute of my time to congressman sarbanes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and i commend her on this amendment. i want to talk about this top-down federalization of our voting. that's not what is happening
6:40 pm
here. the states will put together how elections will operate. we are collecting best practices and then making a policy decision at the federal level that those best practices ought to stepped across the country. if you think about that, that's our role as federal legislators. that's our purpose here, is to gather up wisdom from all parts of the country, figure out what things work and what things don't work and if it rises to a level of being a good policy suggestion, then putting that into legislation -- that's what we are doing and that's what this particular change would do and it would make it much easier for people to access the ballot box. i thank congresswoman houlahan for this amendment and i support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania reserves.
6:41 pm
the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i appreciate the comments from the author of this bill. he and i have had spirited discussions over the last day and a half and i appreciate his willingness but i don't think this bill is the answer. and to respond to the author of the bill, there is a big difference between offering best practices through your state and local officials on how best to run their local officials versus mandates. and that's clearly what h.r. 1 is, it's going to be a mandate. it is nebraska you louis. we have answers that change to the next. zero bipartisanship. we haven't been included and we get a new shell game, move over and fund it by doing this and put corporate money into congressional campaigns which is
6:42 pm
illegal now. i don't understand this. this is got to be one of the most unfortunate processes that i have ever been a part of. and i can't help myself but think there is no way that every democrat who co-sponsored this bill on day one thinking they were going to talk about election reform had any idea of so many of the terrible, terrible provisions for taxpayers that are in this bill. this bill, you vote for this bill, you are putting corporate cash sboorl congressional campaigns and you got the potential -- because there is no way that are billions of promises that have been made are going to be able to be fulfilled with this new nebraska you louis corporate mall feesance fund
6:43 pm
hat we haven't scored by the c.b.o. millions of money going to revamp how public money goes into congressional campaigns. this is the worst of the worst of the worst of what the d.c. swamp is all about. i'm going to rightly oppose this amendment because i respect mishoulahan and her efforts. i just have a big problem with the bill as i think you can tell. i will reserve the balance of my time and reserve the right to close ap i will give ms. houlahan the right to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. houlahan: i urge the adoption of my amendment and the adoption of h.r. 1 so we can once again restore the faith of the people and restore americans
6:44 pm
working people. it is hard to get to the polls in pennsylvania. i look support of my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: every american who is eligible toll vote is urged to have their vote counted and their vote to be protected and i yield back. the chair: jabblet. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is goode to. -- the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 58 printed in part bmp of house report 116-16, for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek
6:45 pm
recognition? mr. phillips: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 58 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by mr. phillips of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. phillips, and a member opposed each will control five minutes, the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. . mr. phillips: thank you, mr. speaker. this would allow it to fulfill its role as the people's top election watchdog. under current law, it is almost always represented by the solicitor general when it has business before the u.s. supreme court. effectively removing the f.e.c. attorneys from the process and centralizing litigation within the department of justice. it's a revelation that troubles me and many and should worry us all. unfortunately we have seen the president use the department of justice and its appointees not
6:46 pm
to promote truth and accountability, but as a political tool with which to suppress those who challenge his unilateral approach to campaigning and governing. the identity, priority, skills and role of lawyers representing the government play a significant role in determining the nature and outcome of litigation. these cases are often charged with partisan politics and the american people need an advocate who operates with a degree of separation from a particular party or administration and can faithfully execute the unique mandate bestowed upon the f.e.c. as the people's last line of election oversight, the f.e.c. must have the power to act independently in its business before the courts so it may hold this administration and all administrations to come accountable to the people, the law and the constitution. my amendment would ensure that it can. at a time when campaign finance law has become increasingly complex and dangers of direct conflicts of interest to become more prevalent, my amendment would strengthen the f. cremplet's -- f.e.c.'s enforcement powers and help the
6:47 pm
court navigate the blurry boundaries what have is and not legal during federal elections by having a subject matter expert empowered to present arguments. with that, i respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. davis: mr. chairman, once again i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognize. five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. the language of the amendment is pretty innocuous, the problem i have is the portion of the bill it's amending. the sheer fact that in this now almost 700-page mammoth bill that anyone thinks it's a goodied to weaponize the f.e.c. by making it -- good idea to weaponize the f.e.c. by making it partisan, it's the furthest place we should be as an institution. this amendment is going to do nothing to address this partisan
6:48 pm
f.e.c. that the bill establishes. biggest threat to our elections is actually partisanship. and a partisan f.e.c. is going to undermine the neutrality that voters expect of an agency that overseas federal election -- frofere sees federal elections. especially -- oversees federal elections. especially when the billions upon billions of new dollars come in from the programs that are created in this bill. partisan f. e. -- f.e.c.'s going to give enhanced power to the chairman to make decisions on behalf of the commission that have been reserved, for years, for the full commission. i fully expect a lower standard of protection of free speech to be embraced by a partisan f. e.c. -- f.e.c. as a form chairman of our own franking commission here in the i se of representatives, think bipartisan agencies can work together, bipartisan commissions can work together. heck, we're not even allowed to send a bulk mail piece out of this institution without republicans and democrats
6:49 pm
signing off on it. if we can't send bulk mail out without it being bipartisan, why in the world would we want to make the f.e.c. party? do the democrats really want -- bipartisan. do the democrats really want the trump administration to have a partisan f.e.c.? i don't want any party to have a partisan f.e.c. i want it to remain an institution where it takes bipartisanship to get results. and i would urge you, my good friend, mr. phillips, i would urge you, if you haven't, sit down with some of the f.e.c. commissioners, talk to them about their opinion of why the f.e.c. is bipartisan, and i would urge you to work with them. this bill's not going to pass. the amendment likely is going to get ruled and likely going to get ruled by the chairman to be a part of this bill. the bill's not going to become law. it's going to go die in the senate. but i would urge you to work
6:50 pm
with the f.e.c., talk with them and the reason why, why it's bipartisan. we don't want our ethics committee here in the house to have a partisan edge. we don't want our franking commission to have a partisan edge. why in the world do we want the f.e.c. to have a partisan edge? so with that, mr. chairman, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. phillips: i thank you. i appreciate your comments, my colleague from illinois. however, to say that this weaponizes the f.e.c., i do take exception to. because indeed it's just the opposite. it empowers the f.e.c. to actually do its job, which is to look out for voters. that is quite simple and apparent to me. with, that i'd like to yield a minute or so of time to the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: i would just say -- the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: it's a good amendment because it allows the f.e.c. to be represented in an effective way. as to the underlying bill, you
6:51 pm
know, almost all -- i can't think of another agency of the federal government commission where you have an even number. most have an uneven number so you don't have deadlocks. we are deadlocked at the f.e.c. they are dead in the water. and is it because of partisanship? right now, there are two republican commissioners, one democratic commissioner, one independent commissioner, and two vacancies. they can't make a decision. you know, there are backlog cases that go on for years. this is really a disservice to america, to not be able to play that cop on the beat. because it's a completely dysfunctional agency. we need to change that. and that's what the underlying bill does. it allows the nonpartisan career staff to make initial fundings. it provides that there can be no more than two commissioners in
6:52 pm
the same party. so we're not going to have a partisan takeover. and then it allows the commission to overrule the nonpartisan staff, if necessary. we need reform at the f.e.c. this amendment is part of it. i credit the gentleman for offering it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. phillips: i have no additional speakers, mr. chair, at this time. and i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. phillips: oh. i want to thank representative sarbanes for his tireless work in bringing this important legislation to the floor. and to chairman mcgovern for making my amendment in order. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chair. again, i have a problem with the underlying bill and the f.e.c. issue. you know, it's not that hard to be bipartisan when we send bulk mail in the house.
6:53 pm
it may take a little longer, it may be a little more difficult. but you know what, bipartisanship works. there's a reason for it here, and, frankly, if the f.e.c. isn't working, if the f.e.c. is such an agency that has zero credibility in the mind of the majority right now, then why in the world are we spending time marking up a 700-page mammoth bill in house administration committee when we ought to just re-authorize the f.e.c.? i certainly hope that our committee can work toward making that happen. and that's something that has not been done, that we should be able to get bipartisanship on. i looked for to working with chairperson lofgren when that day comes over the next two years. i'm going to oppose the amendment because of the underlying language regarding the f.e.c. i commend mr. phillips for being here to legislate. welcome to congress, look forward to working with you. and appreciate your opportunity
6:54 pm
to be a part of the process. thanks for letting me be a part of it with you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 61 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 61 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by mr. levin of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and a member opposed each will control
6:55 pm
five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 1. the for the people act. this historic package of democracy and anti-corruption reform will put power back in the hands of the people. and restore the american people's faith that government works for the public interest, not the special interests. i'm pleased that my bill, the transparency and corporate political spending act, is included in h.r. 1. i'm also proud today to present an amendment that will prohibit violators of our federal election campaign laws from serving on critically important redistricting commissions in the states. our democracy's been under attack from foreign interference, gerrymandering, hidden corporate money, and voter suppression. today the time has come to reform our system and restore faith in our political process. i believe we have a duty to transform our democracy from a
6:56 pm
spectator sport into a true dialogue in which we all participate to debate the issues, defend our interests, and demand our rights. by passing h.r. 1, we will move one step closer to that transformation by breaking the grip of special interests and ensuring that the american people come first in our democracy. among its many important provisions, this historic democracy reform package includes my transparency in corporate political spending act, which will eliminate the policy rider that lets corporations keep their unlimited political spending secret. in addition, i look forward to this chamber's consideration of my amendment to h.r. 1. this amendment would protect our democracy by prohibiting campaign finance law violators and their immediate family members from serving on redistricting commissions. congress needs to ensure that we set out commonsense, minimum
6:57 pm
criteria for people who will serve on redistricting commissions in states across the country. my amendment will ensure that we -- that redistricting commissions nationwide are free of individuals and immediate relatives of individuals who have knowingly and willfully committed a violation of the federal election campaign act. in november, 2018, the people of michigan overwhelmingly passed voters not politicians, a ballot initiative that sets up a nonpartisan redistricting commission to create state legislative and congressional districts after the 2020 census. about seven or eight states have already done this and more are considering it. if we're going to transform our democracy, we need to do it right. i could not be prouder to vote to end the dominance of big money in our political system, to guarantee free and fair elections that are open to all and to ensure public officials work for the public interest. i'd like to thank congressman
6:58 pm
sarbanes and the members of the democracy reform task force for their unrelenting efforts to reclaim our democracy as one for and by the people. i urge my colleagues to support the for the people act and to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: well, i think you know i'm going to rise in opposition to this amendment. although i'm not opposed. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: thank you. i'm not opposed to this amendment. i just want to take the time to welcome our new colleague, mr. levin. and i would like you to give my utmost thanks to your dad. we stood on this floor and these same microphones and i was able to work in a bipartisan way with him to pass the each act that allowed for religious exemption from the individual mandates of obamacare. the affordable care act. that's now law. and that's a sign of
6:59 pm
bipartisanship that i hope to be able to continue, and while we work together, give him my best, the christian scientists that are in my district, one of the largest christian science institutions in the nation, are very thankful that they're now not being penalized by the tax code for a religious exemption from seeking medical care from doctors and medical professionals. so thank your dad. thank you for being here. i'm not going to oppose this amendment. i'll reserve just in case somebody wants to come up and talk about something else. and i can rebut them. but i'm ready to close if you are. i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you, mr. chairman. i deeply appreciate the gentleman from illinois' kind remarks. i will absolutely give my dad your regards. i'll call him tonight and tell him, seriously, that you said that. and i really appreciate the
7:00 pm
incredible honor and opportunity to be here working with you, to do the people's business. and i really hope we'll get a chance to work together on any umber of bills, to perfect and expand our democracy. and with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: well, going to be bipartisan once again. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the mendment is agreed to.
7:01 pm
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 62 preponderance printed in part b of house report 116-16. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. trahan: i want to commend my friend, the congressman from maryland, mr. sarbanes for offering one of the most significant reforms. i'm particularly pleased that h.r. 1 put redistricting in the hands of the commissions where
7:02 pm
it be longs. each state will create 15-person independent redistricting commissions that represent the public's interest without consideration of political party advantage. however, to prevent the real or perceived risks of bias, h.r. 1 excludes several people serving tables. my amendment would simply add to this list those individuals who are registered agents under the foreign agents act. it has been in law sips the 1930's and requires disclosure. as with h.r. 1's current exclusion adding foreign agents that those serving on the redistricting commissions are not at risk at actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
7:03 pm
coming from the commonwealth of massachusetts, i am pleased that h.r. 1 will allow voters to choose their representatives rather than the other way around. my amendment closes a loophole that registered foreign agents may not serve on redistricting commissions. thank you, mr. chair. ap i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts resevers the ball aps of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: i rise time to claim time in opposition but i'm not opposed to the amendment. i thank my colleague from massachusetts. thank you for putting this amendment forward. i have a problem with the underlying providings of the bill. i support redistricting reforms. i'm from illinois. i'm a republican and not go to
7:04 pm
go have a single say how the democrats in the illinois house and senate and supermajority in our newly democratic governor, we will not have a say. i hope we can get a redistricting commission, because since this bill isn't going to pass the senate and not become law, i hope we could work together on redistricting issues. with that, i will not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. trahan: i yield to the gentlelady from california as much time as she may consume. the chair: the depol from california is recognized. love ms. lofgren: i would like to concxds con deprat you late the the gentlewoman from erp massachusetts for an slept amendment. this strengthens the provisions in the underlying bill to make
7:05 pm
sure that agents of foreign principals who would have nor role in this -- in these commissions. i think it's important that we understand that the citizens who serve on these commissions have no agenda, not for one party or the other and certainly not for some foreign country. so it's really good amendment. i'm glad she offered it and i thank her and i yield pack. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i have a concern with the redistricting provisions in this bill now. it seems that now as part of the bill that one state is going to be exempted out and at what point do we not question why doesn't everyone have the same ability to opt out of provisions
7:06 pm
of this bill like the state of iowa has done. the sheerl fact if iowa's redistricting commission is better and shouldn't be -- we shouldn't have to apply the same standards as the other 49 states in this great nation, then why don't we use iowa's independent commission standards for everyone. why don't we make the whole bill about iowa. i have been talking about federalism and states having to follow a top-down federal mandate in cases that will be funded because we don't know how they are going to get those funds to our states and localities. but the sheerl fact that we are debating a bill that has a provision about independent redistricting that could have been very partisan, we have exempted one state out and tells
7:07 pm
all of us, that is a better commission. so i would hope that when we come back after this bill passes the house unform for many of my colleagues who are going to vote for this, i hope we can come together and debate whether iowa's commission is better than what is proposed in this bill. ou cannot, you cannot have a 700-paged bill that talks about how gloriously how good it is for all of the provisions that are this top-down approach and all of a sudden and exempt one state out of the one of the most important, most bipartisan provisions and that is independent redistricting. if you are serious about governing, the majority ought to offer an amendment, ought to offer a change to make iowa's independent commission the
7:08 pm
language of this bill. make it work in states even where they have independent commigs. i would like it to work in illinois. maybe california would like to use iowa's commission because it is better than what you have in the bill because otherwise we wouldn't have to take an amendment on it. your amendment is a good amendment. i apologize using the time but you are talking about redistricting and i welcome you to the floor of the house and i look forward to working with you and my offer is the same. when this bill fails in the senate, come together on some other provisions and i will throw the olive branch out towards that side of the aisle and congratulations. i won't oppose the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield?
7:09 pm
the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. trahan: i thank the the gentleman from illinois. i look forward tore working to restore our government to the people. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i urge yes on h.r. 1 and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yields back. 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 and this amendment s agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 63 printed in house report 116-16. ms. trahan: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 63
7:10 pm
printed in part bmp of house report 116-16 offered by mrs. trahan of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, are the gentlewoman from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control 20 minutes. ms. trahan: under current law our brave men and women serving our country are able to maintain their residency status for the purpose of voting during deployment. it protects them if a spouse is absent from their state in order tore accompany the service member on a deployment. however, current law does not protect the residency status of a spouse. if he or she is absent. my amendment fixes this loophole and will ensure these spouses will have their status regardless of whether they
7:11 pm
accompany their spouse. this would protect age-voting dependents. the service member who is deployed can be a hardship. the caregiver is no longer at home. in these cases, it's natural to rely upon friends and family and those in another state for support. however, these families should not lose the right to vote while their spouse is deployed. my amendment extends those protections to voting-age children. those who sacrifice the most for the defense of our nation are treated fairly and have a voice and vote in our election. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? much -- : i said it so
7:12 pm
i raise time to claim time in opposition but i'm not opposed. the chair: without objection. mr. davis: this is a great amendment. i commend mrs. trahan and it is important to protect our families. it is important we remember those who sacrifice who serve us and they should be able to weigh in whom ever. i'm going to vote yes. an olive branch to the other side of the aisle and i appreciate your willingness. and i will be supporting this amendment. i see the chair up, incase she says something i have to reserve, i -- the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. trahan: i recognize the the
7:13 pm
gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: i just want to say what a smart amendment this is and i'm so grateful that the gentlelady from massachusetts has taken the time to put this together. it's something we all care about our men and women in the armed services to make sure they are treated fairly but over the years, none of us came up with this amendment before this evening. and we are kudos lucky that you are member of our house of representatives. like the ranking member, i will be happy to vote aye on this amendment and i'm grateful for you offering it and i yield back. the chair: gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is now recognized. mr. davis: let the record show that i liked the amendment first. i liked it before the chairperson.
7:14 pm
it's a great amendment and i yield back and i look forward to voting for it. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. trahan: i would like to thank the gentlelady from california, you made it easy on me. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts. theaped. thoifer -- those opposed, no. . he amendment is agreed to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition?
7:15 pm
mr. kilmer: i have a an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kim of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172rks the gentleman from new jersey, mr. kim and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. kilmer: i rise to offer my mendment to mr. kim: our democracy isn't working for the majority of americans. this is something i hear every kay. there are too many barriers, too much dark money influence in our politic too many loopholes for bad actors to skirt our ethics laws and use a revolving door of politics to enrich themselves instead of empowering the american people. h.r. 1 isn't just a step in the right direction, it's a massive shift that takes power and puts it back in the hands of our constituents. it is this -- it is legislation
7:16 pm
that reminds us that our government must be for the people. but just as importantly, our democracy must be by the people. that is why i rise today to offer this amendment to h.r. 1, which will require federal election ballots to be made in america. in short, this is a win-win for the american people. it will help protect and create american jobs by ensuring that manufacturing states right here -- manufacturing stays right here in america. it will help protect the integrity of our federal elections which are increasingly under attack by foreign powers. we have an opportunity today to not just only help clean up our government, but create jobs and secure our elections. i hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle can come together to make the democracy we swore to protect truly of, by, and for the people. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, made in america amendment and i reserve the balance of my time.
7:17 pm
the chair: the gentleman reserves he balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: i rise to claim time in opposition that amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, this amendment, mr. kim, i don't know if we've had a chance to formally meet, welcome, thank you for being here, participating in the process. i guess i would like to have some details on what percentage of ballots that are printed in the united states right now are not printed in the u.s. the issue i have is not with united states-made printing materials, it's with the sheer fact that we're having a top-down approach once again. there's always going to be extenuating circumstances. some of our territories may raise the cost of importing paper to be able to now live up to the paper ballot marking whatever requirements that are in this 700-page bill.
7:18 pm
we can work together on these provisions but we also might want to work together as this bill fails in the senate and if this is something you want to work on together, mr. kim, i'm willing to work on it with you. but let's have some room in there for some exceptions. let's say it's almost election day. you've got wildfires roaring all over california and there's a paper shortage in the country. can't stop the election. so maybe we need some exceptions. can't stop the election, maybe we need an exception. so let's work together, let's do something like that, so that nobody loses a chance to be able to cast their vote on election day, to have their vote counted, and even just as importantly to have their vote protected. so i thank you. i've got to oppose this because there's no exceptions in there. but i appreciate your willingness to work together after this is done. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from
7:19 pm
illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kim: i want to start by saying that i'm very much looking forward to being able to continue to work with the gentleman from illinois throughout my time here. i appreciate his welcome to me here on the house floor. for me, as we go about this, it is essential that we understand that our ballots are the most fundamental form of our democracy that citizens here are engaged in. we understand them as a tangible manifest case of that participation, that each and every voter plays. so this is a manifestation of our value, our collective value, that with this most important symbol of our democracy, tangible form that our voters take, this should be something of, by, and for the american people. that is something that i think would be an important signal from the united states congress across this country that we recognize the importance of that
7:20 pm
and we want to hold a -- hold and commit to making sure that this tangible piece of our democracy is something that is made in america. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the gentleman from new jersey. look, i am all for increasing american manufacturing. i'm all for building new paper plants. i would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to remember that it's probably going to burn more fossil fuels. if we're going to have to cut down more trees, maybe we'll get some bipartisanship when it comes to deforestation which could help cut down on forest fires that may cause the pobs that we need the exceptions we talked about earlier. so i certainly hope that -- i certain will i hope this fits into the new green deal provisions that are going to be voted on in the senate. there's a lot of talk about paper in this bill. actually the paper keeps grow,
7:21 pm
it's upwards of 700 pages now. i just got a very important piece of pain we are the new c.b.o. score so i assume we're going to be talking about that soon, madam chair. ms. lofgren: i was just going to remind ferc this the gentleman will yield briefly, of the recycled ballot amendment that passed earlier today relative to the issue of cutting down trees. yield back. mr. davis: aisle all for more paper production. those paper plants that exist in my district, you know they use recycled materials too i'm more than happy to have more trees be deforested out of areas that are caught up in wildfires on an annual basis and if we can have the paper that's going to work, if the other side is ok with burn manager fossil fuels to make this happen, hey, maybe we went need those exceptions i talked about. maybe we'll have enough american
7:22 pm
manufacturing and paper jobs, some of the best-paying jobs in my district are in the paper mills. so i'm certainly looking forward to working with you when this bill fails, especially after seeing some of the preliminary numbers out of this new c.b.o. score. i don't know how many co-sponsors of this bill are going to actually be able to cast a vote for it but i'll reserve judgment until i see the board tomorrow. so i'll -- since i have the right to close i'll reserve the balance of my time but i'm ready to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time they have gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kim: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the perspective on the other end, i understand our common value that of course we want to see things made in america. i want to make sure i constantly as i will every time on this house floor seek bipartisanship as we move forward. i reiterate that this is commonsense amendment that is simply good policy. my amendment would give a leg up to domestic supply chain and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to support local, middle
7:23 pm
class jobs and boost our economy. amendments like mine are also ensure that when federal agency bias product to carry out their responsibilities, that they put american manufacturers first. i urge adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
7:24 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 68 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 68 printed in part b of house report 116-16, offered by ms. spanberger of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172 the gentlewoman from virginia, ms. spanberger, and a member opposed each will control five mips the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from virginia. ms. spanberger: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1. this week we are focused on fighting for the public interest, fighting for transparency and fighting for accountability. we have a rare opportunity to restore faith and trust in our system of government. thank you to all those who have fought to bring us to this point and for our upcoming major historic vote on h.r. 1.
7:25 pm
as we speak, i am working under a mandate from the people of central virginia. they expect me to fight back against a brecken washington and to work -- a broken washington and to work to protect our democracy, whether from special interests, barriers to voting or foreign influence. right now we are seeing an uptick in hostile attacks against election systems across the globe. with the rise of the internet, anonymous hackers, nonstate actors and foreign intelligence operatives, with those rises, as they rise as formidable and dangerous adversaries, our elections are the bedrk of democksfism your voting infrastrurture is compromised or attacked, the entire integrity of our electoral system could come into question. this was especially clear following russia's interfeerns in the 2016 election. it's almost certain that nefarious actors will continue their deliberate attacks to attack our elections or put in doubt the jut come of those elections.
7:26 pm
during this time it is critical that the u.s. election officials have accurate and up to date information about where our election security systems are most vulnerable. this amendment pushes back against foreign attempts to interfere in our electoral process and helps identify any potential threats that may exist. this amendment would use the invaluable expertise of public servants in the intelligence community and department of homeland security to strengthen the security of federal and state election systems. my amendment would require a federal assessment of the scope of potential threats to the security of america's election system including cyber, terror, and state actor threats. this assessment would happen 180 days prior to every general election. to allow the state the opportunity to respond and strengthen their voting system. additionally, this legislation would dwrect the director of national intelligence and d.h.s.
7:27 pm
to update federal and state officials on possible vulnerabilities and to provide assessment osen how best to stop these threats. as a former c.i.a. case officer i greatly appreciate the objective and nonpartisan -- partisan work of the national security and intelligence community. and with their help we can fight back against foreign interference, we can safeguard our elections, the dedicated men and women of our national security agencies, of our intelligence agencies have demonstrated their ability to collect information on foreign actors' intentions and provide election security assessments that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely and useful to the states they provide them to. as we're having an important discussion about safeguarding the integrity of a vote, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to h.r. 1. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek
7:28 pm
recognition? mr. davis: i rise to claim time in opposition but i think this is a darn good amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you. i'm going to support this amendment and it's great to work with you, ms. spanberger, thank you for your service as an intelligence officer for our great nation. this is an issue that you know better than me, you know better than most of us here in this institution. so i look forward to supporting your amendment and i welcome you to the u.s. house of representatives and look forward to working with you and i would love to work with you on issues like this when this bill does not pass the senate and get signed into law, we can work together in a bipartisan way. i'll continue to show bipartisanship, congratulations, and welcome, and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time they have gentlewoman from virginia is recognized. ms. spanberger i thank the gentleman for his comments and his support of this amendment and i yield to my colleague the gentlewoman from california. the chair: the jerusalem from
7:29 pm
california is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. this just goes to show how lucky we are that someone with -- the chair: the gentlewoman is ecognized. ms.-green: this is why it's so special to have someone with ms. spanberger's background elected to the house. states don't have a c.i.a. i think the gentlelady from virginia understands the workings of our national security agencies and the importance of giving them metrics on what to do and with whom so that we are completely safe. i am so delighted that she's offered this very smart amendment. and i look forward to approving it and thank her so much for the wisdom she bridges to the house and yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from virginia reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from illinois is
7:30 pm
recognized. mr. davis: thank you again, mr. chairman. let the record show i was for the -- i was for the amendment once again before the chairperson. i should get kudos. listen, this is a good amendment. congratulations on your election, being a member of congress, and helping to legislate and participate. i also want to use a few seconds to really highlight the work of our intelligence officials in the administration and our department of homeland security especially secretary nielsen and her team working with our local officials in illinois before the last election to ensure there was no nefarious activity that could have come about in our home state. our home state got -- home state election officials got a lot of accolades from the department of homeland security and i thank the department of homeland security and their team, especially secretary nielsen, deserve accolades also. with that, i'm ready to close and i yield back, ms.
7:31 pm
spanberger, congratulations. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time they have yom from virginia is recognized. ms. spanberger: i'm ready to close and reserve the balance of my time. he chair: -- ms. spanberger: i yield back -- the chair: the -- may i reclaim my time. the chair: is there any objection from the gentleman from illinois? anybody? without objection without objection, the gentleman from illinois and the gentlewoman from virginia both reclaim their time. the gentlewoman from virginia is now recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. sarbanes: i want to echo the remarks of the the gentleman from illinois and echo the
7:32 pm
remarks of the gentlewoman from california and congratulating ongressman sand berger on this excellent amendment ap how lucky we are with the expertise that is brought to this chamber based on her national security experience. we need to maximize what people can offer here and this is a perfect example. there is ampingsyite about attempts to hack into our election infrastructure. thank you for your amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from virginia -- the gentlewoman from virginia has 10 seconds. spap span i'm ready to close and
7:33 pm
i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yield back. the gentleman from illinois. the gentleman from illinois has 3 1/2 minutes. the question is on the amendment offed by the gentlewoman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the pip of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. amendment number 69 of part bmp of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the
7:34 pm
esk. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: does the gentleman seek recognition p for the gentleman from maryland. the clerk: printed in house offered by ive 16 ms. slotkin of michigan. the chair: ms. slotkin and a member each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes. ms. slotkin: the legislation before us today represents a major step forward towards improving accountability and expanding voting rights and money in he corrosive our politics. and i hear it and these are the issues that my constituents sent me to washington to address.
7:35 pm
people in michigan know in their pones that the current system is president working and want to return to decency. passing h.r. 1 will incrows confidence. my amendment would add important provisions to close a loophole in our laws that allows foreign depofts and foreign nationals to ahow influence. right now, a forp entity can by an ad that supports or attacks a candidate. a attorney entity can have an ad . my amendment would implement new requirements to ensure any attorney governments don't influence our elections. it would prohibit them from buying an ad that supports our
7:36 pm
x capped or on an issue to divide you us. official. r pentagon and i'm introducing this amendment because the amendments by russia to interfere in the 201 election took advantage of the lack of disclosure. in my home state of michigan, we re taferingted and saw interference. it is important to remember what we are talking. and i have a bunch of ads purposefully divide us. and they germly attempt to influence american elections. some may say they were small amount. it is a meager investment.
7:37 pm
we must ep sure that our laws do not awe allow this to happen. urge my colleagues to support press veer vacation and reject foreign influence. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: i rise time to claim time in opposition and not oppose this amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. davis: i know our time together is wipeding down. this is the last amendment we are going to debate. thank you for your service to our country. nd as i said, i'm not going to oppose your amendment. so concxds con grat you layings.
7:38 pm
i wish this would be part of something that could go into law and i look forward to working with you to address these issues as we move forward. i will reserve the ball aps of my time. congratulations and thank you for your service here. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. >> i yield one minute to my colleague -- sorry, mr. sarbanes, i yield one minute of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentlewoman for her time and thank her for her service in the house. as i said a moment ago with respect to other colleagues providing your experience in shaping this experience is
7:39 pm
absolutely invaluable. we need to make our democracy more resilient. you made the point that these wmp n adversaries and so discord. the way we push back is putting our radar out and keeping that spending out of our politics. thank you and i support it. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i would be remiss to not thank mr. sarbanes for being a co-sponsor of this amendment. my apoll guys, sir. thank you for your efforts in this amendment, too. i'm ready to close. i'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but congratulations, ms. slotkin.
7:40 pm
the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. clot clot i look forward to look forward to work on this issue. ms. slotkin: and how we turn it into law. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i want toll join in the celebration of the new members of this house of republics. the gentlelady from michigan has experience in preserving our national security. no, ma'am everyone here is serving has done what she has done and the gentlelady who has preceded her. our body is richer because of the experience they brought to this congress and this slept amendment is a product of the expertise that she brings to this institution. i look forward to joining the
7:41 pm
ranking member and approving it and celebrating her service to our house of representatives and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i would like to ask unanimous consent to add into the record from letters from groups from the hispanic leadership fund, americans for tax reform, coalition to reduce spending and national right to life, the chamber of conference. i would like to insert these into the record. the chair: that request will be overed by general leave. mr. davis: i'm going to yield back and not oppose this amendment and great debating with the other side and i look
7:42 pm
rward to a livelier debate tomorrow. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. ms. slotkin: i appreciate your spirit ap i look forward to working. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from. ms. lofgren: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. though those opposed, no. accordingly, the committee rises.
7:43 pm
mr. davis: i ask that the committee be discharged on h.r. 962 the born alive abortion survivors act. the speaker pro tempore: as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the
7:44 pm
house will not entertain the request unless it has been cleared. the gentlemen is not recognized for debate. the clerk: madam, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of house of representatives that i have been severed with a subpoena from the subpoena court for the county in a criminal proceeding involving an alleged threat of vial evenings. -a consultation, i have determined that compliance is consistent with the privileges nd rights of the house, signed
7:45 pm
sincerely brianian perkins. the speaker pro tempore: the hair lays before the house a notification. >> of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the superior court of the state of california tore the count in a criminal proceeding involving an alleged threat of violence. after consultation with the office of general counsel, compliance is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house, signed sincerely case worker and field representative. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. under the speaker's announce poledcy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
7:46 pm
minority leader. mr. zeldin: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and end collude extraneous materials on the topic of our special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. zeldin: i rise alongside mr. rose, mr. nadler, mr. king of new york and others to urge immediate passage of the never forget the heroes act introduced by representatives carolyn maloney, nadler, and king which would fully fund and extend the 9/11 victim compensation funds authorization through 2090. representatives maloney, nadler and peter king have been stalwart advocates of the effort, fighting on behalf of 9/11 victims and their families since the beginning. it's thanks to their leadership that we created the 9/11 victim compensation fund and why we are still here fighting today. i can't thank enough and praise enough the leadership of
7:47 pm
representatives maloney, nadler and king on this very important issue on behalf of the victims of september 11. james zadroga was one of the fearless leaders who rose up on 9/11. he was the first nypd officer whose death in 2006 was kecked to taxics exposure at the world trade center site. the james zadroga act was intined into law to help our first responders. five years later, it was perm lent -- permanently re-authorized and includeders 2k4r5.6 billion over five years, established to provide kmpsation for victims and their families and continues to provide for those suffering from 9/11-related illnesses decades later and their loved ones. first responders who work those opposed, no pile day and night, aiding the search, rescue, and cleaning efforts were breathing
7:48 pm
in toxic debris and ash now known to have caused over 50 different types of cancer. however, last month, the 9/11 victims' compensation fund issued an alarm regular port which stated its funding was insufficient to compensate all claims and the fund would have to make severe cuts to awards across the board. this is unacceptable and regardless of party affiliation, regardless of which district or state you come from, it is imperative that this legislation is passed and sent to the president immediately to become law so we can uh ensure these victims receive the compensation they deserve. this isn't a one-off issue. this isn't just a new york issue. this isn't a democratic or republican party platform or political football. this is a responsibility we all shoulder as americans first and foremost. it's the spirit of our nation and it's who we are as a people. it's important to remember that 9/11 first responders lived not only in new york but 433 out of
7:49 pm
435 congressional districts across this country. these were the very men and women who in the face of evil were willing to put it all on the line to help save their fellow americans who ran into the towers as everyone else ran out. it is unconscionable that time and again they have been forced to plead their case as to why they are worthy of our support. people who came down when the zadroga act was first getting authorized, sick, weren't there to fight in 2015 when it was permanently re-authorized because they'd passed away due to their injuries. people who were here in 2015 when that fight was made for the zadroga act to be permanently re-authorized are not here today to fight for the victim compensation fund because they passed away and succumbed to their injuries. we should not make them take dozens of trips down here to washington, d.c., becking for support.
7:50 pm
let them stay where they are and take care of their health, that's most important. so important that we immediately pass the never forget the heroes act which will ensure these heros receive the support they have more than earned. this past september 11, 17 years since the attacks, we came together as we always do to remember those who were taken from us that day. this year marked an especially harrowing occasion. by the end of 2018, more people had died from 9/11-related illnesses than were killed on september 11. tonight we're going to hear from the authors of the never forget the heroes act, representatives carolyn maloney, peter king and jerry nadler and so many others on both sides of the aisle on why this legislation is so important for the victims of 9/11, the communities, and our nation. in addition to those joining us this evening there are so many activists and outside organizations fighting on behalf of 9/11 victims and working to ensure they receive full compensation. jon stewart -- jon stewart who
7:51 pm
has traveled to washington countless times to fight for them. was just here last week. john field from my district and the feelgood foundation and so many more. including the great advocates from organized labor, especially law enforce. and first responders in new york and nationwide. from everyday men and women in our districts, to those of us on the floor, it is up to each of us to never forget who we lost those that day, those we have lost since, those who are suffering from 9/11 related illnesses, and their families. first i'd like to yield to congresswoman maloney, a fellow new yorker who has been a stalwart champion of this legislation going back to the passage of the zadroga act. i know this 9/11 first responders, those suffering 9/11 related illnesses and all those affected by this dark moment in our nation's history are grate to feel you and for your tireless work on behalf of them. with that i yield to the gentlelady from new york for
7:52 pm
five minutes. mrs. maloney: thank you to my friend and colleague for initiating this special order and for bringing us together to speak out in support for the bipartisan never forget heroes act which we must pass in this congress. september 11, 2001, we lost 2,997 people. but the death tolls from 9/11 may be far higher. it seems like every week i hear about the passing of another first respoppeder and survivor. soon the deaths from 9/11 related illnesses may outnumber those lost on that horrific day. thousands more are living with the effects of 9/11, with chronic diseases with cancer, with a whole host of other netch related illnesses.
7:53 pm
over 10,000 responders and survivors have been certified as having 9/11-related cancers. these are the men and women who rushed in and spent months combing through the wreckage. they're the residents and the workers who were told by the federal government, they were told that the air they were breathing was safe. when in fact it was filled with toxic pollutants. they are firefighters, police officers, federal and local law enforcement, medical workers, construction workers and other heroes. all of them are victims of 9/11 as well. the 9/11 attacks caused one of the biggest public health crises our country has ever faced. and those aren't just my constituents, they aren't just from new york or new jersey. they are americans. we were attacked because we were
7:54 pm
a site of economic strength in america. then they attacked our pentagon, a symbol of the strength of our military. and they were coming to the capitol, a sim billion of strength of our democracy. and these people live in every single state. we documented and the g.a.o. depockyumetted someone from out 435 congressional districts had someone who was harmed by 9/11. our whole country owes them a debt. on 9/11 we counted on them. and in return, we made a promise never to forget. this needs to be more than a slogan. and more than a bumper sticker. it is our sacred duty to make sure that they get the support
7:55 pm
they so justly deserve. in 2010, after years of tireless effort, congress reaffirmed its commitment to never forget the sacrifices made on september 11 by passing the bipartisan james zad rombings ga 9/11 health and compensation act. we established the world trade center health program and the nationwide provider network and reopened the victims' compensation fund to provide the thousands of injured and ill 9/11 responders and survivors with medical treatment for 9/11 health-related conditions and economic compensation for losses resulting from the attack. in 2015, we permanently authorized the world trade center health program. and re-authorized the victims' ompensation fund until 2020.
7:56 pm
now we need to get to work again. the problem is bigger than expected. the number of cancer cases has jumped. cancer claims account for one third of claims up from one fifth just a few years ago. death rates have gone up. this january saw a 235% surge in death claims to the victims' compensation fund compared to the end of 2015. most of which are the result of cancers. more and more 9/11 first responders and survivors are in need of the victim's compensation fund. increased enrollment has led to a need for more funding and in february, the special master of the september 11 victims' compensation fund announced that the fund was running out of money and would have to cut compensation awards by 50% to 70%. because of budget shortfalls.
7:57 pm
these cuts went into effect on february 25. and have already devastated first respppeders, survivors and their families. this is unacceptable. we cannot let this stand and we won't. we've introduced the never forget the heroes act. already we have an unprecedented 150 co-sponsors in one week. this was a joint effort, along with congressman zeldin, congressman rose, congressman got i'm and many others. our bill will show any cuts to awards and make the victim's compensation fund permanent for the lives of the recipients.
7:58 pm
we promised sick and injured 9/11 first responders and survivors that we would fully compensate them for the losses they have suffered. they shouldn't have to come begging for us to do our job, come begging back over and over again to congress. for some, 9/11 is a distant memory. for them, they remember this and 9/11 with every breath, with every cough, with every doctor's appointment and with every death in their families. they are counting on us. they are counting on congress. just like we counted on them on that terrible day. and in the weeks afterwards. never forget is a promise i urge my colleagues to join uses -- join us in ensuring we honor it. i yield back to my distinguished colleague, mr. zeldin and again thank him for organizing this important remembrance, thank
7:59 pm
you, i yield back. mr. zeldin: mrs. maloney's words are so inspiring. she said -- the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to maintain proper decorum in the chamer. mr. zeldin: mrs. maloney inspires us all. when she says that the 9/11 victims, their families are counting on us, they certainly know that they can count on you. so thank you to congresswoman maloney for leading this effort for so many years. you've been a great champion for this cause. it's great to assist you. however -- great to assist you however we can. that's why congressman rose and i want to be here, co-leading a special order on a bipartisan basis to support you, congressman nadler, congressman king, who have been champions of the effort. mrs. maloney: thank you, would the gentleman yield for a second? mr. zeldin: of course.

14 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on