To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that the United States district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over actions arising under the immigration laws, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 will begin the process of returning the government to the people. Many provisions of H.R. 1 have been pending and ignored for years in this House. No more.

H.R. 1 has been the subject of hearings in five committees and 15 hours of testimony from witnesses. Throughout these hearings, we have heard our Republican friends bemoan a rushed process when, in fact, they had 8 years to consider these proposals but failed to do so.

Today, we deliver on our promise to the American people. H.R. 1 is critically important at this point in our history.

Trust in government and in many institutions has eroded because of years of putting profit before the people and letting politicians pick their voters.

Dark money has been allowed to poison our system, drowning out the voices of the very people who we were sent here to represent.

Access to the ballot box has been impeded by arbitrary obstacles that have made voting a privilege, not a right.

Without trust, our representative system suffers. Too many Americans view themselves as shut out from our democracy. Others cannot participate because of election administration procedures that fail to account for how Americans live and work in the 21st century.

Some of these barriers make it harder for certain populations, including communities of color and other underrepresented groups, to vote. This is especially the case after the Supreme Court gutted core provisions of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision has further empowered wealthy special interests and ushered in nearly a billion dollars in money from undisclosed sources, even though the Court affirmed the importance of disclosure by a vote of 8 to 1.

H.R. 1 reverses course and strengthens our democracy and makes it easier and more convenient for all eligible Americans to vote. It offers solutions to the dominance of big money in politics, and it ensures public officials will work in the public interest.

One of the things that has been discussed is the proposal for a freedom from influence fund that will allow for small donors to reclaim control of candidates through $200 or less donations.

I want to make it clear that no taxpayer funds are permitted to flow into this freedom from influence fund. Instead, as was approved in our last vote, a modest additional assessment of 2.75 percent on Federal fines, penalties, and settlements for certain tax crimes and corporate malfeasance will be the sole source of funding for this freedom from influence fund. In fact, the bad guys will be funding the clean system.

This bill will lower barriers to voting for all eligible Americans. It will save costs, bolster the integrity of election administration, and, for example, it will modernize voter registration systems by enabling automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration, taking advantage of technology to ensure all Americans can register and update their voter registration status online. Automatic voter registration, alone, may bring up to 50 million new American citizens onto the rolls and, therefore, able to vote.

It makes improvements to ensure ballot access for voters with disabilities as well as our overseas and military voters.

It ensures early voting for at least 15 days and will require States to use voter-verified paper ballots. This is a commonsense safeguard to cybersecurity threats, especially after the 2016 election showed vulnerabilities in our system.

H.R. 1 will reform redistricting to ensure fairness in the process to guard against partisanship and respect communities of interest.

This legislation will shine a light on dark secret money that influences campaigns and will protect everyone's right to know who is influencing their votes and their views.

As I mentioned earlier, it provides an alternative voluntary system for candidates to finance their campaigns by empowering small dollar contributors all without taxpayer money. This will reduce candidates' reliance on wealthy special interests and open the political process to more people. This will create a government for the people.

H.R. 1 will also implement high ethical standards and boost confidence in self-government.

It has been said that we should not take these steps, but Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress may, by law, regulate votes in Federal elections.

It is time that we take this step. Democracy is resilient, but it requires our continual work to ensure that it lives up to its promise.

H.R. 1 is a major, comprehensive step forward, a step that we must take if we are to be true to our promise of our representative government.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a pioneer and leader in clean government.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have to note that the last speaker failed to read the entire section. Article I, section 4 says: ``The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof;'' as was mentioned. And it then goes on to say, ``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. . . . `' And that is what we are doing here.

Why? Because we have seen in States throughout the country efforts to prevent people from voting in Federal elections. And so a voter in one State is treated differently than in another State, and that is what we are going to change with H.R. 1.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a valued Member of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has served so faithfully on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the one person who probably has worked harder than anyone else on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a leader for civil rights and justice in our country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

I yield the gentleman from Washington an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before yielding to the gentlewoman from Michigan, I would just like to quote one of the most conservative justices, who said that ``the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election.'' That was in the Citizens United decision.

Now, I didn't agree with that decision, but the court posited that the solution to the dark money that they were unleashing on the country was disclosure, and that is what this bill does.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I would just like to say that saying it is tax money does not make it so. We have prohibited appropriations into the freedom from influence fund. The total source of funding is a 2.75 percent assessment on people who have committed tax crimes or corporate malfeasance.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, before yielding to the gentleman from New Jersey, I would like to just address a couple of simple points.

The DISCLOSE Act really pivots off the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. And as they said in that decision: Disclaimer and disclosure requirements impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities and do not prevent anyone from speaking.

Concern has been expressed about the ability to remain private. That is provided for in this bill. It is simple. If you don't want to be disclosed, note that your donation is not for campaign purposes, and you will not be disclosed.

Further, there is an express protection provided for any donor who fears that they may face threat of harassment or reprisal. So we have thought of this, and this was dealt with in our markup.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Haaland).

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the prime author of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I just want to make a couple of observations and perhaps corrections.

It has been alleged that somehow the assessment on tax crimes and corporate malfeasance has been transformed into taxpayer money--I think that is clearly incorrect--but that if the money is insufficient, then the taxpayers would be on the hook.

When we marked up the bill in the House Administration Committee, we outlined how the money would be reduced if there were not enough money in the fund; and in section 5101(f)(3), it talks about mandatory reductions of payments in the voucher program. In 541(d)(2), it talks about mandatory reductions in the congressional program and Presidential and so on, if there were insufficient funds.

So there is no way under the terms of this bill that the taxpayers could ever be on the hook for these funds, and I think it is important to know that.

I want to talk a little bit about the concern about free speech.

I am an advocate of free speech. I think we all are and honor our Constitution here in the House of Representatives. But the ACLU has a storied history of litigating constitutional issues. They have done good work, but we have differed on our approach to campaign finance law, particularly on how to shine a light on secret, dark money in elections.

The ACLU has opposed applying disclosure laws to organizations spending money on electioneering communications, which are paid ads that mention candidates in the days leading up to the election.

As we have mentioned earlier, the Court, in Citizens United, said the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate before an election and pointed out that disclosure does not prevent speech. I think that is one of the reasons why we have

gotten a marvelous letter from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, which I include in the Record.

National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People,

Washington, DC, March 4, 2019.

Re NAACP strong support for H.R. 1, legislation to greatly

improve and expand the democratic voting process

Hon. U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's

oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based

civil rights organization, I would like to urge you, in the

strongest terms possible to support through passage H.R. 1

and to oppose any weakening amendments. This legislation will

expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the

discriminatory influence of big money in politics, prevent

voter fraud, and strengthen ethics rules and accountability

for public servants. H.R. 1 is supported and celebrated by

the NAACP: since our founding in 1909, free and unfettered

access to the ballot for all eligible Americans, and the

assurance that our vote has been counted, has been a critical

driver behind all that we do.

H.R. 1 represents a coordinated effort to protect and

promote the voting rights of all Americans. This vital

legislation includes many of the tools the NAACP has

identified throughout our nation as improving voter turn-out

and successful voter participation: it includes provisions to

establish on-line and automatic voter registration. H.R. 1

would require early voting in all states; voting would have

to start at least 15 days before an election, including

weekends. H.R. 1 would require same-day voter registration on

election-day and during early voting. Under a provision in

H.R. 1, states would be prohibited from restricting an

individuals' ability to vote by mail. H.R. 1 would require

that ``provisional ballots'' be counted and provides

assistance to states and localities in improving the

provisional ballot process. The measure would prohibit voter

caging, voter deception and voter intimidation. H.R. 1 also

promotes voter registration via the internet and establishes

a strict code of ethics for all federally elected and

appointed officials, including the President, the Vice

President, his cabinet, and every Member of Congress, so we

are not constantly distracted by the ``scandal of the day.''

H.R. 1 would also re-enfranchise ex-felony offenders who

have served their sentence and have been released from

prison. Because voting is such an integral part of being a

productive member of American society, the NAACP has

advocated strongly to allow felons who are no longer

incarcerated to reintegrate themselves into society and vote

in federal elections.

H.R. 1 also begins to fix the damage done to the crucial

1965 Voting Rights Act by the US Supreme Court decision in

Shelby v. Holder. The legislation specifically states that

Congress is committed to reversing the effects of the 2013

Supreme Court decision which effectively invalidated a

requirement that certain states and jurisdictions receive

federal preclearance on changes to voting procedures. Prior

to the Shelby decision preclearance was required for states

and local jurisdictions that had a history of voter

discrimination.

The measure would state that Congress should respond by

modernizing the electoral system to improve access to the

ballot, enhance voting integrity and security, ensure greater

accountability, and restore protections for voters. Finally,

but no less importantly, H.R. 1 contains strong provisions to

bring about genuine campaign finance reform measures which

will withstand the scrutiny of the Courts.

The NAACP strongly supports H.R. 1. This is not a partisan

issue: the right to vote should be supported by all Americans

who believe in democracy. We should be making voting and

involvement in the democratic process easier, not throwing up

barriers which may seem insurmountable to whole groups of

eligible voters. Should you have any questions or comments,

please do not hesitate to contact me at my office.

Sincerely,

Hilary O. Shelton,

Director, NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President

for Policy and Advocacy.

Mr. Chair, I will not read the entire letter, but it does say this:

``Dear Representative,

``On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest, largest, and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil rights organization, I would like to urge you, in the strongest terms possible, to support through passage H.R. 1 and to oppose any weakening amendments.''

It goes on to say: ``This legislation will expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the discriminatory influence of big money in politics, prevent voter fraud, and strengthen ethics rules and accountability for public servants. H.R. 1 is supported and celebrated by the NAACP.''

I would urge us to support this bill and listen to the advice that we have received from the NAACP on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House, representing San Francisco.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would like to wrap up, I will also wrap up.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill for many reasons. We have seen all over the United States efforts to prevent Americans from being able to vote, from moving polling places out of a jurisdiction without any public transportation so voters can't get there, to reducing early voting, to voter ID requirements that have a disparate result and disadvantage young people. For example, in Texas you can show your hunting license but not your University of Texas ID. I think there is a rationale behind that.

We have had enough. We believe that American citizens ought to be able to vote and that we should do everything in Federal elections as the Constitution provides to allow those American citizens to vote.

That is why this bill provides for at least 15 days of early voting for Federal elections, no-excuse absentee ballots, that provisional ballots are treated uniformly so a voter in one State is treated the same way as a voter in another State when they are voting for the House of Representatives. We want to improve access for voters with disabilities and for overseas and military voters.

We know that we are vulnerable to hacking. We have voting machines that are using software that is no longer even updated. They are vulnerable to hacking. We have got to have paper ballots that are subject to a recount.

Much has been said about elements of this, but one of the things that I think is very important is the Federal congressional redistricting provisions. If there is one thing that makes Americans upset it is politicians manipulating the districts so that even if they don't get the votes, they get to win the seats. That is gerrymandering. This bill does away with it for the House of Representatives.

It requires all States to establish independent redistricting commissions for the purpose of developing and enacting congressional redistricting plans. It exempts States that meet the minimum requirements, including the State of Arizona, contrary to one of the comments made earlier here today.

There has been a lot of discussion about money, but I will include in the Record the preliminary report we have received from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The estimate of the proposed 2.75 percent special assessment on criminal penalties and civil penalties is that it would raise $1.948 billion between 2019 and 2029 and that it would reduce the deficit by $83 million because people would be deterred by the additional penalty. That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation. I didn't make that up.

So this bill has a lot of sound provisions in it. It discloses big money so that there is transparency, as the court in Citizens United suggested that we do. It empowers small donors so the big money guys don't own the government. It reforms the ethics process for the President, the Congress, and for the judiciary.

I am sorry to say that some candidates win only when they suppress the vote, and we have seen that happen across the United States. We are not going to allow that to happen. Every American has a right to vote, to have their vote counted and let the chips fall where they may. That is what H.R. 1 will do.

Mr. Chairman, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would just note that the ballot harvesting issue, I think, has very little to do with the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings and that the remedy that has been suggested by my friend, Mr. Davis, was to use the system that was in place in North Carolina. Obviously, that didn't work. The remedy to fraud is prosecution, which is what is happening in North Carolina.

I would note that, as we mentioned at the Rules Committee last night, in California, you can give your ballot that is sealed not only to your son, but to your next-door neighbor. You might be an elderly person who doesn't have family around.

There has been no credible allegation of fraud, and we had monitors from both the Republican and Democratic parties, people from House Administration. There was no credible allegation of a problem.

Mr. Chair, let's not compare apples and oranges. Let's support Mr. Hastings' amendment.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The gentleman's amendment to H.R. 1 would keep in place a provision of law that was inserted into must-pass pieces of legislation over the past few years. It makes it harder for voters to follow the money when it comes to government contractors and political spending.

The amendment is anathema to the purposes of H.R. 1, which is to bolster confidence and trust in the American Government and shine a light on secret spending in elections. The gentlemen's amendment would further the status quo of dark money in our elections, and it would protect a culture of pay-to-play politics that Americans reject.

Republicans in Congress, as Mr. Cole has mentioned, first included this language in the 2012 appropriations bill, then the 2014 appropriations bill, and finally in the 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

H.R. 1, in title IV, subtitle G, repeals the restriction on requiring disclosure of campaign-related spending by those submitting an offer for a Federal contract. Repealing this restriction will curb the appearance of corruption that can go along with campaign-related money in government contracts. It will shine a light on dark money in politics.

Americans have a right to know who is trying to influence them with political advertisements and campaign spending and what big campaign spenders want from the government in return.

The Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on Federal contracts. Campaign-related spending should have nothing to do with influencing a contract, and disclosure will protect the integrity of the process and curb any appearance of corruption.

After the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in 2010, undisclosed sources have spent more than $950 million in dark money to influence Federal elections, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The money flows through a complex web of corporations, dark money, nonprofit organizations, super-PACs, and other groups. When money from

government contractors enters this web, it poses the exact type of threat to the integrity of our democratic system that our campaign finance laws are intended to protect against.

While Federal law prohibits contracting entities from contributing to political candidates and parties, their directors, officers, and other affiliates could still give unlimited sums of dark money to groups that do not disclose their campaign-related donors, and that is why H.R. 1 would repeal the restriction on disclosure.

The court held 8 to 1 in Citizens United that ``The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.''

The public has a right to follow the money, including money from government contractors to dark-money groups that did not disclose their spending.

H.R. 1 ensures disclosure and transparency, both of which are critical to open and responsive democracy that protects the public interest. And this amendment, although I am sure well-intentioned, takes us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that when a rider is added to the appropriations bill, you have to vote for the whole package to keep the government open.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and Mr. Sarbanes for his leadership and for allowing us to tell our stories. Let me tell you the story of Texas.

In 2017, right before a bond election in my district and surrounding areas, 4,000 people were taken off the voting rolls. In 2018, the Secretary of State's Office purged people off the voting rolls with absolutely no understanding and no notice.

H.R. 1 expands the access to the ballot box by creating voluntary automatic voter registration access across the country, ensuring that the rights of individuals who have completed felony sentences--family members, your neighbors who have done their time--have the ability to register as well, and expanding early voting. Be reminded of the 2000 election when those who had done their time, were citizens, went to the voting poll, and they were told: Oh, you cannot vote.

It ends partisan gerrymandering, but in particular, it focuses on opportunities for voting. So I am here to say those provisions are crucial to providing the American public its constitutional right to vote, and we should support that right.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, The ``For the People Act of 2019,'' which expands access to the ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and strengthens ethics rules for public servants.

I am proud to be one of 226, co-sponsors, and one of the original cosponsors, of H.R. 1, which will increase public confidence in our democracy by reducing the role of money in politics, restoring ethical standards and integrity to government, and strengthening laws to protect voting.

Specifically, the For the People Act will:

1. Make it easier, not harder, to vote by implementing automatic voter registration, requiring early voting and vote by mail, committing Congress to reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and ensuring the integrity of our elections by modernizing and strengthening our voting systems and ending partisan redistricting.

2. Reform the campaign finance system by requiring all political organizations to disclose large donors, updating political advertisement laws for the digital age, establishing a public matching system for citizen-owned elections, and revamping the Federal Election Commission to ensure there's a cop on the campaign finance beat; and

3. Strengthen ethics laws to ensure that public officials work in the public interest by extending conflict of interest laws to the President and Vice President; requiring the release of their tax returns; closing loopholes that allow former members of Congress to avoid cooling-off periods for lobbying; closing the revolving door between industry and the federal government; and establishing a code of conduct for the Supreme Court.

H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting.

This bill ensures that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full

rights restored and expands early voting and simplify absentee voting; and modernize the U.S. voting system.

Mr. Chair, this legislation and this hearing is particularly timely because more than half a century after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are still discussing voter suppression--something which should be a bygone relic of the past, but yet continues to disenfranchise racial minorities, immigrants, women, and young people.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a watershed moment for the Civil Rights Movement--it liberated communities of color from legal restrictions barring them from exercising the fundamental right to civic engagement and political representation.

But uncaged by Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which neutered the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, 14 states, including my state of Texas, took extreme measures to enforce new voting restrictions before the 2016 presidential election.

It is not a coincidence that many of these same states have experienced increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters in recent elections.

If not for invidious, state-sponsored voter suppression policies like discriminatory voter ID laws, reduced early voting periods, and voter intimidation tactics that directly or indirectly target racial minorities, the 2016 presidential election might have had a drastically different outcome.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 must be passed because many of the civil rights that I fought for as a student and young lawyer have been undermined or been rolled back by reactionary forces in recent years.

To add insult to injury, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order establishing a so-called ``Election Integrity'' Commission to investigate not voter suppression, but so-called ``voter fraud'' in the 2016 election.

Trump and his followers have been unceasing in their efforts to perpetuate the myth of voter fraud, but it remains just that: a myth.

Between 2000 and 2014, there were 35 credible allegations of voter fraud out of more than 834 million ballots cast--that is less than 1 in 28 million votes!

An extensive study by social scientists at Dartmouth College uncovered no evidence to support Trump's hysterical and outrageous allegations of widespread voter fraud ``rigging'' the 2016 election.

Just for the record, Mr. Chair, the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was:

Hillary Clinton, 65,853,516

Donald Trump, 62,884,824

Trump's deficit of 2.9 million was the largest of any Electoral College winner in history by a massive margin, and despite the allegations of the current Administration, there have been only 4 documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election.

The Voter Fraud Commission, like many of Trump's business schemes, was a massive scam built on countless lies that do not hold up to any level of scrutiny.

As Members of Congress, we should be devoting our time, energy, and resources addressing Russian infiltration of our election infrastructure and campaigns, along with other pressing issues.

Instead of enjoying and strengthening the protections guaranteed in the Voting Rights Act--people of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, and immigrants--have been given the joyless, exhausting task of fending off the constant barrage of attacks levelled at our communities by Trump and other conspiracy theorists.

Not only are we tasked with reversing the current dismal state of voter suppression against minorities; we are forced to refute the blatant, propagandist lie of voter fraud.

To this end, I have been persistent in my efforts to protect the rights of disenfranchised communities in my district of inner-city Houston and across the nation.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have cosponsored dozens of bills, amendments, and resolutions seeking to improve voters' rights at all stages and levels of the election process.

This includes legislation aimed at:

1. Increasing voter outreach and turnout;

2. Ensuring both early and same-day registration;

3. Standardizing physical and language accessibility at polling places;

4. Expanding early voting periods;

5. Decreasing voter wait times;

6. Guaranteeing absentee ballots, especially for displaced citizens;

7. Modernizing voting technologies and strengthening our voter record systems;

8. Establishing the federal Election Day as a national holiday; and

9. Condemning and criminalizing deceptive practices, voter intimidation, and other suppression tactics;

Along with many of my CBC colleagues, I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, which became public law on July 27, 2006.

I also authored H.R. 745 in the 110th Congress, which added the legendary Barbara Jordan to the list of civil rights trailblazers whose memories are honored in the naming the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.

This bill strengthened the original Voting Rights Act by replacing federal voting examiners with federal voting observers--a significant enhancement that made it easier to safeguard against racially biased voter suppression tactics.

In the 114th Congress, I introduced H.R. 75, the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2015, which prohibits states whose congressional districts have been redistricted after a decennial census from redrawing their district lines until the next census.

Prejudiced redistricting, or gerrymandering as it is more commonly known, has been used for decades to weaken the voting power of African Americans, Latino Americans, and other minorities since the Civil Rights Era.

Immediately after the Shelby County ruling, which lifted preclearance requirements for states with histories of discrimination seeking to change their voting laws or practices, redistricting became a favorite tool for Republicans who connived to unfairly gain 3 congressional seats in Texas.

In the 110th Congress, I was the original sponsor of H.R. 6778, the Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act of 2008, which prohibited denial of the right to vote in a federal election on the bases of an individual's status as a formerly incarcerated person.

The Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act sought to reverse discriminatory voter restrictions that disproportionately affect the African American voting population, which continues to be targeted by mass incarceration, police profiling, and a biased criminal justice system.

Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes.

Voter ID laws are just one of the means that can be used to abridge or suppress the right to vote but there are others, including:

1. Curtailing or Eliminating Early Voting;

2. Ending Same-Day Registration;

3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count;

4. Eliminating Teenage Pre-Registration;

5. Shortened Poll Hours;

6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges used by vigilantes, like the King Street Patriots in my city of Houston, to cause trouble at the polls;

7. ``Voter Caging,'' to suppress the turnout of minority voters by sending non-forwardable mail to targeted populations and, once the mail is returned, using the returned mail to compile lists of voters whose eligibility is then challenged on the basis of residence under state law; and

8. Employing targeted redistricting techniques to dilute minority voting strength, notably ``Cracking'' (i.e., fragmenting and dispersing concentrations of minority populations); ``Stacking'' (combining concentrations of minority voters with greater concentrations of white populations); and ``Packing'' (i.e., over-concentrating minority voters in as few districts as possible).

Mr. Chair, we must not allow our democracy to slide back into the worst elements of this country's past, to stand idly by as our treasured values of democracy, progress, and equality are poisoned and dismantled.

I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 1, the ``For The People Act of 2019.''

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, The ``For the People Act of 2019,'' which expands access to the ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and strengthens ethics rules for public servants.

I am proud to be one of 226, co-sponsors, and one of the original cosponsors, of H.R. 1, which will increase public confidence in our democracy by reducing the role of money in politics, restoring ethical standards and integrity to government, and strengthening laws to protect voting.

Specifically, the For the People Act will:

1. Make it easier, not harder, to vote by implementing automatic voter registration, requiring early voting and vote by mail, committing Congress to reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and ensuring the integrity of our elections by modernizing and strengthening our voting systems and ending partisan redistricting.

2. Reform the campaign finance system by requiring all political organizations to disclose large donors, updating political advertisement laws for the digital age, establishing a public matching system for citizen-owned elections, and revamping the Federal Election Commission to ensure there's a cop on the campaign finance beat; and

3. Strengthen ethics laws to ensure that public officials work in the public interest by extending conflict of interest laws to the President and Vice President; requiring the release of their tax returns; closing loopholes that allow former members of Congress to avoid cooling-off periods for lobbying; closing the revolving door between industry and the federal government; and establishing a code of conduct for the Supreme Court.

H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting.

This bill ensures that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full rights restored and expands early voting and simplify absentee voting; and modernize the U.S. voting system.

Mr. Chair, this legislation and this hearing is particularly timely because more than half a century after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are still discussing voter suppression--something which should be a bygone relic of the past, but yet continues to disenfranchise racial minorities, immigrants, women, and young people.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a watershed moment for the Civil Rights Movement--it liberated communities of color from legal restrictions barring them from exercising the fundamental right to civic engagement and political representation.

But uncaged by Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which neutered the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, 14 states, including my state of Texas, took extreme measures to enforce new voting

restrictions before the 2016 presidential election.

It is not a coincidence that many of these same states have experienced increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters in recent elections.

If not for invidious, state-sponsored voter suppression policies like discriminatory voter ID laws, reduced early voting periods, and voter intimidation tactics that directly or indirectly target racial minorities, the 2016 presidential election might have had a drastically different outcome.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 must be passed because many of the civil rights that I fought for as a student and young lawyer have been undermined or been rolled back by reactionary forces in recent years.

To add insult to injury, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order establishing a so-called ``Election Integrity'' Commission to investigate not voter suppression, but so-called ``voter fraud'' in the 2016 election.

Trump and his followers have been unceasing in their efforts to perpetuate the myth of voter fraud, but it remains just that: a myth.

Between 2000 and 2014, there were 35 credible allegations of voter fraud out of more than 834 million ballots cast--that is less than 1 in 28 million votes.

An extensive study by social scientists at Dartmouth College uncovered no evidence to support Trump's hysterical and outrageous allegations of widespread voter fraud ``rigging'' the 2016 election.

Just for the record, Mr. Chair, the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was:

Hillary Clinton, 65,853,516.

Donald Trump, 62,884,824.

Trump's deficit of 2.9 million was the largest of any Electoral College winner in history by a massive margin, and despite the allegations of the current Administration, there have been only 4 documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election.

The Voter Fraud Commission, like many of Trump's business schemes, was a massive scam built on countless lies that do not hold up to any level of scrutiny.

As Members of Congress, we should be devoting our time, energy, and resources addressing Russian infiltration of our election infrastructure and campaigns, along with other pressing issues.

Instead of enjoying and strengthening the protections guaranteed in the Voting Rights Act--people of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, and immigrants--have been given the joyless, exhausting task of fending off the constant barrage of attacks levelled at our communities by Trump and other conspiracy theorists.

Not only are we tasked with reversing the current dismal state of voter suppression against minorities; we are forced to refute the blatant, propagandist lie of voter fraud.

To this end, I have been persistent in my efforts to protect the rights of disenfranchised communities in my district of inner-city Houston and across the nation.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have cosponsored dozens of bills, amendments, and resolutions seeking to improve voters' rights at all stages and levels of the election process.

This includes legislation aimed at:

1. Increasing voter outreach and turnout;

2. Ensuring both early and same-day registration;

3. Standardizing physical and language accessibility at polling places;

4. Expanding early voting periods;

5. Decreasing voter wait times;

6. Guaranteeing absentee ballots, especially for displaced citizens;

7. Modernizing voting technologies and strengthening our voter record systems;

8. Establishing the federal Election Day as a national holiday; and

9. Condemning and criminalizing deceptive practices, voter intimidation, and other suppression tactics;

Along with many of my CBC colleagues, I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, which became public law on July 27, 2006.

I also authored H.R. 745 in the 110th Congress, which added the legendary Barbara Jordan to the list of civil rights trailblazers whose memories are honored in the naming the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.

This bill strengthened the original Voting Rights Act by replacing federal voting examiners with federal voting observers a significant enhancement that made it easier to safeguard against racially biased voter suppression tactics.

In the 114th Congress, I introduced H.R. 75, the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2015, which prohibits states whose congressional districts have been redistricted after a decennial census from redrawing their district lines until the next census.

Prejudiced redistricting, or gerrymandering as it is more commonly known, has been used for decades to weaken the voting power of African Americans, Latino Americans, and other minorities since the Civil Rights Era.

Immediately after the Shelby County ruling, which lifted preclearance requirements for states with histories of discrimination seeking to change their voting laws or practices, redistricting became a favorite tool for Republicans who connived to unfairly gain 3 congressional seats in Texas.

In the 110th Congress, I was the original sponsor of H.R. 6778, the Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act of 2008, which prohibited denial of the right to vote in a federal election on the basis of an individual's status as a formerly incarcerated person.

The Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act sought to reverse discriminatory voter restrictions that disproportionately affect the African American voting population, which continues to be targeted by mass incarceration, police profiling, and a biased criminal justice system.

Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes.

Voter ID laws are just one of the means that can be used to abridge or suppress the right to vote but there are others, including:

1. Curtailing or Eliminating Early Voting;

2. Ending Same-Day Registration;

3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count;

4. Eliminating Teenage Pre-Registration;

5. Shortened Poll Hours;

6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges used by vigilantes, like the King Street Patriots in my city of Houston, to cause trouble at the polls;

7. ``Voter Caging,'' to suppress the turnout of minority voters by sending non-forwardable mail to targeted populations and, once the mail is returned, using the returned mail to compile lists of voters whose eligibility is then challenged on the basis of residence under state law; and

8. Employing targeted redistricting techniques to dilute minority voting strength, notably ``Cracking'' (i.e., fragmenting and dispersing concentrations of minority populations); ``Stacking'' (combining concentrations of minority voters with greater concentrations of white populations); and ``Packing'' (i.e., over-concentrating minority voters in as few districts as possible).

Mr. Chair, we must not allow our democracy to slide back into the worst elements of this country's past, to stand idly by as our treasured values of democracy, progress, and equality are poisoned and dismantled.

I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 1, the ``For The People Act of 2019.''

Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a role for the Federal Government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access transparency, and election security. However, H.R. 1 was developed to serve the special interests of Democrats and the outside organizations that support the Democratic Party and will not accomplish its alleged goal of being for the people.

The greatest threat to our Nation's election system is partisanship, and that is what we are seeing right here in H.R. 1. It misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from States to administer their own elections, and threatens to limit Americans' constitutional rights.

H.R. 1 proposes all groups limit free speech and imposes vague standards that disadvantage citizens who wish to advocate on behalf of any public policy issue.

Every American has a right to support causes they believe in, and that is exactly why the American Civil Liberties Union echoes my concerns. The ACLU said that there are provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.

When groups that have traditionally supported the Democratic Party cannot support H.R. 1, it underscores why election reform legislation should not be developed in a partisan manner.

H.R. 1 overreaches our Constitution by taking power away from States that decide how their election should be administered, States that know their residents' election needs much better than a Federal bureaucracy does.

Congress should be partnering with States to support them in increasing voter registration instead of forcing a federally mandated one-size-fits-all approach that will be costly and ineffective.

This bill also fails to include safeguards, while implementing new voter registration and voting practices.

I cannot stress enough that Congress should absolutely be in favor of increasing access to the polls, but we do that by adding the necessary checks and balances to ensure these votes and that access are protected.

We should allow States to maintain their own voter rolls in order to process voters in a timely manner on election day, avoid unfunded mandates, and manage voter lists to avoid voting irregularities. A few voting irregularities can change the outcome of a single election, especially when you live in a competitive district like I do. Every single vote makes a difference between winning and losing.

If we pass new voter registration practices in H.R. 1 without creating safeguards to prevent voting irregularities in these practices, we risk taking away the choice of the American people. Simply, another way, H.R. 1 is taking away the voice of each American voter.

If we want to increase our election security, Congress should support States choosing their own methods and machines. Multiple points of entry are more secure than one system. Federalizing election security, as this legislation does, will not protect voters.

When H.R. 1 was introduced, it was referred to 10 committees in the House. This bill, which is now over 600 pages, will now have gone from introduction to general debate on the floor of the House with only half of those 10 committees holding a single hearing, and only one of those committees holding a markup.

The Democrats promised greater transparency in the majority, but we are not seeing that in their first major piece of legislation.

We just received the CBO score for H.R. 1, which egregiously underestimates H.R. 1's cost to the taxpayers by conveniently leaving out many of the legislation's most expensive provisions. H.R. 1's campaign match provision is what is being left out. CBO said they needed more time to develop a more comprehensive score. That was ignored.

Though my Democratic colleagues may have changed where exactly the bucket is, they are still using H.R. 1 to put more money into politicians' campaigns. H.R. 1 is creating public subsidies through the 6-to-1 government match program on small dollar campaign contributions of up to $200. For every $200, the Federal Government, the taxpayers, will now pay $1,200 to a politician, to Members of Congress' campaigns.

While my colleagues across the aisle now say this will be of no cost to the taxpayer--as of a new gimmick that they developed yesterday--I would like to point out that every single House Democrat signed on to cosponsor this legislation before any changes were made to this provision.

Make no mistake, the new majority wants to put your hard-earned tax dollars into their own campaigns. While they may have changed the route to get there, that is their fundamental goal with this obvious sham campaign finance reform. They say they want to get money out of politics, but they are using this bill, H.R. 1, to funnel more in.

Provisions like this do not belong in any campaign or finance election reforms. Election reforms should be bipartisan, not serving the interests of partisan politicians.

As we move forward with the debate today, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will thoughtfully reconsider their eager support of a bill that will harm the American voter and taxpayer and not simply vote, as we have seen throughout this not-open process, along partisan lines.

Every American's vote should be counted and protected.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), my colleague, good friend, and member on the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I am very privileged to stand here with somebody who grew up in the same rural county as I did, in Christian County, Illinois.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, before I reserve, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the most courageous Member of Congress that I know, the man who bleeds tiger blood.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate. I am enjoying the discussion, enjoying the debate. This is why we all came here to Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Posey), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, it is with great pleasure I get a chance to introduce my good friend, whom I have known for a very long time from Illinois.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), and I would like to ask him to throw his papers in the air and hit them when he is done with his speech, too.

Mr. Chair, it is great to have the author of the bill here on the floor.

I guess if I had a chance to ask a question, it would be why, then, was this new corporate malfeasance fund put in the manager's amendment that was given to me 30 minutes before our Rules testimony last night?

There are many concerns with this bill, and a lot of those concerns hinge upon this 6-to-1 matching program that, in the end, is a new mandatory spending program that will have to be funded, have to be funded by the taxpayers to make up the difference if corporate money that is now going to be used--that we can't take right now as congressional candidates--is going to be used to fill the coffers of the campaigns that this author talked about.

I had no idea that the Democrats' solution to getting corporate money out of politics was to put more corporate money into campaign coffers of every Member of Congress. It doesn't make sense to me, which is why this bill doesn't make sense to me.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren, mentioned the NAACP, because the next gentleman that I am going to introduce, he and I both share Springfield, Illinois, which is known, after the 1908 race riots, to be somewhat of the birthplace of the NAACP.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am ready to close.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

But before I do, Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and that is not nearly enough to talk about all the bad provisions in this bill once again.

There are so many provisions in this bill that many of my colleagues graciously came down to the floor to talk about them. As a matter of fact, I have with me a file of letters from groups

like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU, the National Right to Life, and all others that have been outspoken in their opposition to this behemoth partisan piece of legislation.

Let me remind everybody once again: we Republicans--there are only three of us on the House Administration Committee--were not consulted at all by anyone who wrote this bill, nor by any of the groups who were pointed out at the press conference announcing this piece of legislation that they helped to write this bill. Make no bones about it, this shell game, this nebulous freedom from influence or whatever fund you want to call it, the CBO estimates they don't even have enough information on it. They are estimating the taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $1 billion, and that goes in addition to the over $2 billion that the rest of the bill is going to cost the taxpayers of this country.

Now, it is interesting, I just read a tweet--I never met the gentleman, Dan McLaughlin, but it is a pretty good explanation of what I think this bill is. His tweet says: ``Professional politicians do unethical things that they've written the rules to allow.''

This bill has written the rules to allow Members of Congress to enrich their own campaign coffers that will eventually be on the backs of government and the taxpayers. This is not why we should be here.

I am for the American voter. I support that every eligible voter have easier ways to register to vote and get easier access to the polls. What I am not for is for Washington, D.C., taking over elections and enriching the campaign coffers of the people who sit in this room.

I know what difficult elections look like. It is the worst of partisan politics, and it is personal to me. I know what it looks like when people take well-intentioned laws and use them to their political advantage. I don't want that to happen, and I believe H.R. 1 will allow that to happen.

We have had disagreements. I respect the fact that my colleagues have come here to debate this bill, but this is the furthest thing from a bipartisan bill. I can't say it enough how opposed to this bill I am.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague from North Carolina's assertion that we have to be cognizant of what is happening in rural America and how, maybe a top- down approach from Washington may not be the best approach when we might not have public transportation opportunities in many of the rural areas that he and I both serve.

But, as Mr. Butterfield is a member of the House Administration Committee, I would have hoped that this amendment would have been offered during the committee markup, the markup, the only markup that was held on this 622-page bill. We offered 28 amendments on the Republican side and not a single one was accepted.

These are the types of amendments I would have loved to have seen have bipartisan support in the committee process because I am from a rural area. I understand it is sometimes difficult for people in rural areas to vote.

But we have got to leave it up to the States and localities to be able to determine where these polling places are going to go, especially in the rural areas.

We have a hard enough time having somebody here in Washington figure out where everybody is going to be in an office every 2 years. Can you imagine somebody in a concrete building out here in Washington, D.C., determining where a polling place should or should not be in a town that I represent in central Illinois?

That is my problem with this bill; it is a top-down approach that takes away the ability for locals to really truly get polling places in areas that are accessible for every voter to be able to cast their vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want every single American to be able to vote. Every vote, every single vote in every American vote deserves to be counted and protected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from North Carolina is right. We had a good, healthy discussion on how rural voters could be adversely impacted by the original language that was in the bill that would have required polling places to be next to areas of mass transit.

Well, as we both know, there are many areas we serve that don't have access to mass transit. My problem is not with what this amendment does. My problem, again, is with the process.

My problem is how are we going to determine--and my biggest fear is that if Washington is determining where polling places should go, maybe we are not allowing the locals to determine best how to ensure that voters get easiest access to being able to cast their vote.

I want to work with the gentleman from North Carolina to address many rural needs, especially when it comes to our oversight responsibility of elections. And I certainly hope--I do believe this amendment will pass--and I certainly hope, if it becomes a law, which I don't believe H.R. 1 will become law, but I would really encourage us to be able to work together after this is done and maybe work in a separate fashion to address rural voting communities' needs. And I look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I know we have a lot of amendments, so I will go ahead and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, as I mentioned earlier, I would have liked to have seen these amendments offered during our House Administration markup as my good friend from Maryland is also a member of the House Administration Committee.

There was some discussion on issues like this and I was under the impression, during that markup process, that provisions like my opponent put into this amendment were already part of the bill.

But let me add, this amendment would turn businesses and corporations into partisan political entities and shareholder meetings and votes into political conventions.

It would require corporations to poll their shareholders on whether the corporation's political spending should be

made in support of, in opposition to Republican, Democratic, Independent, or other political party candidates and political committees.

Business decisions drive corporations' political spending. This would inject partisan political considerations into corporate political spending.

And let me remind the American people, corporations are banned by law currently to be able to give directly to candidates or to organizations that will directly support or oppose candidates during an election cycle. This is going to further polarize our political environment.

This amendment also relies on unconstitutionally vague and intent- based standards for what corporate spending is covered by the shareholder preference assessment requirement. It is going to encourage the current practice of activists taking hold of proxy advisory firms to socially engineer public policies through proxy shareholder votes. There is no transparency to proxy advisory firms.

I am opposed to this amendment because it is vague and impractical, and would, again, infringe upon free speech. It is not clear what speech is covered under this amendment and that is, perhaps, the worst part.

The practical effect of this amendment would be that the companies would not have shareholder elections under this new standard. Many would probably stop paying dues to trade associations because the language might be construed to cover that. That would be a bomb on many of the largest and most important trade groups. No similar requirement for other organizations as part of this bill, of course.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, look, I don't own too many stocks outside of mutual funds, but I do have one that I get statements to ask me to cast a vote for those members who are currently members of the board of directors or running to be. What I do is use the disclosure database OpenSecrets. I find out the political spending of these individuals who are going to determine the outcome of the stock that I have invested in that, hopefully, will grow in value, because that is why people invest in the stock market, and that is why people invest in corporate entities that may be publicly traded.

The problem I have with this amendment is I thought corporate money wasn't supposed to go to candidates. I don't take corporate dollars. Frankly, I am probably one of the ones standing in this institution tonight who had many of these super-PAC dollars spent against me in the last election. They can't take corporate dollars.

But the issue at hand is, in another part of the bill where this new Freedom From Influence Fund is put together, they are now going to use corporate dollars to create a fund that is flowing through the Federal Treasury that should be going to infrastructure, should be going to pediatric cancer research. Instead, it is going to flow into this new shell that is going to have corporate money go directly to congressional candidates, which is illegal now.

That, to me, is the biggest problem with this bill, and that, to me, is a problem with this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to a discussion on many other amendments throughout this long evening.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, while I appreciate my good friend from Florida's amendment, this amendment doesn't go far enough. It does nothing to stem the practice of ballot harvesting.

Ballot harvesting is a practice of States allowing any person to collect any number of absentee ballots and then deliver them to the polls. It could be even after election day.

This practice, of course, is ripe for fraud, and we saw most recently in North Carolina how it can be abused to the advantage of political campaigns.

In North Carolina's Ninth District, the individual who harvested ballots for a Republican, where we will now have a special election, was caught because the practice is illegal. It is unlikely that he would have been caught in a State like California, because the practice is perfectly legal.

Take the current law in California. A signature is invalid if the ballot turned in by a harvester doesn't match a signature in the voter file, but the campaign can cure this by getting the voter in question to submit an affidavit that they voted. Then that signature only has to match the signature in the voter file, not the signature on the ballot.

A harvester could theoretically take a bunch of ballots, submit them with forged signatures, and then collect signatures afterward, since the campaigns would later get a list of the signatures that were rejected.

Loose standards relating to providing notice to voters whose signatures were mismatched, as well as a lengthy cure process without any safeguards, disenfranchises voters who showed up and cast votes before or on election day.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, last year, in the 2018 election, a powerful message was sent to this Congress that the public wants us to clean up our politics, fight corruption, unrig the system, and make sure that voting rights are protected.

I think part of the reason the message was so strong is that, for the last 8 years under a Republican Congress, there has been no progress made on any of those priorities, so there is this pent-up demand out there among the public. They want their voice back. H.R. 1 is our opportunity to give them their voice back.

The message they are sending is very simple. The first message is: Make it possible for us to get to the ballot box without running an obstacle course.

It is inconceivable, it is incomprehensible, that more than 50 years after John Lewis, our colleague, was bloodied on the Edmund Pettus Bridge protesting for voting rights, we still can't get it right in America when it comes to voting.

That is ridiculous. We need to make it more possible to register and vote in this country so that people can get to the ballot box and their voices can be heard. That is one thing they are saying to us.

The other thing they are saying to us is, when you get to Washington, if you are a lawmaker, if you serve in an office of public trust, behave yourself, abide by ethics, be accountable to the people, remember who sent you there, and be transparent. We have provisions in H.R. 1 that strengthen ethics and accountability, as we should.

The third thing they said to us, loud and clear, was, when you get to Washington, don't get tangled up in the money, don't let the special interests and the insiders call the shots on priorities in Congress, remember who sent you, and fight for us. So we have measures in here to clean up the campaign finance system, create more disclosure, transparency, so we know where that secret money is coming from, building a new system of funding campaigns in America that is not owned by the special interests and the big money.

Let's build a new system of funding campaigns in America that is not owned by the special interests and the big money and the insiders. Let's build a system that is owned by the American people, where they call the shots, where small donors can have their contributions matched so that their voice is amplified, so they are the ones who run the show, so candidates go to them and listen to what they have to say instead of hanging out with the lobbyists and the big-money crowd.

That is what this bill offers.

My colleagues on the other side keep talking about how this is going to be taxpayer money for this system. Find me the provision. There is no provision in this bill that says that any taxpayer money is going to go to this system, because it is not.

We have come up with an elegant solution where we go to the lawbreakers, the people who are leaning on our system and breaking the law, and we ask them, with a small surcharge, to contribute to this fund. That is where the match will come from.

We are going to the people who aren't playing fair with our system, and we are asking them to underwrite a clean election system. That is how it should work.

Let's restore the voice of the people. Let's pass H.R. 1.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for all her hard work on this bill.

I am concerned that there is a collective delirium that seems to have infected part of this Chamber. I keep hearing our colleagues on the other side say that the public financing system, the 6-to-1 matching system that we want to set up, is taxpayer funded.

Hear this: It is not taxpayer funded. It is not taxpayer funded. It is not taxpayer funded.

It is lawbreaker funded.

We are setting up a fund, called the freedom from influence fund, because we don't want the big money and the special interests to exercise influence in our campaigns anymore.

The freedom from influence fund will be filled with dollars that come from putting a surcharge, an assessment, on people who break the law: corporations who have engaged in criminal activity or are subject to civil penalties. Corporate malfeasance, that is where the dollars will come from. The people who are breaking the law, they are going to fund the freedom from influence account that will be there to match small donations.

Now, let me tell you why it is so important that small donors be the ones that have the power.

If you are a candidate and you have to raise money for your campaign, right now, in order to raise the money you need, you have to go to the deep pocket and the PACs and the lobbyists.

And here is what happens: You start to think like the company you keep. So if you are hanging around with those folks because that is where you are raising your money, you are going to start putting their priorities first, not the public's priorities.

But if we have a 6-to-1 matching system funded by lawbreakers, not taxpayers----

Mr. Chair, if we have a matching system that gives power to small donors, now the candidate is going to say: If I want to raise money from my campaign and power my campaign, I am going to go spend time with real people in my district. I am going to go to a house party where somebody can give $25 or $50, and then that 6-to-1 match will come in and I can power my campaign.

So instead of hanging out with the lobbyists on K Street or with the big money donors or with the PACs and super-PACs, I am going to spend time with people in my district. They are going to tell me what their priorities are, and then I am going to go to Washington and I am going to fight for them.

That is why we are creating this system: to take power away from the PACs and the big money and the insiders who are calling the shots now and give it back to the people. That is why this bill is called the For the People Act.

So let's restore their voice, give them back the power that they deserve, and give them their rightful ownership of their own democracy.

Mr. Chair, let's support H.R. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him for his work on House Administration. I know, as well, that Congressman Anthony Brown helped with this particular amendment.

This is really critical. This is all about, and H.R. 1, in large part, is about the journey to the ballot box, and how do we make that journey easier for people; how do we make sure that they can get there without too much of an undue burden; and that is what this would do for rural voters.

This would require that States ensure that the polling places are located in rural areas. So this idea that somebody in Washington is going to be deciding where the location is, that is preposterous. We are just saying make sure that the State figures it out; and so each State can decide what makes the most sense in terms of placing these voting places for rural voters.

So it is a very, very commonsense amendment. I want to thank the gentleman for introducing it and, definitely, I support it.

Mr. Chairman, as you know from the discussion today, we obviously feel very strongly that there needs to be as much disclosure as possible and transparency and accountability when it comes to how money flows into the political arena. I think the public has a particular apprehension about how insidious spending can be when it has to do with government contractors. The public deserves to know who is spending in their politics and, particularly, if contractors--who are the ones who are going to get these government contracts--are spending in a way that could potentially influence the contracting decisions. In a sense, what is happening is people are leaning on the government potentially using money and influence in a way that cuts against what the public interests might be.

That is why prohibiting the executive branch from even considering-- that is what this rider does. It actually prohibits the executive branch from even sitting down and considering whether there should be certain rules that should govern what happens in the contractor space in terms of political spending. That doesn't make any sense. That doesn't make common sense that the executive branch ought to be able to figure out some rules so that that transparency is in place.

That is why we want to repeal it. That is why we have that in H.R. 1. I oppose this amendment that would strike the repeal.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding, and I thank her for her amendment.

I would just say very quickly, I think this is a good amendment that actually improves the bill. And to the point of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), it is because technology is changing quickly all the time and one has to kind of keep ahead of the curve on that to make sure the decisions are made in a sensible way, that having a committee that can assemble the kind of expertise that you need to bring to bear on a decision like this makes perfect sense. It can allow the EAC to function better.

Evaluating these security grants, I think, makes a lot of sense, and they can keep up-to-date on what the changing technology is so that the EAC can benefit from that input.

So I think it is an outstanding amendment. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms.

Scanlon) for introducing it. I support it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The gentleman is right. There are examples of these systems across the country. Actually, Maryland has, now, two jurisdictions that have embraced public financing.

You are worried about the moderates being wiped out. In fact, what is happening is the moderates are fleeing the political town square because they feel like their vote doesn't matter and their engagement doesn't matter because they support people who then go to places where laws are made, and those folks are getting taken hostage by the big money and the special interests.

So the smart moderate voter out there says: What is the point? I am going to opt out of the political system.

And when they vacate the political town square, then the extremes run in and they fill the vacuum.

So, actually, if you want to bring moderates back in, if you want to bring citizens across the political spectrum back into our system, create something that makes them feel empowered. That is what this small donor matching system is all about. Then you will get these people who have run up into the hills and have said: My democracy doesn't respect me anymore.

By the way, these are the ballasts in the ship of state, those kind of folks, engaged citizens who feel like the democracy should work for them. But the evidence they get every day is that the big money is running the show: Why don't I just save myself, you know, my dignity, by stepping back, because why am I going to pretend that my voice actually matters, that my involvement matters?

We create a system that makes them feel like they have power again, and they will come out of the hills. They will come back down into the political town square. They will help create that moderation that you are talking about, because they are solid citizens who care about their democracy.

So this is a very important amendment because it will give us a retrospective on how the system is working. We can collect that data, and then that will inform any improvements we want to make going forward.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentlewoman on her amendment, and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I commend her and congratulate her on her success in bringing this important legislation to the floor of the House.

I want to salute our colleague from Maryland, Congressman John Sarbanes, for being a relentless and persistent advocate, for honoring the Constitution of the United States and giving people confidence that their voice and their vote count as much as anyone's in this country.

That is what H.R. 1 is about: giving people confidence that we can do what we say without the influence of big,

dark, special interest money weighing in on the process.

Our Constitution, Mr. Chairman, as you know, begins, ``We the people,'' a beautiful statement of purpose for our Nation. ``We the people.''

Our Founders envisioned a government that would work for the people, serving the people's interests, fighting for their aspirations, hopes, and dreams.

We have a responsibility to honor that vision of our Founders, honoring our oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, honoring the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform for the sacrifices that they make for our freedom and freedom throughout the world, and worthy of the aspirations of our children. We can only do this if we have a government that is committed to transparency, to as much bipartisanship as possible, and to being unifying for our country.

In the election, the American people voted for just that. They voted for a Congress that would restore transparency, bipartisanship, and unity and be unifying in Washington, D.C., so that the government would again--I can't say it enough--work for the people.

On day one, reflecting the priorities of our outstanding freshman class, our new Democratic majority honored the people's trust by introducing H.R. 1, the For the People Act.

Again, let me salute Congressman John Sarbanes, the chair of our Democracy Reform Task Force, who was the godfather of this bill.

Today, we are proud to be bringing this transformative legislation to the floor of the House. H.R. 1--and it is H.R. 1 because it is of primary importance--restores the people's faith that government will work for the people and not the special interests.

We are ending the dominance of big, dark, special interest money in politics.

We are ensuring clean, fair elections with Congressman John Lewis, our hero, with his Voter Empowerment Act, to increase access to the ballot box.

Democrats or Republicans or people who are Independent, who do not register with a party, should want everyone to be able to vote without obstacles. This legislation will remove obstacles to participation. Whether obstacles of closing polling places in certain neighborhoods, obstacles of reducing hours that those polling places are open, reducing the number of days for early voting, and the rest, it will reduce those obstacles.

We also are protecting the sacred right to vote through Congresswoman Terri Sewell's H.R. 4, which is an offspring of this legislation, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, to secure, again, and restore the Voting Rights Act. It is part of H.R. 1, but it will be taken up separately because of the need to establish the constitutional basis in an ironclad way as we go forward.

I am so pleased, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee for reinstating the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections led by Congresswoman Marcia Fudge which began its out-of-Washington hearings in Brownsville, Texas. I was just in Texas, and people were delighted that Chairwoman Fudge's subcommittee came there to hear the stories of voter suppression that exists throughout the country, especially among people who may have a last name that may sound foreign to some and questionable therefore to them, but who are American citizens eligible to vote.

We are cleaning up corruption and ensuring that public officials again work for the people's interests. You can't say it enough, Mr. Chairman.

We must pass this legislation so we can break the grip of special interests. We talk about obstacles to participation and suppression of the vote, and we talk about what we talked about earlier, whether it is voting, number of polling places, number of hours, number of days, degree of identification that is required in some areas more so than in others and different surnames and the rest, but one of the biggest suppressors of the vote is the suffocation of the airwaves by big, dark special interest money. There are some people in our country--I hope none of them in this body--who think that the only way to win an election is to suppress the vote one way or another, and bombarding and suffocating the airwaves with information that is not factual, by disrupting elections and by putting out messages in the social media that are misleading, the resources that make all of this possible are as much a voter suppressor as anything you can name.

So that is why when we put forth our For the People agenda; one, to lower healthcare costs by reducing the cost of prescription drugs; secondly, to increase paychecks, lower healthcare costs, bigger paychecks by building the infrastructure of America in a green way, people had confidence that we could do that because H.R. 1, which was essential to our For the People agenda, would, again, diminish the role of big, special interest money and increase the voice of every person in our country, including increase the impact of small donor participation in elections.

When we put power back in the hands of the American people, as this legislation does, we can make much more progress on hard issues facing our Nation, and the American people know that. It removes a great deal of skepticism that they have in politics and government. It instills confidence that their voice will be heard, that their cause will be addressed, and that their interests will be served.

Again, lowering healthcare costs by reducing the cost of prescription drugs, people's voices will be heard, a big issue in re-election; increasing paychecks by rebuilding the infrastructure of America in a bold, green and modern way; safeguarding consumer protections, workers' rights and the rights of the LGBTQ community; and addressing the concerns of our beautiful Dreamers in legislation that we will take up and launch next week; protecting clean air and clean water, confronting the climate crisis, and so much more will be taken up.

Let me add that a bill that we passed last week--which was historic in the House--finally passing a bill for commonsense background checks for gun violence prevention, again, defies the big money in that arena.

There should be nothing partisan or political about empowering the American people and making sure that government works for them. Our Founders provided a vision for our country. They wrote a constitution making us the freest people in the world, a model for the rest of the world that enabled people--oh, thank God they made it amendable so that we could ever expand power, voting rights, and the rest.

What is exciting about this Congress, which has over 100 women in it for the first time, is that in the course of this Congress, we will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of women having the right to vote. But the right to vote must be accompanied by removing obstacles to that participation, and that is what we are doing today.

How do we answer our Founders if one day we are meeting them in the next life?

How do we say to them: I did everything in my power to suppress the vote?

Or do we say: Honoring your vision, we removed every obstacle for those who are legitimately eligible to vote to do so and to have their vote counted as cast?

To honor the oath we take and to honor the people's trust, I strongly urge a bipartisan vote for this bill, for the people.