Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which was originally about NASA and went through the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has seen more than 700…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, which was originally about NASA and went through the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has seen more than 700 pages of election law tacked onto it just late last night. If it were to become law, it would give up to $7.2 million of public funding to the campaigns of each one of my colleagues, all of us. This is not about voting rights. This is about power and control.
Mr. Speaker, $7.2 million is more money than most Americans can even dream of having. Yet, here we are considering another Democrat bill that takes public funding and, instead of giving it to the American people, puts it in the campaign coffers of Members of Congress. Members who vote for this bill are voting to line their own campaign coffers, all while falsely telling the American people that we have a voting rights crisis in this country and that we must pass this bill because the era of Jim Crow 2.0 is upon us.
It is the definition of corruption.
Thankfully, the American people don't seem to be buying the Democrats' rhetoric. According to polling, more Americans, including Independents, believe voting laws are too lax and insecure than those who believe voting laws are too restrictive.
No matter how many times the President and other Democrats get up in front of the American people and try to manufacture a voting rights crisis in this country by using rhetoric like Jim Crow 2.0 or now comparing Republicans to Democrat-elected segregationist Bull Connor, as President Biden suggested this week in Georgia, there is still no evidence of widespread voter suppression.
In our hearings in the House Administration Committee over the last 3 years, no one has ever produced a single voter who was eligible to vote but wasn't able to. In fact, 2020 saw the highest voter turnout in 120 years, and, according to Pew, 94 percent of Americans say it is easy to vote.
Misrepresenting and, in some cases, flat-out lying about the laws States have passed to increase voter confidence in our elections is also part of the Democrats' playbook to manufacture a voting rights crisis. In fact, President Biden has earned four Pinocchios for his false claims about Georgia's voting laws. The laws these States are passing to bolster voter confidence make it easier to vote than ever before while protecting the integrity of our elections.
Georgia's new ``voter suppression law'' has more days of early, in- person voting than New York, and Texas' ``voter suppression law'' ends pandemic exceptions like universal drive-thru voting and 24-hour voting. Neither existed in Texas before 2020. Neither widely exists even in blue States. I think most of us can agree that nothing good can come from 24-hour, drive-thru voting.
The bill we are considering today is not about increasing voting rights for the American people, and this is not a compromise. This bill still contains the worst provisions of H.R. 1.
It still publicly funds Members' campaigns; nationalizes and centralizes our election system; makes Merrick Garland the election czar; puts unelected bureaucrats in charge of States' voting laws, instead of the American people; destroys the First Amendment; weakens States' ability to maintain accurate voter rolls; prevents States from implementing strict voter ID laws, despite the majority of Americans supporting voter ID laws; and the list goes on and on.
As terrible as those provisions are, nothing screams this bill isn't for the American people more than the fact that it gives every one of us, every Member of Congress and their own campaigns, up to $7.2 million in public funding. The old saying is: Follow the money. I think that is incredibly relevant here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, defending democracy $7.2 million at a time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a member of the House Administration Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), my good friend and the ranking member on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), the founder of the Election Integrity Caucus and my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Committee on House Administration Republicans' ``Elections Clause'' report.
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC, August 12, 2021.
Rep. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member
Report--The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority
Over Elections
Executive Summary
Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to
vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be
counted according to state law. Through an examination of
history, precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning
ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself,
this document explains the constitutional division of power
envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal
government with respect to election administration. Article
1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States
have the primary authority over election administration, the
``times, places, and manner of holding elections''.
Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely
secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the
extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate
refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our
federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to
serve to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms,
the right to vote.
The Constitution reserves to the States the primary
authority to set election legislation and administer
elections--the ``times, places, and manner of holding of
elections'' and Congress' power in this space is purely
second to the States' power. Congress' power is to be
employed only in the direst of circumstances. Despite
Democrats' insistence that Congress' power over elections is
unfettered and permits Congress to enact sweeping legislation
like H.R. 1, it is simply not true. History, precedent, the
Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme
Court, and the Constitution itself make this exceedingly
clear.
The Framing Generation grappled with the failure of the
Articles of Confederation, which provided for only a weak
national government incapable of preserving the Union. Under
the Articles, the States had exclusive authority over federal
elections held within their territory. but, given the
difficulties the national government had experienced with
State cooperation (e.g., the failure of Rhode Island to send
delegates to the Confederation Congress); the Federalists,
including Alexander Hamilton, were concerned with the
possibility that the States, in an effort to destroy the
federal government, simply might not hold elections or that
an emergency, such as an invasion or insurrection, might
prevent the operation of a State's government, leaving the
Congress without Members and the federal government unable to
respond. Indeed, as counsel for the Democrat Members of our
Committee so keenly observed:
For the Founders, particularly during the Federal
Constitutional Convention, the primary concern was informing
the discussions of federal elections in Article I was the
risk of uncooperative states. For example, Alexander Hamilton
noted that by providing states the authority to run
congressional elections, under Article I, Section 4,
``risk[ed] `leaving the existence of the Union entirely at
their mercy.' '' Following the failings of the Articles of
Confederation, the Founders looked for processes that would
insulate Congress from recalcitrant states. Indeed, ``[t]he
dominant purpose of the Elections Clause, the historical
record bears out, was to empower Congress to override state
election rules, not to restrict the way States enact
legislation[,]'' and that ``the Clause `was the Framers'
insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse
to provide for the election of representatives to the
Federal Congress.' ''.
Quite plainly, Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist and
proponent of our Constitution, understood the Elections
Clause as serving only as a sort of emergency fail-safe, not
as a cudgel used to nationalize our elections process.
Writing as Publius to the people of New York, Hamilton
further expounds on the correct understanding of the
Elections Clause: ``T[he] natural order of the subject leads
us to consider, in this place, that provision of the
Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to
regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own
members.''
When questioned at the States' constitutional ratifying
conventions with respect to this provision, the Federalists
confirmed this understanding of a constitutionally limited,
secondary congressional power under Article 1, Section 4:
Maryland:
Convention delegate James McHenry added that the risk to
the federal government [without a fail-safe provision] might
not arise from state malice: An insurrection or rebellion
might prevent a state legislature from administering an
election.
North Carolina:
An occasion may arise when the exercise of this ultimate
power of Congress may be necessary . . . a state should be
involved in war, and its legislature could not assemble, (as
was the case of South Carolina and occasionally of some other
states, during the [Revolutionary] war).
Pennsylvania:
Sir, let it be remembered that this power can only operate
in a case of necessity, after the factious or listless
disposition of a particular state has rendered an
interference essential to the salvation of the general
government.
John Jay made similar claims in New York. And, as
constitutional scholar Robert Natelson, notes in his
invaluable article, The Original Scope of the Congressional
Power to Regulate Elections, Alexander Contee Hanson, a
member of Congress whose pamphlet supporting the Constitution
proved popular, stated flatly that Congress would exercise
its times, places, and manner authority only in cases of
invasion, legislative neglect or obstinate refusal to pass
election laws [providing for the election of Members of
Congress], or if a state crafted its election laws with a
`sinister purpose' or to injure the general government.''
Cementing his point, Hanson goes further to decree, ``The
exercise of this power must at all times be so very
invidious, that congress will not venture upon it without
some very cogent and substantial reason.'' In Floor debate
during the 117th Congress concerning H.R. 1, the Democrats'
intended nationalization of elections, Ranking Member Davis
argued, as he has many other times, that:
According to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution,
States have the primary role in establishing ``[t]he Times,
Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives.'' Under the Constitution, Congress has a
purely secondary role in this space and must restrain itself
from acting improperly and unconstitutionally. Federal
election legislation should never be the
first step and must never impose burdensome, unfunded federal
mandates on state and local elections officials. When
Congress does speak, it must devote its efforts only to
resolving highly significant and substantial deficiencies.
State legislatures are the primary venues to correct most
issues.
In fact, had the Democrats' view of the Elections Clause
been accepted at the time of the Constitution's drafting--
that is, that it offers Congress unfettered power over
federal elections--it is likely that the Constitution would
not have been ratified or that an amendment to this language
would have been required. Indeed, at least seven of the
original 13 states--over half and enough to prevent the
Constitution from being ratified--expressd specific concerns
with the language of the Elections Clause. However,
``[l]eading Federalists . . . assured them, . . . that, even
without amendment, the [Elections] Clause should be construed
as limited to emergencies.''
Three states, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island,
specifically made their ratification contingent on this
understanding being made express:
New York:
Under these impressions and declaring that the rights
aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and the
Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said
Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which
have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive
early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the
Name and in [sic] the behalf of the People of the State of
New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said
Constitution. In full Confidence . . . that the Congress will
not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the
times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or
Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall
neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the
purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the
same, and that in those cases such power will only be
exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make
provision in the Premises[.]
North Carolina:
That Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere in the
times, places, or manner of holding elections for senators
and representatives, or either of them, except when the
legislature of any state shall neglect, refuse or be disabled
by invasion or rebellion, to prescribe the same.
Rhode Island:
Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights
aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the
explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said
constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter
mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration,
and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution,
speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the
name, and in [sic] the behalf of the People, of the State
of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these
Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In
full confidence . . . That the Congress will not make or
alter any regulation in this State, respecting the times,
places and manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives, unless the legislature of this state
shall neglect, or refuse to make laws or regulations for
the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of
making the same; and that [i]n those cases, such power
will only be exercised, until the legislature of this
State shall make provision in the Premises[.]
This clearly demonstrates that the Framers designed and the
ratifying States understood the Elections Clause to serve
solely as a protective backstop to ensure the preservation of
the Federal Government, not as a font of limitless power for
Congress to wrest control of federal elections from the
States.
This understanding was also reinforced by debate during the
first Congress that convened under the Constitution. ``During
the first session of the First Congress . . . Representative
Aedanus Burke unsuccessfully proposed a constitutional
amendment to limit the Times, Places and Manner Clause to
emergencies. But those on both sides of the Burke amendment
debate already understood the Elections Clause to limit
Federal elections power to emergencies.
For example, the recorded description of opponent
Representative Goodhue's comments notes that he believed the
Elections Clause as written was intended to prevent ``. . .
the State Governments [from] oppos[ing] and thwart[ing] the
general one to such a degree as finally to overturn it. Now,
to guard against this evil, he wished the Federal Government
to possess every power necessary to its existence.'' With any
change to the original text therefore unnecessary to achieve
Burke's desired goal, Mr. Goodhue voted against the proposed
amendment.
Similarly, proponent Representative Smith of South Carolina
also believed the original text of the Elections Clause
already limited the Federal Government's power over federal
elections to emergencies and so thought there would be no
harm in supporting an amendment to make that language
express. So, even the records of the First Congress reflect a
recognition of the emergency nature of congressional power
over federal elections.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has supported this
understanding. In Smiley v. Holm, the Court held that Article
1, Section 4 of the Constitution reserved to the States the
primary authority to provide a complete code for
congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but
in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting,
protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt
practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and
canvassers, and making and publication of election returns;
in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure
and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order
to enforce the fundamental right involved. And these
requirements would be nugatory if they did not have
appropriate sanctions in the definition of offenses and
punishments. All this is comprised in the subject of ``times,
places and manner of holding elections,'' and involves
lawmaking in its essential features and most important
aspect.
This holding, of course, is consistent with the
understanding of the Elections Clause since the framing of
the Constitution. The Smiley Court also held that while
Congress maintains the authority to . . . supplement these
state regulations or [to] substitute its own[]'', such
authority remains merely `` `a general supervisory power over
the whole subject.' '' More recently, the Court noted in
Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. that ``[t]his
grant of congressional power [that is, the fail-safe
provision in the Elections Clause] was the Framers' insurance
against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide
for the election of representatives to the Federal
Congress.'' The Court explained that the Elections Clause ``.
. . imposes [upon the States] the duty . . . to prescribe the
time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and
Senators[.]'' And, while, as the Court noted, ``[t]he power
of Congress over the `Times, Places and Manner' of
congressional elections `is paramount, and may be exercised
at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and
so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations
effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent
therewith[]'', the Inter-Tribal Court explained, quoting
extensively from The Federalist no. 59, that it was clear
that the congressional fail-safe included in the Elections
Clause was intended for the sorts of governmental self-
preservation discussed in this Report: ``[E]very government
ought to contain in itself the means of its own
preservation[.]''; ``[A]n exclusive power of regulating
elections for the national government, in the hands of the
State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union
entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate
it by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to
administer its affairs.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report by Common Cause that is titled: ``Maryland General Assembly Approves Gerrymandered Congressional Map.''
[From the Common Cause Maryland, Dec. 8, 2021]
Maryland General Assembly Approves Gerrymandered Congressional Map
Today, the Maryland General Assembly passed HB 1--the
congressional districting plan adopted by the Legislative
Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC). The map is now
headed to Governor Hogan's desk.
Statement of Joanne Antoine, Common Cause Maryland Executive Director
When the redistricting process is led by politicians, the
maps will be drawn to benefit the politicians--and that's
exactly what state legislators have done today.
While we were encouraged by the General Assembly's
willingness to improve transparency and access throughout the
process in comparison to the 2011 redistricting cycle, they
have chosen to maintain the status quo.
They had an opportunity to do what's in the best interest
of Marylanders for the next decade and have chosen, yet
again, to wait on a national solution. While I'm not
surprised, I am disappointed.
Thank you to public for making their voices heard and
Delegate Gabriel Acevero (D-Montgomery) for taking a stand
against partisan gerrymandering here in Maryland and
nationwide by being the lone Democratic vote against the
congressional map.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. Speaker, you can tell it must be NFL playoffs, as I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my good friend and our Super Bowl champion from the Oakland Raiders.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that reminder.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
The gentleman is also my friend. I appreciate it. I enjoyed the debate and, Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, if I may.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is friendships like this with Mr. Butterfield, that I look around this Chamber and I think we, as Americans, should be celebrating what America is doing right. Look at the diversity of who serves here in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was necessary to stop discrimination, and it has worked.
But make no mistake, today's bill is not a voting rights bill. Today's bill, unfortunately, is a bill that leads to lining your own campaign coffers with public funds.
Now, Speaker Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, was here on the floor today. And no matter how many times she says it, that there are no taxpayer funds, it doesn't make it true.
Let me go through it. What happened is, the original H.R. 1 when proposed last Congress did have taxpayer funding of political campaigns, our own campaigns. But now they take the first ever corporate money, through corporate fines. They put it into the Department of the Treasury's laundering machine, and it comes out as part of the Department of the Treasury. Those are not public funds.
Does that mean when you send your check to pay your taxes and it goes to the Department of the Treasury, that those aren't public funds?
Every single person who votes ``yes'' for this bill that is not a voting rights bill is voting to line their own campaign pockets. That is not what the American people want.
Ninety-four percent of Americans said it is easy to vote. We have asked, time and time again, give me one person to show up at a hearing that said that they wanted to vote in the last election and couldn't, not one person has walked through that door. Not one person has showed up on a Zoom call, not one person.
Why in the world do we continue to try to gaslight the American people into thinking that this is about voting rights? This is not about voting rights. This about lining your own campaign coffers.
This is about breaking a tradition in the Senate. This is about taking over and winning elections for one side over the other.
Vote ``no'' on this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
