Reserved for the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership and for adding to this legislation--my legislation--the For the People Act, adding the Coretta Scott King Mid- Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act that I wrote as long ago as 2006.

Madam Speaker, section 2402 prohibits a State that has been redistricted in accordance with this legislation from doing it in the mid-decennial, waiting till the next time, the decennial apportionment; so no mid-decade kind of redistricting that has been so unhelpful to all of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise, as well, to support the Swalwell amendments regarding the college student voting, as well as prohibiting false voting polling places and adding colleges and universities' responsibility to give civic information to our students.

I also support the privacy information required by the Speier amendment to ensure that there is no domestic violence and dating violence because your voting information gets out.

And I also support the Waters amendment that prohibits misinformation, which threatens potential voters with civil or legal penalties if they exercise their right to vote. I can assure you, this happens in the minority community.

And I do support the 16-years-of-age amendment, because if you can be on the front lines of civil rights and protest for justice and democracy, you have the right to vote.

Madam Speaker, let's educate our young people so they can vote. I am very happy to support the en bloc.

Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021,'' which expands access to the ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and strengthens ethics rules for public servants.

Specifically, the For the People Act will:

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.

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.

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.

I am particularly proud and appreciative to Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Sarbanes that the For The People Act incorporates in Section 2402 of the legislation the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act that I first offered in 2006 during the Judiciary Committee markup of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reauthorization and as standalone legislation in the 114th Congress.

This provision, section 2402, prohibits a State that has been redistricted in accordance with this legislation from engaging in redistricting again until after the next decennial apportionment unless required by a court to do so to comply with the Constitution of the United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Constitution of the State, or the terms or conditions of this subtitle.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is particularly timely because more than 55 years 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.

If 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.

Madam Speaker, let me list some of the salutary features of the legislation that will make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, the most precious right of all because as President Johnson said in securing passage of the Voting Rights Act, the right to vote ``is preservative of all other rights.''

H.R. 1 modernizes the voter registration system by requiring each state to make available online voter registration, correction, cancellation, and designation of party affiliation.

In addition, H.R. 1:

Requires states to permit voters to register on the day of a federal election, including during early voting.

Limits the authority of states to remove registrants from the official list of eligible voters in elections for federal office in the state based on interstate voter registration crosschecks .

Requires states to provide annual reports on voter registration statistics to the Election Assistance Commission.

Provides HAVA funds to implement the voter registration modernization reforms .

Makes it unlawful to hinder, interfere or prevent an individual from registering to vote.

Instructs the Election Assistance Commission to develop best practices for states to deter and prevent such violations.

H.R. 1 explicitly prohibits `voter caging', the pernicious practice of using returned non-forwardable mail as the basis for removing registered voters from the rolls, and it prohibits challenges to eligibility from individuals who are not election officials without an oath of good faith factual basis.

Importantly, the legislation prohibits providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.

I support the declaration in the legislation of the right of citizens to vote in federal elections will not be denied because of a criminal conviction unless a citizen is serving a felony sentence in a correctional facility and it requires states and the federal government to notify individuals convicted of a state or federal felony, respectively, of their reenfranchisement

H.R. 1 promotes election accuracy, integrity, and security by requiring states to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots and that said ballots be counted by hand or an optical character recognition device and that a voter be given the opportunity to correct his or her ballot should a mistake be made; and it also requires that provisional ballots from eligible voters at incorrect polling places be counted.

The legitimacy and stability of democratic governance is always enhanced by increased voter participation in elections, so I am very pleased that H.R. 1 outlaws many practices resorted to by voting opponents to reduce election participation.

In particular, H.R. 1 requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections and that early voting locations be near public transportation, in rural areas, and open for at least 10 hours per day.

Additionally, the legislation prohibits a state from imposing restrictions on an individual's ability to vote by mail and requires a state to carry out a program to track and confirm the receipt of absentee ballots and to make this information available to the voter who cast the ballot.

Also, the bill requires the prepayment of postage on return envelopes for voting materials, which includes any voter registration form, any application for an absentee ballot, and any blank absentee ballot transmitted by mail.

Madam Speaker, another important feature of H.R. 1 is that it promotes voter access by mandating several improvements to election administration, including:

Treating universities as voter registration agencies;

Requiring states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if the individual's polling place has changed;

Requiring states to allow voters to sign sworn affidavits to vote in lieu of presenting photo ID;

Providing accommodations for voters residing in Indian lands;

Ensuring equitable and efficient operation of polling places, reducing long lines and wait times for voters;

Requiring states to provide secured drop boxes for voted absentee ballots in elections for federal office;

Prohibiting states from restricting curbside voting;

Imposing requirements for federal election contingency plans in response to natural disasters and emergencies; and

Clarifying that failure to vote is not grounds for removing registered voters from the rolls.

Of course, nothing in this legislation prohibits or restricts the authority of states to provide greater opportunities for voting, and the bill makes that explicitly clear.

This litany of good measures demonstrates all the many ways and means through which H.R. 1 expands voter participation and election integrity, and our experience of the previous four years counsels the urgency of adopting them.

I am much less confident of the ability of one component of the bill--the title mandating creation of ``Independent Redistricting Commissions''--to strengthen our democracy; in fact I believe that title of the legislation should be stricken because of its potential to negatively effective marginalized communities and minority groups.

I am not contending that independent redistricting commissions are an unconstitutional usurpation of authority belonging exclusively to state legislatures; that argument was presented and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona. Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).

Instead, the nation's experience with independent redistricting commissions is still in its early stages, and I believe that instead of mandating a one-size fits all approach, Congress should allow further experimentation to occur in the states, the ``laboratories of democracy,'' as they were described by Justice Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).

In addition, it appears to me that the selection process laid out in the bill for choosing members of the independent redistricting commissions is too random and will not result in a commission comprised of members reflective of the communities directly affected by the work of the commission, particularly members of racial and language minorities.

Madam Speaker, the issue of redistricting and how to do it fairly is a never-ending one, and, as most political scientists agree, it is virtually impossible to draw most congressional and legislative districts in ways that are competitive; redistricting exacerbates geographical polarization, but it does not create it.

Madam Speaker, 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 immediately preceding 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.

The 45th President and his followers were 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, Madam Speaker, the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was:

Hillary Clinton: 65,853,5160.

Donald Trump: 62,884,8240.

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 same is true for the 2020 presidential election, which again Donald Trump claimed was fraudulent after losing the popular vote to President Biden by more than 7 million votes, and the Electoral College by 306-232, the exact margin that he claimed constituted a landslide and epic blowout when he won the Electoral College vote in 2016.

Again, and just for the record, Madam Speaker, the popular vote of the 2020 presidential election was:

Joe Biden: 81,281,502.

Donald Trump: 74,222,593.

The Trump Campaign brought more than 63 legal challenges to the 2020 election, claiming the outcomes were tainted by wide-spread and massive fraud but every court, whether state or federal, and nearly 90 judges, including Trump appointees, summarily rejected these baseless claims for failure of proof.

Of course, this did not deter the reckless 45th President who then went on to threaten and coerce state election officials to corruptly change vote counts and after that ploy failed, incited his loyalists to storm the U.S. Capitol and use force and violence if necessary to prevent the Congress from conducting the constitutionally required Joint Meeting to count the electoral votes cast and announce the winner of the presidential election.

Madam Speaker, the Trump Voter Fraud Commission, like many of Trump's business schemes, was a massive scam built on countless lies that did 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 leveled 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:

Increasing voter outreach and turnout;

Ensuring both early and same-day registration;

Standardizing physical and language accessibility at polling places;

Expanding early voting periods;

Decreasing voter wait times;

Guaranteeing absentee ballots, especially for displaced citizens;

Modernizing voting technologies and strengthening our voter record systems;

Establishing the federal Election Day as a national holiday; and

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 of 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.

As noted earlier, 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 v. Holder 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 basts 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:

Curtailing or Eliminating Early Voting;

Ending Same-Day Registration;

Not counting povisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day;

Eliminating Teenage Pre-Registration;

Shortened Poll Hours;

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;

``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

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., overconcentrating minority voters in as few districts as possible).

Madam Speaker, 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 2021.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the rule governing debate of H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021,'' which expands access to the ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and strengthens ethics rules for public servants.

H.R. 1 is intended to 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.

I am particularly proud and appreciative to Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Sarbanes that the For The People Act incorporates in Section 2402 of the legislation the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act that I first offered in 2006 during the Judiciary Committee markup of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reauthorization and as standalone legislation in the 114th Congress.

This provision, section 2402, prohibits a State that has been redistricted in accordance with this legislation from engaging in redistricting again until after the next decennial apportionment unless required by a court to do so to comply with the Constitution of the United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Constitution of the State, or the terms or conditions of this subtitle.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is particularly timely because more than 55 years 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.

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

Let me list some of the salutary features of the legislation that will make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, the most precious right of all because as President Johnson said in securing passage of the Voting Rights Act, the right to vote ``is preservative of all other rights.''

H.R. 1 modernizes the voter registration system by requiring each state to make available online voter registration, correction, cancellation, and designation of party affiliation.

In addition, H.R. 1:

Requires states to permit voters to register on the day of a federal election, including during early voting.

Limits the authority of states to remove registrants from the official list of eligible voters in elections for federal office in the state based on interstate voter registration crosschecks.

Requires states to provide annual reports on voter registration statistics to the Election Assistance Commission.

Provides HAVA funds to implement the voter registration modernization reforms.

Makes it unlawful to hinder, interfere or prevent an individual from registering to vote.

Instructs the Election Assistance Commission to develop best practices for states to deter and prevent such violations.

H.R. 1 explicitly prohibits `voter caging', the pernicious practice of using returned non-forwardable mail as the basis for removing registered voters from the rolls and it prohibits challenges to eligibility from individuals who are not election officials without an oath of good faith factual basis.

Importantly, the legislation prohibits providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.

I support the declaration in the legislation of the right of citizens to vote in federal elections will not be denied because of a criminal conviction unless a citizen is serving a felony sentence in a correctional facility and it requires states and the federal government to notify individuals convicted of a state or federal felony, respectively, of their reenfranchisement.

H.R. 1 promotes election accuracy, integrity, and security by requiring states to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots and that said ballots be counted by hand or an optical character recognition device and that a voter be given the opportunity to correct his or her ballot should a mistake be made; and it also requires that provisional ballots from eligible voters at incorrect polling places be counted.

The legitimacy and stability of democratic governance is always enhanced by increased voter participation in elections, so I am very

pleased that H.R. 1 outlaws many practices resorted to by voting opponents to reduce election participation.

In particular, H.R. 1 requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections and that early voting locations be near public transportation, in rural areas and open for at least 10 hours per day.

Additionally, the legislation prohibits a state from imposing restrictions on an individual's ability to vote by mail and requires a state to carry out a program to track and confirm the receipt of absentee ballots and to make this information available to the voter who cast the ballot.

Also, the bill requires the prepayment of postage on return envelopes for voting materials, which includes any voter registration form, any application for an absentee ballot, and any blank absentee ballot transmitted by mail.

Madam Speaker, another important feature of H.R. 1 is that it promotes voter access by mandating several improvements to election administration, including:

Treating universities as voter registration agencies;

Requiring states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if the individual's polling place has changed;

Requiring states to allow voters to sign sworn affidavits to vote in lieu of presenting photo ID;

Providing accommodations for voters residing in Indian lands;

Ensuring equitable and efficient operation of polling places, reducing long lines and wait times for voters;

Requiring states to provide secured drop boxes for voted absentee ballots in elections for federal office;

Prohibiting states from restricting curbside voting;

Imposing requirements for federal election contingency plans in response to natural disasters and emergencies; and

Clarifying that failure to vote is not grounds for removing registered voters from the rolls.

Of course, nothing in this legislation prohibits or restricts the authority of states to provide greater opportunities for voting, and the bill makes that explicitly clear.

This litany of good measures demonstrates all the many ways and means through which H.R. 1 expands voter participation and election integrity and our experience of the previous four years counsels the urgency of adopting them.

I am much less confident of the ability of one component of the bill--the title mandating creation of ``Independent Redistricting Commissions''--to strengthen our democracy; in fact I believe that title of the legislation should be stricken because of its potential to negatively effective marginalized communities and minority groups.

I am not contending that independent redistricting commissions are an unconstitutional usurpation of authority belonging exclusively to state legislatures; that argument was presented and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona. Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).

Instead, the nation's experience with independent redistricting commissions is still in its early stages and I believe that instead of mandating a one-size fits all approach, Congress should allow further experimentation to occur in the states, the ``laboratories of democracy,'' as they were described by Justice Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).

In addition, it appears to me that the selection process laid out in the bill for choosing members of the independent redistricting commissions is too random and will not result in a commission comprised of members reflective of the communities directly affected by the work of the commission, particularly members of racial and language minorities.

Madam Speaker, the issue of redistricting and how to do it fairly is a never-ending one and, as most political scientists agree, it is virtually impossible to draw most congressional and legislative districts in ways that are competitive; redistricting exacerbates geographical polarization, but it does not create it.

For this reason, unlike the other titles of H.R. 1, I withhold my support for Title II, Subtitle E, Part 2.

Madam Speaker, I am here to anchor this Special Order on the fierce urgency of preserving the precious right to vote by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and legislation like H.R. 1, For The People.

I am delighted to be co-anchoring this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order at the request of our tireless leader for justice, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, and to be joined by my co-anchor, Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York, and many other members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Fifty-six years ago, in a century that was close to a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the rendition of the 15th Amendment, the very right to vote, there we were fighting with this beloved Member of Congress, who challenged us to get into good trouble, fighting in 1965, pursuant to the collapse of the understanding of the 15th Amendment, fighting for the right to vote again.

Madam Speaker, here we are today, 2021, now 56 years after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, fighting for the right to vote.

I want to make sure that I pay tribute to Our Power, Our Message, led by the Honorable Joyce Beatty, who does not only speak her words, but she acts on her words, how proud we were. But I am sure pride is not what she wants us to feel as she walked down this difficult road here in Washington, D.C., to be able to express, with Black women and others, that we have a fierce sense of urgency, and was arrested, just about two weeks ago, in the name of voting rights.

So let me, for a moment, read to you out of the book that has just been published by a dear, beloved friend, ``Carry On.'' I use this book in the Rules Committee, when there seems to have been a challenge to helping the impoverished. I concluded my remarks, when I was giving amendments, to help the impoverished to carry on.

But on the issue of justice, these are his words: ``We must practice what we preach. If we believe in life and liberty, then we should not defer the dream of equality and justice''--the right to vote--``under the law for people of color. We must use the system of government to improve our laws and to make our society fairer and more just. While no one bill can right the many wrongs, we can stitch together partial solutions to deal with the complex societal issues that lead to systemic bias and inequality.''

That is why we stand here today. We are stitching together a response to the collapse of voting rights in America. We are stitching together laws that will deal with the mass of suppression laws being passed in State legislatures across America. We are stitching together a response for those brave Texas Democratic representatives who are here in Washington, D.C., who are begging us to pass H.R. 1 and S. 1 and of course we have passed H.R. 1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Let me just briefly say that serious damage to the precious right to vote occasioned by the rightwing conservative majority on the Supreme Court demands that the Congress exercise its powers under section 5 of the 15th Amendment to restore the extraordinary reach and effectiveness of section 2 and section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The 15th Amendment said that no law, no State legislature should abridge the right to vote on the basis of discrimination of race and color and ethnicity and that the Congress should stand up and provide the relief and the answer.

Did you hear, Madam Speaker? The Congress. And the Congressional Black Caucus has said that, not only with their words but with their bodies. Hank Johnson was just arrested last week, Congressman Hank Johnson.

So the objection to the VRA and their opponents is without substance. I have long said that the States that were subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act earned their way into so doing by discriminatory laws.

Madam Speaker, June 25, 2021, marked the eighth anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which immobilized the Department of Justice from subjecting discriminatory voting and election laws to the preclearance.

On August 6 will be the commemoration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 56 years. And look at the predicament we are in.

Later on in this debate I will recount all the times we voted for the Voting Rights Act. Madam Speaker, it was bipartisan. It was across racial lines, regional lines, because we knew it was the right thing to do.

So tonight we stand on what is right. We stand on good trouble. We stand on making the decision that not the

Shelby case, not the Arizona case. The Arizona case is Brnovich v. DNC that dashes section 2, and frankly says, by one of the justices, that a little bit of discrimination is okay. Not on the watch of the Congressional Black Caucus and all of my colleagues, because voting rights belongs to every single person in this Congress and to their constituents.

Why would they want to deny the implementation and the substance of the Constitution and the 15th Amendment?

So here we are tonight to be able to explain to the American public and our colleagues that we cannot wait any longer for H.R. 4 or H.R. 1, S. 1, S. 4, and we are here tonight to tell our story.

It is my pleasure and certainly my privilege, as we continue to tell our story, and as I continue to weave in that story, to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Beatty), who, again, has spoken with her actions, not just her words, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, senior member and chairwoman on the Financial Services Committee, and, again, someone who showed the Nation that it is both our message and our power by being arrested in the name of the fight for equality, getting into a little good trouble.

I am sure John Lewis, rest in power, is looking down on us.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus for her powerful words. And, yes, thank her for acknowledging the women who stood in the gap, including Melanie Campbell and Reverend Barbara Williams Skinner and Clayola Brown, and Tamika, who has been at the forefront as well, and many, many others that have, likewise, been at the forefront. We are pleased to be able to join in their leadership as well.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, let me ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), a gentleman who now walks in history, who knows his history, and who is prepared to fight against that history that should never be repeated, my coanchor, who has eloquently articulated what was in General Granger's Order No. 3, and that is the equality of rights.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for opening the pathway. We may have him continue to explore that journey, which I will take up, and that is the question of the filibuster. Someone described it as busting things up and busting good things up.

We know that there has to be a solution to those who have argued that, in fact, they are about the institution of the other body; they are about the integrity of the other body. I would argue that where blood has been shed so that people have died so that people might vote, it is not the integrity of the institution. It is the life and death of voting rights, not only for people of color, but for this Nation.

A man who has argued eloquently about the filibuster and a resolve of our next steps, but also recognizes historically, not only the civil rights journey but the fundamental right of voting that should not be hindered or undermined is our majority whip, and we are very grateful for his leadership and his historical perspective and his current understanding of how we have to get the job done.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for his comments. He clearly acted, as I indicated, and that is, he presented the history, but he brought us to the 21st century and 2021. I think the challenge that we are now offering to the American people, incredulously, how can anyone try to undermine the votes of any American, and particularly those Americans of color?

As I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, let me at least just depict for a moment the uniqueness of our history, for this picture is a picture

of a whipped, beaten back of a slave. That means that we had extraordinary conditions, extraordinary circumstances. In the 1800s preceding and around the Emancipation Proclamation, I will just read these words as I yield: Congress put forward the 15th Amendment and it made it very clear that:

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or

standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied

by any State or political subdivision in a manner which

results in a denial or abridgement of the rights of any

citizen of the United States to vote on the account of race,

or color, or language minority status.

This was coming out of slavery when they had the 13th Amendment that eliminated slavery but didn't eliminate stigma and institutional racism, gave due process, and then gave the right to vote out of the history of what is depicted here. That is why this is so serious that an institutional rule cannot survive over the right to vote, and the big lie cannot supersede the right to vote.

It is my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), who is a historian and professor in her own right and spent her life's work teaching at historically Black colleges which were born out of the seeds or born out of the quagmire and the fires of slavery but born to make a difference. She has been a champion for the HBCUs and understands what the denial of the vote and voting rights means to that constituency.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her pointed message about North Carolina and her district. I think I join her. My district is a voting rights district, so we know what it is to be at the edge of surviving.

The only way that we have survived is with the protection of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We are living testimony that it is crucial to the vast diversity that has been created in this House on behalf of the American people.

Madam Speaker, let me now take the pleasure of yielding to another distinguished Member who has had her own history in a very unique State.

Someone asked the question: Is it Southern? Is it Northern? I think you only have to hear her--and, of course, the President of the United States, who is a very forthright leader. President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris have been forthright in confronting issues that have been meant to help the American people heal and unite. She has been right in the mix and, as well, has been a leader on labor issues, a leader on healthcare issues. But one thing she knows is the depth of disparity that plagues a community when voting is extinguished.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for mentioning Bob Moses.

For those of us who care and know about history, we know about Bob Moses, and it makes this night even more significant because if you are losing the peaceful warriors who helped organize and put themselves on the line, then we must carry on. I thank the gentlewoman from Delaware.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, let me make an argument regarding where we are, and then I will be happy to yield to my coanchor and happy to conclude.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to reemphasize where we are today and reemphasize that, unfortunately, a bill that had been passed as bipartisan for years has been ``upheavaled'' by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court that, as my friend from New York described, is an activist Supreme Court--the Shelby Court and now the Brnovich Court, absolutely wrongheaded decisions.

In Shelby, I believe the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that you don't throw away an umbrella in a rainstorm.

Now, let me characterize these words and not attribute them. I think one of the other points that was made is: Just because polio is not on the rise, you don't get rid of the polio vaccine. Just because you think COVID-19 is gone, you don't throw all manner of precautions to the wind.

Obviously, we see what is happening with this kind of reckless behavior and this kind of red State, blue State discord. People are dying.

That is where we are with voting rights. The Shelby case in 2013 just imploded the preclearance, which in actuality says that as you begin to think about a bill that may have these discriminatory impacts, they can be precleared by the Department of Justice and stopped in their tracks. Section 2 says the harm has been done, and you can run into court making the argument that it is discriminatory.

Tragically, all we were left with, before the Brnovich case, was section 2. But here, what has happened in this case that came out of Arizona--a place where the big lie is playing out every day with a false and misleading and disreputable vote count. To my colleague, I don't know what they found yet, but it is certainly one that has no basis in fact.

The Court in Brnovich suggested that they would have something called guideposts--I call them burdens or suggestions--that when reviewing claims that are facially so-called neutral election policy, practice, or voting rule, and it is discriminating, you can look at these aspects.

You can burden us by saying, ``Here is what you look at.'' Are they ordinary burdens or mere inconvenience exception, the size of disparities and burdens imposed by the challenge rule, other opportunities to vote provided by a State's election system.

So, the polls are closed. You can't do a mail ballot. You don't have Souls to the Polls. So, just find some other way to vote.

That is the question. They say, ``other opportunities to vote.'' You close out all the other supporting aspects of voting, and maybe you can get to vote in a snowstorm. Maybe you can get to vote as a military person in battle. Maybe you can show up to the voting poll on election day because that is another opportunity. Maybe you can get on a plane and leave battle to vote. These are the just nonsensical aspects of the Brnovich case.

Legitimate State interests justifying the challenge voting rule--oh, there is a State interest to close your polling locations in minority neighborhoods, to not have places to get a voter ID in eight counties in Texas when you have a law that says you must have a voting ID, or to close out Souls to the Polls, a perfectly legal concept to allow people who work around the clock through a Sunday to go vote. I guess you would tell them to just find another opportunity.

When we were in the middle of COVID-19 and nurses and doctors were working around the clock, Harris County said: We will give you 24-hour voting.

Legally, law enforcement present, machines in order, no fraud detected at all, but you are fighting COVID, and you might not get off until 1 a.m., 3 a.m., 4 a.m.

Yet, this is what the big lie brings about, and then the degree to which a voting rule departs from what was a standard practice when section 2 was amended in 1982.

Now, the crisis of this is that all of this must be run down for you to be able to prevail under section 2, under the Brnovich case.

Taken together, this Supreme Court cabal is saying to racial, ethnic, and language minorities already intimidated--and you need to look at what John Lewis faced in 1965, this brunt force, law enforcement on horses chasing foot soldiers back over the bridge, 8-year-olds running for their lives, and bloodied older persons, foot soldiers, and John Robert Lewis, who said he thought he was going to die.

That is what sacrifice has been made for voting. Taken together, this court decision is saying: What is the big deal? It is only voting. Just like with bad weather, sometimes you just have to grin and bear it and have a little inconvenience. Just a little bit of discrimination. Why are you concerned about that?

And so I assume that without the 24th amendment, that this conservative majority and the court will subject poll taxes and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich. Just a little bit of inconvenience. Take that money out and pay that poll tax. You don't have any money? I guess your fundamental right to vote has just been extinguished.

That is where we are today. That is why we are here today challenging the filibuster, speaking about the Federalist papers nullification, and trying to understand that the Constitution prevails over all of these miserly bills across the Nation. The 15th amendment and then the Constitution statement, very clearly says that Congress, that no one can nullify or stop your rights as a person that is elected to Congress because they have no rights.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article, an op-ed, that I submitted on June 26, 2021, authored by myself.

Where GOP Lawmakers Have Passed New Voting Restrictions Around the

Country

Republican state legislators have introduced hundreds of

bills that would tighten access to voting around the country,

many of them echoing former president Donald Trump's false

claims that loose election laws allowed fraud to taint the

2020 White House race.

The groundswell began early this year with the introduction

of 253 bills proposing voting restrictions across 43 states

as of mid-February, according to the nonpartisan Brennan

Center for Justice. That number rose to at least 389 bills in

48 states as of mid-May.

The national spotlight is now on Texas after Democratic

lawmakers left the state on July 12 in an effort to block

passage of one of the most stringent new voting measures in

the country. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said the members

could face arrest when they return, which is not expected

until the state's special legislative session concludes--

potentially as late as Aug. 7.

Across the country, 17 states have enacted laws this year

that tighten the rules around casting ballots and running

elections, according to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab,

which tracks developments in state election law.

Many of the bills target mail voting and other policies

that helped safeguard the franchise during the coronavirus

pandemic and produce the highest turnout among American

voters in more than a century.

Some of the bills also seek to curtail early voting, impose

restrictions on voter registration efforts, limit the power

of local officials to oversee elections and stop private

donors from supplementing their operational budgets.

Democratic-controlled states have moved in the other

direction, approving measures to formalize more permissive

voting policies from 2020, complementing proposed federal

legislation to protect voting rights with a set of national

standards.

In addition to the states listed below, Alabama, Arkansas,

Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, New

Hampshire, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming have

also passed laws with restrictive language.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), my co-anchor, and I thank him again for his joining me tonight, and for our journey that we are on trying to raise up justice in this country.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. I am so glad he said the words ``by any means necessary.'' That is striking, and without a doubt, the approach of the activist Supreme Court, right-wing, of the big lies, and of those who wish to stall and stop the very lifeline of American democracy, and that is the right of each person to vote their conscious.

As we have said: Our message, our power; but our voice, our vote; our vote, our voice. And I thank him for joining me this evening for elaborating and detailing and roll-calling where we are today.

I notice the gentleman did not step in the breach and indicate that we might need to expand the Court. That is another discussion altogether.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a member of the Judiciary Committee. I think she can speak in her own way on the vitality of a vote for poor people.

I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me to anchor this Special Order on the fierce urgency of preserving the precious right to vote by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and legislation like H.R. 1, the For The People Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this amendment. It would strike section 4208 of H.R. 1 which requires online platforms to retain records of certain online political advertisements. According to Forbes magazine, political advertisers spent $1.6 billion online in the 2020 election--almost 10 times what they spent in 2012.

At a time when Americans are increasingly bombarded with political ads online, striking this provision is not useful and would harm the efforts of this bill to provide increased transparency in political advertising. Fundamentally, Americans deserve to know who is paying for online political ads to ensure that they are informed voters.

Digital advertising can also have a far greater reach than broadcast advertising. Online political ads are relatively inexpensive to produce and can be disseminated instantly to vast audiences across great distances without regard to geographic boundaries. It is time for our disclosure and disclaimer laws and regulations to be updated to reflect how campaigns are run in the 21st century and how to keep pace with changing technology.

The online platform records requirements in this section are key to the Honest Ads Act, which is a part of H.R. 1, designed to improve transparency in political advertising. By requiring online platforms to retain copies of political ads, everyday Americans at home will be able to see who is paying for what. These requirements are narrowly drawn and only apply to online platforms with over 50 million monthly unique visitors and to advertisers who run over $500 a year in political advertisements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the measure and protect this important reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the late Justice Scalia, who was not exactly one of our liberal beacons on the Court, said this: ``Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to work with the gentlewoman as this bill advances towards enactment.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Lesko amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I rise to offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bloc of amendments provides important additions to H.R. 1 that strengthen the bill and enhance voter access.

Among the amendments in the bloc is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Virginia that would require foreign agent disclaimers to be included on social media content. This increases transparency by requiring disclaimers to be embedded on the face of a social media post itself, and those disclaimers must remain whenever the post is subsequently shared.

There are four amendments from the gentlewoman from California, including one that addresses longstanding privacy concerns of survivors of domestic and sexual abuse who want to register to vote but do not want their personal information to be publicly accessible; and a second that requires all in-person voting locations to have a sufficient number of accessible voting machines for their voters.

There is an amendment from the gentleman from California that clarifies prohibitions on polling places or ballot drop boxes that falsely purport to be an official location established for an election.

I would note that, in California, the Republican Party in southern California established drop boxes that purported to be from the registrar of voters. That was deceptive. An agreement was reached with the secretary of state that they could have the boxes, but they couldn't hold themselves out to be the registrar of voters.

H.R. 1 calls for all States to provide same-day voter registration. The gentlewoman from Michigan's amendment makes an important addition that will help ensure the successful carrying out of this requirement: States must ensure that they have adequate copies of registration forms and other relevant voter registration at polling places.

There is an amendment from the gentleman from New York that requires the GAO to conduct a study on voter turnout rates, broken down by age in States and localities that permit voters to participate in elections before the age of 18. This is an issue that merits examination, and this amendment will ensure that Congress is fully equipped to debate the issue.

There is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Illinois that would require the GAO to review small-donor campaign financing to study the extent to which the program increases opportunities for candidates of diverse racial, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

There is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Georgia that would require the Director of the CFPB to work with the EAC to develop a statement providing certain individuals with information regarding voter registration and their voting rights. This commonsense reform ensures that tenants and homeowners will have easy access to voter registration and other voter-related information.

Finally, there is an amendment from the gentlewoman from California that would ensure that the bill's prohibitions against election disinformation cover false claims that voters will face civil and other legal penalties for voting.

I support these amendments, and I urge their adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams), who serves in the seat of our late, beloved John Lewis.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is ready to yield back or use the rest of his time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the secretary of state of Colorado, with a number of other secretary of states, urging support for this bill; and a letter from former leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and concerned first amendment scholars urging support.

Jena Griswold,

Colorado Secretary of State,

March 2, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, and

Leader McCarthy: It's no accident that the 2020 elections

were the most secure in American history. A monumental effort

by election administrators--from board of elections

officials, to county clerks, to poll workers--ensured our

country's democratic process was stronger than ever, even

with the unique challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the 2020 elections proved that our democracy is

resilient, the elections also showed us that they cannot be

taken for granted. Our elections were safe, secure, and

successful because countless patriotic Americans took action

to protect them. The policies that gave voters better options

to safely

register to vote and cast a ballot in the face of the

pandemic were a resounding success and must now be made

permanent.

Modernizing elections meant that eligible voters did not

have to choose between casting a ballot and risking their

health. It also resulted in record turnout for both parties.

Policies like vote-by mail for all and early voting saw

resounding success in states and municipalities across the

country. Now, only Congress can ensure that every eligible

voter across America has access to these voting options in

the future. That's why we need to immediately enact the For

The People Act (H.R. 1) into law.

The For The People Act offers a comprehensive path to

securing and modernizing American democracy for generations

to come. The bill provides clear guidance for all 50 states

and the District of Columbia to implement election processes

that work for administrators and voters alike, and its

adoption into law is critical to the future of American

elections. Proven policies such as automatic and same-day

voter registration will remove administrative obstacles for

eligible voters while maintaining up-to-date and accurate

voter rolls. Voter-verified paper ballots will ensure every

vote is accurately recorded and allow administrators to run

key audits to verify election results. Other provisions, such

as independent redistricting commissions to combat

gerrymandering and shining light on dark money, will further

strengthen the integrity of our elections.

As the chief elections officials in our respective states,

and as the administrators who will be tasked with executing

many of the policies proposed in H.R. 1, we can confidently

state that this bill is designed to make our democracy

stronger and safer than ever. We proudly and firmly support

the For The People Act, and we strongly recommend its passage

in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State; Shirley Weber,

California Secretary of State; Jena Griswold, Colorado

Secretary of State; Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of

State; Kimberly Bassett, Secretary of the District of

Columbia; Shenna Bellows, Maine Secretary of State; Jocelyn

Benson, Michigan Secretary of State; Steve Simon, Minnesota

Secretary of State; Maggie Toulouse Oliver, New Mexico

Secretary of State; Shemia Fagan, Oregon Secretary of State;

Nellie Gorbea, Rhode Island Secretary of State; Jim Condos,

Vermont Secretary of State.

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

I appreciate that the ranking member has shown us this chart because he has proven that all of the Republican Members claiming that there was tax money funding the pilot project for the small matching donors were wrong.

This is a pilot project that is funded by an additional fine on corporate wrongdoing. It doesn't take money away from anything else. It is an additional fine that, if H.R. 1 doesn't pass, will not be imposed.

I was interested to hear our colleague from New Jersey say it is your money that will be used. Well, it is only your money if you are a corporate malfeasance individual, a corporate wrongdoer that gets fined; and I don't think very many of us have sympathy for that crew.

I would like to just give some perspective here because all over the United States, because of the pandemic, efforts were made to allow for people to vote and not have to endanger their health. So absentee voting became more of the norm. There were more early voting efforts, a lot of things of that nature, because of the pandemic.

And what happened?

There was a huge increase in turnout, both among Republicans and Democrats. It was a safe and secure election, the most safe and secure election in modern history. There wasn't a bunch of fraud.

Some of my colleagues said that people don't trust our system.

Why is that?

Because there are politicians in this country that are misleading the American public about that election. And I would say the former President is first among them, telling things that are not true and convincing people of that.

So now that we have had this huge turnout because of the pandemic, we are seeing States--Republicans, I must say, unfortunately, all over the United States trying to cut off access to the ballot.

In Georgia, they just passed a whole slew of voter restriction measures to try and tamp down turnout, and we see hundreds of bills being introduced to do that.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this en bloc and on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), another great friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a mediocre friend, not a great friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon), another mediocre friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Ms. Lofgren of California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the en bloc. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a good friend and a problem solver.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who can take you on a tour of the best Philly cheesesteak places in the world.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Naples, Florida, (Mr. Donalds), my good friend, who represents many of my former constituents from Illinois who have left Illinois because of overtaxation.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, before I reserve, can I make a parliamentary inquiry?

When a mask falls down unintentionally from a speaker, what is the rule?

Is this being enforced equally on the majority and minority?

So I should ask the second-rate parliamentarian off the floor?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my good friend and best- dressed member of our conference.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a summary of letters submitted yesterday by the Institute for Free Speech and others opposing

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

Madam Speaker, over the last couple of days, I have spoken a lot about my opposition to this bill's creation of a public fund filled with dollars from corporate fines to directly fund the campaign coffers of every Member of this institution and candidates.

And my Democrat colleagues have continued to say this isn't public funding or corporate donations because it is corporate fines.

So what is the truth?

I think my chart here tells the story. So we have corporate fines. That is corporate dollars, something that we, as Members of Congress in our campaigns, cannot accept right now. Those corporate dollars that pay these corporate fines that we set the levels of in this institution, they then go to the U.S. Government in this new--that H.R. 1 creates--the Freedom From Influence Fund.

It is really a laundering machine. So they launder that corporate money that we cannot accept right now into the Treasury and it comes out clean as public money. It is money that used to be used for things like the Crime Victims Fund. Instead, this new laundered money, this taxpayer money--because it is public, it is under the control of us-- then goes out exponentially to all of us, to our campaigns to pay for attack ads, fundraisers, mailers, phone calls, whatever you want.

But either way, it is government spending--government sending corporate dollars directly to us. This is, and should be, prohibited, but H.R. 1 changes that and it puts more money into politics and not less.

How about the Crime Victims Fund or victims of domestic violence get these dollars?

Let's make sure that we address programs that deal with sexual assault, child abuse, and other crimes. This money will not go into the Crime Victims Fund because it is going to all of us. All 50 State attorneys general have told us that this vital Crime Victims Fund is nearly depleted. But instead of plussing it up, here we are today, funding our own campaigns with a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, this bill isn't for the people. It is for the politicians. This is why I am offering a motion to recommit so that we can put forward a bill that works for the American people.

Madam Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on House Administration to consider an amendment to remove all public financing from this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, it is one reason I am opposed to H.R. 1, and giving Democrats another chance to join me, stopping this charade, stopping enriching themselves in their own campaign. This is one last chance before you do it again.

Madam Speaker, another reason I oppose H.R. 1 is because the election mandates on States in this bill go against what our Founding Fathers intended and essentially nationalizes our election system.

If signed into law, H.R. 1 would be the greatest expansion of the Federal Government's role in our elections than we have ever seen. By moving these decisions to D.C., we are further removing people from the laws that govern their elections. People should have more say in how their elections are run, not less. Our goal is to always ensure all eligible voters are able to vote and all lawful votes are counted. That is not what H.R. 1 does. And the only witness who has run an election before said during the single House Administration hearing held on this bill that H.R. 1 will undermine many of the election laws States have put into place to make it easier for people to vote and improve their election process for their voters.

One-size-fits-all mandates from Washington will not fix the problems we have seen in elections across the country. They will just cause more chaos and confusion. These issues need to be solved at the local and State level. Instead of dictating to States, we should be working with them and localities to address these issues. And I stand ready and willing to work with my Democrat colleagues to do just that, but I will not vote for a Federal takeover of elections and I will not vote to use the Federal Government to put more money into my campaign. It is bad policy and it is bad for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for the motion to recommit at the appropriate time, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a meeting with the Parliamentarian. I personally witnessed one of my Democratic colleagues immediately remove his mask and was never told to put it back on from the Chair at the time. So all we ask for is consistency.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I urge support for the motion to recommit. I urge my Democratic colleagues: Don't vote to put money into your own campaigns.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be here with Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

The culprit is not only the Republican Party, but it is also the Supreme Court. The rightwing majority on the Supreme Court gave the Voting Rights Act the narrowest possible meaning in order to render it powerless against 21st century voter suppression.

Congress deliberately wrote the Voting Rights Act broadly so as to protect against both obvious and insidious forms of voter disenfranchisement. The broad language of the Voting Rights

Act prohibits not only the denial, but also the abridgement of voting rights. It prohibits not only discriminatory intent, but also racially disparate impact. It requires that all methods of voting be equally open to communities of color, and that communities of color have an equal opportunity to cast their ballots.

And so anything that undermines equal openness and equal opportunity is a violation of the Voting Rights Act properly interpreted. I would submit to you that voter suppression in America has no greater ally than rightwing judicial activism.

Instead of interpreting the Voting Rights Act as written, the rightwing majority on the Supreme Court has chosen to rewrite the statute out of existence. The enforcement mechanisms of the Voting Rights Act have been all but eviscerated. There was section 5, which provided for preclearance, which enabled the executive branch to protect voting rights. Then there was section 2, which provided for litigation, which enabled the courts to protect voting rights.

Both of those enforcement mechanisms had been gutted at the hands of the Supreme Court, the former in Shelby County v. Holder and the latter in Brnovich v. DNC.

We know from history, Madam Speaker, that the most effective tool for preventing voter suppression is preclearance. According to Justice Kagan, from 1965 to 2006, the Federal Government harnessed the power of section 5, the power of preclearance, to prevent 1,200 voting restrictions from taking effect.

We should see the desecration of both section 5 and section 2 as a call to action, as a call for the United States Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would restore our preclearance not only for select jurisdictions but for every State and locality across the Nation.

Let it be known that the greatest obstacle on the path to 21st century voting rights enforcement is the filibuster. The filibuster perpetuates a status quo that disenfranchises communities of color. If you are a defender of the filibuster, then you should dispense with the pretense that you are a champion of voting rights. If you are a defender of the filibuster, you are not part of the solution, but you are part of the problem.

Madam Speaker, both the 2020 and 2021 election cycles have been a powerful testament to the influence of the Black vote.

I proudly come from New York State where we have seen a golden age of Black political power: the attorney general, the State Senate majority leader, the State assembly speaker, the mayor, are all Black.

And we know that but for the Black vote, President Biden would have never won the Presidency, and the Democrats never would have won a majority in the Senate. And the attempts at voter suppression that we have seen threatens to reverse the racial progress that has been made.

Increasingly, we are becoming a multiracial democracy. You know, 70 percent of the Democratic Caucus consists of people of color, women, and members of the LGBTQ community. But you would never know that from the structure of the Senate. The structure of the Senate concentrates power in a small subset of States that are much Whiter, much more rural, much more conservative than the rest of the country.

Before the Democratic party won the Senate in 2021, the Senate Republican majority represented 10 to 15 million fewer people than the Senate Democratic minority. And the problem is that the filibuster takes the undemocratic structure of the Senate to an even greater extreme.

The notion that one Senator, who represents a State smaller than our congressional districts, should have the power to overturn the will of the President and the Senate and the House, is profoundly undemocratic. It makes an absurdity of the democratic process.

One particularly egregious example of the filibuster can be found in the area of gun safety. In a rational world, every gun would be registered and safely stored. Every gun owner would be licensed and trained. Every gun sale would be subject to a background check.

But there is nothing rational about a political system that enables one Senator from a State smaller than my congressional district to filibuster gun safety at the expense of 330 million Americans.

Name any cause: LGBTQ equality, voting rights enforcement, immigration reform, democracy reform, criminal justice reform, all of these causes have died at the hands of the filibuster.

I would submit to you that we have a party in America that is intent on holding power at any cost and by any means necessary. If the Republican party cannot win democratically, then it will insist on winning undemocratically through voter suppression, gerrymandering, the structure of the Senate, the electoral college, right-wing judicial activism on the Supreme Court. All of these are means of holding onto power by any means necessary. All of these are means of subverting democracy at any cost. That is the challenge that lies before us.