Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on roll call no. 437, I mistakenly voted ``nay'' when I intended to vote ``aye.'' I was a cosponsor of H.R. 1044 in this and the previous Congress. I firmly believe that our immigration system needs comprehensive reform and this legislation is a small but important first step to alleviate the decades-long backlogs in our outdated employment and family-based immigration systems.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment, which is the product of hard work from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

The administration does not have authorization to take military action in or against Iran and must come to Congress for that authority, and this amendment makes that crystal clear.

Many members of the administration have been trying to make a case for a war with Iran for months, if not years, going so far as to try to speciously tie Iran to al-Qaida and claim the 2001 AUMF passed in the aftermath of the attack on 9/11 might authorize war against Iran.

Congress must reassert our constitutional authority.

There is no question that Iran is a bad actor and they have been for a long time, but if the administration believes that armed conflict is the way to keep us safe, then the administration must make the case to Congress and the American people, because it will be their sons and daughters who will be on the front lines of that brutal war.

We cannot be a Congress or a nation that accepts going to war on a whim as the status quo. I firmly believe it is time for Congress to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF, but until we can do that, we must pass this amendment now.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Smith for unprecedented bipartisanship in bringing this bill to the floor.

This year's NDAA provides the strategic funding we need to maintain a robust military that can tackle our global challenges, reversing the President's soft stance on Russia by bolstering the European Deterrence Initiative with our NATO allies, and collaborating with our allies to contain North Korea and counter China's expansionist moves throughout the Indo-Pacific.

It makes greater investments in training, equipping, and providing for our Armed Forces, funding a 3.1 percent pay raise for servicemembers, the largest in a decade.

In this year's NDAA, we have the opportunity to increase research capacity for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We empower the Department of Defense to identify the scope of white nationalism, extremism, and violent misogyny in the military, and we pursue a new diversity and inclusion strategy within the DOD to ensure minorities are more fully represented in our officer corps.

We also rise to the challenge set forth before us and reverse some of the administration's worst policy decisions. We deny the increase of low-yield nuclear warheads that would lower the threshold for nuclear war. We prevent the President's use of the military as a piggy bank for his border wall.

With additional amendments, we will allow transgender Americans to openly and honorably serve our country in uniform, and we will ensure that the President cannot put us on the path to war without congressional approval.

It is clear that we will pass, perhaps, the most progressive and robust defense authorization in years, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congresswoman Speier's amendment.

As an African American veteran, my service and my background lead me to believe that all Americans who want to serve and can meet our military standards should be afforded the opportunity to serve. This amendment, which codifies the military's existing nondiscrimination standards for all Americans, would end President Trump's ban on transgender servicemembers and would realize President Truman's promise of the equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense that he made when he desegregated the Armed Forces.

Those who argue against transgender service often say it disrupts unit cohesion, erodes morale, and reduces effectiveness. These arguments, regrettably, were used to keep African American, women, lesbian, and gay members from serving. Transgender servicemembers, we need their service; we need their skills; we need their experience; we need their courage; we need their patriotism; and they need our support.

Madam Speaker, it is time to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.

The Treasury has had this design in the works for years, and now, all of a sudden, it is backpedaling. It takes 10 years, they say, to complete this work.

During a 10-year period, Harriet Tubman made 19 round trips on the underground railroad to lead over 300 slaves to freedom; and, in less time, Treasury can't put this American hero on a piece of paper.

How long must it take to reflect our Nation's rich diversity on our currency?

How long must it take to recognize an icon of freedom and courage?

How long must it take to rightfully acknowledge the work of a woman who helped countless enslaved Americans of African descent?

How long must it take when the American people overwhelmingly selected her as the face of the new $20 bill?

Harriet Tubman embodies the American spirit of strength and hope.

It is time to put a woman on the $20 bill. In this year, the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage, we want to guarantee that Treasury will follow through on this promise and this commitment.

Madam Speaker, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote on roll call No. 372, on an amendment during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, and Science division of H.R. 3055. I would like to change my vote on the amendment to ``nay.''

The North Atlantic right whale is a critically endangered species iconic to the Eastern seaboard of the United States. We should be empowering the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to implement regulations to protect this species based on scientific, consensus recommendations, not disarming the agency. The North Atlantic right whale Risk Reduction Decision Support Tool is a critical piece of NOAA and NMFS' regulatory framework, and preventing its use undermines their decision-making process.

My record of fighting for the Chesapeake Bay, preventing off-shore drilling, funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, protecting the Arctic, and being an ally to the environmental activists and wildlife conservationists in my district and around the country speaks for itself. My recorded vote is inconsistent with my lifetime record in both state and federal office on matters and policies pertaining to wildlife preservation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Aja Giovanni McLeod, a resident of Maryland's 4th Congressional District.

Born on August 10, 1996, Aja was one of our brightest and most promising young people. Only 22 years old, she will be remembered for her tenacity, perseverance, and love for her family and friends. Faced with health challenges from birth, Aja remained committed to her education and living a full life, pursuing a career in communications. Her potential was evident, as she earned several scholarships during her educational career. Less than one month before her passing she celebrated her graduation from Bowie State University with a BS in Communications.

The many remembrances of Aja have emphasized the special place in her heart for her brother and best friend, Zion, who will carry the memory of her love and devotion. In her time on earth, Aja's smile and laughter brought joy to those fortunate enough to have known and met her.

On June 8, 2019, Aja passed away unexpectedly, leaving behind her loving parents Andre' and Kimberly, and her brother Zion.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in remembering the life of Aja Giovanni McLeod.

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam Chair, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of Congresswoman Jackie Speier from California, who has been a determined leader and partner in pushing back on this administration's ban on transgender servicemembers.

Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. It states that no money appropriated in this Defense appropriations bill will be used to implement the President's ban on transgender servicemembers. No money shall be used to ask whether or not a servicemember has transitioned: to force them to remain closeted in a Don't Ask, Don't Tell environment; to force them out to their colleagues before they are ready to outwardly express who they are; and to ultimately force them out of the service.

The President and his administration wrongfully argue that it is about military readiness and unit cohesion, but these arguments are the same ones that were made to keep the military racially segregated.

Madam Chair, my service in an integrated armed service did not harm readiness, and neither does the service of the more than 14,000 transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

Transgender servicemembers increase lethality and readiness. They have served honorably and have received prestige commendations. They are proof that anyone who can serve should be afforded the opportunity to serve. This legacy of honorable service will outlast this administration, this transgender ban, and this administration's attack on transgender Americans everywhere.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to do what is right: Put country before party; defend the thousands of Americans who are making the greatest sacrifice they can make for our country. Defend the brave and patriotic servicemembers who all came before Congress to talk about their service and the service of other transgender servicemembers. Defend them unquestionably. Defend the thousands of transgender servicemembers impacted. Defend them as they have defended us.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, no one would argue that military readiness and deployability are paramount, but transgender servicemembers do not inherently impact either.

Every service chief testified that transgender service would not disrupt unit cohesion or readiness and emphasized soldier deployability and not their gender identity.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Building Safety Month and the men and women of the International Code Council (ICC) for their dedication to public safety and our communities.

Year round, building safety and fire prevention officials, architects, engineers, builders, tradespeople, design professionals, laborers, and others in the construction industry work to ensure the safe construction of buildings. They are dedicated members of the International Code Council, a national standards developing organization, that brings together local, state and federal officials to develop voluntary consensus codes that protect Americans in the buildings where we live, work, and play. The International Codes, the most widely adopted building safety and fire prevention codes in the nation, are used by most U.S. cities and counties, and in all 50 states, including the State of Maryland.

With natural disasters expected to increase in frequency and severity, building codes include important safeguards to protect the public from hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, fires, floods, and earthquakes. In January 2019, the congressionally-established National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) released a study finding that adopting modern model building codes saves $11 for every $1 invested through earthquake, flood, and wind mitigation benefits, with a $4 to $1 wildfire mitigation benefit. These benefits represent avoided casualties, property damage, business interruptions, and insurance costs, and are enjoyed by all stakeholders--from developers, titleholders, and lenders, to tenants and communities.

This month is Building Safety Month, during which we should recognize the critical role our communities' code officials in assuring us safe, efficient, and livable buildings. Madam Speaker, please join me in thanking International Code Council Board President, and my constituent from Anne Arundel County, Maryland, William R. Bryant, as well as ICC's Chief Executive Officer Dominic Sims, the International Code Council leadership, and ICC's Members and staff as they recognize Building Safety Month.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment and the underlying legislative effort that would lower the cost of prescription drugs, crack down on junk insurance plans being encouraged by the Trump administration, and reverse the administration's irresponsible sabotage of the Affordable Care Act.

Specifically, my amendment would require the HHS Secretary to conduct educational outreach to communities with high health disparities and would thereby expand outreach efforts to increase coverage among African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, low-income families, and rural communities.

Our effort to help more Americans get access to affordable healthcare comes just as we are seeing the impact of the Trump administration's effort to undermine our healthcare system.

This week, we learned that more than 1 million Americans lost their health insurance in the past year, and the number of Americans in high- deductible plans reached an all-time high.

Black and Latino Americans and families living at or near the poverty line are particularly impacted by President Trump's sabotage. These communities are the most at risk of being uninsured, and these communities have always faced the greatest barriers to obtaining care and have reported the poorest health outcomes.

Before the Trump administration, we saw large gains in coverage for low-income individuals and people of color under the Affordable Care Act.

Finally having that health insurance made a key difference in determining when people got care, where they got their care, and, ultimately, how healthy they could be. However, this progress has been rapidly reversed over the last 2 years.

My amendment would ensure that we aren't leaving behind those with predictably poor health outcomes, like those with lower life expectancy or children born with lower birthweight.

Families in high-disparity areas suffer from low levels of healthcare, literacy, language barriers, and limited awareness of the Affordable Care Act's coverage options.

In this uncertain environment, in our complicated healthcare system, in this constant fight for access to healthcare in this country, knowledge is half the battle.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Help all Americans attain the knowledge they need and win their healthcare battles.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the underlying bill that will preserve protections for hundreds of thousands of Marylanders and Americans who, like me, have a preexisting condition.

And I rise in support, of course, of my amendment to protect States which are acting to strengthen their insurance marketplaces, lower premiums, and expand access to high-quality care by preserving their reinsurance programs that they have established.

For more than 2 years, the President, in concert with Republicans in Congress, have tried every trick in the book to undermine the Affordable Care Act. They tried repealing it, taking it to the courts, and now want to allow States to gut protections for those the Affordable Care Act helped most.

These attacks jeopardize healthcare for Americans with chronic conditions like asthma, high blood pressure, and diabetes and threaten to bankrupt thousands of families with a loved one who has fallen ill due to no fault of their own.

It is not just bad policy. It is fundamentally cruel.

That is why, in the face of this onslaught by the Trump administration to make the Affordable Care Act less effective, we must provide States with every tool in the toolbox to keep premiums down, while preventing the Trump administration from giving States the power to gut essential protections.

I firmly believe that States should have the power and flexibility to innovate and find healthcare solutions that work best for them. The Affordable Care Act always envisioned a critical role for States.

States design their own exchanges, shape their Medicaid programs, and take the lead in enforcing patient protections and reviewing rate increases.

These waivers took on new importance after President Trump and the Republican Congress failed to repeal ObamaCare and, instead, sought to undermine the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the requirement to obtain health insurance, ending cost-sharing payments for low-income individuals, passing regulations that encouraged short-term and junk insurance, and defunding advertising and outreach during open enrollment.

This sabotage has caused more families to pay higher premiums and made fewer people able to get the high-quality care they deserve.

States acted to counteract these efforts by establishing reinsurance programs and applying for State innovation waivers.

Reinsurance programs protect insurers from very high, unpredictable medical expenses incurred by their Members.

Alaska, Minnesota, Oregon, Maine, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and my own State of Maryland have all received Federal approval to establish reinsurance programs.

These are the very programs my amendment seeks to protect. These programs work and meet the shared goal of making health insurance affordable and accessible to all Americans, including those with preexisting conditions.

Reinsurance programs have been able to cut premiums by 20 percent, on average, and save the Federal Government nearly $1 billion.

Maryland saw the biggest savings, lowering individual premiums by more than 43 percent. These lower premiums will help entice younger and healthier individuals to get insurance, making healthcare more affordable for everyone.

While we have a President in the White House and Republicans in Congress who have made healthcare prohibitively expensive and stripped protections for those who need it most, it is imperative that this Congress protect our partners at the State level who are working with us to protect healthcare for all Americans.

My amendment will protect these innovative reinsurance programs and encourage more States to adopt them.

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

Mr. Chair, I join my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon, in acknowledging the great work that is happening in the States of Oregon, New Jersey, and Maryland in establishing these reinsurance programs. It is my amendment that seeks to protect these very strong programs, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, and I believe that this is the most important bill that this Congress will pass to protect thousands of women against violence and demonstrate that we value the dignity of every human being.

I was proud to work with the committee to close three potentially fatal loopholes that allow abusers to possess firearms.

We closed the stalking loophole by treating stalking similarly to other domestic violence crimes. Currently, 76 percent of women who are murdered by their partner were first stalked.

We closed the dating partner loophole by expanding restrictions on dating partners convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun.

We closed the temporary restraining order loophole by prohibiting an abuser from getting their hands on a gun when a court issues a temporary order, because this is when an abuser is most likely to lash out and retaliate.

When domestic violence kills three women a day, we have a moral responsibility to act.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot let the gun lobby scare us into putting their interests above the lives of thousands of Americans. We must reauthorize VAWA now with these increased protections.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to first recognize the hard work of my colleagues--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler; my colleague from California, Congresswoman Karen Bass; as well as all the members of the Judiciary Committee--on the underlying bill.

My amendment would create a grant program for States, localities, and nonprofits to establish and operate a lethality assessment program.

The lethality assessment program was developed in my home State of Maryland in 2005 by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence.

Research shows that for one-third of victims of domestic violence, homicide or attempted homicide was the first act of violence in that relationship.

Research also shows that in the year prior to the homicide, more than 44 percent of abusers were arrested, and almost one-third of the victims contacted the police about the abuser.

The lethality assessment program was developed to reduce the number of missed opportunities to identify victims of domestic violence who are at risk of being killed, and it enables them to take steps that might save their lives.

The lethality assessment program is an evidence-based homicide prevention tool. Because intimate partner homicides are predictable in many cases, they are preventable in many cases.

This program is used in 37 States by law enforcement, nurses, social workers, hospital personnel, caseworkers, and court personnel.

By simply asking the lethality screening questions, the trained person conducting the screening educates the victim about the signs of increased risk of homicide. The trained person then further educates the victim as to how to remain safe, what options are available, and what resources are in the community. The victim feels empowered to make choices that increase their own safety.

The lethality assessment program is one of only two models of evidence-based intimate partner homicide prevention to be recognized and honored as a promising practice by the Department of Justice.

During my time as Lieutenant Governor, I supported expanding and fully funding the lethality assessment program in Maryland because I understood then, just as I understand today, that domestic violence and violence against women is not just a woman's issue. Domestic violence impacts all of us, families, neighbors, and entire communities.

As we stand here debating my amendment and whether to reauthorize legal protections and resources for women, one in four women continue to experience abuse or stalking by their current or former intimate partner.

One woman of the thousands who are killed by a current or former intimate partner every year was my cousin, Cathy. She was a 40-year-old woman and a teacher. She loved her work, and she loved her schoolchildren.

On the weekend before she was going to begin her classes, in 2008, she was stalked; she was ambushed; she was tormented; and she was shot and killed by her former intimate partner in front of two police officers.

While there is nothing that will bring Cathy back, we have the opportunity, right now, to pass commonsense legislation that safeguards women and families from the horrors that Cathy and my family experienced, and so many other families.

Domestic violence does not discriminate, and it is up to us to ensure that our wives, husbands, partners, mothers, and children live their lives free from violence.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my vehement opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals because the Trump administration considers transgender identity to be some medically disqualifying condition. Gender identity is not a medical condition; it is who we are as individuals.

Since President Truman desegregated the military, we have torn down barriers to the equal treatment and opportunity of every American to serve. Women now serve in combat roles defending our Nation as Rangers, infantrymen and submariners. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans serve our country openly and with distinction.

In 2016, the Pentagon lifted the ban on transgender Americans, allowing them to serve without having to hide their true identity. The fact that thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving, meeting, and exceeding standards and are deployed worldwide speaks volumes about their dedication and contributions to our Nation. We need their skills, their experience, their courage, and their patriotism.

In 1948, many Americans agreed that racial segregation in the Armed Forces was right, but history shows all of us today that they were wrong. Former Defense Secretary Gates said: ``No aspect of Black Americans' quest for justice and equality under the law has been nobler than what has been called the `fight for the right to fight.'''

My 30 years in the Army leads me to believe that all Americans who want to serve and who can meet our standards should be given the right to fight. My deep belief is shared by General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who reiterated that very belief to me just 2 days ago.

We have an obligation to allow transgender Americans the right to

fight for our Nation. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, settle for this discriminatory policy.

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

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

Let me start by saying it is a privilege to be able to stand on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in this year, in this term, and in this session of Congress to participate in the debate and the discussion and to offer an amendment on this historic bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

I would like to first thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, Bobby Scott from Virginia, for his leadership on this issue and this bill. I want to recognize the decades' long work of my colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, on the underlying bill and her efforts, along with many other women, including Maryland's former Senator Barbara Mikulski to finally ensure that women are paid and treated fairly in the workplace.

My amendment would enhance pay transparency protections in this bill. This amendment would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee for simply discussing or inquiring why they are being paid a certain wage or salary.

Mr. Chairman, if you found out that you were being paid less than your colleagues for the same work, you would probably demand to be paid more. But for too long, it has been considered taboo to discuss your salary with your coworkers let alone confront your boss if you were being paid unfairly.

When pay is transparent, organizations must be able to justify each employee's salary, thus reducing or eliminating any type of bias.

That is why the Paycheck Fairness Act puts transparency front and center and why my amendment goes a little further and gives every employee the right to negotiate the higher pay.

Since Congress has not been able to act over the past several years, States have led the way in promoting pay transparency, including California, Illinois, Louisiana, and my State of Maryland. In Maryland we added very broad pay transparency protections to ensure employees the ability to discover and discuss disparities in pay, and we even expanded prohibitions against discriminatory pay practices to include gender identity, an item that I would hope that this Congress may take up later this session.

But my amendment today reiterates the importance of transparency in the workplace. Every employee should be able to advocate and negotiate for themselves without fear of reprisal. According to the Carnegie Mellon study, men are four times more likely than women to ask for a raise, and when women do ask, they typically request 30 percent less than men do.

We should be encouraging employees, regardless of their gender, to inquire and discuss disparities in pay with their employers and advocate for themselves if they aren't being paid fairly or if it is simply time they received a well-deserved raise.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when wages are not rising fast enough, Congress must ensure every working American is paid equally and fairly and is empowered throughout their salary negotiation process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, historically, the cloak of confidentiality has often been the shield used by employers to discriminate against women when it comes to paycheck fairness.

I encourage all my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by wishing you a very happy birthday on behalf of the 435 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to introduce Reverend Tony Lee. He is the founder and senior pastor of the Community of Hope AME Church.

Reverend Lee is a pillar of our community in Prince George's County and the entire region, not just as a faith leader, but as an advocate for those in need.

I have had a longstanding relationship with him, partnering on a wide variety of issues, including domestic violence, building trust between the community and law enforcement, tackling poverty, and moving forward on social justice issues. And, during the month of January and February, we worked together during the government shutdown, serving working families who were struggling to make ends meet.

I have had the privilege of worshipping at Community of Hope many times over the years. The name of the church reflects its character: a community where we live and raise our families, where we pray and teach hope as a critical ingredient necessary for faith and our daily lives.

He is a preacher who speaks to people in a language they understand. He draws people into church who would not otherwise do so, going into every neighborhood and going down every street.

Reverend Tony Lee is the son of proud parents, Orlando Lee and Reverend Nancy T. Lee, who are joining us in the Capitol today.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Let me first start by thanking Mr. Crist of Florida for cosponsoring this amendment. I also want to recognize the work of my good friend from Maryland, John Sarbanes, on the underlying bill and his efforts to make our democracy work for the people.

My amendment would guarantee access to early voting during every day of the week, including Sundays, to every American.

Early voting makes voting more convenient by providing Americans with greater flexibility and opportunity to cast a ballot. More and more Americans are taking advantage of early voting, with more than 40 million citizens casting ballots before election day last year.

But guaranteeing fair and flexible early voting on Sundays is not just a matter of convenience. It is critical for minority voters who disproportionately take advantage of Sunday early voting and often face higher barriers and disparate burdens when deciding to cast a ballot: lost pay, childcare expenses, transit costs.

In my State and in States across the country, churches promote ``take your souls to the polls'' programs that take church parishioners from Sunday services to the voting booth. So cuts to Sunday early voting, as we have witnessed across this country, have had a negative impact, especially on communities of color.

Six States have cut back on early voting, and even more have tried but were blocked by the courts.

In North Carolina, lawmakers deliberately cut Sunday voting, saying 6 days of voting in one week is enough. But this action was struck down because, as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted, it targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.

Our democracy doesn't work if we don't give people the fullest opportunity to make their voices heard. We should make it easier for people to vote, not harder, and this amendment does exactly that.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in an ideal world, perhaps, we don't mandate from the Federal Government, but when the Fourth Circuit determines that the North Carolina Legislature did it to target African Americans with almost surgical precision in eliminating Sunday voting, it is time for action at the Federal level so we can ensure every American has the right to vote.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), my friend and a cosponsor of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the form I have placed at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would require States to notify voters of polling location changes no later than 7 days prior to the first day of early voting, providing every voter as much time as possible to plan how and when they will vote, and avoiding last minute polling place changes that, more often than not, discourage people from exercising their right to vote.

Research shows that the most important factor that impacts whether someone votes or not is the location of the polling place and the effort it takes to get there.

A 2011 study in the American Political Science Review said changing a location of a polling place can significantly lower voter turnout.

Unfortunately, since 2008, and further accelerated in 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Voting Rights Act, nearly 15,000 polling places have been closed across the country; many of them are located in southern Black communities.

Polling places have been used as political tools to shape the outcome of elections for generations, and it continues to happen today.

Before the 2018 elections, States and local election boards closed polling places at colleges and universities, consolidated polling places in predominantly-minority neighborhoods to save money, and moved polling locations away from public transportation.

These changes discourage participation in our democracy, and make our system of government weaker. That is why Congress must take action to protect the rights of the people, to have a government by the people, for the people.

By providing sufficient notice, every voter can decide whether to cast a vote on Election Day or, as this bill provides, take advantage of early voting or no-excuse absentee voting.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Sadly, Madam Chair, in this country there are far too many States and/or local election officials that are not committed to fair and open elections. And as we have seen by decisions in courts at every level, rolling back actions by State legislatures to change polling sites, to take away early voting opportunities, there are some times in the history of this Nation, and this is one of them, when it comes to protecting voting rights, where it is a Federal responsibility to do so.

In an optimal world, in an optimal situation, where we had truly free and fair and open elections, perhaps this amendment and perhaps even this legislation wouldn't be required. That is not the world we live in today, although it is an aspirational place to be.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will close by just encouraging all my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

This amendment would require a portion of early voting hours to occur outside of normal business hours. This simple, yet effective amendment would ensure that every working individual has the opportunity to cast their ballot without taking time off from work, having to find child care, or risking being reprimanded by their employer.

While early voting has become increasingly commonplace, States and localities continue to change and restrict hours every election, sometimes closing as early as 4 p.m., making it problematic for those whose workdays may have irregular schedules or are unable to take time away from work.

Despite State laws guaranteeing many workers time off to go vote, too many Americans have neither the luxury of an employer that will give them time off to vote nor the financial freedom to risk losing a few hours' wages in order to participate in our democracy. That is why early voting is so important.

But holding early voting during business hours is just another way citizens have been impeded from exercising their right to vote, particularly middle-class working Americans in the service, manufacturing, and other blue-collar industries. These Americans often rely on a 9 to 5 schedule and don't have the same opportunity to vote.

To ensure everyone's voice can be heard and early voting is convenient for every American, locations should remain open well after the traditional close of business.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, keeping the same terminology of ``bottom-up'' and ``top-down,'' I think the Founders contemplated both, that when it comes to Federal elections, it would be both a bottom-up and a top-down.

As my friend from Illinois was reminded during the last debate, Article I, Section 4 says, and I will read it in its entirety: ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof''--that sounds like bottom-up to me--``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.''

I think that is what you would refer to as a top-down, contemplated by the Founders, implemented and embraced here in H.R. 1. Why? So that we can protect, expand, promote, and defend the right for every single American to vote and to make sure it is as convenient and accessible to every American regardless of race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This amendment will require States to include in their biannual report to Congress on the voter information hotline statistics to include a description of any actions taken in response to reports of voter intimidation or suppression.

Discouraging voter participation through intimidation or suppression tactics runs against the very foundation of our democracy, but these tactics continue to play an unfortunate role in our elections today.

When I ran for Lieutenant Governor of Maryland in 2010, my opponent hired a consultant who advised my opponent that ``. . . the first and most desired outcome is voter suppression'' by having ``African American voters stay home.''

To that end, my opponent made thousands of election day robocalls to Democrat voters telling them that Democrats had won; although, in fact, the polls were still open for 2 more hours.

The call told voters: Relax. Everything is fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight.

It reached 112,000 voters in majority African American areas.

This is just one example of the despicable tactics that have become commonplace in our elections.

We have the responsibility to confront these attempts to target individuals and influence whether or not they vote.

In 2019, too many Americans are still being harassed, threatened, and barred from exercising their right to vote. My amendment will ensure election officials do their job by helping voters who don't know where to vote, why their polling place is closed, or why they are being turned away.

This is an essential element to make our elections more free, more fair, and will help safeguard the integrity of our elections by holding election officials accountable for protecting every citizen's right to vote.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, turning back to the amendment, what the amendment does is it simply holds local election officials accountable and to be responsive to the claims, the calls, the concerns that are raised to them regarding voter intimidation, voter suppression, ensuring that when they are collecting that information, that they also report on what the response is to the claims that are made.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), chair of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, the issue raised by the gentleman from Illinois is neither helped nor harmed by this amendment. He raises an issue that we can take up perhaps another day.

But what this bill simply does is it requires that local elected officials be responsive and report on the responses they take to claims of intimidation and suppression.

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