tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 8, 2019 8:59am-1:02pm EST
9:00 a.m. the vote you are taking today deals with ethics in voting. it is a broader bill. how will you vote? why? guest: absolutely not. i spoke against it on the floor the other day. this is a frightening bill. consent of the governed is a bedrock principle, and we apply that through our elections. it is essential those elections be nonpartisan and free and fair. what this bill does is muzzle free speech. it has the opposition of the american civil liberties union as a result. it expert rick's taxpayer money for support of candidates those taxpayers might a poor. and it breaks down the laws that the integrity of the ballots being cast. to go.e have thank you for your time. the house coming in in just a minute. we bring you to the house floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its
caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 8, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable diana degette to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day.
we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all who call upon your name. send your spirit to fill their hearts with those divine gifts you have prepared for them. may your grace find expression in their compassion for the weak and poor among us. and may your mercy encourage good will in all they do and accomplish this day. as the members of the people's house face the demands of our time, grant them and us all your peace and strength that we might act justly, love tenderly, and walk humbly with you. 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 pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> madam speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds a quosh is not present, and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman first ask for a strote? mr. takano: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. mr. takano: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. now, the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. mr. lowenthal: 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 five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lowenthal: i wish to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased and proud to stand here in support of h.r. 1. but i am especially proud that h.r. 1 contains the reform act legislation that was introduced by representatives lofgren, brownley, and myself. this legislation would require states to create independent
redistricting commission to draw congressional seats. we moving politicians and partisan gerrymandering from the process. i worked for decades on this cause. in the to lead the california legislature on redistricting efforts which ultimately led to the creation of the california redistricting independent commission. which is now recognized as one of the best practices in redistricting. let's follow this example across the country. let's have members here who represent fair and equitable districts and who are elected to represent their districts and not to be -- just to protect incumbents. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition. mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the
gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: madam speaker, 58 years ago this week president john f. kennedy signed and exesktir order establishing the united states peace corps. since then more than 00,000 americans have participated in international service opportunities through the peace corps. international service organizations like the peace corps and student exchange programs operated by the department of state play an important role in promoting the image of america around the world. these programs provide american volunteers with a chance to learn about their host countries, society, and values. and in turn volunteers share american durel and values to the people of their host country. this fosters a greater -- great understanding of and strong friendship between our country and those around the world. the peace corps was created with the strong belief that americans are willing to contribute part of their life to the country. president kennedy said that we must not merely aim to have an economic advantage in life, but we must strive for a greater purpose.
madam speaker, for 58 years the united states peace corps has provided thousands of americans with that greater pumps. thank you, madam speaker. -- purpose. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. madam speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1 so that more americans can exercise their right to vote. on election day of last year, voters in my district on the central coast of california set a new record for turnout in a midterm election. we saw one of the highest increases in the state for folks registering to vote. in monterey county, the majority of registered voters voted by absentee ballot and mail. these are service members who filled out their ballot from where they were stationed and folks at home who could can take time to thoughtfully cast their vote. unfortunately on that same
election day, voters around this country didn't have that opportunity and they had to go to o polling places where they faced malfunctioning voting machines and found the registration frozen or purged. mr. panetta: these instances left thousands of citizens without a vote, and voice in our democracy. that is why we need to pass h.r. 1. the most important person in our democracy are not those who hold office, but it's those educated and informed voters that put us in office. let's give those types of voters more opportunities to participate in our democracy and pass h.r. 1. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. last congress the judiciary committee interviewed multiple d.o.j. and f.b.i. official abouts their actions regarding the 2016 elections. people anticipate the mueller report soon, will he find any collusion? or was the only collusion among agency personnel who hated the president and started this
investigation? interview transcripts were pertinent to the investigation. copies were shared with certain members. out of an abundance of caution we gave d.o.j. to review them for information that would deal with national security. i am today making one of the transcripts public. mr. speaker, to avoid burdening g.p.o. and the transcript, i respect the link to be placed in the record so the american people can can review the transcript of bruce. i intend to make other transcripts public soon. i'm willing to consider reasonable redactions by d.o.j. made in a timely manner but won't allow them to be shrouded in secrecy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the link will be appear in the record. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> i i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.
>> thank you, madam speaker. we're delivering a major victory for american families today. mrs. bustos: a victory for transparency, integrity, and combibblingt in our democracy. i'm proud to have helped introduce h.r. 1, the for the people act. because in every corner of illinois i hear from folks who are frustrated about politics. they are frustrated with the secret and dark money that enters politics. they are frustrated by the self-dealing in washington. and they are frustrated by the culture of corruption that rewards the powerful while the voices of hardworking americans are drowned out. our for the people act will bring fundamental change to washington. our bill will end the dominance of big money in politics. it will end the come -- ensure that elections are fair. and it will make sure congress is working for the people instead of for themselves. banning members from serving on corporate boards.
our for the people act will make it easier to vote. madam speaker, the american people sent us here to clean up the mess in washington. today we're delivering on that promise. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise. >> madam speaker, 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 for one minute. >> madam speaker, i i rise today to honor peter elutewiler, an american hero and true friend. he served in military intelligence during the vietnam war and in january of 1968 when his compound was surrounded by enemy troops and the machine gunners abandoned their post, he manned the machine guns for hours keeping the enemies at bay and protecting the lives of their treatment. for this act he was awarded the vietnamese equivalent of the bronze star. after he retired, he dedicated his time to fellow veterans. he now serves as a program manager for warrior partnerships of eastern
oklahoma and the oklahoma veterans connections. is he a mentor to veterans going through the tulsa veterans treatment court, going above and beyond to enrich the lives of oklahoma veterans. he is an incredible example of the great men and women who have served our country every day. he is the first district's march, 2019 veteran of the month and i'm honored to recognize him with this award. madam speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today on international women's day to honor a woman who has been a pillar of strength in my community during a particularly difficult time. ms. underwood: last month in aurora, i illinois, we had five neighbors killed in an act of gun violence. if you watched a news, you saw a woman, chief of police, exuding strength, compassion, resolve, and leadership following an event we never
imagined would happen in our community. she leads the second biggest police department in our state of illinois, no small feat consideringing there only 219 female chiefs in the more than 14,000 police departments nationwide. her compassionate leadership and barrier breaking approach to o law enforcement inspired us across the fox volley region. we truly are aurora strong. her strength and service to our community makes us so proud and i look forward to watching all the little girls in our community grow up knowing they can be anything they want to be from a police chief to a congresswoman because they grew up seeing it firsthand. there are people like the chief lifting all our communities all over the 14th district and our country and i'm so glad to celebrate them today. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one mifpblet -- one minute.
>> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to commemorate a tradition that has come to the finest small town in rural florida. every pinter plant city transforms for the strawberry festival. when it was founded in 1930, it was a way for the residents of plant city to not only mark a new crop of strawberries but also one of the few times locals could eat strawberries due to their shelf life. today the 11 day event attracts guests far beyond plant city and they now supply virtually all winter strawberries grown in the united states. this success comes at the hard work of our growers. these entrepreneurial men and women work tirelessly to bring us the strawberries many of us enjoy. i thank them for all they do for us. they have become a lifeblood of plant city and our community wouldn't be what it is today without them. i want to congratulate kendall who was crowned the strawberry festival queen.
also want to congratulate madeleine and jaila, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to congratulate the mcfarland high school girls basketball team. undefeated in regular season division four play, our girls were moved up to division three for state. undaunted, the team's motto is relentless and that's what they have been. on tuesday night our girls brought home the school's first southern california regional championship. they are a textbook example of what can be accomplished through hard work, practice, and team work. and the e coaches, they are now am
playing oakland high school, represented by my friend and colleague, barbara lee, in tonight's state championship game. i ask my colleagues to join me in sending them the best of our luck. we're so proud of our girls. mr. cox: and their families. go, cougars w that i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i raise my objection to h.r. 1, the so-called we the people act. mrs. hartzler: this act should be called the fund the politicians act. it's a federal takeover of our election system. it opens up our precious election system to fraud, and it violates free speech rights. . this would allow the funding of politicians' campaigns. they would have be given a 6-1
match. i don't believe americans want their money to help pay for more robo calls from politicians they don't support. for ll also give $25 citizens to give to a campaign of their choice. it opens up our system to fraud by requiring that they have to allow for online registration, same-day registration and nullifies all the state protections. no secretary of state was even consulted about this bill. and finally, it violates our free speech rights by requiring the publishing of the names and addresses of donors to organizations who may speak about a candidate. this bill is terrible. every vote should count and no government should go to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. 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 colorado, ms. degette, kindly ake the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to expand americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other urposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, march 7, 2019, amendment number 69 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. lot kin, had been disposed of. it's now in order to consider amendment number 70 printed in .art b of house report 116-16
for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. me guse: madam chair, -- mr. neguse, madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70 printed in part b of house report 116-offered by mr. neguse of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentleman from colorado, mr. neguse, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse: thank you. i'm proud to introduce my amendment. to be clear, my amendment does not lower the voting age. it simply allows individuals to preregister so they're registered and ready to vote when they turn 18. today, 14 states, including my state, the great state of colorado, as well as the district of columbia permit preregistration beginning at 17 years old. ive states allow for
preregistration ahead of their 18th birthday. i think it's time for us to take up these reforms at the federal level. we see young people interacting with the government agencies most frequently when they are 16 and getting their driver's license or lerner's permit. permit.-- learner's voter registration services are typically offered at their motor vehicle office. madam chair, the foundation of our democracy is built on the ability of our citizens to vote. we must hold this right precious and sacred and we must encourage, in my view, citizens of every age from every background, every locality, every political party to engage in our political process. preregistration allows us to do that, by investing in our next generation. thank you, madam chair. and with that i reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam chair. thanks to our -- my new colleague, mr. neguse, welcome. glad you're participating in the process. i am going to oppose your amendment, not because of the process, just because it adds another layer of burden to our states and our localities. many states already accept preregistration forms and that's within their state's jurisdiction to do so. i just don't like this top-down approach which is how upwards of 700-page mammoth bill called h.r. 1 is putting onto our states and local election officials. our county offices, our local officials, they're bleeding from unfunded mandates from state and federal governments. and this is one more of those. i agree, we ought to let -- we ought to get more 16 and 17-year-olds interested in government. i have twin boys who are 18. i try and get them interested. sometimes they're not even
interested in me, what we do. but the key is we as members of congress ought to go take our -- take our message to the high schools. i just recently was in boston with a bipartisan group with -- in and around our colleague, joe kennedy's district. joe and markwayne mullin and lisa blunt rochester, all four of us standing in bipartisan, hope inspired young people in the boston area to get engaged. my colleague, jimmy panetta, and i went to schools in my district last fall to show people we can work together in a bipartisan way. unfortunately, this process and h.r. 1 has been nothing but partisan and that's not the message that we need to send to 16 and 17-year-olds. i put my hand out in an olive branch. i accepted many democratic amendments throughout the last few days and not one single amendment either in the markup
of the only committee that marked this bill up, house administration, where we offered 28, not one republican amendment o this bill, now 700 pages, is accepted. every amendment has been a democrat-led amendment. i thought the new democratic majority was going to be bipartisan, transparent. i thought the new democratic majority was going to not work with special interests to write mammoth 700-page bills but i guess, madam chair, i was mistaken and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse: thank you, madam chair. i thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle for his thoughtful comments. i would say i think this amendment is a bipartisan amendment in the sense it will apply equally to every 16 and 17-year-old across the country irrespective of their political affiliation. in colorado, actually, in some months we had more republican 16
and 17-year-olds preregister than democrat 16 and 17-year-olds. really what this is all about is ensuring young folks in our country are able to integrate into the political process and engage in their civic duties at an earlier age. from my perspective, i appreciate the gentleman's comments with respect to visiting high schools. i certainly do that quite a bit to meet with young folks, to talk about how to become better citizens and engage in their community and often the question i get is how and i think this is a great answer, the ability to say to them if they go when they get their driver's license and preregister to vote so ultimately when they turn 18 they're registered and ready to participate in our elections. i think that, at the end of the day, it will do a great service to our country and we'll get more people involved in our political process. with that i want to yield one minute to the distinguished colleague and chair of our immigration subcommittee and of course chair of the house
administration committee, ms. lofgren. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, i want to express my thanks to the gentleman from colorado for offering this refining amendment. i think he's exactly right. in order to fully engage the american people, we need to make every effort for them to participate. and for young people who feel that they really don't have a say, allowing them to preregister helps them buy into our american system of government. you know, somebody on the other side of the building said, well, this is a power grab to make sure that every -- this h.r. 1 is a power -- it's a power grab for the american people to take the power away from the special interests and give it to the american people. and the gentleman's amendment helps further that worthy goal and i thank him for offering it and i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse: madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, madam chair. thank you to my colleague, mr. neguse. i admire your tenacity and your willingness to come down and legislate. you know, i stand ready to come to your district and talk to high schoolers with you and i hope you would reciprocate and come to mine so have your team call mine and we'll figure out a way to work something out. that's the best way to send a message to high schoolers to get them engaged, get them involved. this is just an administrative burden that's going to affect our state and local officials to process. there are provisions in this 700-page mammoth bill that don't allow our local election officials to clean voters off the rolls that they no longer may live in their jurisdiction. so we're hindering local officials' ability to clean up their rolls and then decide, you know, later on that we're going to go ahead and preregister
people that may or may not vote in their college town of residence. so it's just a burden that i think is unnecessary although, again, respect your willingness to come down here and debate. this is an issue that goes further than mr. neguse's amendment. i'm going to oppose the amendment. i urge folks to vote no on it. more importantly, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill that's going to eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars and add billions upon billions through the campaign coffers of members of congress. that's not what the taxpayers in my district are asking for. it's not what the taxpayers of america is asking for. it's only what the democratic majority is asking for and i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse: well, i'll certainly take up my colleague on his invitation and look forward to visiting his district and for you to come to boulder and fort collins and meet 16 and 17-year-olds who are eager,
eager to advocate for others to preregister in other states as they have in colorado thanks to the incredible election reforms we've enacted in our state. i understand we have a respectful disagreement with respect to the merits of the underlying bill but i would hope on this particular amendment that is not particularly controversial and as i said, is really a nonpartisan approach that's getting young folks of all political affiliations involved in our political process. i would hope and trust that colleagues in both parties here in this chamber would think about this amendment thoughtfully and i would certainly urge them to support it. with that i'll yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. neguse. we know this bill will not be signed into law. i look forward to working with you on other amendments that we might come up with good plans to engage our 16 and 17-year-olds, engage in the exgeneration of leaders. i hope a visit we can do together can inspire someone to do what we do one day.
we would manage to call ourselves successful in legislating, to inspire the next generation. this bill, h.r. 1, is not going to inspire the next generation. i appreciate mr. neguse. i appreciate his willingness to serve and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. neguse: madam chair, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 71 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? mrs. kirkpatrick: madam speaker,
make. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 71 printed in part b of house -- rt 116-16 offered by ms. mrs. kirkpatrick of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 172, the gentlewoman from arizona, ms. kirkpatrick, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. kirkpatrick: i thank mr. sarbanes for his persistent work on this legislation. we have an opportunity here to reduce the role of dark money in politics and make it easier for americans to participate in our democracy. this is not a partisan issue. this is an american democracy issue, and h.r. 1 is the best solution to cleaning up corruption in washington. i'm proud of my colleagues for working on this historic and necessary package. you see, madam speaker, i ran as
a publicly funded candidate in arizona under our public financing law called clean elections when i first ran for the legislature. this meant i had to go out and get a certain number of $5 contributions from constituents in my district which i then turned in to get my public financing. it was the same for everyone who was running as a clean election candidate, regardless of party. it equalized everything. . one of my favorite stories, i was walking from my law office down to the post office to check my mail and this cowboy pummed in his pickup truck at a stoplight and rolled down the window and he said, hey, ann, you don't know me, but i gave you $5. and so he felt empowered in my election. i walked over, we had a conversation in the middle of the street. and that's the way it should be. this puts power in the pocket
of the people not special interests. and that's the way it should be. it is the for the people act. and that empowers people, and that makes our democracy work. i offered r offer my amendment because -- i offer my amendment because it creates transparency in the process. this amendment was suggested by a republican colleague. it requires the disclosure of credit card verification value and billing address information for purchases of unlined advertising. the credit card verification value is an anti-fraud securitying technology designed to protect us and to reduce fraudulent activity. we know that there are bad actors and foreign nationals out there that have an interest in influencing our american elections through online
advertising. haven't we seen that very, very well in the last couple of years? we have loopholes that allow them to do so, but we can can fix that. not only can we fix it, we must fix it. this amendment is a commonsense solution to help protect the integrity of our he elections and prevent bad players from compromising our outcomes. this amendment is focused on protecting our democracy through transparency in the digital age. i urge you and i urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment and the entire h.r. 1 package. to clean up washington and put the american people first. remember that cowboy who stopped he me in the middle of the road who felt like he was empowered in his election and election of his representative. that's the way it should be.
thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. davis: i rise to claim time in opposition, although i am not opposed. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: welcome back to my colleague, mrs. kirkpatrick. great to have you back in this institution. your amendment is an amendment that i support. however, the underlying bill, h.r. 1, is the furthest thing that can be considered for the people. this bill is nothing but a bill that's for loading billions upon billions of dollars into the covers of -- coffers of members of congress. don't think anybody in my district who stops me in the street is saying, hey, we want to you take taxpayer dollars away from investing in infrastructure, take taxpayer dollars away from investing in pediatric cancer research. you know what? and load up your campaign coffers with that so you can can go enrich some political
operatives and buy more tv commercials and raid heo ads. send more mail piece that is get thrown away immediately when they come into your house. this has got to be one of the worst examples of self-preservation that i have ever witnessed in my 22 years working for the u.s. house of representatives and serving in the u.s. house of representatives. i can't think of one person in my district who has come up and said, i want you to take tax dollars away from building bridges and roads, finding cures for deadly diseases, and putting it in your campaign fund. that's why this bill is terrible. this bill has not been open. it has not been a bipartisan process. it has not been regular order. all the things that the democrat majority promised us that they would do when they took over. this bill was introduced on
january 3. i certainly hope every democratic member actually read the bill before they signed on as a co-sponsor. i think they are reading it now and there are a lot of problems. which is why we have so many amendments. let me go through some of the process. we requested a c.b.o. score delivered last friday. updated yesterday which actually agrees with me that taxpayer dollars are going to be taken away from other iorities that we can spend here in congress like roads and bridges and cancer research, alzheimer's research, and others and go towards members of congress' campaign. hours before the only committee markup that we saw with the majority, an amendment in the nature of a substitute with new tax including a magical new freedom from influence fund that would supposedly support this enrichment of members of congress' campaigns, had no details on how that fund would be filled. we went through that markup.
only one committee, the smallest committee in congress, house administration, was the only committee who marked this up. that's not regular order. 40% of the bill's never even gone through regular order. yet now we see 72 amendments over the last few days? 28 of them we offered to try to make the bill better in committee were all turned down on a partisan roll call. then we went to rules. actually had a good time in rules. i thank my colleague, chairperson lofgren, for that debate during the rules committee. we again received new text of the bill 10 minutes before i walked in. 10 minutes before, including 51 new pages. where was this in the markup process? after the rules hearing and before consideration on the floor we learned leaks from the press that the influence fund would be filled with corporate fines but had no he details. hi no idea that the democrat solution to campaign finance reform and take corporate -- their goal to take corporate money out of politics was to use corporate money to fund our
campaigns which we now legally can cannot accept. -- legally can cannot accept. that's the height of hypocrisy. no one is asking for more corporate dollars to line the campaign coffers of members of congress. this bill and the process are just a sham. look, joint committee report with revenue stream projections for this new magical freedom from influence fund was not shown to us. it was just submitted for the record. we found it. we saw it. and the new c.b.o. report clearly says, this fund will be out of money in just a few years after it becomes activated because the costs are going to exponentially rise. and clearly taxpayer dollars will have to bail it out and the corporate fund, even the c.b.o. and "the washington post" realize that that corporate tax fund, the tax
rate of corporate dollars now being funneled into our campaigns that we can't take right now, those corporate dollars and fines will take away from being able to be spent on the priorities of my constituents that stop me in the streets. they say we want to build new bridges. we want new roadways. we want to make sure that this bill goes down because it's a travesty on the american people and the american taxpayer. vote no on h.r. 1. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from arizona. mrs. kirkpatrick: while i have utmost he respect and admiration for my colleague across the aisle, he's one of my favorite members of congress, i strongly disagree with his characterization of h.r. 1. no one knows more than i about dark money, secret money being spent in elections. i have had tens of millions of dollars spent to defeat me. and yet i prevail because i have the power of the people.
that's what this bill does. it empowers people. just like that cowboy who stopped me with his pickup and had contributed $5 to my legislative election. i urge my colleagues to support this election. there is nothing more important than election in our democracy and empowering the people to participate. nothing. that is the cornerstone of our democracy. i yield back the balance of my time to my esteemed colleague from california. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: madam chairwoman, i would like to congratulate the gentlelady from arizona on this very smart amendment. i am not surprised, it's typical she would make this a bipartisan amendment. it's very helpful. it's very smart. and i'm glad that she's back here in congress to show this leadership. i have just one word on this c.b.o., it shows that there is,
indeed, no tax money involved in the freedom of influence fund. i yield back. the chair: the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. he amendment is adopted. it's now you in order to consider amendment number 72 printed in part b of house report 116-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine seek recognition? mr. golden: i rise today to introduce my amendment to h.r. 1. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 72, printed in part b of house report number 116-16, offered by mr. golden of maine. the chair: pursuant to house
resolution 172, the gentleman from maine, mr. golden, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maine. mr. golden: thank you, madam chair. before i talk about my amendment i would like to thank congressman sarbanes for his work on this bill. h.r. 1 is a competitive good government bill that -- comprehensive good government bill that goes a long way. this legislation would return power where it belongs, in the hands of working people. as long as corporations and megadonors finance campaigns, well connected insiders will continue to call the shots. mainers have seen firsthand what can happen when the power's returned to the people. in 1996, our state's voters passed a referendum establishing the maine clean elections act. by collecting small donation from people in their communities, maine candidates refused the donations of lobbyists and well healed and concentrate on face-to-face conversation was their neighbors. this empowers the community to
choose a representative in a battle of ideas instead of a battle of bank accounts. maine's clean election reforms have been supported and used by candidates of all parties in my state. republicans, democrats, green party, and independent candidates have used our clean election system. in fact, in 2018 a republican candidate for governor used the system because he understood it would free him up to spend his time going door-to-door and talking to the very people he wanted to represent as governor of the state of maine. today we have the opportunity to follow maine's lead and bring needed reform to the rest of the country. h.r. 1 allows candidates to refuse donations from megadonors by implementing a matching system for small dollar donations from everyday people. as we have seen in maine, candidates who use this system are good stewwards of the funds they receive, but as with any system, there is potential for bad actors. it's important that they be held accountable. amendment to h.r. 1 ensures any bad actors are cut off from the
matching system and sets high standards for participation. the legislation bars a candidate from using matching funds if the f.e.c. assesses three or more civil penalties against a candidate for violating election laws. and more importantly, if a candidate willfully, knowingly violates the law. my amendment permanently bars them from the program. finally, my provision reaffirms that egregious violations of campaign finance laws should result in imprisonment of up to one to five years. with h.r. 1 in my amendment we're creating an accountable election system. the funds for the matching program as was just discussed come from bad corporate actors. these are fines, penalties, and settlements from corporate malfeasance, tax crimes, and other breaches of the public trust that. money can be used to ensure everyday people who don't have a network of deep money around them, just everyday working people will be given the
opportunity to compete in a campaign. to go out and represent their people. to go out and spend their time talking to them face-to-face instead of spending their time dining for dollars talking to the very wealthy. it's time to take the people power back and by passing my amendment in h.r. 1 we'll take that first step. americans aren't going to let our democracy be taken out from under us any longer. irge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and yes on final passage. thank you, madam chair. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. davis: thank you, madam chair. i rise to claim time in opposition. i don't have the best nickel back lyrics to introduce my next speaker for one minute i'd like to recognize our republican leader, kevin mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the ranking member for is work and his love of music. this new democrat socialist
majority wants the federal government to interfere in our free and fair elections. this bill today the majority's most important bill, is a massive federal government takeover that would undermine the integrity of our elections. . i want to show how the majority has gone to great steps to actually hide their prize legislation from the american people. madam speaker, for the american public to understand, when you become the majority, you reserve 1-10 of the numbering of bills and you want to make your number one bill the most important thing you do for america to know. two years ago we were in the majority, madam speaker, and we made the most important bill to make sure the people's money went back to them.
we want to cut your taxes. so the most important bill that the democrat socialist majority has is to take more of your money and give it to the politicians who want to vote for this bill. how ironic. now, even though h.r. 1 has such broad spectrum of where to go, it was referred to 10 committees. imagine that. 10 committees. but 40% of this bill has not even been marked up. because what they do, they only went to one committee. what committee did they go to? they went to the very special committee. house administration. this house administration, the members that sit on house administration i'm sure they are selected from the conference committee you go forward, select individuals to it. no, no, no. that's not the committee we went to. house administration is selected just by two people, the speaker and the leader.
the speaker and the leader. and you know what, it's one of .he smallest committees we have because if h.r. 1 is so important to the american public, i'm sure we would want everybody to see it. but no. it's just nine people of this house. and in their jurisdiction, they didn't get a markup of the whole bill. they only had about 60% of the bill to mark up, but i want to thank our republican colleagues on this committee. first of all, ranking member rodney davis, mark walker, barry loudermilk, they were very thoughtful. they realized even though the chair of the house administration, when asked during the markup, would the other committees mark up this bill? she promised, she promised that the other nine committees would see it. the other nine committees could mark up that other 40% that the house administration didn't get to mark up. lo and behold, that's not true.
new democratic socialist said there will be 72 hours before it would go to the floor. no. it could be an hour. those other 71 doesn't matter. but what republicans on the other side of the aisle did, they wanted a thoughtful approach on the issue. they provided 28 amendments to improve h.r. 1. you know how many the democrats on the other side that the speaker selected those six members? they didn't vote for one of them. they could not find a way that of those 28 amendments that one of them could be accepted. i guess the speaker selected the right people for house administration. they call this bill for the people act, but i want to explain why i think it's for the politicians, because everyone who votes for this bill today, they are going to go home a little more excited.
you know why? they just got the taxpayers to actually fund their elections. and they picked it in a manner where you don't even know and the multiplying effect of 6-1. so let's talk about for the politicians act. first, h.r. 1 wants to give american taxpayer dollars to political candidates and campaigns, regardless of whether you support them. we are not just talking about republicans and democrats running. any view you want with any impression they want to say. we just had a bill on the floor yesterday about hate. i imagine there's going to be quite a few people who run for office that get taxpayers' money that talk a lot of hate. i don't think america wants their money spent on that. this bill will give candidates a government match of 6-1. not a dollar for dollar. no, no, no. for the politicians act
multiplies it. so if a citizen gives $200, the government gives $1,200. that's why the new democrats' socialist party are so excited about this bill. that's why they made it a number one priority. hard-earned taxpayers' money should go to roads, bridges, or a boost to struggling americans, not just to political campaigns. i'm not sure about these other districts but when i campaigned, no one came to me and said, let's make sure you take more of my taxpayer money to give to you to run. i can't remember one time anybody on any side of the aisle asked for that. worse, this bill would allow political candidates to profit off actually running for office. from the american taxpayers' dime, the bill expands taxpayer funds to include the childcare, the rent, the mortgage, or even professional development. we've now just created a new
industry. think of the individual that just wants to run for office, that wants to spew hate and says the taxpayers are going to pay for it. i'm just going to keep doing that. second, h.r. 1 legalizes the vote for convicted felons. even if that person was convicted of election fraud. can you imagine that? we're going to vote on a bill today that provides more taxpayer money to politicians, that's going to allow felons to vote, because we don't care what states say, but even if you're convicted of election fraud, come on down. we got something special for you. and this wasn't created by one new member of this democrat socialist party. it's the most important bill that they selected. it is h.r. 1. no other bill matters to them but this. just doesn't make sense to me. third, h.r. 1 would weaken the
security of our election and make it harder to protect against voter fraud. it automatically registers voters from the d.m.v. voting is a right, just not a mandate. this legislation would also prevent officials from ever removing ineligible voters from the rolls or even verify the accuracy of voter information. to that point, h.r. 1 exposes our election system to widespread fraud. take ballot harvesting, for example. we have one less member in this body because of harvesting of ballots. a practice where a third party activist can collect your absentee ballot from other voters and turn them in for you or potentially not even turn them in at all. can you imagine putting the trust of your vote in the hands of a stranger? if that doesn't scare you it
should. sadly, this practice was weaponized in california and north carolina not so long ago. but now we want to make it everywhere. you know, "the washington post" highlighted the peril of this practice. let me read you the headline. don't be shocked by the north carolina fraud allegations. absentee ballot are much less secure than polling places. absentee ballots are less secure than polling places. the piece goes on to say, no one oversees voters filling out absentee ballots to ensure they fill out the ballot and return it without tampering. campaigns and parties have taken advantage of this by turning to campaign and party workers to deliver and return absentee ballot materials for voters on an honor system. and finally, this bill wants to stack the deck in favor of the party in power at the federal election commission.
we talk a lot about bipartisanship. we talked a lot about it in different ways. the committee that could only mark up 60% of this bill, you might say it's bipartisan but it's not level. it's 6-3. that's why not one of the 28 amendments got adopted. but the federal election commission is a panel of three on one side and three on the other. so what does this bill do that the new democrat socialist majority care most about? let's stack the deck. let's stack the deck a little further. let's not make it three and three. ones put the party in power more, put it on the scale further so they want to make it a five panel. this year "the new york times" wrote republicans have spent more time trying to define this bill than democrat socialists
have spent trying to promote it. i wonder why. if it's your most important bill, the bill that's going to define your congress, let's look at what it is. they want to take more taxpayer money. they want to give you less freedom. those who vote for it today, i guess they walk away with a raise in their campaign. they're asking the taxpayer to give them 6-1. pretty good return, i would say, but it doesn't matter if the taxpayers support you or not because you're just going to make government larger and take the money away. it's going to make people who are convicted of felons open the door, come on and vote. even if you're convicted of election fraud. that interesting to me would you make it your number one priority. kind of interesting to me, a structure of congress if you're referred to a committee that you wouldn't have it all marked up.
it's kind of interesting to me the only committee you would pick to mark it up is the one chosen by the speaker. it's interesting to me that this is where you spend your time. we can do better and i hope today we have a big voice to say taxpayers should not pay for our elections, that politicians should not vote to take more of their hard-earned money from taxpayers so they can say things people disagree with. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from illinois. reserves. the gentleman from maine. mr. golden: thank you, madam chair. you know, i think i am going to go home this weekend to my district feeling comfort that i understand what my constituents want. as i said earlier, in 1996, maine voters actually voted for
a public funding program in the state of maine. they like the program so much antethey actually uped the through another voter referendum where maine voters said, we will continue this program and increase the funding to keep regular people competitive against the dark money that was flowing into elections in the state of maine. you know, in the state of maine, we actually allow convicted felons to vote. they do it from prison because while we believe in holding people accountable for their crimes, we don't feel a need in maine to take their voice away from them. so i am going to go home knowing i understand my district. i also just want to take a moment, you know, some of the comments from the republican leader, who i respect very much, but you want to talk about spewing hate. h.r. 1, h.r. 1 is a piece of legislation that democrats have put forward to show that one of
their top priorities is to protect our democracy, and i know a little something about it. i fought in two wars for this country in afghanistan and iraq and i reject this socialist rhetoric. i'm an american. democrats are americans. republicans are americans. we need to put this hateful speech behind us and talk about how we can work together. i understand that there's some frustration being expressed from the other side about amendments and whether or not republicans are involved in this process. look, i'll wrap it up, ma'am. but let me say i have voted for a number of republican amendments in the last couple of weeks. so i would encourage you to support this amendment. thank you very much. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, madam chair. thank you, mr. golden, for your service to our country. our country thanks you and every one in this institution thanks you for that service. this bill, however, is a very bad idea. public funding of elections is a very bad idea. at the last second before we
voted on h.r. 1, democrats have decided they're afraid of the c.b.o. score for their massively expensive bill. we haven't even debated it and want to hide it from consideration in this chamber so they created this gimmick called the freedom from influence fund which is proposed to add an additional $2.75% penalty against malfeasance corporation and officials of corporations. they claim it would generate enough funds to pay the massive cost of funding political campaigns for members of congress. late last night, we got that c.b.o. report, and the score that h.r. 1 that projects the impact of this new shell game called the freedom from influence fund and it's proposed -- its proposed funding source, again, voting for this bill will allow corporate money for the first time be lawful to flow into the campaigns of each and every one of us in this institution.
the c.b.o. score tells a very different story from what democrats want you to believe. according to the c.b.o., this new fund would result in a reduction of income and payroll taxes. meaning corporations will have less money to spend on their payrolls which equates to less jobs. to quote the c.b.o. report, the assessment on civil monetary penalties and settlements will reduce the base for income and payroll taxes, consequently, the revenues from the assessments will partially offsets by lowering income and payroll taxes. put another way, h.r. 1 takes american jobs away in order to fund the campaign coffers of members of congress. . as a result of this funding source less money will be available for other government programs we want to prioritize in this i.n.s. tuesday. i quote again from the c.b.o. report. c.b.o. and j.c.t. expect the increased assessment of criminal and civil penalties would reduce the amount collected under current law.
the c.b.o. report confirms what republicans have been saying, h.r. 1 is a shell game that will, in the end, hurt taxpayers because this proposal to publicly fund campaigns will be funded by the taxpayers. however you are going to likely hear democrats say instead that this fund will run at a surplus over the first few years of its existence. which is true, plus they designed the bill to not make any expenditures for the first six years of this program. but pay very close attention. what the democrats won't tell you is that once the funds starts making its expenditures, the fund will be nearly broke in five years. and that's assuming the cost of running campaigns will stay static today. and not exponentially increase like it has. again, democrats -- this democratic funding gimmick was concocted just to result in a more desirable c.b.o. score. i don't see that as a result. the new fund will collect money
for six years with no expenditures, resulting in an accumulation of a large balance, and then once the money starts flowing to every member of congress in this institution, it's going to run out in five years. democrats should be ashamed for making this bill h.r. 1. when republicans took over this institution after 50 years in the minority, our h.r. 1 was the congressional accountability act. to make congress work better. h.r. 1 in the last congress put more money in the pockets of middle class taxpayers, families back home. this h.r. 1, this h.r. 1 will do nothing but put hirp dollars in the campaign funds of -- taxpayer dollars in the campaign funds of every member of congress and that's not ack sevenable -- acceptable to me and that's why we should have a no-vote on h.r. 1. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maine, so many as are in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printsed in house report 116-16 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 54, by mr. brindisi of new york. amendment number 70 by mr. neguse of colorado. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 54 printed in house report 116-16, by the gentleman from new york, mr. brindisi, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 54, printed in part b of house report number 116-16, offered
by mr. brindisi 6 -- of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-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.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 188. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 70 printed in house report 116-16 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. neguse, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70 printed in part b of house report 116-16 offered by mr. neguse of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes
by electronic device. this will be 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.]
administration. the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california for five minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you. i recognize myself for as much time as i you may consume. for eight years this chamber's been silent, a silence that harmed people. we have allowed measures to reduce people's access to vote, measures that cause the fourth circuit to find that african-american voters were targeted with surgical precision, measures that excluded voters on indian reservations and that wrongfully tried to remove 95,000 naturalized texans from the rolls. today that silence ends. this bill is not for its own sake -- this bill is not for its own sake. a member of the u.s. senate said that h.r. 1 is a power grab. he's right. it grabs power away from the
special interests, the elites, the 1%, and gives it to the american people. i toll you plainly what it does. automatic voter registration to allow 50 million eligible citizens to vote. prohibits tea septemberive practices, increases access to polls for voters with disabilities, helps states replace outdated voting machines, and requires disclosure of dark money donors, not limiting their speech but simply asking them to stand by it. these reforms aren't difficult, but they will require courage to make. mr. frederick douglass saw what our democracy was and what our democracy could be and said, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. for that reason do i not argue. but i look forward to joining in doing the will of the people and supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my ime.
the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: madam speaker -- madam chair, before i get started could i ask for a point of personal privilege to have the members of this institution and the gallery recognize you as the first native american woman to ever chair the house proceedings. the chair: the chair thanks the gentleman from illinois.
the committee will be in order. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, madam chairman. as my home state president ronald reagan once said, the most terrifying words in the english language are, i'm from the government and here to help. i am for the american voter. i support every eligible voter having easier ways to register to vote and easier access to the polls. what i'm not for is washington, d.c. taking over our elections. i have said it before, i agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a roll for the federal government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access, transparency, and most importantly election security. however, h.r. 1 misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from the states to administer their own leakses, and threatens to limit americans' constitutional rights. and i cannot support this legislation. this bill, 700-page mammoth
bill, takes power away from states given to them by the u.s. constitution to designate the time, place, and manner of their elections. i know the author of this legislation said yesterday that h.r. 1 is simply implementing the best practices of states, but that's federalizing our election system. no matter how nicely you you phrase it. congress should partner with the states who understand the unique needs of their own residents and provide support to increase voter registration and improve election security. instead of federally mandating what this bill does, which is a one-size-fits-all approach. there is a limited role for the federal government to play in elections. when pat herbs of discrimination have occurred and when we will continue address those patterns, we can can do it in a bipartisan way through the voting rights act. can i cannot stress enough that congress should absolutely be in favor of increasing access to the polls. we can cannot do that without adding the necessary checks and balances to ensure that these accesses are protected. we should allow states to maintain their own voter rolls,
to help them process voters in a timely manner, avoid unfunded mandates, and manage voterlieses to avoid voting irregularities. a few can change the outcome 6 a single election -- of a single election. the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. davis: a few voting irregularities can change the outcome of a single election. look what happened in north carolina. a political operative for working for a republican candidate illegally har vested ballots which led to the north carolina board of elections calling for a new special election. ballot har vesting is practice when a political operative or volunteer can come to your home, pick up your ballot, and deliver it to the polling precinct. this process while illegal in knows most states like north carolina is a perfectly legal practice in places like california. republicans both at the house administration committee markup and in rules committee offered amendments to prohibit ballot
harvesting and both attempts were rejected by democrats. we can no longer be naive to think that this a practice that will simply help your elderly neighbor who can can no longer get to the polls. ask my form colleagues from california, ballot harvest something an unguard the instrument that's occurring on a large scale as a practice used by political operatives to manipulate the outcome of elections. if we want to improve election security, we must eliminate ballot harvesting and its risks to taking away the choice of the american people. every american key serves -- deserves their vote to be counted and protected. h.r. 1 limits free speech, imposes stands, disadvantage american citizens who want it advocate on behalf of what they believe in. organizations like the national right to life. a chamber of commerce, and even the aclu have spoken out against this bill for that very reason. every american should be able to speak on an issue that they are passionate about. we also recently received a
revised c.b.o. score of h.r. 1, which egregiously under estimated h.r. 1's cost to the taxpayers. because the congressional budget office said they needed more time to develop a comprehensive score. instead of giving them more time, we're preparing right now to vote on this 700-page bill. my colleagues across the aisle are all about transparency, at least that's what i keep hearing. i have yet to see it in action. especially when it comes to funding their own campaigns. h.r. 1 is creating public subs die dis through the new government match program. for every $200, $1,200 will be going to a politician's campaign. the majority has changed this provision so many times throughout the last couple weeks this money will come from the us us treasury through corporate fines and go into this nebulous freedom from influence fund, but the bottom line is, it's going into members of congress' own campaigns. why are we allocating money to go to politician when is there are so many other causes like transportation, infrastructure,
cancer research that our tax dollars, your tax dollars, and american tax dollars should be funding? the democrats claim they want o take money out of politics -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, madam chair. the democratic majority claims they want to take money out of politics, but have created a scheme that for the first time ever be legal for members of congress to take corporate money into their own campaigns. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. davis: this is exactly why we need to vote no on h.r. 1. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: i would be honored
to yield one minute to the leader of h.r. 1, the author of the bill, the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. sarbanes: thank you, madam speaker. my colleagues, somewhere in america there's a family in their living room looking at the television, hearing another report how billionaires and super p.a.c.'s and insiders and lobbyists are running washington and calling the shots on what happens in their lives and they're asking themselves, do we matter any more, do we count, will our voice be heard? h.r. 1 says to that family and millions of families across the country who feel the same way, we get it. we hear you. we want to change this place and give you your voice back by restoring ethics and integrity, by pushing back on the influence of big money in our politics.
and by making sure when you go to vote you don't have to run an obstacle course to the ballot box in america. that's what we stand for. our colleagues -- our colleague john lewis reminds us all that we have to keep our eyes on the prize. well, on this day, at this moment, in this -- the prize is h.r. 1. let's pass h.r. 1. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sarbanes: i yield back my ime. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: madam chairwoman, may i ask how much time remains? the chair: the gentlewoman has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: i would like to yield the remainder of my time to the hero of the voting rights and civil rights movement, the honorable john lewis of georgia.
the chair: the gentleman from california -- georgia is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1 and i urge each and every one of our colleagues to support this bill. madam speaker, you have heard me say on occasion that the right to vote is precious, almost say credit. in a -- almost sacred. in a democratic society, it's the most nonviolent instrument a tool we have. in my heart of heart, i believe we have the moral responsibility to restore access to all of our citizens who desire to participate in the democratic process. many people protested the right
to vote. some gave a little blood. others gave their very lives. this weekend many of our colleagues traveled with us to alabama, to birmingham, to ontgomery, and to selma. they saw signs that said white only, colored only. they visited the first baptist church where we feared for our lives while they waited outside. they stood on the edmund pettus bridge, crossed the alabama river where they were beatens, trampled, tear gassed while we montgomerym selma to to protest for voting rights. madam speaker, you heard me tell the story before and you know our work is not finished. it makes me sad, it makes me feel like crying when people are denied the right to vote. we all know that this is not a
democratic or republican issue. it is an american one. for the past few days, i listened to the debate on this bill. i spent some time having what i called an executive session with myself. the words of dr. martin luther king jr. came to mind. he would often say, the moral of the universe is so long that it bends toward justice. the vote is an opportunity to be on the right side of history. it is a chance to cast a vote by the people, of the people, for the people. so i ask you, if not us, then who? if not now, then when? the time has arrived to tear down the barrier to the ballot box. today we are able to do our part in this long fight for the very
soul of our nation. let's save our nation and redeem the soul of america. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. under the rule the committee rises. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1 and pursuant to the house resolution 172, i report the bill, as amended, by that resolution back
to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1, and pursuant to house resolution 172 reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to expand americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and
strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. crenshaw of texas moves to recommit the bill to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end of the bill the following -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. ms. lofgren: i ask unanimous consent to -- the clerk: add at the end of the bill the following, accordingly, division d, upholding suffrage in america. title 11, upholding suffrage in america. section 11001, short title.
this division may be cited as the upholding suffrage in america act or the u.s.a. act. section 11002, findings. congress finds as follows -- 1, voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy. 2, the constitution prohibits discrimination and voting based on race, sex, poll taxes and age. 3, it is of paramount importance that the united states maintain the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats and illegal voting. 4, the city of san francisco, california, is allowing noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections. 5, federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for federal office. section 11003, sense of congress. it is the sense of congress that allowing illegal immigrants the
right to vote devals as the franchise and diminishes the voting power of the united states citizens. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. mr. crenshaw: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: thank you, madam speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. much has been made of election security as of late. much of it for good reason. in the end, these concerns, the concerns that many americans rightfully share, are built around the fundamental notion that our votes should count. our votes should mean something. we should know when we cast it, it is sacred and unchanging. our vote is a signal of what direction we want our country to move toward, and that vote is an element of trust that we place
in the men or women elected to take it in that direction. we vote because this country is governed by the people, by the citizens of this country. and we in this body humbly serve at their pleasure. the quickest way to erode a democracy, erode faith in our institutions is to erode that trust, erode the notion that your vote truly counts. the truth is this is already happening. in places like san francisco, democrats have fought hard to ensure that u.s. citizens must share their civic duty, their vote with illegal immigrants. the city of san francisco has effectively cancelled out the votes of its citizens and replaced it with illegals. when i say it out loud it sounds like i'm making it up. because what kind of government would cancel out the votes of its own citizens and replace them with noncitizens? but not just any noncitizens,
ones who entered our country illegally. it is with this in mind, the sacred duty to protect our citizens, protect their vote, protect their voice that i propose this motion to recommit. this motion to recommit would show the american people that despite the deep and growing differences between us, we can at least agree that the people who vote for us are citizens of this country. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. mr. crenshaw: this is a simple affirmation. it's an affirmation of the fact that the elected representatives of this body answer to the citizens of this country who voted for us. and we will not stand by and let their voices be muted. we will not let their trust be eroded.
we will not let our democracy be questioned. last year, congress voted on this very idea. 49 democrats crossed the aisle to vote with us. it should not be a partisan idea that the people who do not legally live in our country cannot legally vote in our elections. if you are not legally here, if you entered our country against the laws and wishes of our citizens, then you should not vote for representation in our government, diluting the voices of americans. i'm proposing this m.t.r. not because it feels good, not because we want to attack anyone, because it's but because voter integrity should be defended. san francisco is not the only municipality that's fallen into this radicalism. other cities have done or attempted to do the same. the men and women in this body are here because we were duly elected as such.
madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. crenshaw: our citizens expect much of us. they expect us to protect their most fundamental rights. the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they expect us to respect their voice. and often the only way they have to express that voice is through their vote. if we no longer agree to protect that voice, as we did last congress, if we don't, in this moment agree that their voice should not be cancelled out, but protected, then i worry a great deal about our democracy. i worry that radicalism has made its way into this sacred body, as it already has in so many places across our great country. i urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit, vote to protect the voices of your constituents. vote to preserve the notion that our nation's government is elected by and only by the
citizens of this country. anything less is a disservice to the very people who put us here. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. he house will come to order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. lofgren: o to claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. lofgren: h.r. 1 already prevents noncitizens from voting in federal elections, whether they are here lawfully or undocumented. in fact, the motion to recommit notices that. they say federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. h.r. 1 utilizes the authority in article 1, section 4 to extend in federal elections the opportunity for every american to vote. this motion to recommit is an
effort to divert us from the mission that we are on to expand voting rights to every american citizen in federal elections. i urge its defeat and i now yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. rose. the speaker pro tempore: for what period of time? the gentleman is recognized. mr. rose: i rise today in opposition to this motion. i rise today as a new member who ran for office on cleaning up our system. and admittedly i rise today as someone who has voted for republican m.t.r.'s in the past. in fact, i was eager to hear how my colleagues and friends across the aisle would propose a solution today for how they are going to finally drain the swamp. i was eager to hear for how they would protect and enshrine the rights and freedoms and liberties that we all are endowed in the constitution. but what they have given us today does nothing to drain the swamp. nothing to uphold our freedoms.
only in washington would we see a group of people actively trying to sabotage anti-corruption measures. this is a political stunt meant to divide us, meant to sow hatred and it's a game. nothing less. othing less. this right here is why the american people hate politics and honestly if this is your strategy to win future elections, we wish you godspeed because it will never work. it will never work. -- it will never work. because the question before us today and the thing that this joke of an m.t.r. that is seeking to distract us from is whose side are you on? let's show the american people that this is the people's house not the house of corporate
interests and lobbyists and dark money. and with that, again, i stand in opposition to this motion and i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, may i ask how much time he remains? the speaker pro tempore: -- time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. mr. lofgren: mr. rose yielded back to me. and i am -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. lofgren: at this point, madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentlelady state her parliamentary inquiry. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lofgren: i will yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, the hero of the voting rights movement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. he house will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i'm going to lead in the way of peace, in the way of love. i'm believe in a philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. -- can we come together we come together and support a simple piece of legislation to open up the political process and let all of our people come in? i ask you to remember what i said a few moments ago, with
this vote you have an opportunity to be a headlight and not a tail light. some of our colleagues are complaining that we didn't have enough time. we had the time. this piece of legislation was introduced more than seven other party the didn't do anything. we're prepared to act. we're prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in. it is the right thing to do. t is a good thing to do. to set our country on a path, a path that can be a model for the rest of the world. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the
motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by i five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this will be a five-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.]
aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 234 the nays are 193. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.
he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 962, the born alive abortion survivors protection act and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines consistently issued
by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain those requests unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership. for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia seek recognition? >> if this unanimous consent request cannot be entertained i urge the speaker and majority leader to immediately schedule -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is not recognized for that purpose. he gentlelady is out of order.
for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader about the schedule for next week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the house majority leader. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as i have expressed, i want to take a moment to yield to my friend, the gentleman from louisiana. > i want to thank the minority and majority leader for yielding time. it is a great day but a sad day for me, i'm losing my chief of
john dingell and made the recommendation for me. when i called him, he was on the ouse floor but he told his staff to pull him off the floor so he could say nice things about vergie miller. he's proposed, kirby said yes, i want to wish him the best as he goes off to start a more exciting part of his life and wish him the best. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back to the majority leader and thank him for allowing me to say a few words. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i know that i speak on behalf of
all the members of the house to wish him godspeed and great success in the future and great happiness. mr. scalise: reclaiming my time. r. hoyer: appreciate it. mr. scalise: i do want to thank verge ill for his time and service to the house for so long to work so closely with my friend, cedric richmond, but also with the entire louisiana delegation. we've had a long history of working incredibly well together on issues that are important to our state and the country and verge ill has been there from the -- vergil has been there from the beginning of cedric's career and a great part of the louisiana dell fwation but also a great part of what make this is house work. while we'll misyou, i wish you well on your new life ahead a lot of exciting times, continue to look forward to seeing you in new orleans at our great restaurant and with that, i
yield back to the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. with last votes no later than 3:00 p.m. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of suspensions -- suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. the house will also consider h.con.res. 24 expressing the sense of congress that the report of special counsel mueller should be made available o the public and to congress. with that i field back to the
minority whip. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for walking through the schedule. i'd like to o ask the gentleman from maryland about the process that we have had so far this congress in terms of amendments that have been submitted on the house floor on legislation and the way that it's been incredibly closed, especially in a partisan way, to republican amendments. if you look just at the bill we debate add few minutesing a, h.r. 1, only 11% of republican amendments were made in order. more than 60% of democrat amendments were made in order. if you look at the entire congress, so far this year there were only 16% of republican amendments made in order. while 73% of democrat amendments were made in order. which does reflect poorly on the promise that this would be a more open process. i'd ask the gentleman from maryland, can you address at
least in the future to make this a more fair and open process so that you're not closing out opportunities over and over again for republican amendments to be made in order? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his question. i want to put it in context. for the first time in history we started this congress with a government shut down. for the first time in history. the business was not completed. the government was not fully funded. and it was necessary for us as we began this session to have numerous votes to open up the government. we didn't get a lot of help from your side of the aisle on doing that, and it was not about a debate. we had considered six bills that were essentially had been agreed to that was clearly a disagreement on the homeland security. let me remind you on h.r. 1,
the largest bill that we considered during the last congress, you brought that to the floor. you had no committee hearings. not a single committee hearing. you had no witnesses. no member of the public was able to testify. zero a closed rule and amendments were made in order. now, let me make a comparison for you on h.r. 1. the bill we just passed. this bill had five hearings across several committees. 19 witnesses testified. primary committee of jurisdiction held markup, and 72 amendments were made in order. now, h.r. 1, last congress, zero democratic amendments made in order. of course there were no
republican aleds made in order, either, because it was a closed rule, no amendments at all. no hearings, no committee hearings. o witnesses. so that we have as we said we would a process, opportunity for the public to testify, opportunity for amendments to be made in order, i forget exactly how many amendments you said, republican aleds, but that is -- whatever that number was was 10 or 15 or 25 or 35 more than we had in order. it's the gentleman knows the last congress was the most closed congress in history. in history. we did not see a single open rule, not one under speaker ryan. not one. i'm committed to ensuring, however, that we have limited amount of closed rules. again, the gentleman is correct, the government was
shut down and we had rules that we put forward to get the government opened. there was not an amendment to say partially open, just get it opened. so that my answer to the gentleman is, we said what we were going to do on bills. we had 7 amendments on this bill. -- 72 aleds on this bill. the proportion -- amendments on this bill. the proportion of amendments the gentleman is concerned about, want to make sure we have substantive amendments considered from both sides of the aisle. that was done here. the gentleman thinks it's not enough. as i said it was it -- as he opposed to zero, a substantial increase. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. i'd like to point out of those 72 amendments that you identified that were made in order, only nine were republican amendments. so when we talk about a fair and open process, the government shut down has nothing to do with the fact that you-all committed to
having a more open process and it's not, in fact. it's the reverse of what we saw last congress. if you look at the entire last congress, the entire two-year period, there were more democrat amendments made in order under a republican congress than there were republican amendments made in order. in fact, if you look at the numbers for the entire two-year period, 38% of republican amendments were made in order. 45% of democrat amendments were made in order. the overall raw numbers, 752 amendments made in order. 752. there were only 640 republican amendments made in order. more democrat amendments were made in order under our majority than republican amendments. in this congress so far, it's been a harshly partisan process through the rules committee. again, the entire year, only 16% of republican amendments made in order.
73% of democrat amendments made in order. and just looking at h.r. 1, again, we had on our side a colleague of ours, representative fitzpatrick, actually led the f.b.i.'s agency on campaign finance, and election crimes enforcement. he put people in jail who committed voter fraud. and this is a voter bill, a bill on voting rights, and you have a member of congress who actually worked with the f.b.i. to put people in jail for voter fraud. he submitted seven different amendments to clean up some of the corruption that was in your bill that you just passed. not one of his amendments was made in order. this is an f.b.i. agent who actually put people in jail for voter fraud. not a partisan issue. and yet not one of his amendments was made in order. you want to talk about a closed process, let's also talk about the policy that's being closed out. if you want to shut out efforts to clean up voter fraud, that's
your prerogative, but ultimately it's not what you promised when you took the majority. if you compare it to the last congress -- again, the entire two-year period more democrat amendments were made in order than republican amendments were made in order under our republican majority. i would hope in the future this process gets less partisan and more fair, as it was promised to be. on that note, i'd like to ask the majority leader about word that's swirling around regarding changes to the motion to recommit. when you look at the history of congress, this motion to recommit is more than 100 years old. it had been a custom, it had been a custom where the majority party brings a bill to the floor under a rule and regardless of all the amendments that are allowed, at the very end of that process the minority party gets an opportunity to make a final amendment to the bill. that's the motion to recommit. it wasn't in the rules for a long time. and then towards the end of the
democrat majority before the 1994 revolution, there were efforts to take that away from the minority. so when the republicans took over in 1994, the newt gingrich majority, they actually put in the rules the motion to recommit. again it was a custom going back 100 years. they formalized it. as the majority they gave the minority that right in the rules. it's always been there. it's cleaned up a little bit over the years, but it's a tool that's been always allowed to the minority. we're hearing and it's rumors, i would like to ask the majority leader to clarify, are there any efforts or attempts being made to change and diminish the motion to recommit? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. of course we both know certainly since the time i have been here that motions to recommit on both sides of the aisle have been gotcha amendments. they have been amendments to
use for political edge. you talk about partisanship. both sides did that. understand. so is there consternation about them? there is. did you have an m.t.r. today? you did. it was a difficult m.t.r. of course it dealt with a problem that does not exist at the federal level. it said so in the resolution that there was not a problem that they were solvinging, just a sense that local communities ought to be directed what to do. having said that, let me go back to the gentleman's question, again, you said you had nine amendments. we had zero. so you could say it was 9,000%, whatever you want to say. on h.r. 1 in your congress and h.r. 1 in our congress. and all those figures i think are probably lost on the public. what's not lost on the public or the press that's covered it
last congress was the most closed congress in history. just as the government being shut down at the beginning of this congress was the first time that happened in history because you didn't get your job done. i will tell the leader, i i understand the rights of the minority. we want to honor the rights of the minority. yes, there is a lot of discussion. but as you know, nothing has been done. i'm sure those discussions will continue. i understand the gentleman's point. we use the motion to recommit. you have used the motion to recommit. there is no proposed change currently under consideration. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for clarifying that. i hope that tradition continues on that this motion to recommit stays in order because there are some members that, if the motion to recommit passes, would vote for final passage. so that is one of the tools
that's used. if you cite, as you did, the motion to recommit we had on h.r. 1 a little while ago t. actually was --ing a, it actually was identifying a serious problem and it mentioned in that motion to recommit what happens in some commutes where they are allowing and want ill lease to -- communities where they are allowing and want illegals to vote. and then you have a pros -- process where if somebody has an i.d. they are automatically sent to the voter registration files t creates a process where corruption can occur. where people who are here illegally can get on voting rolls. maybe you catch it at the local level, maybe you don't. but it creates that opportunity. so we had a motion to prevent that from happening. unfortunately that motion to recommit failed, but again, that is a tool that's been available for any minority to use. when you bring up h.r. 1 from last congress, our bill to cut
taxes for working families so we can rebuild our middle class, which we're finally doing now because we cut taxes for everybody, people are seeing more money in their pockets, higher wages because of that bill. heavily debated in committee. lots of amendments in committee on both sides when it came to the floor, yes, there were no amendments on your side or on our side. but you did have a motion to recommit. had you an amendment opportunity that we didn't have on that bill. but at the end of the day, obviously, all members on your side voted no. you can see how the economy has taken off and how families actually have more money in their pockets and wages are up for working families because we cut those taxes. i would point that out and as we move forward hopefully those rules don't change in a way that would try to diminish further the opportunities that both sides have to bring amendments to the floor. finally, i would like to ask about the resolution that we had on the floor yesterday.
the resolution to condemn all forms of bigotry, hatred. unfortunately, many of our members felt it fell short of the objective that was stated by the majority at the beginning of the week there would be a resolution brought forward to actually condemn comments that were made that were anti-semitic by one of our members. and i'd like to ask the gentleman is there going to be any action taken, especially as it relates to the foreign affairs committee, to remove the member that we're talking about? i yield. mr. hoyer: i tell the gentleman, i have heard that question raised before, you removed mr. king from the committees. , ter 10 years of comments speeches, and support from groups that did not comport with what we said yesterday in
terms of rejecting bigotry and prejudice and hate. 10 years. we have now twice taken action and ke clear that hate prejudice and bigotry are not the policies of this congress, of this country, and should not be the policy of any of our members' rhetorically. debating policy, having differences of opinion are clear. i don't know whether the gentleman heard my speech on the floor, but i could not, i think, have articulated more forcefully that anti-semitism is unacceptable, that anti-semitism has led to unacceptable s, results, the holocaust of course being the most horrific.
. i made that very clear. the resolution made that very clear, and yes it did include other forms and other objects of hate and prejudice and bigotry. and i was disappointed that 23 of your members voted against it. every one of my members, without exception, voted for that resolution. so that resolution i thought got over 400 of us, spoke very to ngly to our opposition anti-semitism, to racism, to sexism, to any -- to islamaphobia. to islamaphobia. i haven't seen any resolutions on the floor of the house when you were in charge that responded to the president of stoking islam es
fobia. i saw no resolution. i saw no resolution on the floor when the president of the united states made a comment that, well, there are bad people on both sides, in charlottesville. those holding swastikas, those who were saying we're not going to be -- allow the jews to take over. those who had racist epithets. and who in fact of course killed one of the participants. saw no resolution. i will say to my friend frankly those of us on our side of the aisle think that the president too often uses words and actions that undermine the sentiment of the resolution that i voted for, that you voted for, and the
overwhelming majority of the house voted for, saying that is not and should not be the policy of the united states. i went go into more specific bus the gentleman, i'm sure, knows that i could. what is positive is that yesterday some 400-plus of us voted to say to america and to each of our citizens and these who view america as a beacon of liberty and justice that we any comments,hand y actions, that would be recognized by most people as stoking bigotry and prejudice and hate. so yes, the resolution as introduced was not a final product.
excuse me. that language you're talking about was never introduced. it was not the final product. the final product that came about through a lot of discussions and addressing the hate and bigotry and prenl many t is directed at too people who are somehow viewed as different. and the remarks to which the gentleman referred were pointed out very clearly as being remarks which had been used through the millenia as ways to diminish the integrity of jewish citizens and to imply that somehow their support for israel was an indication of their lack of loyalty to their country. you and i both know that was used for century, millenia, to marginalize jewish citizens.
and to make them feel unwelcome and rejected. and so i think the resolution was a good thing for us to do. it passed overwhelmingly. i'm sorry that 23 of your members decided not to vote for it. let me go back to the m.t.r.'s. we had a very strong statement that your side offered on anti-semitism. and you all voted for it. we all voted for it. not a single democrat voted against it. and when it came for final i don't - passage, recall how many republicans but it was the overwhelming majority of your caucus voted against it. so offering the amendment, having the amendment adopted which we accepted because we thought that it was important to make that powerful statement
against anti-semitism and we adopted it. unfortunately, when it came to the real vote, not the political gotcha vote, but when it came to the real vote your side all voted against it. or if not all, pretty close. yield back. mr. scalise: as we disagree with the underlying bills we all agree that anti-semitism is wrong. we have been very vocal at rejecting anti-semitism and any form of big thrism issue with the resolution that was brought forward, first of all, as the gentleman over months has promised a 72-hour rule where there'd be 72 hours to review legislation, as you acknowledge, that resolution continued to change over and over again and by the time it was filed, before members had an opportunity to vote, there wasn't a 72-hour rule. in fact there wasn't even a 72-minute rule.
there was less than an hour to review the legislation. as members went through it, it included some things that we all agree should be rejected but many members, and i would refer the gentleman from maryland to the statements made by my colleague from new york, mr. zeldin, who eloquently stated why that resolution fell short at its original objection. to equivocate anti-semitism. asrefuse to acknowledge that members spew anti-sesmtism if we can say anti-semitism sun acceptable, and i agree if we say that we should reject those policies, the dual citizenship question, which is anti-semitic, the money influence which was offensive and anti-semitic. we keep coming back to this. because these statements continue to be made.
but in that is acceptable, unacceptable if you agree that anti-semitism is unacceptable and bad policy, the then why to you continue to leave a member who is anti-semitic on the committee that deals with the policy of the foreign policy of this nation. it's a high profile committee. foreign affair sass blum spot. many members on both sides want to get on that committee pause it's so important at stating our foreign policy to the world. standing with our allies. when you go to other countries and meet with officials if you say you're on the foreign policy committee, the fortune affairs committee, it is a higher level of respect and acknowledgment that implies that your views represent the views of the united states congress. and that's the concern where the resolution fell short. so many of our members said, how many times are we going to have to keep voting on resolutions that talk generally but don't act specifically to address the problem? if you want to talk about the
precedent -- about the president, president trump has been very can clear and vocal, speaking out against anti-semitism. you saw him a few weeks ago from this podium in his state of the union address so eloquently bringing members to the gallery, people to the gallery, the three men who stormed normandy beach on d-day to liberate france and to defeat nazis. the gentleman from pittsburgh, the holocaust survivor, over 90 years old, who survived the pittsburgh shooting. also at dachau and for the president to so eloquently refer to one of our heros who stormed normandy beach and a year later helped liberate dachau, what a special moment, special moment for this house to see how hatred and bigotry is evil but how the might and power of the united
states stands up against it. we should all speak out against it but we should also take the actions that if somebody is continuing to exhibit those kinds of beliefs in this congress, they shouldn't be making policy on the committee that has jurisdiction. that's been the concern, i hope we don't have to come back to it. i hope we don't have to keep coming back to address this problem. it shouldn't be a growing problem. we should all stand up against it when we see it and hopefully we don't see it anymore because we're so clear, not just in our words but clear in our actions. as we continue to hopefully find common ground, and there is common ground to be found, this wasn't a good week for the united states congress to see the kind of divisions, to see it take days to come up with a
simple resolution that should have taken minutes to stand up clearly against anti-semitic actions. so hopefully next week we can return to making policy where we're able to come together in a bipartisan way to address concerns and problems of this nature and i know i look forward to working with the gentleman if we find that common ground, and we will, we ultimately will. with that, i yield back. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. scalise: i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: first of all, let my say -- me say i i reject out of hand the premise that we didn't speak directly to anti-semitism in the resolution adopted yesterday. period. it spoke strongly to that. not only did it speak strongly but if the gentleman heard my remarks, they were very strong with respect to absolute rejection of anti-semitism. apparently the problem is we also spoke against racism.
we also spoke against xenophobea. -- xenophobia. mentioned the president, xenophobia. the denigration of immigrant who was been so important to this country at the highest levels of government. the allocations of -- allegations of widespread criminal activity and a broad brush. that resolution yesterday spoke to that. it spoke about islamaphobia. it spoke about hay trett of -- hatred of immigrants. lgbt. members of our society. it spoke against discrimination and hate and yes, it spoke directly about anti-semitism.
as it should have. as i was abchutely commit and the members of this house were absolutely committed, save 23. i don't know why the 23 voted against it but they did. not on our side of the aisle. i agree with the gentleman. hopefully we can continue to not use this as a political football as i think it's being used. and i'm not going to cite some of the remarks of the minority soros or tropt mr. r. steyer or others. -- respect to mr. soros or mr. steyer or others. mr. jordan. mr. king. there was a difference, mr.
speaker. we didn't wait 10 years. initially we acted, the entire democratic leadership with a ery point and direct letter. that anti-semitism was not acceptable. period. no confusion. and within days, we put a suspension bill which by the way the rules are waived on suspension bills as the gentleman knows, you don't necessarily have to give 72 hours. but there were 72 hours that that was being discussed and people knew it was being discuss and the leader and the whip has referred to that but i hope that nobody would diminish what we said yesterday about anti-semitism. or racism. r any kind of other ism. let us not diminish what we did yesterday. i think this was a good week, mr. speaker. for the house of representatives.
we spoke about making sure that voting rights were protected for every american and not only that, protected but facilitated. made easier. to register and to vote. so that all americans could express their opinion on the policies of their country and their state and municipality or whatever office they were voting for. it was a good day to say we are going to have redistricting that is not run by the politicians. but that every state, not just a few, would have to have a redistricting process that was fair and balanced and not just the politicians drawing their own districts. it was a good day, mr. speaker, was a good week, because we
also spoke about making sure that we have campaign finance that discloses to everybody who their contributors are. it's ironic, mr. speaker, i was here when we considered mccain-feingold and the republican leadership in the house and senate both said, you don't need caps, you don't need to limit spending. what you need is disclosure, let people know who is contributing. citizens united undermined that pretty substantially and we have millions and millions of dollars that nobody knows where it comes from. this bill does that. this bill also said we ought to not be serving on boards of profit-making corporations while making policies that affect them in this house and said yes, the president of the united states and ever president since i have been in the congress, 1981,
should disclose their tax returns so that the people know are they acting in their interests or in the people's interests. we call that bill for the people. for voting rights, for fair registration, for campaign inance that is honest, above board and transparent and for good ethical behavior. by us and by the president. so i disagree with my friend, minority whip. i think this was a good week. in some ways, it was a tough week. but it was a good week. and i am very pleased, not only did we adopt that resolution against hate and prejudice and bigotry against all, including and very point he hadly and
starting out with anti-semitism. but we also adopted a bill that will give more trust and faith to the american people in their government and more access to the ballot box. it was a good bill. it was a good week. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. scalise: if we talk about h.r. 1, what the gentleman fails to mention that bill gives billions of dollars to taxpayer to poll tissue answer. most -- politicians. most americans are hardworking. i don't want to see their taxpayer dollars going to a politician that they strongly disagree with, people that don't like to see on tv. if someone wants to contribute, that's their prerogative, but no one should be forced to give billions of dollars to taxpayer
money by coercion from the federal government. that's in the bill. felons voting, in many cases, states have laws against felons voting. we weren't able to get a clear answer, if someone was convicted of child molestation in a state that is prohibited from going to schools, if they go to a school to vote if they are a child molester even the state bars them from going into the school, as bill gives them a school a child molester which under state law would be prohibited from going into that school where children are. there are a lot of things in that bill that concern many americans across the country. getting back to the anti-semitism debate we're having, the gentleman brought up and the minority leader and other members, the minority
leader has been very, very vocal against anti-cement the speaker pro tempore:. andrly when you -- semitism when you saw them giving hundreds of dollars to influence campaigns -- mr. hoyer: would that gentleman yield? mr. scalise: i would make the point that the minority leader s been very vocal and -- mr. hoyer: why in his comment did he mention three americans of jewish descent but didn't mention the koch brothers and didn't mention the gentleman jewish.ada who's also r. scalise: exactly. we have supporters on both sides regardless of their faith who
give lots of money to politics. now if the criticism was there were big donors to democrats, of course that's who was being mentioned. regardless of their faith, they were giving tens of millions of dollars each. as you criticized or brought up the name of the the gentleman from nevada, nobody questions that you are making a comment, and neither should the assertion be made to anyone who brings up the three gentlemen who were mentioned. reclaiming my time, the bigger issue it's interesting that the gentleman mentioned a bunch of names. but the one name you didn't mention is ms. omar who at the beginning of this week that is what the resolution was going to address, the comments made by ms. omar. left out that key component that many of us wanted to see
addressed. but a lot of people found it real interesting for example in section 7 of the resolution, it condemns death threats received y jewish and muslim members of congress. why were not death threats to other members of congress. i surely can speak to that. all death threats against members of congress are wrong. why did the resolution full short? it has hace tillly put together. it was supposed to be a narrow resolution. clearly on your side you had a lot of division over it. this is what we ended up with, so, yes, our members felt that we are clear in rejecting any kind of bigotry that the resolution fell short of what its original object jeggettive
was. and i hope we don't have to come back to this and i hope it doesn't continue and we can continue speaking about this, but i think it's clear let's be clear about who is speaking out against it and who's continuing to engage in it. i don't know if the gentleman uld like to yield one more time. mr. hoyer: i would urge both sides when the leader of our government says things that clearly offend minority groups of all stripes, that we speak out. i think that's a good thing for us to do and i'm sure we can be joined together to do exactly that. i would also ask the gentleman to perhaps observe the extraordinary diversity of representing all of america on this side of the aisle. so you ought not to be surprised
that in representing that diversity, they bring forward issues that we try to also address. a resolution that said hate, bigotry and prejudice is wrong. it is unamerican. unfortunately none of us had ancestors that were free today hateful policies. we were a nation that allowed slavery and went through an extraordinary civil war to eliminate that blot on we hold these truths to be self-evident. so, yes, we have a lot of diversity on our side of the aisle and that diversity is representing its people. they're americans, but they represent a number of americans who are perceived as different
than other americans for some designation either because of race, gender, color, sexual orientation, you fame it. immigrant, you name it. yes, we have a lot of diversity on this side of the aisle and try to respect that diversity and make sure that americans know we are against discrimination against anybody. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. scalise: we appreciate the diversity that we have. we strive to be even more diverse, but the most important diversity that we have is our diversity of thought. we are proud to respect people of all faiths, all faiths. this was a nation founded on a deep belief in god. we don't have an established religion. one of the things i love most about going to israel as a
catholic is that so much of the history of my faith, of jesus christ is represented there in israel, when you can walk the streets of jerusalem and walk in the steps of jesus. and the fact that the jewish people in israel respect that diversity. they respect people of all faiths. and that's one of the proud crowning acheefments of the jewish state of israel. if you look at where we are as a nation, clearly slavery is one of the stains, probably the greatest stain in this nation. struggled with it in its founding and president lincoln, the first republican president, president lincoln gave his life fighting to end slavery and in this chamber where they had the great debate to finally pass the 13th amendment. one of the proudest moments of our nation. very contentious, but
ultimately, it was a struggle that has finally come to a head and again, the president gave his life for that fight. and we still honor and respect -- we respect the fact that we have a room right down the hall, the lincoln room where abraham lincoln as a house member spent time and we can sit and talk in the same place that abraham incoln talked where he had discussions to end slavery that he was able to secure. we continue to fight. it was wonderful to see john lewis on the floor, true hero, not just a hero of this congress -- we had the honor to serve with sam johnson who was a great hero. spent seven years in the hanoi hilton. we have a true honor to serve with john lewis.
whether we disagree sometimes on politics, to be able to sit and talk with somebody who truly lived some of the toughest history of our nation and has the scars to prove it. and yet, he still has love in his heart and exhibits that love and passion and we are honored to be able to celebrate that diversity and it's the diversity of thought that we should fight to achieve equality and opportunity for all men and women in this debate nation. and if the gentleman has anything else. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. let me add, we can honor that by our words and actions today and tomorrow and every day thereafter. and i yield back. mr. scalise: i agree we should continue to honor all of those goals with our words and our actions. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent when the house adjourns today it meet monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair sbrains requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> 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 from texas is ecognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i first want to acknowledge the passing of a dear friend, congressman ralph hall, who was a great leader and a great texan. but i also rise today, mr.
speaker, to ensure that the american people know what we did this week, and that is condemning anti-semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the united states of america. his is the strongest, most definitive denouncing of anti-semitism that the united states congress has ever voted on, 407 votes. this summer, i will be in my almost 30th year of sending young people to israel in a kibbutz program named after former congressman mickey leland. we understand the -- understand the value of applauding all people. and yes, we don't want americans who happen to be muslims to be discrimmed nens or -- against or associated with the burning towers, muslims who have served in the united states military or white nationalists who will be willing to talk about the hatefulness against african-americans, latino,
native americans, asians, pacific islanders. mr. speaker, this is an important statement and i'm glad to have been associated with it and we should applaud all those who voted for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom arkansas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize the life and liberty of the late joe steel. he grew up in northwest arkansas and enroll theat university of arkansas. to cover his tuition he began canning tomatoes. this side job quickly turned into steel canning company. the business continued to grow and relocated to springdale. there, joe made history by shipping the first trainload of canned food in the united states and introducing popeye brand spinach. in world war ii, 70% of steel's
products were sent to our brave troops. one soldier even commented on the beans saying the reason they're so good is because they were canned in arkansas. his legacy also includes the creation of the beaver water district, the primary sort of water for northwest arkansas. for these contributions who was post-ewe mousely inducted into the arkansas business hall of fame and i congratulate his family on this great honor. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address hoe fuss -- the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from arkansas is recognized for one minute -- from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> last weekend we traveled to alabama. we marched across the edmund pettus bridge alongside congressman john lewis. 54 years ago he was on that
bridge with hundreds of other brave americans young and old. they were marching for the right to vote and were met with a wave of tear gas and billy clubs. representative lewis was beaten unconscious. the trip for me was a powerful, terrible history lesson. today, states no longer use terror to prevent citizens from vote bug they do use other means. nearly two doesen states have implemented restrictive voter i.d. laws, closed polling places and used other means to suppress minority voting. h.r. 4, the voting rights advancement act, will erase these trends an h.r. 1, which we passed today, strengthens democracy by ensuring clean, fair elections, prohibiting voter roll purges and ending gerrymandering. democracy means government by the people, for the people. it means it lives up to the legacy of those marchers 54 years ago, ultimately it means making voters easier, not
harder. let's keep our eye on the prize. thank you, i yield back the remained of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, senator lewis pade of mount olive, north carolina, recently retired from the north carolina general assembly after more than 16 years serbing the great people of north carolina. i had the pleasure and honor to serve with him in the north carolina senate. we shared representation of wayne county and i can attest to what a great member he was. he's known across the state for his leadership, compassion, and commitment to public service. he's a vietnam war combat veteran, having served 20 years in the united states air force, earning multiple service medals for his bravery while defending our country. his commitment to advocating for those who serve our country was a top priority in his time in
public office and i know he has been honored to represent the fine men and women serving at seymour johnson air force base in golds bro. during his tenure in the state senate he spent much of his time working to implement policy to strengthen and improve access to quality health care including major reforms to medicaid so the program would better meet the needs of those it was designed to help. mr. hudson: senator paid's legacy as a statesman and mentor and friend to many will continue to affect all those who cross his path. i wish him and his family many blessed days ahead. yield -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the historic vote the house took to strengthen our democracy. the for the people act will help combat corruption and bring ethics and accountability back
to our political process. i am particularly happy that the legislative changes of the let it go act will be part of this bold piece of progressive legislation. currently no laws exist that limit how long candidates or former government officials can hold on to their campaign funds after their campaign ends or following the conclusion of their public service. mr. takano: it's not their money, they should let it go. limits to how long sur muss funds can remain in campaign accounts and how that money can be utilized must best to be lished. with the inclusion of my amendment this legislation will do just that for far too long, powerful interests and big money in politics have silenced the voices of the american people. h.r. 1 will help shift the balance of power from a wealthy, powerful few back to the american people. today, i cast an enthusiastic vote, a yes vote, for the people. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous condition
sent -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to ex-pressdz my condolences on the recent patsing of a true public servant from my district, green county sheriff brian tenant. all who know brian will remember his devotion our community he served as a police officer, an emergency me medical technician and volunteer firefighter. in 2010 he risked his own life to save several others in a terrible house fire in waynesburg. shortly after this heroic act, brian learn head had an inoperable tumor. despite the diagnosis and during medical treatment he continued to serve. in 2014, he started his service as green county sheriff. brian fought his illness for year, all the while serving his community. he was a devoted husband and a father of four sons. i'm proud to have met brian and my thoughts and prayers go out to his loved ones during this difficult time. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from new jersey is recognized or one minute. mr. payne: mr. speaker, wednesday marks the seventh anniversary of the death of my father, the late congressman donald payne. my father was a tireless advocate in this house, but he colorectal e to cancer too early. that's why each year i sponsor a resolution recognizing march and national colorectal cancer awareness month, a time to educate the public about the disease and the need for screening. i introduced the bill on wednesday, the anniversary of the loss of my father. i also introduced the removing barriers to colorectal screening
act, a bipartisan bill joined by representatives rodney davis, don mceach inand david mc-- mceachin, and david mckinley as co-leads. more than 100 of you have joined on as co-spon, i hope the rest will join as well. when the people use medicare to get colonoscopies, they are hit with an unexpected bill if polyps are remove the monetary barrier to screening and screening saves lives my father's -- my father, unfortunately, did not get screened for colorectal cancer. it wasn't something people of his generation did but we can honor his legacy by improving education and removing barriers to screening. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition?
>> mr. speaker, 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 reck needed -- recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of coach mike guzo of silver bay, minnesota, for impacting the lives of countless young athletes across the great state of northern minnesota. when mike and his wife moved back to his hometown of silver bay in 1984, they thought the move might be temporary. however, not long after his return, mike began to coach youth hockey. arguably it was his most important role as a coach and mentor that caused him to stay in silver bay for the long term he spent over 30 years coaching the great game of hockey in the great state of hockey. at the end of this season, mike hung up his skates and whistle and retired. when asked what he would mismost, he said it would be his players. growing up playing the sport of
ice hockey myself, i will always remember the coaches for whom i played. i have carried the lessons that they taught me throughout my adult life. coach, i thank you for serving as a role model to these athletes, both on and off the this ice. i know from my experience as a player that coaches will always appreciate everything that they have given to the hockey community. i also want to thank you for your dedication to the silver bay community and rural minnesota. this community of silver bay matters and coach guzzo, your life made it better. to coach and your wife, i wish you a happy and healthy and long retirement. thank you. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask to address the house
for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, in light of the undeniable spikes in hate speech and hate crimes, and conversations we have had on the house other the past few days, i ise today in memory of ari haberstaff, a young neighbor of mine whose life was taken 25 years ago this week when anti-semitic hatred morphed into terrorism. tragically on march 6, 1994, ari passed away at age 16 due to gunshot wounds to the head after a terrorist attack on the ramp leading to the brooklyn bridge. ms. clarke: we must confront hatred in all its manifestations, be it anti-semitic attack that took our beloved ari's life or the
hate-filled knee yow nazi march through charlottesville that took the life of heather heyerari's most is a -- heyer. a rimbings' mother is an activist, democratted to bring about something symbolic of resilience, tolerance and beauty, in 2004 she established brooklyn's tie aye connick jewish children's muse -- museum in memory of ari. an award-winning museum is ari's legacy. it is our legacy. the uptick in acts of anti-semitism are truly alarm bug must be confronted. let us remember that these acts are in no way refleckive of who we are as a nation or our core values of tolerance, respect and human decrency. let us -- decency. let us celebrate ari's life by
coming together in respect, tolerance and above all, love. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's with a heavy heart that i rise today to mourn the los of my friend, kyle fordy. a native of dekalb county, he was the epitome of what it means to be a hoosier. a strong man of faith, he held deep love for his god, his family, and his country. mr. speaker, as a young man, kyle was one of the first to believe in me as i began running for public office. he worked tirelessly to help me advance the conservative values that we hold dear. on sunday, though, kyle's life was tragically cut short after his helicopter crash in northern kenya. no amount of words can describe my friday as i watch kyle grow and develop into a husband to
hope, a father to max, and a successful businessman. mr. banks: as his mother correctly stated, he 45d a passion for hue -- he had a passion for humanity and the human soul. and although he left us too soon, his love for people and passion for liberty will serve as an inspiration for me for the rest of my life. hank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you. on behalf of nevada's 3rd congressional zigget i rise to congratulate the robotic team at greenspun junior high school for advancing in the come petition. they will be representing nevada in the global robotics
competition in kentucky, beginning april 27 through may 1. this though these communities face challenges, these students will proudly show the rest of the world the intellect in nevada's 3rd district and on national women's day, it is fitting that i recognize that these have girl-powered movement in steam and 50% girls. i visited the teams and talked to the students about their experience and even got to test drive a robot, which was pretty cool. today, i congratulate the school, thank them on behalf of behalf of the nevada's 3rd congressional district and wish them the best of luck. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy
of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. flores: permission to address the house and revise and extend. mr. flores: i rise today to honor dr. francis graham of waco, texas who passed away on january 10, 2019. frank was born on march 19, 1930 in wisconsin to francis graham senior and second of nine children. in 1947, at the age of 16, frank dropped out of high school and enlisted in the united states army air corps. he later served in the u.s. navy from 1950-1954 as a member of the underwater demolition team. in 1955, frank returned to the
army and served until 1971 when he was retired as a sergeant major serving with the special forces. after he retired from the military, frank continued his education and obtained doctorate in psychology at the university of mississippi in 1976. in 1982, frank and his wife moved to waco. for over 20 years, he practiced as a psychologist with the u.s. department of veteran affairs and texas department of criminal justice. he was an active of the special forces chapter of foreign wars and past president of the american heart association and the italian club of waco. he was involved with st. jerome's catholic church and member of the knights of columbus. he bred horses, reading, movies nd having family and friends
ver for card fights. frank's life was dwiped by his service to his family and to our country and community. he will be forever remembered as a husband, a father, grandfather, a veteran, a selfless servant and a great friend. my wife and i offer our heart felt condolences and lift up the family and friends of frank graham in our prayers. i requested the united states flag be flown over our nation's capitol to honor the life and legacy of this humble servant. i ask americans to continue praying for our country, for our military, for our veterans and first responders who keep us afe at home.
mr. speaker, i rise today to honor jack restevo who pass away on march 1, 2019. e was born in 1925 in bryan, texas. he was one of 11 children. growing up in bryan, he graduated from austin high school and graduated from texas a&m university in 1946. 1943, jack left texas a&m to join the united states army corps and trained to be an aerial gunner. he was discharged in 1946 and met mary jo. they married in 1947 and jack began his career in the insurance business. in 1955, he was promoted and transferred to waco. n waco, jack later founded a-1
fire and safety equipment company. he continued to grow this company. jack was active in supporting st. louis catholic church. jack was on the school board and in 1986 he and his wife received the cougar award for excellence to their dedication. jack loved spending time with his family and friends, golfing and everything related to texas a and mmp. he was a long time season ticket holder for football, baseball, women's basketball. he was a member of the champions council and the leg as society d endowed member of the 12th a&m foundation. mr. speaker, jack's life was defined by his service to his family, country, texas a&m, central texas chupets.
he will be remembered as a husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, a veteran, a mentor a selfless servant and a great friend. we offer our heart felt condolences to his family and lift up the family friends in our prayers. i requested the united states flag be flown over this nation's capitol to honor his life and legacy. i ask americans to pray our men and women who protect us abroad, first responders who protect us here at home and for our eterans. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor john paul fritz of college station, texas who passed away on january 8, 2019. john paul was born on august 31,
1989 in houston, texas. he was the fourth of seventh children. john paul was known for his love of the outdoors whether climbing trees, bringing home animals like rabbits, turtles, frogs and snakes. he was home schooled but later continued his education when he joined the united states navy. in the navy, john paul attended nuclear a fields school and nuclear power school. upon completion of his training he was selected as junior staff instructor. in 2013, john paul was stationed aboard the submarine the uss florida and completed missions that were vital to national security. in 2017, he was sleggetted to become an instrumentation and control equipment instructor, time course for electronics
technicians and came as no surprise he was passionate about science, chemistry and nuclear physicianics. this last year he returned and built a heat shield. they were trying to develop a new type of efficient rocket fuel and hoped to start a company once he retired. he was known for his love of his family and was gaminged to be married this summer and loved his daughter. unfortunately, his time on this earth was cut short way too early. mr. speaker, john paul's life was dwiped by his service to his family and to our country. he will be remembered as a father, a sailor, a son, a brother and a friend. my wife and jean offer our deepest and heart delefelt condolences to the fritz family and lift up the family and friends of john paul fritz in our prayers.
i requested the flag be flown over the united states capitol to honoring his life and legacy. i urge all americans to continue praying for our country, for our veterans, military men and women who protect us and first responders who keep us safe at ome. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor red cashman of college station, texas who passed away on february 10, 2019. he was born in college station on the texas a&m university campus. his father was secretary of the ymca and welcomed students as they moved into dorms. after gauting from a and mmp consolidated high school, he attended texas a&m university
and graduated in 1953. he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the united states army. red served in the army for four years working with the national security he was recalled back to washington, d.c. and he was briefed. i started a business with his father-in-law and best friend. they opened an insurance company. he served as chairman at the company. his father-in-law got him interested. he began to efficient yate high school games and became a line judge for the national football league in 1972. in 1976 he became a head referee
xx officiated super bowls and xxx. he officiated more than 500 games he was induggetted in texas sports hall of fame and famed the nfl honoree in 2011. 2015, he received the art mcnally award to recognize leadership and commitment on and off the field. after his retirement from the field, red continued to work as a trainer of nfl referees and was on john madden's video game. although red spent a lot of time traveling coose the state, he stayed involved in the community. he was in the industrial foundation and independent insurance agencies and the
regents 6 education service center. in 1972 he was honored with the lunteer award and 1994, he received citizen of the year award. he was a bell ringer with the salvation army. he was involved with many churches first as an elder, later was a deacon in the first baptist church in bryan most recently a member of the a&m you nighted methodist church. in 1990 he was the campus muster speaker and also honored in 2003 by being named the distinguished alumni and has the official's locker's room named for him. he was named as outstanding alumni. he was a member of the president's croum, the 12th man
foundation, champions council and the corps cadets development council. until his passing, he was a chair of the student loan trustee committee. red's life was dwiped by his service to his family, to our country, to the valley and to texas a&m university. he will be remembered as a husband, grandfather, a veteran, selfless servant and great friend. my wife jean and i offer our heart felt condolences to his family and lift up his family and friends. i requested the united states flag be flown over our nation's capitol to honor the life and legacy of this humble servant. continue praying for our country, for our veterans and military men and women who protect us and first responders ho keep us safe at home.
mr. speaker, i rise today to honor dr. james earl of college station, texas, who passed away on february 4, 2019. jim was born on may 2, 1932 in jacksonville texas. while attending jacksonville high school, he exceled in sports particularly boxing. he won golden glove titles and earned the name manningler. in high school he started dog. -- a&m ed texas and university. he organized the first boxing club. he graduated from texas a&m with a degree in architecture. he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the united states air force. while serving in the air force, m was stationed in and lean,
texas. it was at a base ep event where he met his future wife. she sat in front of him and he said you're so pretty, i think i'm going to marry you. they raised two loving daughters. . jim completed active duty in 195 and returned to texas a&m to begin his career as an educator. he started teaching mechanical drafting to engineering students and became head of the graphic december sine expect in 1974, he earned his ph.d. in education and continued to teach until 1995 when he retired. throughout his career, yim was active in the american society of engineering education and held many leadership positions in the engineering design graphics division. from 1986 to 199 -- excuse me from 1986 to 1991 he served as
chair of the annual conference committee of that organization. he was named professor emeritus of civil engineers in 1995 and a legend of aggieland in 2000. during his time as a student and professor at texas a&m, he created a drew a beloved cartoon slouch.r, cadet topics included class assignments, aggie football team and life in the corps of cadets. cadet slouch and his friends were published in the battalion, the student newspaper from 1955 to 1985. when drawing cadet slouch cartoons he was often innuanced by his time as a student and later as a professor. the cadet slouch cartoon series was a commentary on the many chames going on at texas a&m including the enrollment and
voluntary participation in the corps. cadet slouch was bloifed generations of aggies while it was published. in addition to the cartoons run in the student newspaper, clecks of cadet slouch cartoon were published in several books. on a personal note, during my time at texas a&m in the mid 1970's, i enjoyed reading the cadet slouch cartoon in the newspaper. in 1979, jim and theresa started their own publishing company. jim wrote and published drafting books at affordable prices. many more high schools used his textbooks to teach students mechanical drafting. it was in these workbooks that many of yim's graduate students advanced their own career by contributing to the content of the books. these books introduced the concepts and techniques of engineering graphic turnovers a million students across the country and arn the world. jim completed his last workbook, engineering fwrasks designs, when he was 80 years old.
jim's career bridged the gap between drafting by hand to three dimensional computer-aided design. yim believed one must always adapt to changes in technology so he bought a computer and masters c.a.d. to the extent he was a beta tester for autodesk. nevertheless he never let technology crowd the basics of good drafting and the design. he also had an interest in history. he served as an officer of many historical societies including the westerners, the national outlaw and lawman association, the western outlaw and lawman association, and the texas gun collectors association. jim became an expert on many historical figures and published a book in 1988 about billy the kid. through his publishing company he worked with friends to bring store roifs western lawmen and outlaws into reality. mr. speaker, yim's life was defined by his service to his family, to his students, to our country, and the texas a&m
university. he will be forever remembered as a husband, a father, a grandfather, a veteran, an educator, a mentor of selfless service and a great friend my wife geena and i offer our deepest an heartfelt condolences to his family and lift up the family and friends of jim earl in our prayers. i've requested the united states flag be flown over the united states capitol to honor the life and legacy of this united states servant. as i close i urge all americans to continue praying four country, our veterans, for our military, for texas and for our first responders to keep us safe at home. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor ed barry of bryan, texas, who passed away february 24, 2019. 1940, orn on april 22,
to ed barry sr. and udas barry white. he was a member of the class of 1962 at texas a&m. he was a member of the corps of cadets, a member of squadron 4 and commanding officer of squadron 8. he was also a member of the ross volunteer company he received his degree in mathematics and was also in the first class in the world to graduate with a master's degree in computer science. on august 31, 1963, he mar thrid love of his life, barbara teel, in houston, texas. they raised three sons in the houston area and moved to dallas in 1983. in both houston and dallas, ed coached his sons' basketball and baseball team farce total of 13 years. he also served as a deacon, choir member, sunday schoolteacher, bible study leader and a number of additional volunteer positions at south main baptist and tallywood baptist in houston,
prest tonwood baptist in dallas. at prestonwood he was chairman of the decons and president of the choir. after graduating from texas a&m he went to work at nasa for i.b.m. and contributing to the -- contributed to the gemini and apollo missions. he worked for 25 years as the information systems leader for many companies including cisco foods, stmbings apat corporation and texas oil and gas he late worked in technology and management consulting for oracle corporation and k-bridge energy associates. for the last 15 years, ed worked as a realtor he spent 10 years as executive director of the bryan-college station association of real tors. during his tenure, the association became one of the top three in the state of texas. mr. speaker, ed's life was defined by his service to his family, to texas, to our country and to god. he will be forever remembered as a husband, a father, a grandfather, a community leader, a selfless servant and a great
friend. my wife geena and i offer our deepest and heartfelt condolences to the barry family and lift up the family and friends of ed barry in our prayers. i've requested the united states flag be flown over our nation's capitol to honor the life and legacy of this humble servant. also as i close today i urge all americans to continue praying for our country, for our veterans, for our military who protects us, and for our first responders to keep us safe at home home. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield ack. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gemert: thank you, mr. speaker. --
mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i was listening to the colloquy earlier, i've listened to comments here during debate, i've seen comments made in the media by some of the folks here in the house over the vote that as taken basically on an anti-hate resolution that was originally intended to address anti-semitic remarks that were made by a member of the house. et instead of addressing the anti-semitic remarks it was made a global general, oh, we're against almost all hate. well not all hate. apparently not the kind of hate for republicans that would cause our minority whip, steve scalise, to be shot and almost killed.
not the violence being perpetrated on supporters of president trump. including on college campuses. but even they, as horrendous as hey were, they have no moral equivalent to the holocaust. expanding the resolution from a simple condemnation of anti-jewish, anti-semitic remarks to a panoply of other items actually attempted to give everything ever done to anyone except a few hate-filled actions of course, but aterpting to give them the moral equivalence of the holocaust where none exists. that's tragic. nd then to compound that
regrettable action by the minority in trying to please everyone instead of standing up jewish, ng out anti- hate-filled remarks, bias, by gotted remarks -- bigotted remarks, and then come here and condemn those of us who called them out for not standing up against anti-semitic remarks, and accuse us of being hate-filled because we took a principled stand against anti-semitic remarks that needed to be singularized, needed to be addressed, needed to be condemned. not only that, come in and also take the occasion to slander steve king saying, well, he should have been called out 10 years ago. no allegations.
no specifics. let's just generally slap somebody down because we don't like them, we don't like what they've said. this is outrageous. this was no place for any of those actions, any of those comments, and i deeply regret people for whom i've had respect that would come in here and try to draw moral equivalence to every little action, look, i bet most of us, i know a lot of us, have had plenty of death threats. we've had plenty of nasty comments made. but we don't go running to the media every time somebody threatens to kill us or somebody makes these outrageous threats or allegations. but the holocaust was different. i mean the -- the suffering caused during the years of slavery in the united states really were unforgivable.
it was a horrible thing to inflict on anybody. i was shocked to find out here in february that there are more slaves in the world today, 40 million, than there ever have been in the world's existence. that's horrendous. we ought to take actions to stamp out slavery wherever it is against whatever race or nationality or whatever. t has no place in the world. but we know what leads to a holocaust, the kills of millions of jews, simply because they were jewish. it starts with maligning comments against jews and at first people will say, you know, that's really not appropriate. but then it gets watered down to where, well, there are a lot of bad comments against all kinds of people. you know, we're not for any of those.
and that's where we find ourselves this week in the house of representatives. it has started and people in this body knew which members have made anti-semitic feelings known in the past. so it's kind of hard to imagine that anybody would put someone who has espoused very strong anti-semitic feelings in the past, put them on the committee where they can do the most damage to israel and our relationship with israel and then act like they had no idea, let's just say that there are problems with all kinds of hate. there's a problem with not calling out the kind of comments that start the ball rolling toward another holocaust. those of us who believe in the god of abraham, isaac, and
jacob, and believe as it says up here, in that god we trust, that's the god it's talking about. -- s why moses is missouri's' -- moses' full face is up here in this body because of the respect for the moral law he is gave. but there is a danger to any civilization, any country, who will not call out anti-semitic comments when they happen. and it's not enough to put in language so that if you accuse somebody of anti-semitic comments because they've actually made them, but they have to be of a certain race or religion, then you get condemned, you say oh, you're against this race, you're against this religion because you called them down for their anti-semitic remarks and that resolution yesterday leaves that kind of ambivalence out there and available to people who make anti-semitic remarks, it needs
to stop, it needs to be called out before this body loses its moral relevance to make a difference in the world and i ield back. mr. gohmert: i move we do now here by adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it. the motion is accepted. the house stands adjourned until noon, monday next, for