H.Res. 179

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I call up the bill (H.R. 1) to expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, 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. 1 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021. Today, we can deliver this to the American people. We can deliver the gold standard of reforms to protect the right of Americans to vote. We can take a huge step to fulfill that promise in our Constitution of a more perfect Union.

More voters cast a ballot in the 2020 election than in history, in an election that has been called the most secure in American history by election security experts.

The last election, conducted during a once-in-a-generation pandemic, saw changes that made it easier for many Americans to vote, with reforms like absentee voting and early voting. It also put into stark focus what many of us already knew: deep inequities persist in our democratic system.

Now comes the backlash to the increase in voter participation. That record turnout, with no credible instances of election irregularity, stimulated hundreds of bills in State legislatures to make it harder for Americans to vote in the future.

We should protect access to the ballot, not restrict it. H.R. 1 gives voters choices for how to cast their ballot. They want and need that.

The bill has a minimum of 15 days of early voting, minimum standards for the number and location of ballot drop boxes, and a national standard for no-excuse absentee voting. It improves access for voters with disabilities, addresses challenges faced by Native American voters living on Tribal lands, and improves access for uniformed and overseas voters.

H.R. 1 ends the practice of disenfranchising Americans with a prior felony conviction who are no longer incarcerated. It unrigs the drawing of congressional district lines by requiring independent redistricting commissions, removing politics from the process and creating fairer maps.

H.R. 1 begins to remove the advantages of dark money and secret donors and lets our neighbors and communities regain their voice to fully participate in our political system.

H.R. 1 will amplify the voices of small donors with an alternative, voluntary matching system for financing campaigns by empowering small- dollar contributors, without any taxpayer funds.

The bill will save money and bolster the integrity of election administration. It makes improvements to our election security and requires States to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots, a simple safeguard from cybersecurity threats that ensures an auditable paper trail.

H.R. 1 will also strengthen congressional and executive branch ethical standards.

Democracy is resilient, but the falsehoods spread in the lead-up to and following the 2020 election, as well as the shocking events right here on January 6, showed us all that democracy requires us to defend it.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1 and ensure all Americans have an equal voice in our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I would just note for the record that I am not worried about the administrators in Georgia. I am worried about the legislature in Georgia that just passed restrictions cutting Sunday early voting and absentee voting and restricting the use of drop boxes to suppress the vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux), a new member of our House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), who is a new Member from New York and an expert in election law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez). It is an honor to recognize her as a member of the Committee on House Administration and one of the newest Members in the House, but an accomplished attorney.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to some of the comments that are made here this morning. We have talked a lot about Article I, Section 4, that says that the Congress may at any time regulate these elections. But what is the basis for that? It is really Article IV, Section 4, which says, ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.''

If a majority of voters vote and their votes are not powerful, they are not counted. Or if Americans are prohibited from voting, even though they should be able to cast their vote, that is not a Republican form of government. So what we are doing here is the most important thing we could do, which is to preserve our American democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I just received word that the legendary civil rights leader Vernon Jordan has passed. In addition to our beloved John Lewis, I feel we are considering this bill in his memory and also to honor those who came before us who worked so hard to preserve our American democracy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a number of letters, the first from more than 150 groups urging support for the For the People Act, including the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Disability Rights, Common Cause, Franciscan Action Network, the League of Conservation Voters, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice and the Sierra Club.

Declaration for American

Democracy,

February 5, 2021.

Re More than one hundred and fifty Groups urge support for

the For the People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1).

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the below

organizations representing tens of millions of Americans, we

write in strong support of H.R. 1/S. 1, the For the People

Act. This transformational democracy reform package would

help return power to everyday American families and amplify

the voices of communities that have historically been

marginalized in our democracy.

For far too long, special interests, wealthy donors, and

vote suppressors have dominated our politics and attempted to

silence the voices of everyday Americans, especially in Black

and Brown communities. The For the People Act would help

shift power away from bad actors and transfer it to ``we the

people.''

The 2020 election has underscored the urgent need for

transformational democracy reform. Across the nation,

Americans experienced unprecedented voter suppression,

historic levels of dark money spent to drown out the voices

of everyday Americans, and rampant ethical abuses. One bill,

the For the People Act, addresses many of these problems.

Therefore, we are urging Congress to make this pro-voter,

anti-corruption legislation a first priority in the 117th

Congress.

Common-sense reforms in the For the People Act, most of

which are deeply popular across the political spectrum and

have passed in many states and localities, aim to accomplish

three overarching goals: (1) protecting and strengthening the

sacred right to vote, (2) ending the dominance of big money

in politics, and (3) implementing anti-corruption, pro-ethics

measures to clean up government.

Many of the critical issues that our nation faces--ensuring

quality, affordable health care, creating good paying jobs,

combating climate change, and achieving racial justice, to

name just a few--cannot be fully solved until we fix our

broken democracy. Wealthy special interests have too strong

of a grip on the status quo, and we need to first unlock this

stranglehold that they have on our political system.

We therefore urge you to support and vote for H.R. 1/S. 1,

the For the People Act, early in the 117th Congress to help

put the people back in charge of our democracy.

Sincerely,

Declaration for American Democracy (DFAD), African American

Ministers In Action, American Federation of Teachers (AFT),

American Friends Service Committee, American Promise,

Americans for Financial Reform, Americans for Tax Fairness,

Bend The Arc, Brady United Against Gun Violence, Brennan

Center for Justice, Center for American Progress, Center for

Disability Rights, Center for Media and Democracy, Center for

Popular Democracy, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in

Washington (CREW), Clean Water Action, Climate Law & Policy

Project, Climate Reality Project, Coalition to Stop Gun

Violence, Common Cause.

Communications Workers of America, Congregation of Our Lady

of Charity of the Good

Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; DC Vote, Defend Democracy, DemCast

USA, Democracy 21, Democracy Initiative, Democracy Matters,

Democratic Policy Center, Earthjustice, Earthworks,

Endangered Species Coalition, End Citizens United // Let

America Vote Action Fund, Equal Citizens, Faith in Public

Life, Faithful America, Fix Democracy First, Franciscan

Action Network, Free Speech For People, Friends of the Earth

U.S., Government Accountability Project.

Green Latinos, Greenpeace USA, Herd on the Hill, Hispanic

Federation, JPIC Committee of USA/Haiti Province of Religious

of Jesus and Mary, Ladies Who Launch, Lawyers for Good

Government (L4GG), Leadership Conference of Women Religious,

League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters of the

United States, Main Street Alliance, March for Our Lives,

Maryknoll Sisters, Mi Familia Vota, Moms Demand Action,

MomsRising, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Advocacy

Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National

Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities,

National Association of Social Workers.

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC),

National Council of Jewish Women, Natural Resources Defense

Council, Network for Responsible Public Policy, NETWORK Lobby

for Catholic Social Justice, New American Leaders/New

American Leaders Action Fund, Oil Change U.S., Pax Christi

USA, People Demanding Action, People For the American Way,

People's Action, Poligon Education Fund, Population

Connection, Pride at Work, Progressive Turnout Project,

Protect Democracy, Public Citizen, Public Wise, Publish What

You Pay-US, Reclaim Our Democracy, Rock the Vote, Service

Employees International Union (SEIU).

Sierra Club, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team,

Small Planet Institute, Stand Up America, Stand for Children,

The Loyal Opposition, The Workers Circle, Transparency

International U.S. Office, Unitarian Universalist

Association, Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice,

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, URGE:

Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, Vote.org, We Are

Casa, Woman's National Democratic Club, #VOTEPROCHOICE, 20/20

Vision.

Selected State/Local Organizations

Arizona

Arizona Advocacy Network

Chispa Arizona

Fuerte Arts Movement

Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA)

National Council of Jewish Women Arizona

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona

Progress Arizona

Rural Arizona Action

Sierra Club--Grand Canyon (Arizona) Chapter

Nevada

Chispa Nevada

MPower 360

Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

Silver State Equality-Nevada

New Hampshire

Coalition for Open Democracy and Open Democracy Action

Indivisible New Hampshire

New Hampshire Independent Voters

NH Ranked Choice Voting

New Hampshire Voters Restoring Democracy

New Hampshire Youth Movement

NH Sierra Club

350 New Hampshire

603 Forward

Virginia

Activate Virginia

Arlington Young Democrats

Indivisible Below the Beltway

Madison County Democratic Committee

Network NOVA

Persist Fairfax

RepresentUS Virginia--The Clean Money Squad

RISE for Youth

SW Poor People's Campaign

Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington Virginia

Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of Virginia

Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax

Virginia Coalition of Human Rights

Virginia Democracy Forward (VADF)

Virginia Justice Democrats

Virginia Political Cooperative

Winchester Frederick County Democratic Committee

West Virginia

Catholic Committee of Appalachia

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action

National Association of Social Workers West Virginia

Chapter

National Rural Social Work Caucus (WV)

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Our Future West Virginia

RiseUpWV

West Virginia Environmental Council

West Virginia Poor People's Campaign

Women's March West Virginia

WV Citizens for Clean Elections

WV Citizen Action Group

WV Working Families Party

Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record more letters in support of this legislation, H.R. 1. I also include letters from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a letter from attorneys general around the United States: the attorneys general of Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. The attorneys general of all of these States have written in support of H.R. 1.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

January 19, 2021.

Support H.R. 1, the For the People Act

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 220

national organizations committed to promoting and protecting

the civil and human rights of all persons in the United

States, and the 82 undersigned organizations, we write in

strong support of H.R. 1, the For the People Act. We are

pleased that the incoming Senate leadership has today

announced it intends to introduce this critical bill as S. 1.

The For the People Act represents a transformative vision

for American democracy. It would create a democracy that

welcomes every eligible voter's chance to participate in

civic life and a democracy that demands integrity, fairness,

and transparency in our nation's elections. For far too long,

voter suppression has been a shameful reality in our

country--undercutting the power and representation of African

Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders,

Native Americans, people with disabilities, Arab Americans,

and other communities historically excluded from our

political process. The ability to meaningfully participate in

our democracy is a racial justice issue. It is a civil rights

issue. And the need for legislative action is urgent. The

U.S. House of Representatives passed the For the People Act

in March 20 I 9, and we are pleased that Speaker Pelosi has

committed to making this bill a top priority in the new

Congress.

The recent and deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol by far-

right extremists attempting to overturn the free, fair, and

secure 2020 presidential election was a catastrophic reminder

of the fragility of our democracy. This violent insurrection

did not happen in a vacuum. It was paired with numerous

hurdles that voters faced during the pandemic-plagued 2020

election cycle and exacerbated by the relentless efforts by

President Trump to undermine election integrity, impose

barriers to the ballot box, and discount the votes of

communities of color. These experiences reinforce the urgent

need to repair our democratic system. The historic voter

turnout in the November election despite these challenges

demonstrated the determination and resilience of the American

people.

Not every flaw in our democracy can be easily fixed, but

there are strong and ready solutions to many of the most

significant voting rights problems. H.R. 1 would enhance and

ensure democracy in America by establishing many critical

reforms in federal elections, including:

Ensuring early voting and polling place notice: H.R. 1

would require at least 15 consecutive days of in-person early

voting including weekends, for a minimum of 10 hours each

day, and ensure that early voting polling places are

accessible by public transportation. The bill would also

require that voters be given a minimum of seven days' notice

if their polling place location is changed.

Safeguarding the right to vote by mail: Sixteen states

require voters to provide an excuse as to why they are unable

to vote in person on election day in order to receive an

absentee ballot. This practice is designed to impede the vote

and was particularly galling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

H.R. I would eliminate such restrictions on the right to vote

by mail. The bill would require the prepayment of postage by

the government on return envelopes for absentee ballots or

voter registration forms.

Reforming voter registration: Nearly 20 percent of people

who are eligible but do not vote cite registration hurdles as

the main reason for not voting. H.R. 1 would modernize

America's voter registration system and improve access to the

ballot box by requiring states to establish automatic voter

registration (``AVR''), same day registration (``SDR''), and

online voter registration for voters across the country, and

by ensuring that all voter registration systems are inclusive

and accessible for people with disabilities. A YR alone could

add an estimated 50 million people to the voter rolls, and

SDR increases voter turnout by roughly 10 percent.

Ensuring reasonable wait times to vote: Voters in some

states last year were forced to stand in line for more than

10 hours to vote, and recent studies have shown that such

barriers occur more frequently in communities of color. H.R.

I would require states to ensure that voters do not have to

wait longer than 30 minutes to cast their ballot at a polling

place.

Permitting voting without a photo ID: Between 2010 and

2020, 16 states enacted strict voter identification laws.

H.R. I requires states to allow registered voters in states

with a photo ID requirement to sign a sworn affidavit to vote

if they lack a photo ID.

Requiring access to drop boxes: During the 2020 election

cycle, some states politicized and limited the use of drop

boxes. H.R. 1 would require states to provide secure drop

boxes as an option for voters casting absentee ballots.

Restoring voting rights for formerly incarcerated people:

H.R. I would restore voting rights for people with felony

convictions who have finished their sentence, a necessary

repudiation of our nation's discriminatory and racially

violent past. This would re-enfranchise approximately 4.7

million voters nationwide. Reforming felony

disenfranchisement has strong bipartisan support; in 2018, 65

percent of Florida voters cast their ballots to restore the

right to vote for over 1.4 million people.

Combating voter purging: H.R. 1 would overturn the Supreme

Court's troubling 2018 decision in Husted v. A. Philip

Randolph Institute that allowed Ohio to conduct massive

purges from its voter rolls based on non-voting in past

elections. Such practices disproportionately target and

remove traditionally marginalized people from registration

rolls. Voting should not be a ``use it or lose it'' right.

Prohibiting deceptive practices and voter intimidation:

H.R. 1 would ban the distribution of false information about

elections to hinder or discourage voting. This provision is

particularly important in an era in which Facebook, Twitter,

and other digital platforms have been readily manipulated to

spread misinformation about elections and voting rights to

vulnerable communities. The bill would also increase the

criminal penalties for intimidating a voter for the purpose

of interfering with their right to vote or causing them to

vote for or against a candidate.

Reforming redistricting: H.R. 1 would be a milestone in the

battle against the extreme partisan gerrymandering our

country has witnessed in recent years, by requiring states to

draw congressional districts using independent redistricting

commissions that are bipartisan and reflect the demographic

diversity of the region. It would establish fair

redistricting criteria and safeguard voting rights for

communities of color.

Modernizing election administration: H.R. 1 would

reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission--an

independent, bipartisan commission that plays a vital role in

ensuring the reliability and security of voting equipment

used in our nation's elections. It would also promote

election reliability and security by requiring voter-verified

permanent paper ballots and enhanced poll worker recruitment

and training. And H.R. 1 would prohibit state election

administrators from taking an active part in a political

campaign over which they have supervisory authority.

Committing to restoring the Voting Rights Act (``VRA''):

H.R. 1 contains a commitment to restoring the landmark VRA

and updating its preclearance provision, which is crucial to

prevent racial discrimination in the voting process. VRA

restoration is being pursued on a separate legislative track

that will involve investigatory and evidentiary hearings,

thus enabling Congress to update the preclearance coverage

formula and develop a full record on the continuing problem

of racial discrimination in voting. In 2006, the VRA was

reauthorized on a unanimous vote in the Senate and a near-

unanimous vote in the House. We need the same type of broad

and bipartisan support for restoring the VRA today.

H.R. 1 would also make significant advances in the areas of

campaign finance and ethics reform. It would correct the

rampant corruption flowing from the corrosive power of money

in our elections. It would replace the current campaign

finance system that empowers the super-rich and big

corporations with one that relies on small donors and public

matching funds. It would end secret election spending and

force disclosure of all election-related spending. And it

would call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the

disturbing Citizens United decision that made it

impossible to restrict outside spending by corporations or

billionaires. In addition, H.R. 1 addresses our government

ethics crisis by, among other things, requiring the

development of a code of conduct for Supreme Court

Justices to enhance accountability on ethics and recusal

issues; overhauling the Office of Government Ethics to

strengthen federal ethics oversight; establishing more

robust conflict of interest requirements for government

officials; prohibiting members of Congress from using

taxpayer dollars to settle allegations of employment

discrimination; and requiring presidents to disclose their

tax returns.

The For the People Act provides a North Star for the

democracy reform agenda. It is a bold, comprehensive reform

package that offers solutions to a broken democracy.

Repairing and modernizing our voting system goes hand in hand

with reforms that address the rampant corruption flowing from

the corrosive power of money in our elections, and reforms

that address the myriad ethical problems that plague all

three branches of the federal government. The reforms in the

For the People Act are necessary to advance racial justice

and ensure that our government works for all people, not just

a powerful few.

Congress must also pass two other essential racial justice

and democracy reform bills: the John Lewis Voting Rights

Advancement Act--which would restore a critical provision of

the Voting Rights Act gutted by the Supreme Court's infamous

2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision--and the Washington,

D.C. Admission Act, which would grant long overdue statehood

status to the nation's capital.

Shortly before his death last year, Representative Lewis

remarked: ``In our country, the right to vote is precious--

almost sacred. Countless people marched and protested for

this right. Some gave a little blood, and far too many lost

their lives. Around the globe, generations of U.S. officials

boasted of this legacy and progress. Today, the world is

horrified in watching Americans--especially people of color--

once again stand in immovable lines and experience

undeniable, targeted, systematic barriers to democracy . . .

. Time is of the essence to preserve the integrity and

promises of our democracy.''

Congress and the Biden-Harris administration must heed this

call. As the 2020 election cycle and the recent violent

assault on the U.S. Capitol made abundantly clear, our

democracy is vulnerable and is in dire need of protection. We

must enact transformational change to build a democracy that

works for everyone. The civil and human rights coalition is

strongly committed to expanding the franchise and fixing our

democracy, and we urge both chambers of Congress to pass the

For the People Act as early as possible in the 117th

Congress.

Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,

American Federation of State; County, and Municipal

Employees, American Federation of Teachers, American-Arab

Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Americans for Democratic

Action (ADA), Andrew Goodman Foundation, Appleseed Network,

Arab American Institute, Association of People Supporting

Employment First (APSE), Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Blue

Future, BOLD ReThink, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU

School of Law, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP),

Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, Common Cause, Communications

Workers of America, Daily Kos, Declaration for American

Democracy, DemCast USA, Democracy 21.

Demos, End Citizens United/Let America Vote Action Fund,

Equal Justice Society, Equality California, Faith In Public

Life, Family Equality, Feminist Majority Foundation, GLSEN,

Government Accountability Project, Impact Fund, In Our Own

Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda,

Iota Phi Lambda Sorority Inc., Psi Chapter, Iota Phi Lambda

Sorority-Epsilon Phi, Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc., Iowa

Citizens for Community Improvement, Japanese American

Citizens League, Justice for Migrant Women, Justice in Aging,

Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Lambda Legal,

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

League of Women Voters of the US, Missouri Voter Protection

Coalition, MomsRising, NAACP, National Action Network,

National Association of Human Rights Workers, National

Association of Social Workers, National CAPACD--National

Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development,

National Center for Law and Economic Justice, National Center

for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women,

National Education Association, National Employment Law

Project, National Equality Action Team (NEAT), National

Homelessness Law Center, National Organization for Women,

National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women Of

Achievement, Incorporated National Workrights Institute.

Oxfam America, Patriotic Millionaires, People For the

American Way, People's Parity Project, PFLAG National, Prison

Policy Initiative, Progressive Turnout Project, Public

Citizen, Public Justice, Rock the Vote, SC Appleseed Legal

Justice Center, Service Employees International Union (SEIU),

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF),

Silver State Equality-Nevada, Texas Progressive Action

Network, The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church

and Society, True North Research, UnidosUS, URGE: Unite for

Reproductive & Gender Equity, When We All Vote, Wisconsin

Faith Voices for Justice, Women Lawyers On Guard Action

Network, Inc.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is the author of H.R. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, there have been a number of statements made on the floor today that were hair-on-fire inaccurate, and 5 minutes would not be enough to actually correct the mistakes and the incorrect comments that have been made, but let me just address a couple of them.

I keep hearing ``speech czar.'' I must confess, when I first heard that, I thought, what the heck are they talking about? Then I looked at the rhetoric, and it appears that there is an objection to section 603 of the bill, which allows the chair of the FEC and other commissioners to take certain actions.

Now, it has nothing to do with being a speech czar. There is no connection with that. To suggest that the FEC doing its job is somehow becoming a speech czar is just not correct.

I have heard a lot of comments about the voucher program. People have objected to our tax dollars being spent. Well, here is the good news: There are no tax dollars being spent in this program. It is a pilot project that allows for a matching system to see whether small donors can actually empower more diversity and empower the voices of ordinary Americans as compared to the big interests.

It is not funded by taxpayer funds, and it is not funded from a source that

could be used for anything else in the government. It is an additional penalty to corporations that have done wrong and are fined. There will be an additional fine to fund this pilot project.

I have heard that somehow H.R. 1 would allow the IRS to go after conservative groups. That is not true. Section 4501 simply repeals the prohibition that prevents the IRS from examining the meaning of social welfare in the context of 501(c)(4) organizations. That is about any group that misuses the Tax Code for politics, pretending to be a social welfare group, whatever their ideology. It never made sense to preclude the IRS from doing this job. That would be like prohibiting the FEC from administering the Federal elections code.

Voter ID: Members act as if that is just a piece of cake. Well, 11 percent of eligible voters in the United States don't have an ID, and they can't get it because they don't have the money to pay for the underlying documents that would be necessary to get that ID. And those 11 percent are disproportionately senior citizens, young people, people with disabilities, low-income voters. So what is the alternative? They sign under penalty of perjury. They can be prosecuted for a felony if they are lying.

Ballot harvesting: There is no such thing as harvesting ballots. It is about getting someone you trust to turn in your ballot for you if you can't do it yourself. We have had that in California for many years. I will note that Republican candidates used that extensively in California this year. There was no evidence of fraud when they did it, and there was no evidence of fraud when Democrats did it. You give your ballot to your neighbor, if you wish. The neighbor has to sign, and they turn it in for you. That is not fraud, and it is not a problem.

Finally, I just want to address the issue of so-called Federal overreach. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 4 says this: ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof,'' but here is the important next section, ``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.'' And that is what we are doing in H.R. 1.

I think it is interesting that earlier this year the Republican Study Committee endorsed the Save Democracy Act. That legislation would establish national standards for prohibiting automatic voter registration, to make it hard to cast a ballot, to impose restrictive rules on vote tabulation. So, I guess that overreach only matters to my colleagues if it empowers voters, not if it restricts voters.

For too long, this Chamber has been silent, and this silence has harmed the people. We need to stop that silence and vote ``yes'' on

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

This bloc includes, for example, an amendment from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania that requires States to ensure that there are polling places during the early voting period on college campuses. This will help young people to engage in our elections and will likely help boost youth turnout.

It also includes an amendment from the gentlewoman from North Carolina that will help ensure the timely delivery of absentee ballots by the Postal Service. It calls for the Postal Service to perform same- day processing of ballots when they are received at a postal facility.

Also included is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Georgia that supports access to the franchise. It implements voter protections by ensuring that States cannot prohibit access to voting materials provided by third parties, such as get-out-the-vote organizations.

There is also an amendment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania that allows for voter education information at naturalization ceremonies for newly sworn-in citizens. That will help educate and inform new citizens about the opportunities to register to vote.

Finally, there is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Texas that exempts cybersecurity assistance, including assistance in responding to threats or harassment online, from limits on coordinated political party expenditures.

Madam Speaker, I support these amendments. I urge their adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss), a new member of the House who has two amendments encompassed in this en bloc amendment.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a new Member of Congress and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, who I serve with.

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

Just a few points. As I am sure the gentleman from Illinois knows, we had a markup last year on H.R. 1, and one of the issues raised was the propriety of having taxpayer dollars fund the pilot program, the matching program.

And we agreed--we agreed with that observation. So we changed it. We made an amendment to address that concern.

It is not an additional--an existing fund. If a corporation does wrong and is assessed a fine, there is an additional fine hit on that bad-doing corporation that would fund the pilot project. And if there aren't enough bad-doers to actually fully fund the program, the program is scaled back. There is no taxpayer money in this program.

These amendments in this bill address things that are important. And let me just reference the letter from the attorneys general that I included in the Record earlier. We are talking about what is happening right now, and this is what they state:

``. . . State legislators have seized upon former President Trump's baseless voter fraud allegations to curtail mail-in voting options, impose stringent voter ID requirements, limit voter registration opportunities, and allow even more aggressive purging of voter rolls. In the wake of a safe and secure election, which enabled greater levels of voter participation than in over a century, we should be building on this progress, not dismantling it.''

And that is what this act would do. They go on to say:

``The act includes several measures that would neutralize these cynical efforts at voter suppression. . . .''

Madam Speaker, I think we should recognize that what is going on in State legislatures around the United States right now is, in fact, what the attorneys general have said, a cynical effort to suppress the vote, because we have the greatest voter turnout in American history with the new tools that the pandemic actually led us to: a broader opportunity to cast your vote by absentee, a broader opportunity to vote early.

We had great turnout. And I don't know in the end which party will benefit when more Americans vote.

Could it be the Republicans? Could it be the Democrats?

I don't know. But I do know this: Who will win is America. America wins when all Americans have a chance to cast their vote.

So, once again, I would like to thank the attorneys general of Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington for standing up for the rule of law, for pointing out that H.R. 1 will lead to clean elections, and that American democracy needs repairing, and this bill will repair it.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are the authors of all of the amendments included in this en bloc, and I think these amendments represent a number of thoughtful amendments that will improve the bill.

Included is an amendment that exempts any State that does not utilize voter registration on the enactment date of this act and continuously thereafter from complying with voter registration requirements in the act.

This is reasonable, as North Dakota does not have voter registration. As the State does not require voter registration, it is reasonable not to force them to begin doing so now.

There is also an amendment in this en bloc that requires a report to Congress on the impact of widespread mail-in voting on the suffrage of Active Duty military servicemembers, how quickly their votes are counted and whether the high volumes of mail-in votes makes it harder for those individuals to vote.

Republicans and Democrats alike, can agree that insights into how to better secure our election infrastructure are needed to protect our democracy.

Included in this en bloc is an amendment to require a report to Congress on the data collection practices; the required necessary security resources; and the impact of a potential data breach of local, State, or Federal online voter registration systems.

Additionally, there is an amendment directing the Election Assistance Commission to study the use of blockchain technology to enhance election security. I hope that study will include the use of electricity in the creation of blockchain technology.

Much of H.R. 1's provisions are aimed at restoring the American public's faith in the government by improving ethics standards imposed on public officials.

An amendment included in this en bloc would require ethics waivers granted by Congress to the executive branch officials to be disclosed, and require members of the Presidential transition team to disclose nongovernmental positions they have held in the year prior to starting their service on the transition team.

I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for putting forward these amendments, and I believe it will gather bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, we believe these amendments are reasonable ones. I support them, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush) for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to note that the underlying bill provides that once individuals are re-enfranchised, they may vote. And H.R. 1 also ends the practice of so-called prison gerrymandering, where persons who are incarcerated are counted where they are incarcerated not in their home districts, even though they cannot vote there.

Now, I know different people have different viewpoints on this amendment. The committee Democrats have no official position, but speaking just personally, I feel there is merit to this amendment. If you are going to count the individuals for redistricting purposes in their prisons, then I think they have to be allowed to vote there, or else that entire scheme is completely wrong.

Madam Speaker, further, it occurs to me that those who oppose it think that denying a vote would somehow be a deterrent to criminal conduct. In fact,

empowering people to be full citizens encourages rehabilitation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, last week, this House voted on a bill that was sold as pandemic relief, yet less than 9 percent of that bill was for public health funding to combat COVID-19, and $140 million of that bill is going to a failed rail project in Speaker Pelosi's district.

This week, the Democrats have put forth a bill titled ``For the People,'' but the bill has nearly 800 pages of provisions that take election decisions away from State and local officials and put them in the hands of the Federal Government. It attacks Americans' First Amendment right to free speech, and it publicly funds Members of Congress' campaigns using corporate dollars.

There is a pattern emerging. The Democrats are bringing bills to the floor under the guise of being for the people, but their bill actually benefits the politicians.

As I said, I have many issues with H.R. 1, including the mandates this bill puts on States and provisions that attack our First Amendment rights. But I want to focus on one particular provision in this bill right now, and that is how the Democrats' number one priority is a bill that funds their own campaigns.

H.R. 1 would launder corporate dollars through the U.S. Treasury and use those dollars to publicly fund congressional campaigns. Based on 2020 fundraising numbers, that creates access to more than $7 million in laundered corporate dollar public funds to bolster my colleagues' campaign coffers. This is the 6-to-1 match program that my colleague talked about for small-dollar donations.

I know when I speak with my constituents back home, establishing a program that helps me acquire more money for my campaign is not what they think the Federal Government should be working on.

At the Rules Committee, because this bill did not go through regular order and did not receive a markup in the House Administration Committee, we submitted amendments to not only strike this program altogether and prevent sitting Members of Congress from financially benefiting from this bill, but also requiring any increase in corporate fines to be used to help the pandemic relief.

I can think of a lot better ways to spend the $7 million that would be just for my district, like pandemic relief. We could maybe reopen our schools or rebuild a fund to help women's shelters and rape crisis centers. Amazingly, Democrats wouldn't even allow these amendments for a vote on the floor today.

It is disappointing because I had hoped that we could all agree that helping our country through this pandemic or just simply focusing on the American people is more important than lining our own campaign coffers. Clearly, this bill is not for the benefit of the people, but it is for the politicians' campaign coffers.

I also want to note that this bill is opposed by 16 secretaries of state, nine former FEC Commissioners, the National Disability Rights Network, the Institute for Free Speech, and more than 130 other nonprofit organizations, but supported by Indivisible, a group whose sole purpose is to elect Democrats. I think this speaks volumes as to why my friends on the other side of the aisle are rushing this bill through with little debate and next to no input from Republicans.

Despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tell Americans, this bill is not for the people. This bill is for the politicians. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a great member of the House Administration Committee, and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), the newest member of this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a refreshing sight to see back on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, just for the viewers on C-Span who wondered why time stopped here in the House for that minute the majority leader spoke, I want to remind them all that is what we call the majority leader's magic minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my good friend and one of the newest Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, in spite of my hesitance to trust this timing, can I get a time check to see how much we have left?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), another member of the Committee on House Administration.

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

Madam Speaker, no matter how many times Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats continue to say that there is not a publicly funded program to put money directly into her Members' congressional campaigns, it doesn't make her statement true.

In this bill, it is the first-ever corporate money since 1907 that is laundered through the Federal Government, through the Department of Treasury, and goes right into our own congressional campaigns, up to $7 million, using 2020 numbers.

Madam Speaker, I am angry that the Speaker continues to talk about States, like Georgia, following the law to make sure that their voter rolls are complete and accurate when, in her own home State of California, the corrupt secretary of state would not even commit to removing over 400,000 deceased or moved voters from the voter rolls, and many of them, if not all of them, got live ballots.

This bill would place the corruption that we see in California and export it nationwide. Let me tell you, that corrupt secretary of state, huh, what a deal, we now call him a U.S. Senator.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

Madam Speaker, I do also have a stack of letters in opposition. I will include them in the Record. I won't go through each of them.

Frank LaRose,

Ohio Secretary of State,

Columbus OH,

For Immediate Release:

Thursday, February 25, 2021.

LaRose Calls on Congress to Reject Federal Takeover of Elections

House Resolution 1 Would Bring Sweeping, Unworkable and Unfunded Change

Across the Nation's 50 Unique Election Systems, Causing Chaos and

Damaging Voter Confidence

Columbus.--Today, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose

called on the United States Congress to vote against House

Resolution 1, a bill that would effectively take over control

of how states conduct elections. HR 1 imposes significant

changes that ignore both the United States Constitution and

the unique election systems across the 50 states in an effort

to standardize how states vote.

``Ohio's November 2020 election was the most successful on

record, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Chuck

Schumer want to wipe it all away with a massive power-grab,''

said LaRose. ``Remember, each state election system is

unique--shaped by time and trusted by their respective

voters. Forcing uniform standards, procedures, and

expectations into state election systems, some far different

than others and not built for those requirements, is like

forcing a square peg into a round hole. It won't work.''

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states that

``[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for

Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each

State by the Legislature thereof,'' but that ``the Congress

may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except

as to the Places of chusing Senators.'' In Federalist Paper

No. 59, Alexander Hamilton contended that such regulation was

only necessary ``whenever extraordinary circumstances might

render that interposition necessary to its safety''. Moreso,

state-level elections and the election of the president have

remained outside of the purview of congress.

However, the question of whether it's even within the power

of congress to take over how states run elections isn't even

the most important question. Instead, the better question is

``should they?'' In the 59 presidential elections since 1789,

each has resulted in the successful election of a President.

Voting laws have evolved across the 50 states, providing more

and more access, security, and accuracy. Over time, each of

those same 50 states have created their own unique election

systems. From who administers the elections, to how votes are

cast, to how a vote is protected--each system was born of

federalism.

Like human beings, no voting system is perfect.

Improvements and changes happen as the people, working

through their respective state legislatures, see fit. In

Ohio, a state whose elections have long been under the

national spotlight, we've developed a system which has

ensured voters have confidence in the outcome of elections.

As a result, voter turnout is at an all-time high, voter

fraud and voter suppression are exceedingly rare, and our

efforts to strengthen the security of our elections have

become a national model. Even as we faced enormous

challenges, last year we in Ohio ran the most successful

election in our state's history. It's no surprise that other

states are now coming to us to learn our best election

practices so they can mirror them back home.

That's how it's supposed to work. One of the great

motivations of federalism is the state role as a laboratory

for democracy, with each state innovating to become a better

version of itself, and sharing those lessons with other

states. That experiment has allowed our nation to become the

best in the world. We need to keep that experiment going and

encourage Ohio's congressional delegation to vote against

House Resolution 1.

Secretary LaRose will soon be sending a letter to

congressional leadership and Ohio's congressional delegation

requesting a no vote on HR 1.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy). Hopefully, he will soon be the majority leader or actually the Speaker of the House. He is not part of that California corruption I mentioned earlier.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), the chair of the Republican Policy Committee and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, you can tell we have got some dedicated Members of Congress here to debate this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), my great friend and one of the newest Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), my good friend and another freshman Member of our historic freshman class.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, vote ``no'' on this disastrous piece of legislation. Obviously, the timekeeper didn't keep the time right; I should have more.

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

Madam Speaker, we have so much opposition on our side to this bill. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend, since we ran out of debate time on general debate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez), my good friend, who, in spite of once being an Ohio State Buckeye and an Indianapolis Colt, it took him coming to Congress to finally win a football championship.

The gentleman is right. We really did enjoy having him on that bipartisan congressional football championship team.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), another star member of this freshman class.

It is interesting that during this same debate 2 years ago, we had many in the majority come talk about this bill. I would say they must feel a little bit different this time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), another mediocre--I mean, a star freshman of our historic class and my good friend.

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

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

Madam Speaker, here we are again with more Federal election mandates that the majority would impose on our States and localities. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives States the primary authority to set the ``times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.''

Congress' role in this space is purely secondary and reserved only for correcting highly significant and substantial deficiencies. We saw nothing in 2020 that would rise to the level of a complete and total nationalization of our election system.

To give you some sense of the level of control the majority feels it should exert over our elections, amendments in this en bloc would mandate even the positioning of ballot drop boxes and polling locations. It would also mandate voters' requests for absentee ballots and the methods used for recruiting poll workers.

The underlying bill would require States to provide 15 days of early voting at 10 hours a day, even in States that conduct their elections completely by mail.

The underlying bill would regulate the amount of time a voter could wait in line to vote. Here is the deal: No one wants any voter to wait in a long line to vote, but setting aside the constitutional issues for a second, do we really think this body can make a one-size-fits-all decision that works for the unique people who live in each of our diverse 50 States?

This provision, coupled with the bill's private right of action, would simply set up a stopwatch stakeout at polling locations for ambulance-chasing trial attorneys.

States run elections in this country. I urge each of my colleagues to speak with their State's secretary of state or chief election officials and local election officials. Learn from the people who actually administer elections. State and local election administrators know best the needs of their voting population.

I speak with secretaries of state from across the country regularly to keep up to date on election issues. Just last week, at the only hearing held in this Congress on the underlying bill, the minority called the only witness who had even ever administered an election. So I know many of my colleagues could benefit from learning more about their State's election processes.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on these amendments and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I see we have a new clock watcher. How much time do we have remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, we can't say much more about how bad this bill is. Just the distortions, the mistruths, and just obvious malicious errors coming from the majority about what this bill does is frustrating.

Last Congress, when this bill was introduced, this bill started funding Members of Congress' campaigns with taxpayer dollars. And back then, under the 2018 calculations, every Member of Congress was only eligible to get about $4 million added to their campaign accounts.

Now, if you look at the top 20, 11 Democrats make up the top 20, and 9 Republicans, in disbursements over the 2020 cycle. Every single Member of this body is eligible through the 6-to-1 matching program to get $7.2 million.

No matter what Speaker Pelosi says, no matter what the majority says--they can tell you it is not true--read the bill. It is in the bill.

They are going to say, well, it is not taxpayer dollars. Let me go through the process. It is corporate money, corporate dollars that we cannot get in our campaigns right now that is then taken from corporations who, in their name, are bad actors.

Remember, Congress sets the level of fines. And a lot of these fines already go to good causes, like crime victim funds, rape crisis centers. They are going to get shortchanged because that

money is taken from corporate fines that are corporate dollars laundered through the Federal Government.

This money comes out as public money, taxpayer dollars, and then it is given directly to Members of Congress' campaigns.

Madam Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote for you, yourself, $7.2 million in your own campaign.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 179, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, under a structured rule. It self- executes a manager's amendment by Chairperson Lofgren and makes in order 56 amendments.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also deems as passed H. Res. 176, which directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of H.R. 1319, and H. Res. 177, which authorizes candidates for election to the House and Members of the House to file statements with the Clerk regarding the intention to participate or not participate in the small donor financing system for such elections created by H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, the House will be considering two pieces of critically important legislation this week that are a long time coming.

H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, improve election integrity, and revise rules for political spending and government ethics. The 2020 election brought out unprecedented turnout, even in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks in large part to voting by mail, more than 159 million Americans voted, the largest total vote turnout in United States history.

What followed was the most heavily scrutinized election in modern history, with our airwaves filled with horrific and dangerous lies that fundamentally damaged many people's faith in our democracy. Yet, through that entire ordeal, not a single shred of evidence of any systemic fraud was ever discovered--none at all.

Voting in this country, however, is far from perfect. Many people, particularly Americans of color and those from low-income families, face tremendous barriers to making their voices heard, from long lines at the polls to discriminatory ID laws.

I believe, and the Democratic majority believes, our national effort should be aimed at eliminating barriers to the ballot. We believe true participatory democracy can only be achieved when everyone--everyone-- is afforded the opportunity to vote. We believe it is better for America that every voice be heard here in Washington, in State capitols, and in city, town, and village halls across our Nation.

It is better for all of our citizens when each and every citizen has a stake in what their government says and what their government does. And we believe it is better for us on the world stage when our democracy shines as a beacon of hope and success for others to emulate.

It is becoming increasingly clear that not everyone believes our national interest is served by greater voter participation. It is held in some quarters that, rather than seeing greater participation as a sign of our democracy's enduring strength, it is instead seen as evidence of a dark, sinister plot. Or perhaps, more cynically, they express that view because suppressing votes, particularly of those with whom they disagree, will improve their chances for electoral success, even though it weakens our democracy.

Rather than trying to build on the successes of record voter turnout, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would rather turn their backs on those successes and begin an organized effort to change the rules because they didn't like the outcome.

The minority has put forward a narrative that suggests we must choose between two separate paths, accessibility and security. But that is a deliberately false narrative. We can, and we must, achieve both. H.R. 1 is the vehicle to advance both.

The For the People Act places a significant emphasis on election security, in everything from voter registration to ensuring all voting systems are secure with paper ballots and robust election result audits.

The outrage we have heard from Republican leaders in Congress demonstrates how out of touch they are with their own voters. More than two-thirds of likely voters, including 57 percent of Republicans, said they would back the proposals in H.R. 1. Americans want more accountability from their leaders, not less.

They want the influence of money out of politics. They want an end to gerrymandered districts. They want voting to be a celebration of our civil duty, not a constant battle to overcome administrative hurdles.

We owe it to those Americans to create the ethical and accessible democracy that they so richly deserve.

The House will also take up H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This legislation represents the work of hundreds of legislators and millions of American advocates who have fought for decades for a more equitable future.

This fight is especially personal for me, as my own community of Rochester, New York, has grappled with two recent tragedies that underscore just how necessary police reform truly is.

Just one block from here, on the west pediment of the United States Supreme Court, is a promise to every American: ``Equal justice under law.''

Sadly, we know that for too many Americans, that promise is an empty one. It was an empty promise for Daniel Prude, who, while naked and unarmed, faced a mental health crisis in the streets of Rochester when police arrived on the scene last March. He needed a warm blanket and treatment by a mental health professional. He got neither and died in police custody just days later.

It wasn't true just a month ago for a young girl in my community, who was forcibly restrained and pepper sprayed as she called out for her father. She is 9 years old. A police officer on the scene, impatient with her pleas to see her dad, urged her to stop acting like a child. Her response: ``I am a child.''

It would be laughable if it were not heartbreaking.

Equal justice under law was an empty promise for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, and for countless others in every corner of America and for countless more still to come unless we take bold, decisive action.

Indeed, it is up to each of us to make the changes necessary to finally fulfill the promise of equal justice.

The time for incremental change has passed. It is clear that we need a cultural paradigm shift and massive reimagining of our public safety protocols, and that starts with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

The bill prohibits religious, racial, and discriminatory profiling by every police department in America, supported by improved training for officers and comprehensive data collection and tracking to ensure departments are following the law.

It will save lives by banning dangerous police practices, like choke holds and no-knock drug warrants. It will ensure that law enforcement uses deadly force only when absolutely necessary and only after exhausting deescalation tactics.

This legislation would limit the transfer of military-grade equipment to State and local law enforcement because peace, safety, and community trust cannot--cannot--be realized with weapons of war.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will create desperately needed accountability by expanding the use of body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras and eliminating the qualified immunity protections that allow bad actors in law enforcement to stay on the force.

As a whole, this legislation addresses police misconduct, creates greater transparency, and affords victims meaningful avenues for redress. With these policies, we can build trust and we can begin to build cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they are supposed to serve and protect.

We passed both the For the People Act and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in the previous Congress, and it is my hope that this year represents a real opportunity to move both bills forward to the President's desk so that we can build stronger democracy and justice for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule and to support both underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment. As much as it pains me, because I have nothing but incredible admiration and respect for my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, but when it comes to the question of voting in the United States, the fact is that States right now are working--many of them overtime--to restrict ballot access. That is why it is necessary for the Congress to step forward, as is given us, the power in the Constitution, to make sure that we pass laws that fulfill the dream of voter access for all Americans.

I do also note that I think it would be much easier for us to believe that there is good faith on the other side of the aisle to negotiate some of these items and to perhaps reach compromise, but I find it hard to believe--and I stated this in the Rules Committee--given what happened over the last several months, that we would be in this position, that there is any ability to have a belief in good faith.

It is hard to imagine 60 lawsuits were brought against decisions made by States--not the Federal Government, but States--on the electoral college. Two-thirds of the members of the House Republican Conference-- two-thirds--objected to the results of the electoral college, and, in many cases, States that had Republican leadership and Republicans serving as secretaries of state or as elections commissioners.

So I would suggest that since--for the first time since 1800, when John Adams turned over the keys to the White House to President Jefferson and we observed the first peaceful transfer of power from one party to another, that since that foundational moment in American history over two centuries ago, this is the first time that people in this House have objected so strenuously and systematically to the results of the free and fair election of the American people.

So we are for the people. We want to continue to expand ballot access, and we want nothing more than those wishes of the American public to be respected by their elected officials.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois, and I may not agree with him very much on this subject. But I really disagree if he thinks the Committee on Rules today was fun. He must be a heck of a cheap date.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, and distinguished colleague from the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to again just note, although it has been said ad nauseam for the last several months, that while we clearly respect States' roles in these elections and that it is the States who run elections and organize them, we do have the power in the Congress given to us in the Constitution. But more importantly, this year, while the voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona cast ballots in free and fair and open elections, and those were certified repeatedly despite an onslaught of lawsuits brought by the former President and his advocates, all of which were denied going all the way up to the Supreme Court, our colleagues didn't respect those States' elections even though they were certified and even though, as we all met on what will be one of the darkest days in American history on January 6 to accept and certify those results given to us by the States, my colleagues and friends objected to them.

I am not sure what that says about their respect for State elections since they didn't respect the results of those elections, in many cases run by Republicans in their respective States.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I find this a most curious discussion. If we are not going to abide by the results of elections, and if we are not going to trust those various States to submit elections unless they agree with the outcome that we want, why we would be arguing so strenuously for the continuation of State control and no involvement by the Federal Government, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly vests that power here in the Congress?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I began my comments this evening, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I don't want to be argumentative, but I would note that I think there is a significant and substantial difference between a symbolic objection made by one or two Members to the electoral college results of a single State versus the objection of 140 Members of this House, particularly as it follows a violent, unprecedented attack on what I consider the sacred cathedral of democracy, the United States Capitol.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much, as always, the thoughtful comments by my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the question of matters before us here, we do have significant differences in how we view access to the ballot.

I would note that, historically, parties change. They evolve. Typically, because this is in keeping with American democracy, we evolve to reflect the needs and concerns and wishes and results of American elections and their expression of the will of the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, what I find troubling right now is that friends across the aisle seem to be focused not so much on learning the lessons given to us by those voters, by the American public, as expressed in the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

But instead, conscientious, by-design work to limit those who would want access to the ballot so that they can choose the voters, as opposed to the other way around--disenfranchising those, and setting up barriers, as we see happening in State capitals across the country, is troubling indeed. And, I think, it demonstrates the clear division between the two parties on this particular issue.

We seek, and we will always seek, to expand access to make sure that every single American, every single citizen who wants to participate in our democracy has the right, because that is how we end up with a better America, and we fulfill the promise of moving toward a more perfect Union.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), my very good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule covers two items, both of which will be familiar to Members who were here during the 116th Congress. We are once again considering H.R. 1, a bill that nationalizes our election system and substitutes Washington's judgment for a key responsibility of our States in the administration of free and fair elections. We are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Unfortunately, despite its title, H.R. 1 has nothing at all to do with the people. It is, instead, a bill about preserving the present Democrat majority. It is a bill by Democrats for Democrats. Though the majority claims this bill is about reforming our political system, the reality is that most of the changes in this bill, if enacted into law, would be to benefit the majority to the detriment of the minority.

The most egregious of these provisions are those dedicated to changing our national system of campaign finance. Now, in general, I think this is a worthy goal, but the majority's proposed solution does not make much sense. The majority is proposing to create a new federally funded campaign ATM using corporate fines, ensuring that certain candidates will receive millions of dollars just for running a campaign.

My colleagues in the majority have bemoaned the massive amount of money that has been entering into our campaign system over the past few decades, yet their proposed solution is to dump corporate dollars into the system.

In what world does this make sense?

Even Democrats know what a flawed program this is, which is why today's rule also includes a provision to allow Members of Congress to opt out of this program. Before this bill was even passed by the House, Democrats were already running from it. They should just keep running and pull this bill from the floor.

Other proposed changes in this bill are just egregious. Wherever possible, the majority is attempting to impose one-size-fits-all systems from Washington onto the States. It does this with a one-size- fits-all voter registration system, including forcing States to provide same-day voter registration whether they want to or not.

It takes away the power of the States to choose how to redistrict, forcing them to adopt Washington-imposed ``independent redirecting commissions,'' something that less than 20 percent of the States who undertake redistricting actually do.

These provisions impede the traditional power of the States to control their own elections. As a former secretary of state and election official in my home State of Oklahoma, I find these changes to be particularly concerning.

But what is worse, H.R. 1 also includes severe restrictions on free speech and repeals the Lois Lerner rule, a rule put into place after the IRS began targeting the speech of conservative organizations in determining whether or not they would qualify for tax exempt status. If enacted into law, these provisions would reweaponize the IRS and limit the abilities of organizations, corporations, and individuals to freely exercise this most-important right guaranteed under the Constitution.

How the majority can claim that this bill is for the people when they are blatantly restricting the people's right to free speech is beyond my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, what the majority is attempting today is egregious. Changing the national campaign finance system to benefit themselves, taking traditional powers away from the States, and restricting the right of free speech are all part of an unprecedented power grab.

I strongly urge the majority to change course, and I urge my colleagues to reject this terrible bill.

Today, we are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. As with H.R. 1, this bill will be familiar to our returning Members, as the House passed an identical bill last summer.

Unfortunately, while I think this bill is well-intentioned, it, too, is misguided. Reforms contained in H.R. 1280 will do more harm than good. I do not doubt the majority's good intentions with this legislation.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act came about following the tragic events of last summer. George Floyd's death demonstrated what so many Americans know only too well, that abuses of power clearly exist and must be grappled with.

And while the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers faithfully and bravely carry out their duties and responsibilities each day, all too often many Americans receive different treatment due to the color of their skin. Americans across the country rightly condemn this horrific and unacceptable act.

Unfortunately, rather than choosing to come together to legislate in a bipartisan manner, the majority chose to take the exact opposite course last summer, and we are once again considering the same flawed and deeply partisan bill we considered then and that the Senate failed to take up. I believe this bill will face the same result, should the House pass it again this week.

During the last Congress, when the Judiciary Committee met to mark up this bill, the majority completely shut out Republicans from the process. Republicans made good-faith attempts to work with the Democrats to find common ground on needed reforms, yet every single one of these attempts were rejected.

This year, the majority has not even deigned to bring this bill to a markup in the Judiciary Committee, and, once again, the majority has shut Republicans out of the process.

This is no way to legislate on an issue that is this important, Mr. Speaker. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that reforms are necessary. We all watched the tragedy of George Floyd unfold last summer and we all watched the resulting protests. We all agree that action is necessary. But rather than working together in the best interest of the American people, the majority is once again telling Republicans that they can only have a

Hobson's choice. They can take the Democrats' bill or they can take the Democrats' bill with no other options.

But I, along with my fellow Republicans, reject that idea. We fully recognize the critical need for reform. My colleagues, both in the House and in the Senate, have put together our own package, the JUSTICE Act, filled with bipartisan reforms that could pass both the House and the Senate and be signed into law quickly. These reforms include critical measures, like providing funding for body cameras for police officers, requiring deescalation procedures, and banning choke holds.

My colleague, Representative Stauber, offered this as an amendment at the Rules Committee earlier today, but, once again, the majority chose to shut out Republicans and refused to make this amendment in order.

That is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, but the real losers here are the American people. This is an issue we can and should cooperate on. I urge my colleagues in the majority to rethink the path they are on. On an issue that is this important and this critical to the American people, the very best thing we can do is work together. And with a reduced majority, I think that would actually be good political advice for my friends.

We can work on bipartisan reforms together and we can produce consensus legislation that has the buy-in of Members on both sides. Unfortunately, the majority has once again chosen the opposite path: Partisan bills filled with provisions that do not reflect the best interest or consensus of the country.

We can do better than that, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend, also a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my very good friend, and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, my friend and I disagree on the two pieces of legislation today, but we absolutely agree that the Committee on Rules' meeting was not fun.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, just quickly to my friend from New York, I wasn't here, and he wasn't here, but our friends thought to challenge in this Chamber the election in 2001, after 2000. I was here in 2004 when they challenged a State and demanded a recount. Then, I was here in 2017 when my friends on the other side sought to challenge 10 different States. So, let's not act like this is somehow unusual.

Mr. Speaker, another part of today's rule includes a provision to deem passed a correction to last week's budget reconciliation measure. Given that the majority now wishes to reopen last week's reconciliation, it is certainly appropriate to further amend that resolution to correct one of the more egregious provisions in it.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately adopt H. Res. 178, an engrossment correction to strike funding in the budget reconciliation bill for the Pelosi subway tunnel in California and instead direct the $140 million to support mental health and suicide prevention in States where children do not have the option of in-person instruction in school.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my good friend, for further explanation of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing two significant pieces of legislation today that are, unfortunately, both deeply partisan. In neither case has the majority allowed Republicans to be involved in the process of legislating.

Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1, the majority is proposing a deeply troubling takeover of election practices that will benefit only Democrats. The bill will take away the traditional powers of the States to run their own elections as they see fit, imposing a one-size-fits-all regime from Washington.

It dumps huge amounts of corporate money into the campaign finance system, particularly benefiting certain candidates. It imposes severe restrictions on free speech that are anathema to a free and fair election.

On H.R. 1280, the majority is once again seeking to pass the same flawed police reform bill it passed last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity here for both Democrats and Republicans to work together to pass real reforms for the American people. Instead of taking ``yes'' for an answer, the majority is instead seeking to impose a deeply partisan bill that will not fix the problems or help heal the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we deserve better than that. The American people are best served when their Representatives in Congress can come together and work in a bipartisan manner. One side attempting to impose partisan legislation on the country does us all a disservice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to rethink this path, reject both of these bills, and return to the negotiating table and work with Republicans for a brighter future for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I mean this with all sincerity. There is a great gap between us on H.R. 1. We just simply look at this matter differently. I think it is egregious partisan overreach. On H.R. 1280, there really is an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. The JUSTICE Act that Mr. Stauber filed last year and presented today as an amendment has a great deal in common with some of the objectives I know my friends want to achieve on their side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, in an almost evenly divided House and an evenly divided Senate that still has the filibuster, you can't do things by reconciliation every day. Most days, to get much done, it is going to require bipartisan cooperation.

We often say that never happens. The reality is it happens a lot more than people acknowledge. Five times last year we came together as Republicans and Democrats and passed COVID relief packages that made a big difference in this country. We also passed the spending bill on a bipartisan basis that funded the government for this entire fiscal year. We did that in the middle of a Presidential election year that was extraordinarily divisive.

Mr. Speaker, we can work together. I would ask my friends to rethink the course of the reconciliation bill and now these two pieces of legislation and start thinking about where we can actually get things done. I think the George Floyd bill, H.R. 1280, is one of those places. I also think the appropriations process can be one of those places. We can probably even find some common ground on some of the electoral issues, although personally, in my view, H.R. 1 is a very flawed piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for the debate and tell him that, despite our disagreements on these two pieces of legislation, I look forward to working with him. I don't think either of these are likely to get through the United States Senate. I do think we can get a product back from the United States Senate that both of us might be able to vote for, in terms of police justice and overhaul. We will wait and see what happens with H.R. 1. I am less optimistic we will ever see it again, but I am happy to say good-bye to it out of this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and I urge rejection of both underlying pieces of legislation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) in her beautiful acknowledgment of the passing of Vernon Jordan.

Madam Speaker, I also commend her for her great leadership in honoring

our Constitution with this For the People legislation. I am fond of saying of Chairwoman Lofgren that she has so much experience, so much knowledge, such deep values about our Constitution and about our electoral system and how they are connected. I thank her for her tremendous leadership.

Madam Speaker, I also thank John Sarbanes for his long-term dedication to this For the People legislation so that we can have elections that enable people to participate more fully. That is what this is all about. Mr. Sarbanes chaired the Democracy Reform Task Force. He is the godfather of this bill. His determination, his deliberation, and his dedication to democracy have brought us to this important moment for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased that this moment is happening in March when it is Women's History Month because I am very fond of saying that if we reduce the role of money in politics and increase the level of decency and civility, we will be able to elect many more women, many more people of color, many more young people into elective office. I am absolutely certain of that in terms of women, and this legislation does just that.

Madam Speaker, ``We the people,'' the first words of the Preamble to the Constitution, how appropriate that that is what this legislation is called.

I come to this conversation, not just as Speaker of the House, but as a person who, for years, was a leader in the California Democratic Party. Our purpose was to remove obstacles of participation for Democrats or Republicans. That is what the law requires. That was the right thing to do. Whether it was in registration or getting out the vote, we had to be nonpartisan. That is what this legislation does.

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting in the rules of the House that we can have people misrepresent the facts, but if we call them on it, our words are taken down for mistrusting the integrity of Members. But let's be very clear: There is no public funding use of taxpayer money for congressional races in this legislation, no matter what you hear someone else say. There will be an amendment on the floor.

Madam Speaker, speaking of amendments, there are 56 amendments. The list takes pages and pages and pages, so this will take a couple of days to deal with. This idea that we don't have a full discussion and full amendment process, let's not talk about process. Let's talk about the policy and what we hope to achieve.

The first 300 pages of this bill were written by John Lewis to eliminate voter suppression, which has become rampant in our country. How do we say to our Founders, ``We salute you for what you have done, and we are going to do everything in our power to make sure we suppress the vote''? It is so inconsistent. We see even just in recent days a torrent of pieces of legislation to reduce voter participation. So, that is what we are going to do.

Madam Speaker, another aspect of this that distorts our democracy is the partisan gerrymandering. That is why I salute the distinguished chairwoman for her leadership for a long time now in putting forth redistricting by way of commission.

The people should choose their politicians. Politicians should not be choosing their voters by this political gerrymandering. This legislation does that.

Part of voter suppression that people don't always recognize is the suffocation of the airways of big, dark, special interest money.

And one aspect of this bill that has such popular appeal is the fact that people will realize if we reduce the role of big, dark money in politics, we increase the voices of the people. We will have a better chance to preserve our planet if big, dark money, special interest money is not weighing in.

We have a better chance of protecting our children from gun violence with background check legislation if big, dark money, in terms of our gun lobbies, is not weighing in. We have a chance to reduce the cost of healthcare. We have the chance to increase paychecks. The list goes on and on.

Big, dark money has been an obstacle to progress for America's working families, suppressing the ability of people to bargain collectively, suppressing the rights of workers in our country. So, again, this is, as Mr. Sarbanes says, this caffeinates all the other issues because it gives people confidence that it really can happen, that we really can pass legislation that is not dominated, and the debate of it is not suffocated. The airways suffocated big, dark money.

Of course, we have to look at what is happening in terms of misinformation in the social media and the rest. And what we want to do is to clear the air; clear the air of that big, dark money; clear the air of political gerrymandering; and clear the air of the voter suppression that is out there.

Just last night, the Georgia House passed a draconian new voter restriction bill, which would end weekend voting, slash the number of mail ballot drop boxes, impose restrictive voter ID for mail ballots, among other actions.

They know that their issues are losers with the America people when they oppose some of the issues that are very popular in the public domain. They know that big money and voter suppression is their path to victory, and that is why they are engaged in this. These voter suppression tactics are fundamentally discriminatory.

In 2018, 70 percent of the Georgia voters purged from the rolls were African American. And nationwide, counties with larger minority populations had fewer polling places and poll workers per voter. In fact, 1 in 13 Black Americans cannot vote due to disenfranchisement laws nationwide.

We must ensure that all voters have a voice in their democracy, particularly in light of many grave challenges that our Nation faces today. Strong, clean, ethical leadership for the people is needed to tackle today's crisis, ranging from the pandemic and economic crisis to the national reckoning on racial equality and justice, and, as I mentioned earlier, the surging climate crisis.

The For The People Act will meet this moment. Again, the moment: restoring the public's trust in government, and re-empowering our leaders to fight in the people's interest, not the special interest. It will combat big, dark money in politics, taking on the power of special interests, forcing disclosure, reining in the lobbyist influence and empowering small donors.

I do believe that one of the most undemocratic acts of the Supreme Court of the United States in its history was the so-called Citizens United decision.

How could the Justices of the Supreme Court ever have made such a decision?

I don't know if they examined their conscience in light of what has happened since then with big, dark money weighing in. And they gave very little opportunity--usually when the Court makes a decision, Congress can act, change the law, change the perspective, make it more constitutional, whatever the question is; but not with Citizens United. They went all out, closed every window to any opportunity to make change in the House of Representatives, except one: Disclosure.

Disclosure. They said, okay, you can pass a law that says you must disclose. When this decision was made, we tried to have a disclosure act. We had 59 votes in the Senate, not 60. So we couldn't pass it because the Republicans in the Senate said, No, we cannot insist on disclosure.

When that happened, the Chamber of Commerce, it was reported that they said, oh, if we had to disclose, our members would not be giving of their chamber, would not be giving in the big amounts because they didn't want the public, their employees, their customers, their clients to know how much big money they were spending to suppress the vote and the discussion in our country.

So the Republicans supported low disclosure. The money flowed and continues to flow. It must be stopped.

Now, it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and I think we should strive for that. However, in the meantime, it would take an act of Congress to say: You are proud of who you are supporting in a big, dark money way?

Disclose it. Let's have disclosure. The public has a right to know, your employees have a right to know, your customers and your community has a right to know how you are weighing in against their interests, against clean air for their children, clean safety in

terms of water safety in their neighborhoods in terms of gun violence protection, safety in terms of preserving the planet, safety in terms of issues that relate to the health. The list goes on and on.

There is a direct connection between the suppression of the vote; the suffocation of the airways with big, dark money; and the health and well-being of the American people.

So this bill will combat big, dark money in politics. As I said, it will expand voting rights, ensuring secure and accurate elections, guarding elections from foreign interference. Let me say that again.

Why would the Republicans oppose guarding the elections from foreign interference?

This is one of the most popular aspects of this legislation in the public.

Again, the For the People Act would hold elected officials accountable, establishing tougher ethics, establishing conflict of interest rules for all government officials to ensure that public officials are working for the public good.

The For the People Act is unifying, supported by a majority of the American people across the country, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, more than 170 civil rights groups, environmental, faith- based, consumer protection, and gun safety groups, all of whom know this legislation is urgently needed.

Two examples. Stacey Abrams of Fair Fight wrote yesterday: ``The For the People Act understands the facets of free and fair elections: mitigating voter suppression, advancing a fair redistricting process, and empowering small dollar donors to have a more prominent rule in our elections. Together, this comprehensive bill signals a restoration of our Nation's commitment to the most durable democratic Republic.''

I will say it again: Together, this comprehensive bill signals a restoration of our Nation's commitment to the world's most durable democratic Republic, the United States of America.

Passing and enacting H.R. 1 will put the American people back in charge of the Republic, paving the way for transformative progress in terms of policy for our country, for the future, for our children. With this legislation, we can build back better for the people, advancing justice, opportunity, and progress for families in every ZIP Code.

Madam Speaker, to restore our democracy and to advance progress for the people, I urge a strong vote for H.R. 1, the For the People Act.

Again, I express my appreciation to Madam Chair Zoe Lofgren, John Sarbanes, and so many others; Mondaire Jones, speaking for the freshman class and what it means to young people to come into the process, not to be blocked by big, dark money and foreign influence in our elections.

Vote against foreign influence in elections. Vote for H.R. 1.