H.Res. 460

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise on behalf of more than 68 million Americans who lack access to adequate banking services. They are often shut out of banks because of fees tied to minimum balances, overdrafts, direct deposit penalties, and, of course, ATM charges. Or, worse, many live in bank deserts because, incredibly, even in 2019, their community lacks a bank or credit union altogether.

This leaves underbanked Americans to turn to unregulated, predatory payday lenders and check cashers that level obscene annual percentage rates. These parasitic institutions keep families in poverty and further cement the economic inequality which tears our country apart.

It does not have to be this way. Our United States Postal Service is in a unique position to provide affordable, consumer-driven financial services these millions of Americans need. With branches in every ZIP Code, from Paterson, New Jersey, to Elko, Nevada, to Barrow, Alaska, the post office's unmatched reach offers a world of opportunity.

In 2014, the USPS inspector general determined that the Postal Service is well positioned to expand its financial services offerings, which currently includes money orders, check cashing, and prepaid debit card services. The IG's report found there is a significant demand for these services from populations underserved by private banks that the Postal Service could fill perfectly.

It is difficult to overstate what this small change would do, Mr. Chairman. Postal banking would benefit Americans from every walk of life. Ninety percent of ZIP Codes lacking a bank or credit union are in rural areas. Bank branches are also sparse in low-income urban areas. Approximately 46 percent of Latino and 49 percent of African American households are underbanked.

Think about that. Democrats and Republicans alike could derive enormous benefits for their constituents. Talk about uniting America. It is a practical thing.

In a second study the USPS inspector general conducted in 2015, the IG concluded that expanding the Postal Service's current financial services offerings would not even cost much, is fully permissible under current statutory authority, and could generate $1.1 billion in additional revenue for the Postal Service, annually, after 5 years.

You know what has happened to the Postal Service and how in debt the Postal Service is because of a few foolish rules that are on the books.

This is not a novel concept. Postal services in 139 countries around the world offer some form of financial services, including every other developed country in the world.

Students of history can recall that the United States had a legendary Postal Savings System up to 1967--started in 1911--and managed over $3.4 billion in assets, or $35 billion in today's dollars, at the peak of its use. I want America to back those successes.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an essay I wrote for the Washington Monthly on modernizing the U.S. Postal Service to make the institution thrive once more and benefit tens of millions of Americans in the process. The piece was titled, ``Congress Is Sabotaging Your Post Office.''

[Apr./May/June 2019]

Congress Is Sabotaging Your Post Office

(By Bill Pascrell, Jr.)

The Larry Doby Post Office is located at 194 Ward Street in

Paterson, New Jersey, across the street from my congressional

office. Dedicated on August 28, 1933, by the legendary

Postmaster General James Farley, the structure was one of the

many built by Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration in the

throes of the Great Depression. While it may not have one of

the stunning murals created by Roosevelt's Section of

Painting and Sculpture, I still marvel at the managed

grandeur of its deco buttressing, the green glow of the

elevated banker's lamps off the marble walls, and the banks

of brass P.O. boxes. My hometown has bounced like a cork in

seas of social tumult, but the Ward Street post office has

endured as I've always known it.

There is a cynical trope that Congress spends too much time

naming post offices, but I don't view the matter as

insignificant. Post offices are open gates to American

history and markers of an optimistic past. Even as

smartphones and electronic communication permeate every

crevice of daily life, the United States Postal Service

(USPS) forms a lifeblood circulatory system connecting every

community in the Union. For this reason, my work to rename

the Ward Street building for Doby, an African American

baseball legend and favorite son of Paterson, remains a

highlight of my career.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Congress and the post

office, the problem isn't too much affection. For decades,

Congress's attitude toward the post has ranged from neglect

to hostility. As a result, the USPS is struggling. In

November 2018, it announced a net decline of $3.9 billion,

continuing a twelve-year negative run.

The agency has been subjected to withering criticism by a

spate of congressional hearings and Government Accountability

Office analyses. A recent task force created by President

Trump labeled the Postal Service's financial path

``unsustainable,'' and recommended changes that would push

the post closer to complete privatization. Under mounting

political pressure, the post office itself has endorsed

draconian layoffs and proposed ending Saturday delivery,

among other savage cuts.

What is causing all these troubles? Is the Postal Service

hopelessly outdated and dysfunctional? No. While it's

tempting to think of it as a mastodon from the pre-internet

era, the post remains one of the most impressive enterprises

on earth.

The USPS handles 47 percent of the world's mail, delivering

nearly 150 billion mail pieces annually. It delivers more in

sixteen days than UPS and FedEx, combined, ship in a year.

The agency has roughly half a million career employees spread

out across almost 31,000 locations. Post offices are tucked

into every state, across far-flung Native American

reservations, and in remote protectorates. If it were a

private business, the post would rank around fortieth on the

Fortune 500. And you can send a letter from coast to coast

for two quarters and a nickel--less than the cost of a candy

bar.

Not surprising, then, that Americans consistently rank the

post office among the most popular arms of government. A

February 2018 poll by the Pew Research Center, for example,

found that 88 percent of Americans have a positive view of

it. That's higher than the approval ratings for the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Reserve, and

the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It's true that technological change has affected the Postal

Service's fortunes. As people send fewer and fewer letters,

the volume of first-class mail continues to tumble; between

2016 and 2018, it dropped by more than 4.5 billion pieces.

This depresses the post's revenue, forcing it to take on more

debt, which in turn puts it under greater financial pressure.

But as online shopping slowly replaces in-person retail, the

post is sending and delivering more packages than ever

before, which compensates somewhat for lost revenue. Lower

mail volume is not the main issue.

In reality, most of the post's wounds are politically

inflicted. In the early 1970s, Congress passed legislation

that shoehorned the agency into a convoluted half-public,

half-corporate governing structure, to make it operate more

as a business. And in 2006, Congress required that the Postal

Service pre-fund its health benefit obligations at least

fifty years into the future. This rule has accounted for

nearly 90 percent of the post's red ink since.

For the most part, these harmful ``reforms'' have

originated on the political right. To argue that the Postal

Service needs to be privatized, conservatives need to show

that it is dysfunctional, and there's no better way to do

that than by weighing the agency down with impossible

financial obligations. It continues a generation-long pattern

of institutional vandalism by Republicans across government.

But ultimately,

both parties bear responsibility. I should know: I was in

Congress when we passed the 2006 bill. And, along with all my

colleagues, I made the mistake of voting for it.

But the good news is that just as Congress put the Postal

Service on its current dangerous trajectory, so can Congress

put it on a sustainable path, bringing our cherished

institution back to full health. In fact, I believe we can go

even further. With its massive infrastructure network, post

offices could revolutionize how the American people perform a

variety of essential tasks, from voting to paying taxes to

banking. Tapping into this network has the potential to

revitalize both the Postal Service and our democracy. Instead

of discussing how to cut the post office, we should be

talking about how to expand it.

Arguments about whether the post should operate like a

business date back to America's founding. While debating the

original Post Office Act, a group including Alexander

Hamilton argued that the post should support itself and make

money for the rest of the government. Others, including

George Washington and James Madison, didn't seem to care

whether it turned a profit. Jonathan Trumbull, the speaker of

the House of Representatives in 1792, observed that having

the post subsidize the circulation of periodicals would be

``among the surest means of preventing the degeneracy of a

free government.'' In the end, Washington and Madison won the

day. The government allowed printers to ship their newspapers

and magazines at a very low cost: one cent to destinations

within 100 miles, and one and a half cents to destinations

more than 100 miles away. This set off what one researcher

called ``the greatest explosion of newspapers in history''--

and with it an explosion in literacy.

By the mid-nineteenth-century mark, the Washingtonian view

of the post as a public good was deeply entrenched. An early

congressional postal commission posited that the post office

existed not for generating revenue but for ``elevating our

people in the scale of civilization, and binding them

together in patriotic affection.'' Legislation enacted

between 1845 and 1851 codified inexpensive letter postage and

further redefined the post's place in public life. The

ratification of these reforms signaled the full defeat of the

idea that the post must be independent. It was entitled to

government support, deficits be damned.

Over the ensuing hundred years, the post would usher in a

second American revolution. Delivery of home mail

precipitated road building and allowed Americans to fan out

and settle across the nation. Postal contracts sustained the

construction of transcontinental railways that would have

otherwise been economically unsustainable. And it was the

post office, not the military, that got the U.S. government

to finally invest in aviation and help birth commercial

flying.

The post has also been an agent of upward social mobility.

For generations, African Americans were locked out of good

government jobs. But as the federal bureaucracy began to

desegregate, black workers joined the USPS en masse. Under

the Harding and Coolidge administrations, black people made

up between 15 and 30 percent of postal employees, making the

agency one of America's foremost incubators of the black

middle class. The post also factored significantly into

Roosevelt's efforts to fight the Great Depression. Between

1932 and 1937, the government built more than 1,300 post

offices. Many were enhanced with the beautiful murals FDR

believed would bring art to the nation. The agency's central

role in America's development was perhaps best summarized in

the Postal Policy Act of 1958, when Congress declared that

the post was ``clearly not a business enterprise conducted

for profit'' but a public service designed to promulgate

``social, cultural, intellectual, and commercial intercourse

among the people of the United States.''

But, in the 1960s, that view began to change. After years

of underinvestment relative to the rise in demand for its

services, the post faced a huge mail backlog in Chicago. Ten

million pieces of undelivered mail piled up in the city, and

the Lyndon Johnson administration established a commission to

look into the agency. It was headed by a former AT&T chairman

and stacked with CEOs and business school deans. In 1970, the

post office was wracked by a debilitating worker strike. The

backlog and the strike spurred a political overreaction.

Following the strike and the commission's 1968

recommendations, Congress passed the Postal Reorganization

Act of 1970, which exiled the postmaster general from the

president's cabinet and downgraded the post office from a

federal department to an independent federal agency.

Ostensibly designed to modernize the post and free it from a

history of patronage, the legislation proved profoundly

shortsighted. It required that the post largely pay for its

operations out of its own revenues, and it split leadership

of the Postal Service between the postmaster general and a

board of governors, the latter of which has been largely

dominated by technocrats who see the post foremost as a

business. At the same time, however, the post was still

subject to congressional oversight. It's hard to imagine any

corporation that would agree to operate under this peculiar

hybrid structure. Even today most Americans don't realize

that despite their reliance on it, our post is not a part of

the government in the same way as the Department of

Agriculture or the Pentagon, and receives effectively no

support from the federal budget.

Unfortunately, the 1970 bill was only the first in a series

of legislative blows against the post. From 1808 until 1995,

Congress had a full congressional committee for the Postal

Service. But as part of his war on government, Speaker Newt

Gingrich relegated its duties to the present-day Oversight

and Reform Committee, where they were assigned to a postal

service subcommittee. In 2001, the Republican House majority

disbanded the subcommittee altogether.

But the most destructive change of all was the Postal

Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA). The bill has an

unfortunate history. It was hurried to the floor during a

lame-duck Congress weeks after Republicans were routed from

their twelve-year congressional majority in the 2006

midterms. Committee leaders told us that the legislation was

critical to ``saving'' the post, and we were rushed into

voting for the bill without fully considering its motivations

or long-term impacts. The legislation was passed by voice

vote--without objection. It was a blunder, one of the worst

pieces of legislation Congress has passed in a generation.

While the PAEA included some positive measures, including

giving the post increased autonomy over its rates, the law

generally tightened a noose around the USPS. It further

narrowed the post's charter and prohibited the Postal Service

from engaging in new activities outside of mail delivery. The

law's most destructive section, innocuously labeled ``Postal

Service Retirement and Health Benefits Funding,'' imposed an

unusual requirement on how the post covers its employee

health pensions. Prior to 2006, the post funded its pensions

like all agencies: pay as you go. Now, however, the agency

had to pre-fund the health care benefits of employees at

least fifty years in advance. To meet this requirement, the

post was obligated to place approximately $5.5 billion into a

pension fund each year between 2007 and 2016, followed by

additional large annual payments.

The measure has been a fiendish straitjacket, akin to

making a prospective homeowner cover an entire thirty-year

mortgage before the ink is dry on the deed. The provision is

even more onerous given that the government requires the

treasury to invest all postal workers' retiree money in

government bonds, guaranteeing miniscule returns.

Unsurprisingly, the post has defaulted on all of its pre-

funding payments since 2011, to the tune of at least $40

billion. In each of the last three years, the pre-funding

burden well exceeded the post's total losses. Overall, pre-

funding accounts for almost all of its losses since 2006.

No other agency or department is subject to this

requirement. So why is the Postal Service? The George W. Bush

administration demanded its inclusion and used the savings it

generated to try to balance the budget. Dutiful Republicans

said it was necessary to ensure that the post doesn't

generate a ``huge unfunded liability'' that would require a

bailout from the government, an absurd posture they still

maintain. But the requirement's main upshot has been to

plunge the Postal Service into a perpetual fiscal crisis that

in turn justifies further attacks from the right. Full

privatization is still neither politically nor logistically

feasible, but that won't stop Republicans and their allies

from trying.

Trump's recent Postal Service task force fits into the

gradual push toward privatization. The task force's ultimate

conclusion bore all the hallmarks of a far-right hit job.

Rather than focusing on the Postal Service's pre-funding

provision--which the final report actually recommended

keeping--the task force emphasized the supposed need to lower

Postal Service delivery standards and eliminate employees'

collective bargaining rights. The task force also recommended

diluting the post's universal service guarantee, which would

wreck the agency's functionality in rural communities. In a

country where rural citizens already feel detached from the

rest of the nation, such an outcome would only widen existing

cleavages. Convened in secret, Trump's task force was

designed with the Orwellian purpose not to save the post, but

to further weaken it.

I am heartened that Democrats routinely unite to oppose

privatization. But merely saying that the post should not be

privatized comes from a defensive posture. The solutions we

pursue must be bolder.

Any serious reformation of our post begins with eliminating

the odious pre-funding anchor. But that's only the start. To

really improve the agency, we need to fully reject the idea

that it should be run like a business. There is a reason why

the Founders made the Postal Service a federal department,

and there's a reason why it remained that way through the

better part of the twentieth century. Policymakers wanted to

make sure that Americans could affordably send and receive

mail from anywhere. In pursuing that aim, the USPS has played

a key role in developing our country. To that end, we should

evaluate reviving the U.S. Post Office Department and making

the postmaster general a cabinet official once more. It's

time that we again treat this agency like a public good

rather than a private business.

Nowhere is this perspective needed more than in Congress.

In the House and Senate, we have become hostages to a fiscal

imprisonment outlook, viewing almost every question through

the single calculation of whether it will raise or lower

revenue. Republicans have used the specter of deficits as a

cudgel to beat back funding increases for all departments and

programs. Browbeaten, too many

Democrats have gone along. But while deficits matter, the

Postal Service isn't running losses because it's inefficient.

It's running losses because of political sabotage.

It's time for Congress to admit that the hybrid structure

it sanctioned forty-nine years ago is not sustainable. So

long as the post exists half as a business and half as a

public enterprise, forced to make money even as it is

constrained by preposterous rules and counterproductive

meddling, it will wobble and teeter. Meanwhile, privatization

advocates will continue to chip away at one of the world's

most impressive agencies.

That doesn't mean the Postal Service should be free of

interrogation. The post, for example, must fix its deal with

Amazon. The company ships perhaps two-thirds of its packages

through the public mail, and its pricing and delivery terms

are separate from those afforded to other businesses that

ship through the post. This comes courtesy of a secret 2013

negotiated service agreement whose provisions have been

hidden from even Congress. The secrecy suggests that Amazon

is getting a deal other retailers don't enjoy.

There is some logic for a deal between the post and Amazon.

But if the world's best delivery system is awarding Amazon a

volume discount, it makes it more difficult for the company's

competitors to challenge Amazon's prices. This sets a

dangerous example for competition policy. The U.S. Postal

Service is a public facility. It should not be used to

further entrench the monopolistic power of a private company.

Nor does it need to. Amazon does not have the post's

infrastructure, and Jeff Bezos's vaunted delivery drones

aren't yet operational. The Postal Service's biggest rivals,

UPS and FedEx, simply can't match the agency's services. In

negotiations, the post should take a harder line and force

Amazon to pay more.

Congress can help spur the Postal Service into bargaining

harder by using its hearing power to make the current Amazon

deal public. Given that Congress has paid so little attention

to the agency in the past, this kind of engagement is sorely

needed. Currently, the House subcommittee that deals with the

USPS is responsible for monitoring a mind-boggling number of

other federal functions and agencies, including (but not

limited to) government management and accounting; federal

property; intergovernmental affairs. including with state and

local governments; and the entire civil service. It's no

wonder the post has become of tertiary importance in the

people's house. Between 2005 and 2018, the House Oversight

Committee held 417 hearings, of which just seven were related

to postal issues. This negligence helps explain why

legislation that kneecaps the USPS, like the 2006 Postal

Accountability and Enhancement Act, glides through Congress

before members really consider its consequences.

The two House members with the most control over postal

issues, House Oversight Committee chairman Elijah Cummings

and government operations subcommittee head Gerry Connolly,

are champions of the Postal Service, and I believe they will

dedicate attention to the issues facing the agency. But both

of their bodies are swamped with other valuable work,

including bringing needed oversight to the river of

corruption flowing from the Trump administration. Over the

next few years, Congress should therefore consider bringing

back the full Postal and Civil Service Committee or, at the

very least, creating an exclusive postal subcommittee.

To truly move beyond playing defense, however, Democrats

need to reimagine what the Postal Service can do. It is,

after all, one of the most remarkable physical systems ever

created. With arms in every single zip code, from Key West,

Florida, to Utqiagvik, Alaska, its expansiveness opens up a

world of opportunity.

In many American communities, the post office was

historically called the ``federal building,'' and it served

as a one-stop shop for numerous governmental needs.

(Tellingly, FDR wanted Social Security to be administered

through posts to assure its accessibility.) In smaller towns

and cities, for example, the post office was a focal point

for immigrant registration, military recruitment, and

distributing income tax forms. There is no reason that

America's post offices can't again provide a variety of

important governmental functions. Indeed, today's post

offices should have all tax forms readily available. The

government should even consider stationing IRS adjutants at

post offices around tax time, which would ease what is, for

many Americans, one of the most stressful times of the year.

The Postal Service could also expand on the passport

assistance it already provides. Many post offices take

passport photos and process some first-time applicants and

renewals. Often, this is by appointment only. I believe that

post offices should offer full passport services to any

American who walks through the doors. In addition to serving

as a gateway to America's bureaucracy, the post could serve

as a door to the rest of the world.

State governments should take advantage of America's postal

infrastructure as well, in particular by expanding the use of

vote by mail, which when done right is proven to increase

political participation. Turning mailboxes into voting booths

would therefore be good for the engagement of our citizenry.

The post could further weave itself into American democracy

by allowing congressional representatives to station their

district staff right in community post offices.

But perhaps the most promising service that post offices

could provide is banking. Today, sixty-eight million

Americans, more than a quarter of U.S. households, lack

access to adequate banking services. Many are shut out by

high fees tied to minimum balances, overdrafts, direct

deposit penalties, and ATM charges. As a result, they are

left to unregulated payday lenders and check cashers that

level obscene annual percentage rates. The postal inspector

general found that underbanked Americans spend $89 billion

each year on financial fees. This closed system shackles

families to poverty, further cementing the economic

inequality tearing our country apart.

Postal branches could offer a range of banking services--

including savings accounts, deposit services, and even small

lending--at a 90 percent discount compared to what predatory

lenders provide, according to a report commissioned by the

USPS inspector general. This would give many families an

average savings of $2,000 a year while putting nearly $9

billion into the post's coffers.

Postal banking could even unite liberals and Trump

supporters. Rural communities are America's most bank

starved: 90 percent of zip codes lacking a bank or credit

union lie in rural areas. Bank branches are also sparse in

poorer urban areas, and 46 percent of Latino and 49 percent

of African American households are unbanked. The Postal

Service is well positioned to help both communities. Some 59

percent of post offices lie in ``bank deserts,'' or places

where there is no more than one branch. Where financial

institutions close their doors to these communities, post

offices remain open to anyone who walks inside. And this

change wouldn't even need the approval of Congress, requiring

only the postmaster general's consent. Pilot programs could

then begin immediately--including in places like 194 Ward

Street in my own city of Paterson.

Ultimately, these reforms would expand on the post's

democratic tradition. For centuries, the agency has connected

far-flung parts of the country at little cost. Letting it

help citizens pay their taxes, obtain passports, vote, and

bank would better connect Americans with their federal

government. In doing so, these reforms could help mend our

citizenry's chronically low confidence in the federal

government. They could also make the agency's contribution to

public life--already enormous--more visible to the people it

serves. And that would make it more difficult for anti-

government zealots to tear the agency apart.

It is high time that we as a body come together to enact sensible postal reform. This amendment is a small step in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Pressley and Representative Amodei for joining me in offering this bipartisan amendment. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we are here today on two very different pieces of legislation. Last night at the Rules Committee, I noted that these unrelated bills have only one thing in common, and that is their place in the Democratic majority's partisan, going-nowhere agenda. Unfortunately, I believe today's rule is only going to compound that recurring problem of the Democrats, frankly, not even trying to work with Republicans to actually legislate in divided government.

Our first bill today is H.R. 3351, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2020. This is the 10th of 12 appropriations bills to come to the floor. As we have worked through these bills, I have raised several concerns that are applicable to this bill as well.

Like the previous appropriations bills this Congress, H.R. 3351 is marked to a high allocation figure that has no basis in reality. Remember, the House and Senate have not agreed to an overall budget for fiscal year 2020, which the Congressional Budget Act mandates be done by April 15.

Without a budget agreement, the budget cap numbers contained in the Budget Control Act will automatically take effect, leading to an 11 percent cut in defense spending and a 9 percent cut in nondefense spending.

Instead of working with Republicans in the Senate to reach a deal before marking and reporting funding bills, the majority has, instead, gone ahead and pushed through their own partisan appropriations bills that are marked to fake and unrealistic numbers.

The 12 appropriations bills the majority has proposed have several flaws in common. They reflect the idea that any increase in defense spending must be matched by an even greater increase in nondefense spending, which simply isn't a realistic assessment of our national priorities.

What is worse, these bills actually underfund defense and homeland security, coming in below the numbers that the President requested in order to ensure our military can adequately defend our Nation.

The FSGG bill we are considering today contains an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 2019, which makes little sense when we are simultaneously underfunding our national security.

Like the previous bills brought by my Democratic friends, the Financial Services appropriations bill also contains several partisan provisions that must be removed before a bipartisan, bicameral agreement can be reached on spending.

The majority has removed longstanding pro-life protections, such as a rider that prohibits the District of Columbia from using government funds to provide for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother.

The majority has also cut out a longstanding provision that I originally sponsored several years ago barring government contractors from being forced to disclose political campaign contributions. Since I originally sponsored this provision several years ago, I find it surprising that the majority would eliminate this provision, which provides important protections for government contractors and prevents contracts from being awarded on the basis of contributions.

Of course, there was an opportunity to work through and fix these problems through the amendment process. But instead of making things better, the majority has chosen, once again, to leave out minority voices.

I want to reiterate a point I made the last time I was on the floor for a rule. During the last Congress, when Republicans were in the majority, our record shows that we allowed more amendments sponsored solely by Democrats than we did amendments sponsored solely by Republicans.

The current majority has a much sorrier record. As of yesterday, of all amendments made in order this Congress, 67 percent were sponsored by Democrats, 19 percent by Republicans, and 13 percent were bipartisan.

Today's rule is right in line with that record. Sixty-seven percent of the amendments made in order are sponsored by Democrats, 24 percent by Republicans, and 9 percent are bipartisan.

Madam Speaker, this record of partisanship is a far cry from what the majority promised at the start of this Congress. There was an opportunity to move forward with fulfilling the majority's promises with today's rule. Instead, we see few Republican amendments and many Democratic amendments, resulting in a final product that will fail to achieve the bipartisan support needed to become law.

The second bill included in this rule is H.R. 2722, which the majority is promoting as a bill that provides security for elections. The reality is that this bill, like its partisan predecessor H.R. 1 that passed the House earlier this Congress, amounts to nothing less than a complete Federal takeover of elections.

Traditionally, elections are left to the States and local governments to conduct as they see fit. Localities can respond to local conditions; election officials can innovate; and elections can be operated in a way that best suits the unique needs of each community.

H.R. 2722 turns all that on its head. The bill will force all elections to be conducted using paper ballots, even if the local officials prefer more advanced technology. It will require costly recounts with no apparent purpose. It

will impose significant and wasteful spending on taxpayers.

Instead of affirming States as the laboratories of democracy, when it comes to elections, H.R. 2722 will impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime directed from Washington on communities across the country.

Madam Speaker, this state of affairs could and should have been avoided. Instead of pushing these partisan bills this week, the majority could have chosen to work with Republicans to craft bipartisan bills to address all of these problems.

Even if that did not come to pass, the majority at the Rules Committee still could have worked with the minority to make more minority amendments in order and give all Members the opportunity to fix these flawed bills on the floor. That they did not is yet another indication of where the majority's priorities lie: with pushing partisan bills to score political points and avoiding the bipartisan work of actually making law.

There is still a chance to change, Madam Speaker. In order to do so, the majority needs to decide whether they are here to score political points or if they are here to make law.

Before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not highlight what is missing in today's rule. We should have been considering three bills today, not two. The missing bill is the supplemental appropriations bill providing funding for the humanitarian crisis on the southern border.

Each week, this crisis grows worse. Our facilities for holding new arrivals, particularly children and vulnerable unaccompanied minors, are already at the breaking point. Simply put, we need more resources, and we need them today.

To be fair to the President, he has been asking Congress to do that since May 1. The failure to brin forward a supplemental appropriations bill for this purpose is a major failure of governance by the majority.

All of us here, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree that we need to provide funding for this crisis. Time is wasting while we wait.

Back in 2014, when President Obama asked us for $3.7 billion in supplemental resources for precisely the same purpose, the House acted to give him the resources he needed in 24 days. As of today, almost 2 months have gone by with the majority failing to act.

Many of my friends on the other side rightfully express concern that unaccompanied minors backing up at border stations is not appropriate nor in the best interests of the children. I couldn't agree more. The Border Patrol couldn't agree more.

By failing to bring forward a supplemental appropriations bill, the path the majority is taking us on leads only to this outcome: hurting the children I know we all want to help.

Congress has given HHS the mandate to care for unaccompanied minors. Congress now needs to write the check so that HHS can do what Congress has mandated.

I remind my friends across the aisle that Republicans are ready and willing to work with them to pass a bipartisan supplemental appropriations package that provides needed funding for housing, for the Department of Defense, and especially for children who find themselves in an unfathomable situation at the border.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to remind my friends that it took them weeks, if not longer, to even acknowledge there was a crisis at the border. As a matter of fact, they were accusing the President of manufacturing the crisis a few weeks ago. Now, fortunately, they have come around to the idea that hundreds of thousands of people arriving over a 3-month period of time is a crisis.

Secondly, I want to remind them, they have still yet to act in the face of the crisis. They have had the ability to pass legislation. The President asked for it almost 60 days ago. We still haven't seen anything in terms of legislation reaching this floor.

Madam Speaker, I also want to point out that, frankly, it shouldn't take this long to respond. We can disagree over a lot of things. And I have no doubt about the sincerity of my friends when it comes to being concerned about the well-being of these children; none whatsoever.

But we know that part of this crisis is created because we haven't given the President the emergency funds he needs to quickly move people out of facilities where they were never designed to be, into influx facilities that we are trying to stand up, literally, right now. One of these is going to be in my district.

We dealt with this, by the way, in 2014. We did it with President Obama; supported it; gave him the funds he needed; a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and the President. He got that money in 24 days. One of those facilities was set up in my district.

Again, we don't like using military bases in this way; don't approve of it; but we understand that President Obama faced an emergency situation, and we gave him the tools and the resources he needed to deal with that. That needs to happen now.

Frankly, what we are seeing in the House is quite a contrast to the Senate, which has a bill in the Appropriations Committee that was reported out 30-1. It is bipartisan. It is a bill the President has expressed a willingness to sign. We ought to be working with that vehicle, if my friends can't get something to the floor to deal with this urgent crisis now.

Madam Speaker, I would also, if I may, like to inform the Chair that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up Congressman Davis' Election Security Assistance Act for consideration under an open rule.

This bill provides targeted and crucially needed resources to State and local election administrators to help secure America's voting infrastructure. Unlike the majority's partisan bill that takes over all election operations and replaces local authority with a one-size-fits- all mandate from Washington, the Republican alternative provides needed resources without stepping on the toes of State and local election administrators.

It provides grants to States to update aging and at-risk election infrastructure; provides security clearances to election officials to facilitate the sharing of information about threats with frontline officials; increases resources available to States and local governments; and provides for hands-on assistance, as needed.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that our elections need to be protected, and we all agree that more resources and more assets are necessary to accomplish that goal. But rather than pushing a complicated mandate from Washington that wastes taxpayer dollars and eliminates the tradition of State and local control over the election operations, we can do better by providing resources for security improvements and reinforcements for local officials with the minimum additional regulation.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend, the author of the legislation in question.

Madam Speaker, to quote my friend, ``give me a break.'' The last Republican Congress appropriated roughly $300 million for election security, point 1.

Point 2, we have no evidence anybody hacked any election machines, as my friend, Mr. Davis pointed out in 2016 or 2018. If you want to respond to the Russians, you probably ought to respond to what they did, not to what they didn't do or didn't succeed in doing.

I would actually argue this administration did a lot more than the last administration. You have got a larger military today, partly because of what the Russians did. You have a reinvigorated NATO today. You have a President who actually sent lethal aid to Ukraine today.

You want to get the Russians' attention? That is the way you get it. When you lay down a red line in Syria, you enforce the red line. This administration has been a lot tougher on Russia than the last administration, which, by the way, knew this was going on, did almost nothing to alert anybody or to stop anybody; and now, are trying to blame it on the person that was actually involved in the election, our current President, for their lapse when they were actually in power in the executive branch.

So this idea that nobody wants to defend our elections is not true. And, frankly, I will take some offense because I have never said that the Russians didn't matter, or that our elections weren't serious or weren't threatened. I used to be a State election board secretary. I used to sit on the Board of Directors for the election board secretaries around the country, and the oldest public body that there is, or the oldest association of public officials there is in this country; very bipartisan, by the way, extraordinarily well-run. They don't agree with this bill.

I would just ask every Member to call their local Secretary of State or election administrator, whatever they have, and go through the bill and say, did you want to cede this much authority to the Congress of the United States; or do you think you do a pretty good job of running your own election?

I know in my State, we do a very good job of running our elections, and that has been true under Democrats and true under Republicans. I think that is true around the country.

The other thing is if you want to actually do something before the 2020 election, then whether you like it or not, you are going to have to do something that is bipartisan, because this will not get through the Senate and this will not become law, and that makes it a rather pointless exercise.

Sometimes in the legislative process, you sit down, and in Mr. Davis, I will tell you, you have a willing partner and a person who has a reputation in this body that I think is exceptionally bipartisan and who is working, I think, in good faith on this very problem, and you work through the problem.

But if it is going to be a partisan my-way-or-the-highway approach-- remember, this is coming under a closed rule, there is not even an amendment made in order here--then it is not likely to get out of this Chamber.

So if you are serious about trying to protect the elections, you would. You may not get everything you want, but

in divided government, you have to work together to get things done.

That is the problem with almost every major initiative that our Democratic friends have brought to the floor since they have been in the majority.

Sorry. The Constitution is pretty clear. The Senate gets to decide whether or not they are going to accept what we do over here or do something different. The President has a part in this process.

We had to endure this when we first became the majority. We had a Republican House, we had a Democratic Senate, we had a Democratic President.

I don't have any problem with my friends bringing their agenda to the floor. I applaud them for doing it. They ran on it. It is perfectly appropriate.

A lot of times we bring that agenda to the floor knowing we can get it across this Chamber, but we are not going to probably get it all the way through the process unless we change it some.

What we haven't seen yet is any evidence that the new majority has any ability to work with the current majority or the current President. And if that is what they want to do for 18 months, score political points as opposed to actually legislate something in a compromise manner, they are free to do that, too, but it is not going to work.

If the aim here is to make our elections more secure, then I wouldn't bring a bill with a closed rule. I would work with the other side, knowing that their very concerns are probably going to be similar to the concerns expressed in the United States Senate and by the President of the United States.

So, you know, that is an unsolicited piece of personal and political advice to my friends, but I think if they follow it, they will actually have some success legislatively and will actually get some things done.

We are going to disagree about a lot of things. The American people will sort that out in rather short order, about 18 months, but we ought to try to get the things we can do today done.

This is an area I think we could work together in if we approached it in a different manner.

I would also hope we could do the same thing on the southern border, Madam Speaker. That is an impending emergency right now. We are going to run out of money right now. So let's get that at least taken care of while we sort out our differences in other areas.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a quick point, and then I want to move to my friend from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I don't argue about constitutional power, but I argue about process.

Look, I seriously doubt my friends have spent very much time talking to election board secretaries and election administration officials around the country. Had they done so, they would have heard, I am sure, uniformly that they don't want a one-size-fits-all made system from Washington, D.C. They don't want to throw away equipment that they think is better than what we are offering them or that they have already invested millions of dollars in.

They are happy to work with us. They are happy to inform us and testify. That is not what is happening here.

This is the idea: all wisdom is in this Chamber, evidently, because it is not going to get through the Senate, it is not going to get signed by the President. We haven't talked to the people that actually are the front-line people in defending us in this process, and that is the folks at the State and the local level.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is. If he has additional speakers, I will just reserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by just submitting for the Record the views of the National Disability Rights Network, which actually came out against this legislation because they believe it will make it more difficult for people with physical impairments to actually get to the polls and vote. I know that is not the intention of my friend on the other side, but that is the effect of one-size-fits-all voting.

National Disability

Rights Network,

June 25, 2019.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Chairwoman, House Administration Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Rodney Davis,

Ranking Member, House Administration Committee, Washington,

Madam Speaker, my friend is not impressed, and that is a fair statement, and I don't question my friend ever, but I am not impressed with legislation that can't become law because it is futile. We come down here with a lot of sound and fury, but we don't get anything done.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this rule. This rule will make in order for consideration two bills: H.R. 3351 and H.R. 2722.

The first is a partisan appropriations bill that is marked to an unrealistic number that does not reflect agreement with Republicans or the Senate and that includes partisan policy riders that must come out before this bill can become law.

Not to be outdone, H.R. 2722 is even more partisan, throwing out the traditional ability of States and localities to manage their own election procedures and, instead, imposing a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime direct from Washington, D.C. like H.R. 1 before it, this bill was produced without Republican input and, instead, reflects only the partisan motivations of the current majority.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying measures.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 460 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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

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

Madam Speaker, on Monday night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 460. It provides for consideration of H.R. 3351 under a structured rule that makes 46 amendments in order, with 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

It also provides for consideration of H.R. 2722 under a closed rule with 1 hour of general debate provided, controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. It also provides same-day authority through the legislative day of Thursday, June 27, 2019, relating to appropriations measures.

Madam Speaker, this underlying package of bills is proof that this Democratic majority is committed to getting its work done both for routine matters like appropriations and emergency priorities facing our Nation.

Take the first measure, H.R. 3351, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. This builds on our efforts to fund the government for fiscal year 2020 in a timely way. Instead of hollowing out important investments like past Republican majorities have done, this Democratic majority is investing in our future.

This legislation not only ensures both the executive and judicial branches can continue to operate for the American people, there is also language here to protect consumers from dangerous products and help small businesses thrive, especially in distressed communities.

Most notably, Madam Speaker, this bill provides hundreds of millions in grants to strengthen the integrity of our election system. This is especially important since, if left to his own devices, I don't think our President would even acknowledge that there is a crisis of confidence in our elections following Russia's meddling in 2016, let alone act so it never happens again. He seems content to welcome future interference rather than prevent it, so it is especially important that this Congress takes the lead to protect our democracy.

That is why we are also moving here to consider H.R. 2722, the Securing America's Federal Elections Act. The Mueller report made clear that Russia waged an all-out attack on our elections. Putin put his thumb on the scale for President Trump, and intelligence officials have made clear that he and others are trying to attack us again in the next election.

I want to repeat that, Madam Speaker, in case the President happens to be watching. Our very democracy is under attack. No troops have been sent into combat. No guns have been fired, but a foreign adversary is turning the internet and the ballot box into battlefields with the integrity of the vote at stake.

It is beyond me why this President has not acted as if this is a national emergency. Instead, he said the other day that he thinks he would take campaign dirt about an opponent from a foreign government. You can't make this stuff up, Madam Speaker. That is like leaving the front door wide open when you know there is a burglar in town. He is not preventing future acts, he is encouraging them.

Before my friends on the other side chalk this up to a slip of the tongue, let me remind them that his own former communications director, Hope Hicks, testified recently that she believes he is serious about accepting information from a foreign source.

This President may not be stepping up to secure our elections, but this Democratic majority is. This bill would enact things like verified paper ballots, cybersecurity upgrades, and State grants to secure voting systems.

This majority passed H.R. 1 in the opening months of this Congress. That package includes reforms to fix our democracy. But under Leader McConnell, the Senate did with it what it seems to do best: nothing.

He refused to even bring H.R. 1 up for a vote. Now, I don't know why Leader McConnell is ignoring the warnings from our intelligence officials or why he seems content with weaknesses in our election systems. Maybe he is unwilling to ever break from Donald Trump on anything, even something this important, which really is quite sad. But I hope this time he will try something radical for the Senate: have a vote. Bring this bill up so the American people can see whose side you are on.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, this bill also gives us flexibility to deal with an emergency of a different kind--the one this President is creating on our southern border. President Trump's policies have led to children sleeping on concrete floors, dirty and hungry with no access to soap or even a toothbrush, sometimes left to be cared for by children just a few years older than they are. It is hard to believe that this is happening in the United States of America today.

This House will act, and I hope the Senate does the same thing. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying legislation, so we can do our jobs and act on these important issues.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would like to say for the record that when it comes to this piece of legislation, the Financial Services appropriations bill, Democrats actually did much better than the Republicans did when they were in charge.

In fact, we made more amendments in order. We made more minority amendments in order than the Republicans did when they were in charge. In fact, there is a 57 percent increase, in terms of minority amendments being made in order compared to what they did.

Let me also point out for the record that my Republican friends, I think, tend to be a little redundant in the amendments that they offer.

For example, I think they submitted three amendments on the wall. We make one amendment. Do we have to debate the wall three different times?

On spending reductions, four amendments were submitted. We make two in order, which is probably two too many. We should have made one in order.

The bottom line is, there is a habit of just offering the same old, same old, again and again and again. Quite frankly, the minority will get its opportunity to debate these issues but not over and over and over again.

Let's also get to the substance here. The gentleman said these are two unrelated bills. Well, I disagree. The Financial Services appropriations bill actually funds the Election Assistance Commission, and the other bill we are considering, the SAFE Act, authorizes the Election Assistance Commission at the same amount that is in the appropriations bill. They are very much intertwined.

Let me also say, I expect that, before the day is out, we will do a supplemental emergency bill to deal with the crisis that this President has created at the border.

Let me also be clear that what we want to make sure is that, when we provide the funding, this cruel treatment of children at the border comes to an end.

This administration's deliberate policy of separating children from their parents, of allowing children, almost infants, to sleep on cold floors, to be denied basic necessities like soap and toothpaste and toothbrushes, I mean, it is child abuse. It is unconscionable, so we want to demand that this administration stop it.

This is the United States of America. I think the American people are horrified at the inhumanity that they are reading about that is occurring to these little children at our border.

It is unbelievable. I never thought that we would ever be on the House floor talking about how children who have fled some of the worst conditions imaginable are being so mistreated at the border.

So, yes, we will have a supplemental appropriations bill to deal with it, but we are going to demand that the cruel policies of this administration stop and stop now.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont.

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

I always enjoy listening to my Republican colleagues debate on the floor. And I always love listening to the gentleman from Illinois when he is on the House floor.

But I can't help but think of the fact that the Russians attacked our elections in 2016. The 2 years after that, the House was controlled by Republicans. The Senate was controlled by Republicans. Donald Trump, a Republican, was in the White House. They had a unified government; the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

And all of our intelligence agencies said that Russia interfered in our elections; they attacked our democracy; not only the Obama administration's intelligence officials, but the Trump administration's intelligence officials.

And what did my Republican friends do in the aftermath of this attack on our democracy by a foreign adversary? Nothing. Nothing.

We hear all these great ideas, but while they had a unified government, while they were in control of everything, they did nothing. In fact, I recall sitting here on the House floor and listening to Republican after Republican after Republican basically say that this was much ado about nothing; in fact, trying to deny that Russia attacked our elections.

Now the evidence is so overwhelming you can't deny it anymore. But yet, they had this opportunity. And now they say we all want to protect our elections.

Well, 2 years prior to this, I don't know where you were, but you weren't working trying to protect our elections. People were working, instead, to try to cover up for what a foreign adversary did to our elections.

So here we are, coming forward with a bill that we believe will provide security for our elections so that people believe that the elections have integrity, they believe the results. And we are told well, we disagree with you, and we have better ideas; on and on and on.

Bottom line is we are acting. My friends had 2 years to act. They did nothing.

Our Democratic majority went through regular order on this. The Committee on House Administration held three hearings on election security. In case anyone forgot, they were on February 14, May 8, and May 21.

In addition to those hearings, the Subcommittee on Elections conducted field hearings in six States, while the Committees on Oversight, Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held hearings on the subject.

So experts testified. People offered their viewpoints. And after all of that, the House Administration Committee marked up this bill last Friday, on June 21, and here we are on the House floor.

So, I mean, give me a break. I get it. Some of my Republicans friends may be ``Johnny-come-latelies'' when it comes to the issue of election security. We welcome you on board, because our elections are important, and we need to protect them from interference from foreign adversaries like Russia.

But you had 2 years of unified government in which my friends did nothing, nothing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman was talking about appropriations that were approved in the last Congress.

A lot of the ideas that we are talking about here today, including some of the ideas that Mr. Davis raised, are authorizations, and so they can't be taken care of in an appropriations bill, and that is why we are doing a separate bill in addition to the appropriations bill.

The gentleman talks about the $300 million that were approved under the previous leadership. Well, we are asking for $600 million. We are doubling that because we know how serious it is.

And just forgive us if we are a little bit concerned, because we have a President who continues not to acknowledge that the Russians interfered in our election. He continues to refer it to as a Russian hoax. He took Vladimir Putin's word for it rather than the word of our intelligence agencies.

So when we express concern about our election process and about the lack of attention given to this, we are responding to what the President of the United States, Donald Trump, says on a weekly, if not daily basis.

The fact of the matter is Russia interfered in our election. Everybody knows that. The only person who is in denial is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So we need to respond, and we need to respond appropriately.

Madam Speaker, I say this to my friend again, that we expect, hopefully today, to bring up a supplemental appropriations bill to be able to deal with what I would call the Donald Trump-created crisis on the border.

And, by the way, as we provide funding, which I believe we will do to deal with some of the issues on the border, let us be clear: there is absolutely no excuse at all for how this administration has allowed children to be treated in such an inhumane fashion under our custody, children being denied soap, children being denied toothpaste or toothbrushes, children so young and separated from any adult who are being cared for by children only a couple of years older.

I mean, everybody should be horrified by that. There is no excuse, none at all, for that to be happening.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman trying to articulate the best he can all that the Republicans did on this issue when they were in the majority, but I will be very honest with him: I am unimpressed, and so are the American people.

The bottom line is my friends had unified government, Republican control of the House, Senate, and the White House for 2 years, and basically they did nothing.

The President, the leader of their party, routinely and continues to do so today, refers to Russian interference in our election as a Russian hoax. The leader of our country says that it is a hoax.

So I understand why there was inaction for the previous 2 years, but that ends because Democrats, Republicans, Independents, people of all political persuasions deserve to have an election system that has some integrity.

I look forward to passing this bill, and I am urging the Senate to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge, obviously, support for this rule and the underlying bills that will be debated.

As we are sitting here debating, we just got some news that Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Agency John Sanders has submitted his resignation. I guess the public pressure is so great that it is untenable for him to continue in that position, and I am sure the President will replace him with somebody else.

The problem is the President keeps on replacing individuals with people who continue to enforce policies that are cruel, policies that separate children from their parents at the border, and policies that treat children worse than animals in our custody, but I thought it would be interesting for my colleagues to note this breaking news.

Madam Speaker, it is true that we have an ambitious agenda before us this week, and we believe in doing our job and holding the administration accountable. We aren't going to leave the threat of another shutdown for another day. Maybe that is what my Republican friends did when they were in charge, but that is how we ended up in one shutdown after another.

And, yes, we wish we had an agreement on the caps, but it is not for lack of trying. We have been trying to negotiate with the Senate since we took control of the House of Representatives. We have been trying to negotiate with the President since we took control of the House of Representatives. But every time we sit down with the President, he has a temper tantrum or he behaves in an erratic way and leaves the room. We can't wait, so we are going to lead, and hopefully they will follow.

And we are not going to ignore the threats posed by Russia and others to our elections. The President wants to cozy up to Putin instead of defending this Nation, but this majority doesn't believe in prioritizing the egos of dictators. We believe in accountability and restoring the integrity of the vote.

My friend says, well, this isn't going anywhere. Well, look, we are happy to negotiate with Republicans in the Senate, but where is their bill? Basically, the Republicans in the Senate are following the lead of the Republicans in the House and the previous Congress in doing nothing.

We don't believe in doing nothing. We think our elections are important, that they are worth defending, so we are acting. These are serious matters, Madam Speaker, and this is why we

were sent here, and this is what we intend to tackle.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question. I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 460, as the designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I rise to offer amendments en bloc which are at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule, and they have been agreed to by both sides. They improve the bill.

I appreciate the collaborative approach that my friend from Georgia and I were able to take in constructing this package. I am particularly pleased to see amendments highlighting the important work being done with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, the CDFI fund, and the HIDTA and Model Acts programs at the ONDCP.

Importantly, the amendment also calls attention to unfortunate delays in placing Harriet Tubman's portrait on the $20 bill. This historic change in American currency would represent the first African American and the first woman featured on paper currency since Martha Washington.

Another amendment speaks to the importance of combating unwanted robocalls intended to scam seniors. This aligns perfectly with the committee's direction in this bill to the FCC to provide a detailed plan to create a robocall division dedicated to holding

fraudsters accountable as well as ensuring timely collection of penalties.

The package also includes an amendment that addresses growing concerns regarding tech companies abusing the privacy of their customers, including the collection of data from children under the age of 13.

Finally, I couldn't agree more with the importance of including postal delivery in rural areas. This is a priority that I also share and hope to continue having the cooperation of the Postal Service as we continue to rectify issues in my home district in Chicago and throughout the country.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chair, this bill funds multiple programs that are not only necessary to the daily operation of the Federal Government but also have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of American families, businesses, and communities.

I stand in support of the bill on the floor today, which restores cuts proposed in the President's budget and finally invests in programs that have been starved for funding under Republican leadership for the past several years.

This amendment would not just cut these programs. It would do so in an arbitrary manner, without regard to the impact on particular programs.

In addition, this cut would take funding well below even the level proposed in the President's budget request. Let me say that again: It would bring the bill below the President's budget by many hundreds of millions of dollars.

It would reduce by 3.1 percent the funding available to the SBA to enable small businesses to access loans for working capital, fixed assets, and other assistance to establish, operate, acquire, and expand a small business.

It would reduce by 3.1 percent the funding available to the Department of the Treasury to counter terrorist financing and money laundering and to implement the expanded requirements that Congress placed upon the Treasury to review proposed foreign investment in U.S. businesses to ensure these transactions do not threaten our national security.

It would reduce by 3.1 percent the funding available to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to make grants to Federal, State, and local entities that are on the frontline combating the opioid epidemic.

Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 460, as the designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule. This package includes amendments that cover a broad range of issues across the Financial Services and General Government bill.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I always like being lectured on how I don't understand the debt and deficit.

As one of, I think, 38 Members of this House to vote for Cooper- LaTourette, I understand those concerns, but any attempts to be serious about our debt and deficit must include a big, balanced, and bipartisan effort to address those matters, not going after one of the 12 smaller spending bills and saying, See. There, we did it.

It would have to include appropriate revenues. It would have to include addressing all elements of this government, including the sacred cow of the defense budget. If you are going to address our Nation's debt and deficit, you have to look at the government as a whole.

This is a similar measure to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, only it is more destructive to the cuts it proposes to make across the board.

I will not repeat the same talking points that I previously stated regarding the harm that such indiscriminate cuts would have on American families, businesses, and communities. I would just note this amendment proposes to cut more than $2 billion from this bill. This reduction would bring the bill below the funding level provided in fiscal year 2012 under a Republican-controlled Congress.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is harmful. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know what to tell the people of Indiana: the same thing I tell the people of Illinois. I know what to tell my constituents about this matter. I am from Indiana. I tell them that I am serious about this and that I am willing to work with everyone on the floor and in both chambers and the President of the United States.

But any serious measure dealing with such matters as the deficit and the debt, must be, again, much bigger than this, much more balanced than this, and much more bipartisan than this, and it must recognize that it involves revenues and cuts, reforms, restructuring, and, of course, the Department of Defense.

Mr. Chair, any time anyone over there wants to address these matters in a serious way, I am more than willing to listen. As for this matter, though, I strongly oppose it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by quoting an eminent Republican from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, because this argument and the timing of it reminds me of what took place in Illinois some time ago.

One morning, Abraham Lincoln argued before the Illinois Supreme Court, and he made a point on a case. In the afternoon, arguing for another client, he spoke in exact opposition to the point he had made in the morning.

When one of the justices pointed this out, he said: I have had time to reflect on that, and I changed my mind.

Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed the same thing. How in the world can we take their MTR seriously? Just a few moments ago, on an amendment proposed by Mr. Banks from Indiana, they voted ``yes'' on two amendments that would cut this account by 14 percent, a cut of $23.5 million.

Apparently, they have had time to think about it and realized, perhaps, the error of their ways.

In addition, I would say--and I loved working with the ranking member when he was chairman last year--he funded the same bill, as the chairman, wrote the bill and funded it by millions less than we are proposing today in our bill.

Apparently, time changes our minds.

I don't know where the gentleman will be 5 minutes from now or whether his passion for this will be as strong as it was a half an hour ago, but the underlying bill includes an increase of $8.7 million above FY19, where my friend from Georgia proposed this.

I started with the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. I am going to end talking about this bill with the eminent philosopher from London, who I saw last week in Chicago, Mick Jagger. He said: You can't always get what you want, but if you try real hard, you get what you need.

This bill isn't perfect, but it is a really good bill under trying circumstances. And what do you need if you try?

We are funding the IRS up to $12 billion. We included $600 million for election security. Rather than eliminating, as the President proposed, Community Development Financial Institution grant programs, we boost them by $50 million.

Instead of slashing funds for the Small Business Administration, we are increasing those funds.

We are also boosting the ability to protect consumers and police bad actors by providing sorely needed additional funding to the agencies that need them.

Finally, I think the most timely, important point is, when Mr. Mueller spoke to the American public for the first time about the report, he said this was a systematic attack on our democratic process by our adversary, and it has to be a bipartisan approach. This bill does that with $600 million to protect against an assault on who we are as a democracy.

My colleagues need to support this bill and oppose this MTR.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 3351, back to the House with an amendment.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 460, I call up the bill (H.R. 2722) to protect elections for public office by providing financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure used to carry out such elections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2722.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2722. The SAFE Act is critical legislation to invest in and upgrade the machinery of American democracy. It will help us combat the national emergency facing our country. It will improve the resilience of election infrastructure used in Federal elections.

Aging equipment, under-resourced jurisdictions, and interference by foreign entities or non-state actors leaves the system vulnerable to exploitation that can undermine confidence in election outcomes. Ineffective and vulnerable equipment can also discourage participation in Federal elections.

It comes to the floor after the Committee on House Administration held three hearings in the first 6 months of this year that addressed the integrity of our elections. In February the committee held the ``For the People: Our American Democracy'' hearing, where the integrity of our democracy--including critical steps to improve the security and reliability of our election infrastructure--was addressed.

On May 8 the committee held an election security hearing where we heard testimony about the urgent need to upgrade our election infrastructure and the lack of ongoing investment in the wake of new threats.

And on May 21 the committee held an oversight hearing of the Election Assistance Commission, an agency that plays a central role in supporting election administration in this country.

I will remind this House that earlier this year, the Director of National Intelligence published a report stating that our adversaries and strategic competitors ``probably already are looking to the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests.

``They may also use cyber means to `directly manipulate or disrupt elections systems--such as by tampering with voter registration or disrupting the vote tallying process--either to alter data or to call into question our voting process.'''

Last year he said that ``the warning lights are blinking red''. . . .

Special Counsel Robert Mueller noted in Volume One of his report that the Russian military ``targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections. Victims included U.S. State and local entities, such as State boards of elections, secretaries of State, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.''

In April, FBI Director Christopher Wray called Russia's interference efforts a ``significant counterintelligence threat,'' and said that the 2018 midterms were a ``dress rehearsal for the big show'' of the 2020 Presidential elections.

Early voters in Georgia in 2018 saw machines deleting votes and switching them to other candidates. The machines where voters saw this occur were purchased in 2002. During early voting in Texas in 2018 some electronic voting machines deleted votes and switched them between candidates. The machines were used in 78 of 254 Texas counties.

In June of 2016 the Russian GRU compromised the computer network of the Illinois State Board of Elections by exploiting a vulnerability in their website. They gained access to a database with information on millions of Illinois voters and extracted data on thousands before the activity was detected.

H.R. 2722 responds to this emergency that we find ourselves in as a nation. We ought to be doing everything we can to bolster the security and integrity of our elections from interference and hacking.

The bill's section 102 requires that States transition to voting systems that use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots, which means a paper ballot marked by the voter by hand or through the use of a non-tabulating ballot marking device or system. Voter-verified paper ballots are the best way to ensure that a voter's ballot accurately reflects their choices and is counted as cast. Paper can be audited. In the last Presidential election, approximately 20 percent of registered voters cast their ballot on voting machines that do not have any kind of paper backup.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that paperless systems ``should be removed from service as soon as possible.''

In at least 40 States, elections are carried out using machines that are at least a decade old. And like any technology, they are susceptible to increasing failure with age. One witness at our election security hearing, Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, explained that some State officials have ``had to turn to eBay to find critical components like dot-matrix printer ribbons, decades old storage devices, and analog modems.'' Aging systems also frequently rely on unsupported software like Windows XP and 2000, which may not receive regular security patches and are thus more vulnerable to the latest methods of cyberattack.

This bill addresses many other cybersecurity best practices besides paper-based systems.

The bill in section 111 authorizes a $600 million Election Assistance Commission grant program to assist States in securing election infrastructure. States may use the money to replace their aging equipment with voter-verified paper ballot voting systems, but also ongoing maintenance of election infrastructure, enhanced cybersecurity and operations of IT infrastructure, and enhanced cybersecurity of voter registration systems.

Originally, the bill, as introduced, would have authorized $1 billion for this initial round of surge funding; however, during the Committee on House Administration's markup, the committee approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute that authorized $600 million instead. Combined with the $380 million that Congress appropriated last year in election security grants, this funding reaches the $1 billion that experts have said is necessary to implement these necessary protections.

The bill also provides in section 111 $175 million in biennial maintenance funding. Cybersecurity threats will not dissipate, they will only evolve. State election officials have told us repeatedly they need more funding and a sustainable source of funding.

Section 103 of the SAFE Act fosters innovation for voters living with disabilities. It provides grant funding for the study, development, and testing of accessible paper ballot voting, verification, and casting mechanisms. It expressly requires States to ensure that individuals with disabilities and others are given an equivalent opportunity to vote, including with privacy and independence, in a manner that produces voter-verified paper ballots as for other voters.

The bill fosters accountability for election technology vendors. It would create a qualified election infrastructure vendor designation where the Election Assistance Commission, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, would craft criteria that vendors would follow to receive the qualified designation. This would include reporting any known or suspected cybersecurity incidents involving election infrastructure to both the EAC and DHS, as well as affected election agencies.

The bill in sections 201 and 203 also includes open-source provisions, requiring use of software and hardware for which information is disclosed by manufacturers. This will allow cybersecurity experts and the public to vet the security of election systems regardless of the technology used.

As amended in the committee, the bill in section 121 requires States to adopt risk-limiting audits. Risk-limiting audits are the gold standard of post-election audits. They involve hand counting a certain number of ballots using advanced statistical methods to determine with a high degree of confidence that the reported election outcome is accurate. The SAFE Act requires States to implement risk-limiting audits because they go hand in hand with paper ballots. We need audits to ensure that ballot marking devices or optical scanners were not hacked and that the reported results are accurate.

Second, as amended in committee, the bill in section 201 includes specific cybersecurity standards to apply to optical scanner voting systems and another set of standards to apply to ballot marking devices. These will apply equally to current and future technology. For example, H.R. 2722 prohibits the use of wireless communications devices and internet connectivity in voting systems upon which ballots are marked by voters or that otherwise mark and tabulate ballots.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2722 is an essential step forward in shoring up our election infrastructure and investing in secure elections. I ask the House to pass this legislation and bolster the trust and confidence in our system that all Americans expect and deserve.

Every American--no matter what their choice in politics--should know that their vote will be counted as cast.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a member of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a new Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).