Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 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, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 281, providing for consideration of H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, under a structured rule.

The rule self-executes a manager's amendment that makes technical changes to reflect appropriate statute sections, corrects terminologies, and makes in order 40 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this year, we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that has helped to reduce instances of domestic violence and ensure that millions of survivors have access to the services they need.

VAWA was the first piece of Federal legislation to acknowledge domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and has dramatically improved our Nation's response to helping survivors in both the short and long term.

Since its enactment in 1994, VAWA has brought together law enforcement, social service organizations, and victims' advocates to bring domestic violence to light, provide survivors with support, and hold abusers accountable for their actions.

VAWA was and still is a piece of legislation developed by the people who work closest to these issues in their communities. The bipartisan bill we will vote on this week reflects the ongoing commitment of Members on both sides of the aisle to ending domestic violence and abuse in all forms.

Before I get further into the components and details of the bill, I would like to share two stories about my constituents to illustrate why VAWA reauthorization is so necessary and why we must continue to commit ourselves to preventing domestic violence at every opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, please keep in mind that each of these stories happened in the past week in my district.

First, last week, a young woman was murdered by her ex-husband at a convenience store, where the two were meeting to exchange custody of their 6-year-old son. The ex-husband left their son at home and, instead, brought an AR-15 style rifle, which he used to murder the woman in the middle of the store.

He was caught by law enforcement after he fled the store, but as a result of these horrific actions, a young woman was murdered in cold blood and a child has, effectively, lost both parents.

This was not the first time the ex-husband had threatened to kill his ex-wife during a child custody exchange just like the one this past week. Following an incident 3 years ago, he was charged with harassment and making terroristic threats, and the woman was granted a protection- from-abuse order.

But this didn't prevent her or her family from living in fear of what her ex-husband might do next. Tragically, the very worst happened.

Then, just this past Sunday evening, another woman was asleep in her home in Upland with her three children when, just after midnight, her ex-boyfriend broke into her house, entered

her bedroom, and shot her. Her 5-year-old child witnessed the shooting. Had the gun not jammed when the ex-boyfriend fired a second time, the victim would be dead.

This victim, too, had a protection-from-abuse order against her attacker, hers being issued just 5 days before that attack.

These two attacks happened just miles apart from each other, just a few days apart. These stories are all too common, because violence against women is all too common.

I am willing to bet that every Member of this body could point to similar examples of violence against women from their own congressional districts. Such acts of violence are not isolated incidents but are, instead, representative of the larger systemic problem.

According to the National Center on Domestic Violence, one in four women experiences severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner sexual violence, or intimate partner stalking, with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and more.

The same organization found that one in three women has experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, and one in seven women has been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime, to the point they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.

Intimate partner violence accounts for 15 percent of violent crimes nationwide. Women between the ages of 18 and 24 are the most commonly abused by an intimate partner.

It is absolutely no wonder why domestic victimization is correlated with a higher rate of depression and suicidal behavior later in life.

Further, 19 percent of domestic violence involves a weapon of some kind. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500--that is 500--percent. You don't need to be a mathematician in order to see that guns in the hands of domestic abusers routinely leads to violence and death.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act recognizes this indisputable fact and takes active measures to correct and improve our laws.

In the United States, women are 21 times more likely to be killed with a gun than women in any other high-income country.

Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ million American women alive today have been threatened by intimate partners with firearms. One million of those have actually been shot or shot at by their abusers.

I have represented some of these women and have seen the fear that they live with and the impact it has on their children and families.

This bill finally closes the boyfriend loophole. While Federal law prevents gun possession by people convicted of, or under a restraining order for, abusing their spouses, dating partners are generally exempt from these restrictions.

This gaping hole in our gun safety laws has become even more deadly over the years. The share of homicides committed by dating partners has been increasing for three decades. Today, women are as likely to be killed by dating partners as they are by spouses.

Closing the boyfriend loophole is a fact-based, commonsense response to a very real threat.

The provisions in this reauthorization would protect women from abusive dating partners by ensuring that their abusers are prohibited from possessing guns under Federal law.

The definition of ``dating partner'' is already contained in the Violence Against Women Act. This simple update to policy will provide increased protections for partners in unmarried relationships.

Closing the boyfriend loophole has been a bipartisan issue since long before this bill. Last year, six Republicans cosponsored legislation that would have closed this loophole, and 23 States, in their own laws, have already acted to prevent abusers from obtaining guns, including Pennsylvania and Arizona.

It is time we update Federal law to reflect the reality, which our States have already recognized, and prevent violent dating partners from being able to access weapons.

This bill also closes the stalker loophole. Stalking has been shown to be a predictor of intimate partner violence and homicide, although current law does not prohibit misdemeanor stalking offenses.

A study of intimate partner homicides and attempted homicides involving female victims found that 76 percent of those murders and 85 percent of attempted murders were preceded by at least one incident of stalking before the attack.

Passing this bill will protect women from stalkers by ensuring those convicted of stalking offenses are prohibited from possessing guns under Federal law.

On top of limiting stalkers and abusive dating partners from legally owning weapons, this bill strengthens enforcement by alerting State and local law enforcement when an abuser fails a firearms background check. This notice gives State law enforcement an opportunity to intervene before an abuser can obtain a firearm or do any further harm.

This provision mirrors a bipartisan bill that was introduced earlier this year to notify State law enforcement each time a person who is not allowed to have guns tries to buy a firearm and fails the background check. Clearly, keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them is a bipartisan priority.

Mr. Speaker, one of my first experiences as a young attorney was representing women and families who had sought shelter at the People's Emergency Center in West Philadelphia. That agency was started by former Congressman Bob Edgar.

Most of the women in that shelter had been subjected to domestic abuse. This was before VAWA was the law of the land, but even then it was clear there were significant problems with how the system cared for abused women and punished their abusers.

When VAWA was enacted in 1994, it spoke to so many of the problems my then-clients were facing, issues with housing and employment, caring for young children, and fighting for custody in court.

What makes VAWA such a critical bill is not just the legal protections it puts in place to protect women but the structures it sets up to help women who have been abused.

This reauthorization bill builds upon those critical reforms from 25 years ago and updates them to address current needs.

The bill funds and improves screening for victimization and the perpetration of intimate partner and sexual violence across federally funded healthcare programs. The healthcare system is often one of the first places women go where unseen abuse can be detected. Empowering healthcare professionals to address such sensitive situations can help to avert abuse before it escalates or prevent it from happening in the first place.

The bill ensures that survivors of domestic abuse can maintain housing in the event of a breakup with their partner and further protects their privacy through strengthened confidentiality agreements with housing authorities. Similarly, the bill extends traditional housing grant opportunities to organizations that help underserved populations.

Victims of domestic abuse are often at risk of significant financial loss if they are unable to work and provide for their family as a result of abuse. This bill protects survivors from termination from employment due to disruption caused by domestic abuse and also addresses the impact of domestic abuse on a woman's credit rating.

We should also note that transgender people are disproportionately survivors of sexual assault and violence, and they deserve to access services consistent with their gender identity.

Domestic violence providers and law enforcement agree: Transgender women being in the same space as other women does not make either less safe. Laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity have been in place for years, including specifically for VAWA programs.

Minneapolis, for example, has had gender identity protections since 1975, and there is no credible evidence that the existence of these laws has contributed to violence against women. Instead, they simply keep transgender people safe.

Since 1994, VAWA has provided critical tools to survivors of domestic

abuse, law enforcement, and community organizations to prevent and address the impact of domestic violence. Using those tools to represent survivors of such abuse, I have seen both clients and constituents find safe havens, rebuild their lives, protect their families, and develop emotionally and financially productive lives.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to reauthorization of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This is not the first time that I have heard my colleagues misgender trans women as biological males, and I need to point something out. Beyond this term being outright offensive, it shows how disingenuous their concern for the safety of women is, and they are showing their hand.

The use of the term ``biological male'' is a dog whistle to transphobia that runs rampant in society and seems to on the other side of the aisle. It is not rooted in concern for women but, rather, a manifestation of their disdain for the trans community.

Also, my constituents are not the Senate. My constituents are not Mr. McConnell. My constituents want VAWA reauthorized, and we are going to do what we can to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Maine an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this allegation over and over again based on one case in Fresno where the facts have not been established. It is still in litigation.

As a former trial lawyer, I know that a lot of allegations can be made, but the fact that what has been stated as facts in this case, that men were in a shelter, is not true. Transgender women were in the shelter.

It has been stated that a transgender man couldn't be excluded from the shelter and that the staff at the shelter failed to take action. That actually is under dispute.

So we have one isolated instance that is being misrepresented to continue this line of argument. What we are really seeing is this tactic of trying to pit one minority group, one group in need of services, against another to convince us that the rights and protections of one group come at the cost of another. They have done it with people of color, with immigrants, and now with women and members of the trans community.

Mr. Speaker, I have a clear message: this country is better than that. They both need help. It can be done under this law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, the NRA has spent a lot of money to create this distraction, making this about them as opposed to protecting the lives of women. Over 50 percent of women murdered in 2017 were slain by an intimate partner or family member; 82 percent of homicide victims targeted by intimate partners are women; the weapon of choice in over half of female homicides, a firearm.

This is an opportunity to support both saving the lives of women and responsible gun ownership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

I have to rebut my colleague's repeated assertion that this iteration of VAWA would violate the Second Amendment because it fails to offer an opportunity for abusers to protest having their guns taken away--and the gentlewoman said this several times in the course of debate--on the basis that ex parte orders are often entered against abusers.

But, in fact, in every instance, even if an initial order is an ex parte, the abuser has the right to request a hearing, including in Arizona, where title 12, section 1809 provides that anyone who has a protection order entered against them can file a written request for a hearing, and that is when they get their due process. So I just want to point that out.

The purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is today as it was when it was passed in 1994: to keep women safe from domestic abuse. It remains a piece of bipartisan landmark legislation.

Ms. Jackson Lee detailed the number of Republican amendments and bills that have been incorporated into this version, so it is a shining example of what Congress can accomplish when we set aside our partisan differences and work together to find actual solutions.

VAWA has dramatically improved our Nation's response to domestic violence and has provided invaluable support to victims, communities, social service providers, and law enforcement. It is working.

We won't solve domestic violence overnight, nor will we end it with the passage of a bill, but we can continue to change the culture of violence against women and provide the support that survivors need.

The two constituents I spoke of in my opening never should have experienced the violence that was inflicted upon them; but it is not enough to condemn what was done or to charge those responsible, no. We must change the conditions to allow such acts of violence to occur.

We can look at the facts and we can look at the research so we create policies and pass laws to better protect women from abusers, and this reauthorization is a bold step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to study the return on investment of legal services for survivors of domestic violence.

As a former legal services board member and director of a pro bono program, I know the importance of legal representation for the most vulnerable members of our community.

Access to justice is especially critical when it comes to survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. Too often, survivors are left to navigate the overwhelming fallout of abuse alone, whether that means seeking custody, housing, medical care, employment protections, or other legal assistance.

In the aftermath of abuse, legal remedies are often complicated and hard to manage, and legal representation in these critical moments can make a life-changing difference. Sometimes that means a lawyer who can remove the abuser from the home so the survivor doesn't lose their housing; other times, it is an attorney helping a survivor access the medical resources to heal from physical and mental injuries.

Access to justice remains a crucial issue in our legal system, and one of the key contributions of VAWA is that it recognizes the importance of legal services for the survivors of abuse. So not only does VAWA provide critical medical and housing services, but it provides legal representation that often saves public dollars.

As with many social services, upfront investment in legal services can result in long-term benefits and savings. That is why my amendment would ask the GAO to conduct a study about the economic benefits of investments in legal services provided under the jurisdiction of VAWA.

It is important that we have a full grasp of the importance of these investments so that my colleagues and I can continue pushing for robust investment in these critical legal resources. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, and I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn this administration's latest attempt to do away with the healthcare provided by the Affordable Care Act.

The Department of Justice's decision to go after the healthcare of millions of Americans by seeking a ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional underscores their belief that healthcare should be a luxury reserved for the privileged few, only now we have moved from repeal and replace to just flat-out repeal. I could not disagree more strongly.

In my home State of Pennsylvania, the ability to get health insurance regardless of chronic illness has saved countless lives. Tens of thousands of my constituents have gotten healthcare for the first time under the Affordable Care Act. Those with preexisting conditions have received peace of mind, and many, myself included, have been able to keep their children on their health plans even as they become adults themselves.

The administration's callous decision to continue undermining the Affordable Care Act endangers my constituents, just as it endangers the lives of Americans in every district of our country.

We were chosen to serve in this House to protect Americans who need us most, and that means protecting their healthcare. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, last week the House passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights and government reform package that returns the power of our democracy to the American people.

Since this week is Sunshine Week, I want to focus on a particular part of H.R. 1 that is designed to shine some much-needed sunshine on the corrosive influence of dark money.

Multiple sources reported this week that the President's 2017 inaugural fund received tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from shell companies to conceal illegal contributions from foreign donors.

Think about that. Foreign agents lavished tens of thousands of dollars on the U.S. inaugural celebration so they could try to influence our President.

That is why I introduced the Inaugural Fund Integrity Act, which is part of H.R. 1, to close loopholes in the existing regulations, to put an end to donations by foreign nationals and corporations, to ban personal use of inaugural funds, and to require disclosure of all donations and spending by inaugural committees.

It is hard to think of an area more in need of sunshine than a shadowy slush fund rife with opportunities for government corruption.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 172 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 172, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

The resolution self-executes Chairwoman Lofgren's manager's amendment and provides for the consideration of 72 amendments debatable for 10 minutes each.

The rule also provides authority for en bloc amendments, debatable for 20 minutes each.

The rule also provides 10 minutes of final general debate after amendment consideration equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their designees.

Lastly, the rule provides suspension authority through Friday, March 8, 2019.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this past weekend, I had the honor of traveling to Selma, Alabama, with over 40 of our congressional colleagues on a pilgrimage to observe the 54th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the violent confrontation at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.

That confrontation seized the Nation's attention and launched one of the most important periods in the history of our Republic, culminating in the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

When our colleague, Representative John Lewis, along with Martin Luther King and other civil rights pioneers, organized voters to register, crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and marched from Selma to Montgomery, they did so knowing that their lives and the lives of those they loved were at risk.

The institutional opposition they faced was fierce and violent, but their message of nonviolence and justice strengthened them and their resolve.

They marched and risked their lives in order to secure the right to vote. They understood that they would never be equal citizens of the United States until they had a voice in their destiny, and they understood that the United States could never be the republic it aspired to become until all of its citizens had the right to participate in decisions affecting their future.

We undeniably have made progress since then, but not enough, and frighteningly, we seem to be moving backward.

In recent years, we have seen new forms of voter suppression emerge, whether in the guise of strict voter ID laws, purges of voting rolls, partisan gerrymandering, or unfounded allegations of voter fraud.

As an election official, election protection organizer, and voting rights advocate for over 3 decades, I have seen all of these tactics in play. In fact, several of us in the Pennsylvania delegation were able to join this Congress in part because a Federal court ordered that Pennsylvania's congressional districts had been so gerrymandered that they must be redrawn, they were unconstitutional.

We have heard, and will undoubtedly hear again today, that Democrats are pushing voting rights reform because of the expectation that new voters will likely be Democratic voters. I would hope that those with a sense of history would resist this, recognizing that the very same argument was used to oppose the Voting Rights Act in 1965 out of fear that those who had been oppressed would factor that experience into their voting decisions.

It is telling that a similar fear motivates some in this Chamber today who would rather deprive citizens of a fundamental right than face them at the ballot box.

The cynicism of those who would continue to place barriers in the way of those who wish to vote goes a long way to explaining why our citizens lack faith in us to work for them.

Those with power, voting and otherwise, too often try to preserve that power through means that are neither transparent nor understood by the people of this country. We have to be bold, and shed some of that institutional power in order to regain the trust of the people.

I thank my colleague, Representative John Sarbanes, who has worked for years in tirelessly crafting this legislation. I also thank Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team for making this bill the top priority in the House for the 116th Congress. I am so proud that the first order of business of this Congress, our H.R. 1, is dedicated to good government and restoring trust in our democratic institutions.

Our elections are the bedrock of our democracy. During the recent midterm elections, the American people charged us, the new Congress, to make sure that our government works for them. They put their trust in us to champion our uniquely American creed: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

H.R. 1, the For the People bill, is our commitment to that trust. This reform package will address many of the barriers to democracy that prevent too many eligible voters from having their voices heard, including our seniors, communities of color, servicemembers, college students, those with disabilities, and low-income families. But it is up to us to see it through.

I am immensely proud to be part of a Caucus that is prioritizing legislation that the people are asking for, legislation that will protect the right to vote for every American and ensure clean and fair elections, that will end the dominance of big money in our politics, and that will crack down on corruption to make sure that public servants put the public interest first.

Recent polls have found that many Americans do not vote because of difficulty registering or accessing their polling places and that Americans are really concerned about the ethical standards of their elected representatives and government officials and are equally concerned about the influence of special interests and corruption in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority takes what the people are asking for seriously. This is a bill that addresses their concerns and resets our democracy so that it works for the people, not special interests.

H.R. 1 will make it easier for eligible Americans to vote. Allowing and enabling Americans to vote should not be a divisive partisan issue. Our Nation

can only stand to benefit when all eligible voters have a voice.

The very fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have greater electoral success when fewer people come out to vote is not just a stain on our democracy but a direct threat to it.

Automatic voter registration will make it easier for young adults and working families to make sure that they are not left out of the process due to issues with registration.

This bill will make critical fixes to voter purging policies that have disenfranchised millions since section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder. Over 4 million more names were purged from voter rolls after that decision came down than they were in the years before. These purges affected poor minority communities at a vastly disproportionate rate, further marginalizing people who already face significant institutional barriers to voting.

Election security has been a bipartisan concern across the country for years, and H.R. 1 will make considerable investments to ensure our elections are secure, independent, and free from foreign interference. Empowering the Election Assistance Commission will allow States to get the funding they need to upgrade or improve their election infrastructure, and improvements in election administration will help protect voting systems from cyber threats.

Election infrastructure is critical, and this bill finally recognizes the role that Congress must play in protecting our elections.

A specific priority of mine that I am excited to see included in the bill will make it easier for persons with disabilities to participate in the electoral process. For too long, individuals with disabilities have faced barriers that prevent them from participating in our democracy at the ballot box. I have introduced legislation included in H.R. 1 that will direct and assist States to improve access to voter registration and the ballot box for persons with disabilities.

These democracy-driven policies represent just a handful of the voting rights reforms contained in H.R. 1. They will improve access to voting, promote integrity in the voting process, and ensure the security of our elections.

Going further, H.R. 1 acts to shine a light and address the dark money which the Citizens United decision unleashed into our politics. Each year that we do not act on reversing Citizens United, more and more untraceable money is spent on campaigns.

This bill will overhaul the Federal Election Commission, the FEC, so that we have a real cop on the beat to enforce our campaign finance laws.

It will upgrade political advertising disclosures and require donors giving more than $10,000 to politically active organizations to be publicly identified.

Simultaneously, this bill seeks to empower everyday Americans by creating a small-dollar match system that will bring more people into the conversation while reducing the impact large donors can have on any one campaign. While small-dollar campaign funding is relatively new to the Federal system, it has been trialed in States and larger cities to great effect.

I am proud that H.R. 1 also includes a bill that I drafted to keep Presidential inaugural funds from becoming shadowy slush funds or opportunities for dark forces, whether foreign or domestic, to influence our government. The bill will prohibit donations to inaugural funds by foreign nationals or corporations, ban personal use of inaugural funds by a candidate, and require disclosure of all donations and disbursements.

H.R. 1 will also help to restore voter confidence in our democracy by codifying ethics standards for all three branches of government. The bill requires the development of a code of ethics for Supreme Court Justices, mandatory recusal of Presidential appointees from matters that concern the President, and increased enforcement of the registration of foreign agents.

The bill will prohibit Members of Congress from using taxpayer funds to settle employment discrimination cases against them, preventing Members of Congress from hiding this conduct and protecting taxpayer money from being misused.

Finally, H.R. 1 will address Presidential conflicts of interest by requiring sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, to release their tax returns. Those occupying the highest office in the land should be required to show if they have financial interests that would influence their decisionmaking. Having an executive beholden in any way to a private company or a nation only serves to undermine our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Committee of Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from Oklahoma has any more speakers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the reforms in H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will remove barriers to our democracy that drown out the voices of too many Americans.

H.R. 1 will put the people back in charge. These reforms will bring about systemic change which, in turn, will lead to policy outcomes that improve the lives of all Americans.

From lowering the cost of prescription drugs to rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure to raising wages and creating better job opportunities, each of these policies requires the voice of the people to be fully heard and respected. They all rest on fixing our broken democracy.

We have heard the call for change from our friends, neighbors, and constituents. That is how I got here and how so many of my colleagues did, too.

To those people who voted for such historic change, know that Democrats hear you, and we are ready to give you the government you deserve.

Crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma last weekend was a poignant reminder that change does not come quickly, and it certainly does not come easily. Heroes like Representative John Lewis remind us of the sacrifices that were made in order to preserve our uniquely American creed: ``of the people, by the people, for the people.''

H.R. 1 is the top priority of Democrats because it will strengthen the very core of our democracy. It is a mandate with which we were entrusted by voters this past November, and it is the first step in restoring faith in our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to support this rule to show that you want big money out of politics. Support this bill to show that you believe voting should be made easier--not harder--for eligible voters, and support this rule to show that you believe those elected to public positions deserve to be held to the highest possible ethical standards.

In the words of our esteemed colleague, Representative Lewis: ``The fight to vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool or instrument that we have in a democratic society.''

To the American people: We hear you. In the words of the civil rights anthem, we must keep our eyes on the prize and hold on to the vision of a more perfect Union, one in which the voices of the people are heard and respected. Our Caucus is eager to restore the promise of our democracy and give you the government you deserve. That is why we are urging passage of H.R. 1--``For the People.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my first amendment is amendment No. 6. This straightforward amendment would establish a committee of election security experts to review grant requests to ensure that funds for election security infrastructure are best spent.

This committee would be established under the Election Assistance Commission, the EAC, and act alongside the three existing Federal advisory committees that were created under the Help America Vote Act.

Currently, the three existing boards have advisory and oversight responsibilities to assist the EAC in carrying out its mission under the law and reviewing voluntary voter system guidelines. There is not, however, enough expertise within these three committees to properly determine how funds related to election security grants are best spent.

Election security is one of the critical pillars of H.R. 1, and my amendment would help ensure that the EAC has everything it needs to properly vet grants to help improve and secure voting systems across the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment is to establish a committee that parallels the three existing committees and, therefore, would use the same properties as those committees for appointment, et cetera.

The gentleman who argued against the last amendment was suggesting that it would be too intrusive to interject too much specificity in the amendment, so I guess we have a flip situation here. But the idea is to parallel the three existing commissions and have the 15-person committee appointed using the same processes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that we share a common concern about our election security and an interest in using the best technology to protect that security.

The intent here is to make sure that we are spending congressional dollars wisely as there are these grants being awarded. The amendment was devised, after hearing from interested parties, that there was not sufficient expertise on the three existing committees. And I would suggest that if the dangers, which the word the gentleman has suggested, were to come to pass, that that would be an excellent opportunity for congressional oversight.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the much more experienced gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have a second amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my next amendment is Amendment No. 7.

The amendment would require the Federal Election Comission to conduct a study to specifically assess whether the small donor match cap and the 6-to-1 ratio contained in H.R. 1 is appropriately scaled for both House and Senate elections.

H.R. 1 will empower everyday Americans through each of these systems by bringing more and more people into the political fold.

This system of small donor campaign funding is relatively new to the Federal system but has been tried in States and localities nationwide to great effect. New York City has had a matching funds program in place since the 1980s, and over 80 percent of the 2015 Connecticut State Legislature was elected under the Citizens' Election public financing program.

It is important and necessary to study these issues at the Federal level, and my amendment would ensure that the Federal Government has all of the relevant information it needs when proceeding with any future changes to these programs.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the thoughtful queries from the gentleman from Arizona, and that is precisely what this amendment is directed towards. It is an amendment to H.R. 1 which sets up a small dollar financing program, and this will allow us to assess how it is working going forward.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just close by saying, once again, the intent of this is to study and make sure we have the best possible system going forward.

I know that Representative Sarbanes and others have studied the existing mechanisms out there to try and implement this kind of small donor matching system. I am sorry it didn't work out in Arizona, but I think we have a great plan here going forward.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 6, 2019, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chair, just 2 weeks ago in my district, six lives and six families were forever changed by gun violence in a 6-day period. Four people were killed and two were injured in six different shootings. One person was 28. The other five were 16, 17, and 18. They were teenagers. My heart goes out to all of those victims' families.

Thoughts and prayers are no longer enough. It is long past time that our actions speak louder than our words. No matter which State we are from, with over 40,000 gun violence deaths last year, every State has been severely impacted by gun violence.

The public health crisis has been politicized and weaponized as a means to divide us, despite the fact that it is a crisis that should bind us together, and we must come together.

Background checks are the foundation of commonsense gun policy, and they are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Our current system fails us in two ways, but the bills we are looking at this week are designed to address that.

Under current law, firearm sales can proceed regardless if a good background check comes back within a 3-day period, and it doesn't capture all the sales. So this puts an incredible burden on law enforcement and an incredible burden on ATF agents who have to go and reclaim guns that are sold, despite the owner of the gun not being able to pass the background check. So for too long those in a position to act have failed to do so. But that ends now.

I strongly support the commonsense gun legislation in H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112.

Madam Speaker, my vote did not record. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 80.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the good people of the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, who are helping their neighbors, the Federal workers, contractors, and families who have been so grievously impacted by the government shutdown.

As the human and financial toll of this senseless shutdown has spread, we have seen locals step up and help those who are struggling without pay. What a contrast with this administration where Cabinet members said today that they didn't understand why an unpaid worker might have to resort to a food bank to feed his family.

Unlike this administration and the Senate majority leader, our neighbors have recognized the true impact of the shutdown and are doing something about it. We have seen youth groups, and fire departments, and local organizations organize food drives. Nonprofits are collecting donations and organizing food pantries so Federal workers can feed their families.

I urge the President and the Senate majority leader to put people before politics. People are not bargaining chips. The shutdown needs to end now.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 52 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 52, providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 28, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 2019 to fund the government until February 28.

The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Additionally, the rule provides suspension authority through the legislative day of January 25, 2019.

Madam Speaker, we are in day 27 of this government shutdown, the longest government shutdown in our Nation's history.

Nearly 800,000 Federal employees have now missed a paycheck since the shutdown began. Some estimates say those employees have lost an average of $5,000 each so far.

These hardworking Americans are law enforcement officers and National Park Service, EPA, FDA, and IRS employees, and so many others in dedicated Federal service whose families are needlessly suffering. These employees are either furloughed or being forced to work without pay. This is not an acceptable way to govern.

I may not have been a Member of this body as long as some people here, but I don't think there is a single Member, Democrat or Republican, who doesn't care about securing our border, but it is foolish to think that keeping our government shut down will in any way help secure the border.

You know what Border Patrol and Coast Guard members want more than a wall? They want their paychecks to come on time.

Democrats have made it clear, we are more than willing to come to the table to talk about sensible border security, but the first step has to be to reopen the government and get our government back to functioning.

This majority has already voted to open the government seven times, with support from across the aisle. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has yet to act on any of these bipartisan pieces of legislation, the same legislation, I might add, that has already passed the Senate.

There are more than 100 freshmen Members of this body, comprising over 20 percent of the House, who have never worked in a functioning Federal Government due to the Senate's inaction. All of our constituents, both Republican and Democrat, are suffering because of that failure to act.

Let me share with you the traumatic impact of the shutdown on my constituents and Americans across the country.

Jennifer, the wife of a Coast Guard gunner's mate, wrote to my office to detail the hardships her family is facing. Her husband has served in the Coast Guard for 19 years. They are used to stressful deployments, and her children are proud of their father's service. But now Jennifer has new hardships to face: how to feed her family on only her income, how she could make the holidays special while not knowing when her husband's next paycheck would come, and how to shield her kids from her constant worry over the absence of that income.

This is an embarrassment. Too many Federal workers were already living paycheck to paycheck before those paychecks stopped. Having to put a mortgage payment on a credit card, deal with an eviction notice, or plead with a bank to delay a student loan payment should not be the reality forced upon hardworking Federal employees.

The debts these workers incur during the shutdown will follow them long after the government is reopened. The hits to their savings accounts and marks on their credit scores will serve as painful reminders that they are represented by a government that will put them in harm's way over a policy dispute.

Fran, a newlywed with a premature baby who spent more than 3 weeks in the NICU, has been without an income since her husband's paychecks stopped coming. Their child requires an expensive special formula due to his premature birth, and her husband is now being asked to work overtime without pay.

The fear and anguish in these messages from our neighbors is palpable. It should resonate with every Member of this body. These stories should keep all of us up at night. If we didn't come to Washington to serve these dedicated and hardworking Americans, then just who are we here to serve?

When the government does eventually reopen, fortunately, many of these Federal employees will receive backpay, but the plight of Federal contractors is worse. The term ``Federal contractors'' can conjure up an image of highly paid executives or CEOs of private detention facilities, but they are not the real ones harmed by the shutdown.

Federal contractors are generally small businesses, cleaners, builders, food service workers, and tech support workers. They are our neighbors who rely on these contracts to make their rent or pay their employees or contribute to our local economies.

The callousness with which these Federal contractors are being treated is repulsive. They and their families deserve so much better. The American people deserve so much better.

The longer the Senate Republicans keep our government shut down, the worse things will get.

The Small Business Administration has already stopped approving loan assistance and guarantee applications from commercial banks and small businesses, programs that are critical to the health of local economies.

Security lines at the airports are long, and they will get longer. TSA has already been forced to close security lanes at major airports across the country. This is not because the hardworking men and women of the TSA do not want to keep our skies and our passengers safe, but because they have been forced to take second jobs to pay the rent or look after their children at home because they cannot afford childcare. Without a paycheck, some cannot afford gas or carfare to get to work at all.

Just a few days ago, I met with the air traffic controllers from my district. They shared that not only is the shutdown impacting their current workforce, but it is drastically impacting their recruiting efforts to hire and train new employees for this workforce. Can we blame people for being fearful of taking a job that hinges on the Federal Government's functionality, given what we have seen during this shutdown?

A National Air Traffic Controllers Association official warned recently that if the shutdown continues to drag on, there may not be any air traffic controllers left working.

Let me pause to make those statements abundantly clear. This shutdown is making us less safe. If it continues much longer, there will not be enough employees on duty to make sure passengers are safe to board a plane, not enough employees left to make sure planes are safe to land, and not enough employees to direct air traffic in our skies.

If you think you are insulated from the effects of a government shutdown because you are not a Federal employee, you are wrong.

What I fear this administration and Republican leadership in the Senate have forgotten is that this is the people's House. We have an obligation to work for them. Refusing to uphold that commitment, that promise, is a slap in the face to the American people.

Before I conclude, let me share with you one final story of how the shutdown is harming American families.

Jessica from my district is a mother of six with a special needs child. Her husband is Active Duty Coast Guard. She has been forced to tell her children they can't have seconds at dinner, because she doesn't know if she will have enough food to last the week. Her daughter has an ultrasound coming up, and she is unsure if she can afford the specialist copay.

She writes that she and her husband supported President Trump, but that after this, she does not see ``how we could support someone so out of touch and willing to damage so many people in order to save his own face.''

Jessica ended her message by saying that they are prepared to stand strong, but she is also prepared to stand at the corner of an intersection with a cardboard sign if that is what she has to do to feed her children.

This is not the America I was raised in.

Let's end the shutdown today and get our country back on track.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand the frustration of the gentlewoman from Arizona with the lack of progress in ending this shutdown, but I would suggest that her frustration is misdirected.

The House has sent seven bills to end the shutdown to the Senate, and the Senate leadership has refused to entertain any of them or bring them to a vote: #whereismitch.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague talk about political theater. We have a reality-show President in the White House who is ignoring the real lives impacted by the shutdown, all to try to make another made-for-TV moment to please his rightwing base and radio pundits. Government isn't a game. Real lives are at stake, and we need to reopen the government.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining speakers. If not, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I don't know when this shutdown will end, but I know that Democrats and all the Republicans who are serious about getting Federal employees back to work will vote in favor of this rule and the underlying resolution.

I am heartened by my colleagues from across the aisle who have already voted to reopen the government, and I am hopeful that even more will join us this time around.

No serious person can claim that any Member of this House is against border security. Not only have we sworn an oath to protect and defend this country, but we have voted repeatedly to fund billions of dollars in border security appropriations.

The discussion about the best methods for protecting our border is a valid policy question that should be debated thoughtfully and deliberately by both sides of the aisle, not used as a vehicle for the President to fulfill a campaign promise at the expense of American families.

It cannot be overstated: this is the longest government shutdown in history. The House has done its job. We have passed bills to reopen the government on bipartisan votes and will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

We have committed to working on solutions to border security once the government is opened back up. The votes are there in the Senate. They have already shown that. And given the chance, I am sure they would show it again.

Why won't Senator McConnell bring to the floor any one of the House- passed bills to open the government?

I will end by saying this: Senator McConnell, do the right thing for working families in your State, in my State, and across the country. Hold a vote to open the government.

Let's end the pain American families and businesses are feeling from the shutdown and get to work on making this country a better place for all.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Joe Shuker, a Federal worker in my district.

I met with Joe on Friday after he reached out, looking for help for his colleagues, TSA agents who have been working for 3 weeks without pay. Their jobs are stressful, and many of them live paycheck to paycheck. Now they have the added stress of struggling to pay mortgages, rent, childcare, or even to put food on the table. Many can't afford to get gas to get to their jobs.

Joe has gone door to door to get people to donate food and diapers to meet the most basic needs of his coworkers and their families. He told me about a family with a 3-month-old baby. They can't afford baby formula--baby formula.

This is unacceptable.

Holding Federal workers hostage and shutting down our government is a failed tactic. The House has sent legislation to reopen the government to the Senate three times. We have done our job. The Senate needs to do its.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this administration to choose people over politics.

As we are talking about the shutdown, the stories of real people are getting lost in the mess created by this administration. I want to share the serious impact of the shutdown on my constituents and Americans around the country.

These stories come from hardworking families, like newlyweds in my district who just had a premature baby. They spent 3 weeks in the NICU and are just now getting back home. They told me: ``We have so many bills and a mortgage, and the shutdown happened just as we are sending in our first mortgage payment. Our baby requires special formula because he was not able to breastfeed. My husband has been asked to work overtime and is not getting paid. We are scared about how we are going to get by.''

This is a national crisis, one our President has created, and we have a responsibility to fix it.

I call on the White House, my colleagues across the aisle, and their colleagues in the Senate to stop holding our government hostage and allow the government to reopen as we debate effective and humane border security.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rules package before us. This package includes, among other things, a critical provision defending the affordable healthcare of Americans.

I came to Congress with a resounding message from my constituents to protect and expand affordable, quality healthcare. Parents should not have to choose between paying rent or healthcare for their children. Students should not have to choose between paying for school or health insurance. Children should not have to spend sleepless nights worried about paying for aging parents' healthcare.

It is unacceptable that American families are one healthcare emergency away from financial ruin.

This administration is once again undermining the Affordable Care Act and ignoring a clear message from the American people. Quality healthcare is a right and should not be the privilege of the few who can afford it.

I will continue using my voice in Congress to advocate for those who need us most, pushing this body to protect the healthcare of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Speaker-designate Pelosi, Whip Hoyer, and Representative Sarbanes for honoring the will of the American people and pledging to make democracy reform a top priority for the 116th Congress.

One of the greatest promises of our democracy is that our government is of, by, and for the people. Our democracy has always been a messy experiment. It is not perfect. It is not a spectator sport. But it is our greatest hope. At this point in time, unfortunately, many of our democratic structures are under attack.

In my home, Pennsylvania, over the past decade, we have seen the impact of antidemocratic policies. The cards have been stacked against the voices of Pennsylvanians through unconstitutional gerrymandering, repressive voter ID laws, and restrictive absentee ballot deadlines. These tactics have been used to muzzle the voices of our constituents, as well as voters in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia, and other citizens across the country.

The H.R. 1 package being advanced by Representative Sarbanes and the Democracy Reform Task Force is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the American people's faith in our institutions. History has shown us that our American experiment is at its best when we face complex challenges head-on and we are better for taking them up.

H.R. 1 is our path forward to a more perfect democracy. Our elections are the bedrock of this Nation, and the sanctity of those elections must be protected from threats, both foreign and domestic.

We can make it easier, not harder, for eligible Americans to vote. We can end the dominance of Big Money in our politics. We can ensure that public officials, from the White House to Members of Congress, put the interests of the American people first. We can do all of those things, and we must.

Public opinion polls show that the American people's distrust of our governmental institutions is at staggering levels. We must work together, Democrats and Republicans, to change course and restore the people's faith. We have real work to do, and Members of the incoming class are ready to roll up our sleeves. The voters have charged us to restore the balance of our political institutions and make sure that everyday Americans have a seat at the table.

When we listen to people instead of special interests, we can raise the minimum wage and create good-paying jobs; we can lower prescription drug prices and give people better access to healthcare; we can make real investments in our infrastructure; we can reduce gun violence; and we can increase funding for job training programs and public education.

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the generations before us who worked to establish this democracy and we owe it to the generations that follow to ensure that we have a Government that is truly by and for the people. We can work on this together. It is up to us to get it done, and this work starts now.