Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) 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 purposes, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we had quite the debate on this bill in the Rules Committee last night, and I expect the debate on the floor today will be along similar lines. Today's bill is H.R. 1, which my friends on the other side of the aisle are calling by the misnomer ``For the People Act.'' Unfortunately, this bill is completely misnamed.

It is not for the people. It is, instead, for the Democratic majority, by the Democratic majority, in hopes of maintaining the Democratic majority for many years to come. Every provision in this bill reflects that goal.

That began with the process the majority used to put this bill together. H.R. 1 was referred to 10 different committees, yet only one, House Administration, held a markup. My friends hold a 2-to-1 advantage on that committee. There are only three Republicans who can participate.

Later, we will be hearing from some of the Republican ranking members of these committees, each of whom will talk about provisions that they had hoped to address, had their respective committees marked up the bill. This failure to allow other committees with jurisdiction to mark up the bill reinforces the desire of the majority to push this bill through as quickly as possible without any additional consideration. Without further hearings and markups, it is all too easy for the majority to sweep the bill's flaws under the rug and pass it quickly without allowing the American people to see what they are up to.

This bill would be more aptly named the ``For the Politicians Act'' or ``Welfare for Politicians Act.'' It reinforces the idea that the majority cares only about passing a bill that will lead to more Democrats in the House of Representatives.

We do not have time today to go over every provision in this bill, but for now, I will take a moment to point out some of the bigger flaws in this product.

First, H.R. 1 takes taxpayer dollars and uses them to create a special piggy bank for campaigns. That is right, Democrats want to use taxpayer dollars of the American people to finance their political campaigns. H.R. 1 creates a matching program for small-dollar campaign contributions, thereby shifting taxpayer dollars to politicians to run their campaigns. In essence, Democrats are demanding that your tax dollars be used to subsidize and fund political candidates.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, since 2000, total spending on Federal elections has exploded, going from $2.7 billion that cycle to $6.4 billion in 2016. With so much money being raised from private sources, one wonders why the majority wants to waste taxpayer dollars adding even more money into campaigns.

Second, H.R. 1 completely takes over elections, removing authority from States and local election boards and giving it to Washington, D.C. Currently, States have the authority to determine how they want to structure their own elections, including voter registration, timing, and even redistricting. But all that goes away under H.R. 1. States would no longer be able to set voter registration requirements, nor hold elections where and how often they want, nor reapportion voters into appropriate districts. Instead, under H.R. 1, Washington, D.C., takes over all these functions.

I doubt any secretary of state or supervisor of elections in America supports this federalization of the election process. In fact, last night in the Rules Committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, I entered into the record a letter from the

Oklahoma State Election Board opposing H.R. 1 on precisely these grounds.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that letter again today.

Oklahoma State Election Board,

Oklahoma City, OK, March 4, 2019.

Re Election Administration Provisions of H.R. 1.

Hon. Tom Cole,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Cole: As Oklahoma's chief state

election official, I am very proud of Oklahoma's election

system. Our state has one of the most effective and efficient

election systems in the world. It is uniform, it is fair, it

is secure, it is accurate and it is fast.

As the House of Representatives prepares to consider H.R.

1, I want to take a moment to express some concerns about

several of its provisions related to election administration.

While I believe H.R. 1 to be well-intentioned by its

sponsors, its ``one-size-fits-all'' requirements for state

election systems would require Oklahoma to make extensive

changes to the way we run elections. I am concerned that some

of H.R. 1's mandates could negatively impact the very things

Oklahoma's election system does so well.

Based on my review of H.R. 1, here is a list of my top

concerns.

``Voting by Mail'': To combat Oklahoma's past history of

absentee ballot fraud, several decades ago the Oklahoma

Legislature enacted legislation requiring most voters to have

their identity confirmed by a notary public when voting by

absentee ballot. Oklahoma law also requires absentee ballots

to be received by the county election board no later than

7:00 p.m. on Election Day. These procedures help prevent

fraud and enable county election boards to have 100% of

absentee ballots counted on election night. Unfortunately,

H.R. 1 seems to do away with these safeguards and

efficiencies, instead requiring county election boards to (1)

accept signed affidavits in lieu of notarized ones and (2) to

accept an absentee ballot postmarked on Election Day. H.R.

1's mandates would prevent Oklahoma from counting all

absentee ballots by Election Day, would require the counting

of absentee ballots to continue for days or weeks after an

election, and would take away a critical security feature of

our election system.

``Early voting'': In Oklahoma, county election boards

typically have a very small staff. (Many have only the

secretary and one assistant.) For federal and state

elections, Oklahoma currently allows ``early voting'' on the

Thursday, Friday and Saturday prior to Election Day. Most

counties have a single early voting site, but several have

two sites. Even with the assistance of absentee voting boards

paid for by the State Election Board, most counties barely

have enough budget and staff to successfully conduct early

voting on the three days currently required. H.R. 1's

requirement for FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS of early voting is

simply not feasible given the small budgets and staffing

levels of the 77 county election boards. This would make it

virtually impossible for county election board staff to

perform their other critical duties (e.g., processing mail

absentee ballots, processing voter registration applications,

and preparing supplies for precinct workers) if they are

instead conducting early voting during this time.

``Same Day Voter Registration'': Oklahoma has a very

reasonable deadline for voter registration (applications must

be submitted by the 24th day prior to an election). H.R. 1

requires county election boards to conduct voter registration

during ``early'' voting periods and on Election Day. This

mandate is not currently feasible with the current funding

and staffing levels of county election boards. The logistics

of predicting how many ballots to print and how many precinct

officials to assign to polling places, with the number of

potential voters unknown, would be extremely difficult and

inefficient. Same day voter registration increases the risk

that due to error or fraud an ineligible person is allowed to

register and vote.

``Provisional ballots'': Oklahoma has a county-based

election system. While Oklahoma uses the same voting system

statewide, for security reasons each county's system is

siloed and does not directly interact with other counties'

systems. (For example, one county cannot print or count

another county's ballot.) Oklahoma law requires a voter to

vote in the assigned polling place in the county where the

voter is registered. Provisional ballots are issued for a

variety of reasons, and, if eligible, are counted after 2:00

p.m. on the Friday following Election Day. However, H.R. 1

requires a provisional ballot to be counted even if it is

cast in the wrong county, which creates a security risk and

is not currently possible given Oklahoma's election security

features.

``Online Voter Registration'': Oklahoma will implement

online voter registration in the near future. Unfortunately,

H.R. 1 sets different requirements for its federally-mandated

online voter registration system than is required by Oklahoma

law. (For example, H.R. 1 does everything from defining

acceptable signature requirements, to mandating a telephone

version of an online voter registration system, to

micromanaging the features required for a state's customer

support system.) Further, Oklahoma's future online voter

registration system will require that a registrant's identity

be conformed by matching the person's information with an

existing driver license or state I.D., but H.R. 1 sets

different (and less secure) standards for confirming a

registrant's identity.

``Federalism'': While I believe H.R. 1's sponsors are well-

intentioned, a great many of its election provisions--even

those that are not concerns--relate to policy decisions that

are best left to the states under our federal system. I am

concerned that, in its current form, H.R. 1 could lead to

costly and lengthy litigation.

While these are not my only concerns, they are the most

serious. I appreciate your representation of our state in

Congress, and I feel it is my duty as Oklahoma's chief

election official to make you aware of some of the potential

negative impacts H.R. 1 could have on our state's election

system.

If you ever have any questions about elections in Oklahoma,

please feel free to contact me or Assistant Secretary Pam

Slater. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Paul Ziriax, Secretary,

Oklahoma State Election Board.

Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that, in the case of redistricting, if the State cannot reach a resolution, H.R. 1 hands over the redistricting function to an unelected Federal court here in Washington, D.C. Everywhere you look, this bill represents an erosion of traditional State authority and a power grab for Democrats here in Washington.

Perhaps even more egregiously, the bill places limits on freedom of speech, criminalizing actions that we would currently describe as mere advocacy for candidates. Not since the Sedition Act of 1798 has the Federal Government tried to pass something that tramples so heavily on freedom of speech as H.R. 1. The bill is so bad in this regard that even the American Civil Liberties Union is opposing it, which is a perfect illustration of just how bad H.R. 1 really is.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Everywhere you look, H.R. 1 fails to do what the majority has promised. They have promised it is to be about returning power to the people. Instead, this bill only gives power and money to Democratic politicians. It takes away authority from States and gives it to the Federal Government, wastes taxpayer dollars on political campaigns, weakens the voting system, and limits freedom of speech.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how any Member can stand up with a straight face and support this bill. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend and distinguished Republican ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, fellow member of the Rules Committee, and classmate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my friend and the ranking Republican Member on the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the distinguished Republican ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to add a provision that bars candidates from receiving matching funds under this bill unless that candidate certifies that no tax lien exists on any property owned by that candidate by reason of a failure of the candidate to pay any Federal, State, or local tax.

Mr. Speaker, the logic of this is simple. If the majority is going to insist that millions--really, billions--of Federal tax dollars should be spent subsidizing campaigns, then the candidates should also certify that they have paid all the taxes due from them. If a candidate has a tax lien against them, then they should not receive taxpayer dollars to subsidize their campaign. This is common sense and simple fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying measure. The majority has brought up a misnamed bill that instead serves only to preserve its own power. H.R. 1 will create a taxpayer- funded ATM to waste Federal dollars on political campaigns.

Let me say that again: to waste Federal dollars on campaigns.

My friends are worried about the power of money, but they are injecting billions of new taxpayer dollars into this. And not only that, the taxpayer has no say in where those dollars go. They don't get to pick a candidate or whatever. We are just going to willy-nilly have their dollars support candidates whom they may or may not agree with.

This does not only apply to Democrats and Republicans. There are fringe candidates who will get funding under this, too, candidates, quite frankly, who will probably embarrass my friends and ourselves.

So I think this is an enormously misguided idea. It will take over elections and voter registration from States and transfer power to Washington.

Let me say that again. My friends are voting to literally turn over the State election operations of 50 separate States and federalize them. They haven't talked to very many secretaries of state. I think there was only one who actually was allowed to testify in opposition to this bill.

Instead, we are going to foist off billions of dollars in unpaid mandates on every State in the country so my friends can continue this misguided effort to alter the political landscape of the greatest Republic and democracy in the world.

This bill will weaken voting systems and weaken the enforcement mechanism that guards against fraud, and it will undermine Americans' fundamental First Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my friends on the other side to reconsider their course of action. This bill is not going to be heard by the Senate; it will never be signed by the President of the United States; and instead of building a bipartisan coalition for election and campaign reform, it will partisanize this process further.

There was and still is an opportunity to have this bill considered in markups across every committee of jurisdiction. Instead, the majority is simply ramming it through, using a committee where they hold a 2-to- 1 majority and limiting, frankly, the ability of Members to participate in the process of writing the bill.

We can do better than this, Mr. Speaker, and we should strive to do better than this now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 172 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 172, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

The resolution self-executes Chairwoman Lofgren's manager's amendment and provides for the consideration of 72 amendments debatable for 10 minutes each.

The rule also provides authority for en bloc amendments, debatable for 20 minutes each.

The rule also provides 10 minutes of final general debate after amendment consideration equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their designees.

Lastly, the rule provides suspension authority through Friday, March 8, 2019.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this past weekend, I had the honor of traveling to Selma, Alabama, with over 40 of our congressional colleagues on a pilgrimage to observe the 54th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the violent confrontation at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.

That confrontation seized the Nation's attention and launched one of the most important periods in the history of our Republic, culminating in the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

When our colleague, Representative John Lewis, along with Martin Luther King and other civil rights pioneers, organized voters to register, crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and marched from Selma to Montgomery, they did so knowing that their lives and the lives of those they loved were at risk.

The institutional opposition they faced was fierce and violent, but their message of nonviolence and justice strengthened them and their resolve.

They marched and risked their lives in order to secure the right to vote. They understood that they would never be equal citizens of the United States until they had a voice in their destiny, and they understood that the United States could never be the republic it aspired to become until all of its citizens had the right to participate in decisions affecting their future.

We undeniably have made progress since then, but not enough, and frighteningly, we seem to be moving backward.

In recent years, we have seen new forms of voter suppression emerge, whether in the guise of strict voter ID laws, purges of voting rolls, partisan gerrymandering, or unfounded allegations of voter fraud.

As an election official, election protection organizer, and voting rights advocate for over 3 decades, I have seen all of these tactics in play. In fact, several of us in the Pennsylvania delegation were able to join this Congress in part because a Federal court ordered that Pennsylvania's congressional districts had been so gerrymandered that they must be redrawn, they were unconstitutional.

We have heard, and will undoubtedly hear again today, that Democrats are pushing voting rights reform because of the expectation that new voters will likely be Democratic voters. I would hope that those with a sense of history would resist this, recognizing that the very same argument was used to oppose the Voting Rights Act in 1965 out of fear that those who had been oppressed would factor that experience into their voting decisions.

It is telling that a similar fear motivates some in this Chamber today who would rather deprive citizens of a fundamental right than face them at the ballot box.

The cynicism of those who would continue to place barriers in the way of those who wish to vote goes a long way to explaining why our citizens lack faith in us to work for them.

Those with power, voting and otherwise, too often try to preserve that power through means that are neither transparent nor understood by the people of this country. We have to be bold, and shed some of that institutional power in order to regain the trust of the people.

I thank my colleague, Representative John Sarbanes, who has worked for years in tirelessly crafting this legislation. I also thank Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team for making this bill the top priority in the House for the 116th Congress. I am so proud that the first order of business of this Congress, our H.R. 1, is dedicated to good government and restoring trust in our democratic institutions.

Our elections are the bedrock of our democracy. During the recent midterm elections, the American people charged us, the new Congress, to make sure that our government works for them. They put their trust in us to champion our uniquely American creed: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

H.R. 1, the For the People bill, is our commitment to that trust. This reform package will address many of the barriers to democracy that prevent too many eligible voters from having their voices heard, including our seniors, communities of color, servicemembers, college students, those with disabilities, and low-income families. But it is up to us to see it through.

I am immensely proud to be part of a Caucus that is prioritizing legislation that the people are asking for, legislation that will protect the right to vote for every American and ensure clean and fair elections, that will end the dominance of big money in our politics, and that will crack down on corruption to make sure that public servants put the public interest first.

Recent polls have found that many Americans do not vote because of difficulty registering or accessing their polling places and that Americans are really concerned about the ethical standards of their elected representatives and government officials and are equally concerned about the influence of special interests and corruption in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority takes what the people are asking for seriously. This is a bill that addresses their concerns and resets our democracy so that it works for the people, not special interests.

H.R. 1 will make it easier for eligible Americans to vote. Allowing and enabling Americans to vote should not be a divisive partisan issue. Our Nation

can only stand to benefit when all eligible voters have a voice.

The very fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have greater electoral success when fewer people come out to vote is not just a stain on our democracy but a direct threat to it.

Automatic voter registration will make it easier for young adults and working families to make sure that they are not left out of the process due to issues with registration.

This bill will make critical fixes to voter purging policies that have disenfranchised millions since section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder. Over 4 million more names were purged from voter rolls after that decision came down than they were in the years before. These purges affected poor minority communities at a vastly disproportionate rate, further marginalizing people who already face significant institutional barriers to voting.

Election security has been a bipartisan concern across the country for years, and H.R. 1 will make considerable investments to ensure our elections are secure, independent, and free from foreign interference. Empowering the Election Assistance Commission will allow States to get the funding they need to upgrade or improve their election infrastructure, and improvements in election administration will help protect voting systems from cyber threats.

Election infrastructure is critical, and this bill finally recognizes the role that Congress must play in protecting our elections.

A specific priority of mine that I am excited to see included in the bill will make it easier for persons with disabilities to participate in the electoral process. For too long, individuals with disabilities have faced barriers that prevent them from participating in our democracy at the ballot box. I have introduced legislation included in H.R. 1 that will direct and assist States to improve access to voter registration and the ballot box for persons with disabilities.

These democracy-driven policies represent just a handful of the voting rights reforms contained in H.R. 1. They will improve access to voting, promote integrity in the voting process, and ensure the security of our elections.

Going further, H.R. 1 acts to shine a light and address the dark money which the Citizens United decision unleashed into our politics. Each year that we do not act on reversing Citizens United, more and more untraceable money is spent on campaigns.

This bill will overhaul the Federal Election Commission, the FEC, so that we have a real cop on the beat to enforce our campaign finance laws.

It will upgrade political advertising disclosures and require donors giving more than $10,000 to politically active organizations to be publicly identified.

Simultaneously, this bill seeks to empower everyday Americans by creating a small-dollar match system that will bring more people into the conversation while reducing the impact large donors can have on any one campaign. While small-dollar campaign funding is relatively new to the Federal system, it has been trialed in States and larger cities to great effect.

I am proud that H.R. 1 also includes a bill that I drafted to keep Presidential inaugural funds from becoming shadowy slush funds or opportunities for dark forces, whether foreign or domestic, to influence our government. The bill will prohibit donations to inaugural funds by foreign nationals or corporations, ban personal use of inaugural funds by a candidate, and require disclosure of all donations and disbursements.

H.R. 1 will also help to restore voter confidence in our democracy by codifying ethics standards for all three branches of government. The bill requires the development of a code of ethics for Supreme Court Justices, mandatory recusal of Presidential appointees from matters that concern the President, and increased enforcement of the registration of foreign agents.

The bill will prohibit Members of Congress from using taxpayer funds to settle employment discrimination cases against them, preventing Members of Congress from hiding this conduct and protecting taxpayer money from being misused.

Finally, H.R. 1 will address Presidential conflicts of interest by requiring sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, to release their tax returns. Those occupying the highest office in the land should be required to show if they have financial interests that would influence their decisionmaking. Having an executive beholden in any way to a private company or a nation only serves to undermine our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Committee of Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from Oklahoma has any more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reforms in H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will remove barriers to our democracy that drown out the voices of too many Americans.

H.R. 1 will put the people back in charge. These reforms will bring about systemic change which, in turn, will lead to policy outcomes that improve the lives of all Americans.

From lowering the cost of prescription drugs to rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure to raising wages and creating better job opportunities, each of these policies requires the voice of the people to be fully heard and respected. They all rest on fixing our broken democracy.

We have heard the call for change from our friends, neighbors, and constituents. That is how I got here and how so many of my colleagues did, too.

To those people who voted for such historic change, know that Democrats hear you, and we are ready to give you the government you deserve.

Crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma last weekend was a poignant reminder that change does not come quickly, and it certainly does not come easily. Heroes like Representative John Lewis remind us of the sacrifices that were made in order to preserve our uniquely American creed: ``of the people, by the people, for the people.''

H.R. 1 is the top priority of Democrats because it will strengthen the very core of our democracy. It is a mandate with which we were entrusted by voters this past November, and it is the first step in restoring faith in our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to support this rule to show that you want big money out of politics. Support this bill to show that you believe voting should be made easier--not harder--for eligible voters, and support this rule to show that you believe those elected to public positions deserve to be held to the highest possible ethical standards.

In the words of our esteemed colleague, Representative Lewis: ``The fight to vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool or instrument that we have in a democratic society.''

To the American people: We hear you. In the words of the civil rights anthem, we must keep our eyes on the prize and hold on to the vision of a more perfect Union, one in which the voices of the people are heard and respected. Our Caucus is eager to restore the promise of our democracy and give you the government you deserve. That is why we are urging passage of H.R. 1--``For the People.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.