Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I thank my new colleague, Mr. Neguse, and welcome him. I am glad he is participating in the process.

I am going to oppose the gentleman's amendment; not because of the process, just because it adds another layer of burden to our States and our localities.

Many States already accept pre-registration forms, and that is within their State's jurisdiction to do so. I just don't like this top-down approach which this now upwards of 700-page mammoth bill called H.R. 1 is putting on to our States and our local election officials.

Our county offices, our local officials, they are bleeding from unfunded mandates from State and Federal Governments, and this is one more of those.

I agree, we ought to get more 16- and 17-year-olds interested in government. I have got twin boys who are 18; I try and get them interested. Sometimes they are not even interested in me and what we do.

But the key is we, as Members of Congress, ought to go take our message to the high schools. And I just recently was in Boston with a bipartisan group in and around our colleague, Joe Kennedy's district.

Joe, Markwayne Mullin, and Lisa Blunt Rochester and I, we visited numerous high schools. And I hope all four of us standing there in a bipartisan way actually inspired some young people in the Boston area to get engaged.

My colleague, Jimmy Panetta and I visited schools in my district last fall to do the exact same thing, to show people that we can work together in a bipartisan way.

Unfortunately, this process in H.R. 1 has been nothing but partisan; and that is not the message that we need to send to 16- and 17-year- olds.

I have put my hand out with an olive branch. I have accepted many Democratic amendments throughout the last few days, and not one single amendment, either in the markup of the only committee that marked this bill up, House Administration, where we offered 28, not one Republican amendment to this bill that is now 700 pages has been accepted. Every amendment has been a Democrat-led amendment.

I thought the new Democratic majority was going to be bipartisan. I thought the new Democratic majority was going to be transparent. I thought the new Democratic majority was going to not work with special interests to write mammoth 700-page bills. But I guess, Madam Chair, I was mistaken.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Neguse, again. I admire his tenacity, and admire his willingness to come down and legislate. I stand ready to come to his district and talk to high schoolers with him, and I would hope he would reciprocate, come to mine. If the gentleman will have his team call mine, we will figure out a way to work something out. I think that is the best way for us to send a message to high schoolers to get them engaged, get them involved.

This is just an administrative burden that is going to affect our State and local officials. To process--I mean, there are provisions in this 700-page mammoth bill that don't allow our local election officials to clean voters off the rolls that they know no longer may live in their jurisdiction. So we are hindering local officials' ability to clean up their rolls; and then decide, you know, later on, that we are going to be ahead and pre-register people that we don't know, may or may not want to vote in their college town of residence.

So it just is a burden that I think is unnecessary. Although, again, I respect the gentleman's willingness to come down here and debate; this is an issue that goes further than Mr. Neguse's amendment.

I am going to oppose the amendment. I urge folks to vote ``no'' on it. But more importantly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill that is going to eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars and add billions upon billions to the campaign coffers of Members of Congress. That is not what the taxpayers in my district are asking

for. It is not what the taxpayers of America are asking for. It is only what the Democratic majority is asking for.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we know this bill is not going to be signed into law. I look forward to working with the gentleman on other amendments that we might be able to come up with some good plans to engage our 16- and 17-year-olds, engage the next generation of leaders.

I hope maybe a visit that we can do together could inspire somebody to do what we do one day, and that would be that we would manage to call ourselves successful in legislating to inspire the next generation.

This bill, H.R. 1, is not going to inspire the next generation. I appreciate Mr. Neguse; I appreciate his willingness to serve.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I welcome back my colleague, Mrs. Kirkpatrick. It is great to have her back in this institution.

The gentlewoman's amendment is an amendment that I support. However, the underlying bill, H.R. 1, is the furthest thing that can be considered ``for the people.'' This bill is nothing but a bill that is for loading billions upon billions of dollars into the coffers of Members of Congress.

I don't think anybody in my district who stops me in the street is saying, ``Hey, we want you to take taxpayer dollars away from investing in infrastructure, take taxpayer dollars away from investing in pediatric cancer research, and you know what, load up your campaign coffers with that so you can go enrich some political operatives and maybe buy some more TV commercials and radio ads, send some more mail pieces that get thrown away immediately when they come into your house.''

This has to be one of the worst examples of self-preservation that I have ever witnessed in my 22 years working for the U.S. House of Representatives and serving in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I can't think of one person in my district who has come up and said, ``I want you to take tax dollars away from building bridges and roads, finding cures for deadly diseases, and put it in your campaign fund.''

That is why this bill is terrible.

This bill has not been open; it has not been a bipartisan process; it has not been regular order, all the things that the Democratic majority promised us that they would do when they took over.

This bill was introduced on January 3. I certainly hope every Democratic Member actually read the bill before they signed on as a cosponsor, but I think they are reading it now. And there are a lot of problems, which is why we have so many amendments.

Let me go through some of the process. We requested a CBO score--it was delivered last Friday; it was updated yesterday--which actually agrees with me that taxpayer dollars are going to be taken away from other priorities that we can spend here in Congress, like roads and bridges, cancer research, Alzheimer's research, and others, and go toward Members of Congress' campaigns.

Hours before the only committee markup that we saw with the majority, an amendment in the nature of a substitute with new text, including a magical, new freedom from influence fund that would supposedly support the enrichment of Members of Congress' campaigns, it had no details on how that fund would be filled.

We went through the markup. Only one committee, the smallest committee in Congress, House Administration, it was the only committee that marked this up. That is not regular order. Forty percent of the bill has never gone through regular order.

Yet we see now 72 amendments over the last few days. Twenty-eight of them that we offered to try to make the bill better in committee were all turned down on a partisan roll call.

Then we went to Rules. I actually had a good time in Rules. I have to thank my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren, for that debate during the Rules Committee.

We again received new text of the bill 10 minutes before I walked in, 10 minutes before, including 51 new pages. Where was this in the markup process?

After the Rules hearing and before consideration on the floor, we learned through leaks to the press that the new freedom from influence fund would be filled with some magical surcharges of corporate fines, but we had no details.

I had no idea that the Democrats' solution to campaign finance reform and their goal to take corporate money out of politics was to use corporate money to now fund our campaigns, which we now legally cannot accept.

That is the height of hypocrisy. No one is asking for more corporate dollars to line the campaign coffers of Members of Congress.

This bill and the process are just a sham. Look, a joint committee report with revenue stream projections for this new magical freedom from influence fund was not shown to us. It was just submitted for the Record. We found it. We saw it.

The new CBO report clearly says this fund will be out of money in just a few years after it becomes activated, because the costs are going to exponentially rise, and clearly, taxpayer dollars will have to bail it out.

The corporate fund, even the CBO and The Washington Post realize that that corporate tax fund, the tax rate of corporate dollars now being funneled into our campaigns that we can't take right now, those corporate dollars and fines will take away from being able to be spent on the priorities of my constituents who stop me in the streets. They say, ``We want to build new bridges. We want new roadways. We want to make sure that this bill goes down, because it is a travesty on the American people and the American taxpayer.''

Madam Chair, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I don't have the best Nickelback lyrics to introduce my next speaker, but I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our Republican leader.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Golden for his service to our country. Our country thanks the gentleman, and everyone in this institution thanks him for that service.

This bill, however, is a very bad idea. Public funding of elections is a very bad idea.

At the last second before we vote on H.R. 1, Democrats have decided they are afraid of the CBO score for their massively expensive bill. We haven't even debated it and want to hide it from consideration in this Chamber.

So they created this gimmick called the freedom from influence fund, which is proposed to add an additional 2.75 percent penalty against law-breaking or malfeasant corporations and officials at corporations. They claimed it would generate enough funds to pay the massive cost of funding political campaigns for Members of Congress.

Late last night, we got that CBO report, and the score for H.R. 1 that projects the impact of this new shell game called the freedom from influence fund and its proposed funding source, corporate fines--again, voting for this bill will allow corporate money to, for the first time, lawfully flow into the campaigns of each and every one of us in this institution.

The CBO score tells a very different story from what Democrats want you to believe. According to the CBO, this new fund will result in a reduction of income and payroll taxes, meaning corporations will have less money to spend on their payrolls, which equates to less jobs.

To quote the CBO report:

The assessment on civil monetary penalties and settlements

would reduce the base for income and payroll taxes.

Consequently, the revenues from the assessments will be

partially offset by lower income and payroll taxes.

Put another way, H.R. 1 takes American jobs away in order to fund the campaign coffers of Members of Congress.

Furthermore, the CBO notes that, as a result of this funding source, less money will be available for other government programs that we want to prioritize in this institution.

I quote again from the CBO report:

CBO and JCT expect the increased assessment of criminal and

civil penalties would reduce the amount of penalties and

settlements collected under current law.

The CBO report confirms what Republicans have been saying all along: H.R. 1 is a shell game that will, in the end, hurt taxpayers because this proposal to publicly fund campaigns will be funded by the taxpayers.

However, you are going to likely hear Democrats say, instead, that this fund will run at a surplus over the first few years of its existence, which is true because they designed the bill to not make any expenditures for the first 6 years of this program.

But pay very close attention. What the Democrats won't tell you is that, once the fund starts making its expenditures, the fund will be nearly broke in 5 years, and that is assuming that the cost of running campaigns will stay static today and not exponentially increase like it has.

Again, this Democratic funding gimmick was concocted just to result in a more desirable CBO score. I don't see that as a result.

The new fund will collect money for 6 years with no expenditures, resulting in the accumulation of a large balance. Then, once the money starts flowing to every Member of Congress in this institution, it is going to run out in 5 years.

Democrats should be ashamed for making this bill H.R. 1.

When Republicans took over this institution, after 50 years in the minority, our H.R. 1 was the Congressional Accountability Act, to make Congress work better.

H.R. 1 in the last Congress, put more money in the pockets of middle- class taxpayers, families back home.

This H.R. 1 will do nothing but put taxpayer dollars in the campaign funds of every Member of Congress, and that is not acceptable to me, and that is why we should have a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1.

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

Madam Chair, before I get started, I ask for a point of personal privilege to have the Members of this institution and the gallery recognize the Chair as the first Native American woman to ever chair the House proceedings.

Madam Chair, as my home State President Ronald Reagan once said: The most terrifying words in the English language are: ``I'm from the government and I'm here to help.''

I am for the American voter. I support every eligible voter having easier ways to register to vote and easier access to the polls. What I am not for is Washington, D.C. taking over our elections.

I have said it before: I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a role for the Federal Government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access, transparency, and, most importantly, election security. However, H.R. 1, misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from the States to administer their own elections, and threatens to limit Americans' constitutional rights. I cannot support this legislation.

This bill, a 700-page mammoth bill, takes power away from States given to them by the U.S. Constitution to designate the time, place, and the manner of their elections. I know the author of this legislation said yesterday that H.R. 1 is simply implementing the best practices of States, but that is federalizing our election system, no matter how nicely you phrase it.

Congress should partner with the States who understand the unique needs of their own residents and provide support to increase voter registration and improve election security instead of federally mandating, what this bill does, which is a one-size-fits-all approach.

There is a limited role for the Federal Government to play in elections when patterns of discrimination have occurred, and when we will continue to address those patterns, we can do it in a bipartisan way through the Voting Rights Act.

I cannot stress enough that Congress should absolutely be in favor of increasing access to the polls, but we cannot do that without adding the necessary checks and balances to ensure that these accesses are protected.

We should allow States to maintain their own voter rolls to help them process voters in a timely manner, avoid unfunded mandates, and manage voter lists to avoid registration and voting irregularities. A few voting irregularities can change the outcome of a single election.

Just look at what happened recently in North Carolina. A political operative working for a Republican candidate illegally harvested ballots which led to the North Carolina State Board of Elections calling for a new special election. Ballot harvesting is the practice when a political operative or volunteer can come to your home, pick up your ballot, and deliver it to the polling precinct. This process, while illegal in most States like North Carolina, is a perfectly legal practice in places like California.

Republicans, both at the House Administration Committee markup and at Rules Committee, offered amendments to prohibit ballot harvesting, and both attempts were rejected by Democrats. We can no longer be naive to think that this is a practice that will simply help your elderly neighbor who can no longer get to the polls. Just ask my former colleagues from California. Ballot harvesting is an unguarded instrument that is occurring on a large scale as a practice used by political operatives to manipulate the outcome of elections.

If we want to improve election security, we must eliminate ballot harvesting and its risks to taking away the choice of the American people. Every American deserves their vote to be counted and protected.

H.R. 1 limits free speech and imposes vague standards that disadvantage American citizens who want to advocate on behalf of what they believe in. Organizations like the National Right to Life, the Chamber of Commerce, and even the ACLU have spoken out against this bill for that very reason. Every American should be able to speak on an issue that they are passionate about.

We also recently received the revised CBO score of H.R. 1 which egregiously underestimated H.R. 1's cost to the taxpayers because the Congressional Budget Office said they needed more time to develop a comprehensive score. Instead of giving them more time, we are preparing right now to vote on this 700-page bill.

My colleagues across the aisle are all about transparency--at least that is what I keep hearing. But I have yet to see it in action, especially when it comes to funding their own campaigns. H.R. 1 is creating public subsidies through the new government match program. For every $200, $1,200 will be going to a politician's campaign. The majority has changed this provision so many times throughout the last couple weeks. This money will come from the U.S. Treasury through corporate fines and go into this nebulous Freedom From Influence Fund, but the bottom line is it is going into Members of Congress' own campaigns.

Why are we allocating money to go to politicians when there are so many other causes like transportation, infrastructure, and cancer research that our tax dollars, your tax dollars, and the Americans' tax dollars should be funding?

The Democratic majority claims they want to take money out of politics but have created a scheme that will, for the first time ever, make it legal for Members of Congress to take corporate money into their own campaigns.

This is exactly why we need to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1. It is a travesty.

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

I object.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bob Hudzik, a constituent in my district who has made a profound difference in his community.

Bob, a world champion dart player and custodian at Mt. Olive High School, began Darts for Kids, a nonprofit organization that hosts an annual dart tournament. The proceeds go to families of children with life-threatening illnesses, usually to contribute to the cost of unforeseen medical expenses.

Their first tournament in 2013 raised about $10,000. To date, Darts for Kids has raised almost $175,000 and helped over 90 families with medical costs for children.

I recently cosponsored legislation that shines a light on individuals like Bob. H.R. 276, the RISE Act, would establish the Recognizing Inspirational School Employees Award Program within the Department of Education to highlight the dedication of education support professionals like Bob.

Bob is a perfect example of the people who make our communities great. I could not be prouder of all that Bob has done to better the lives of families in Mt. Olive, Illinois.

Keep up the great work, Bob.

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

I thank my friend and chairperson of our committee, Ms. Lofgren. It is great to be able to work together and show some bipartisanship.

As many who may have been paying attention yesterday to our long debate on this bill know, that has been one of my chief complaints about H.R. 1. We haven't seen the bipartisanship that the new majority, the new Democratic majority, promised.

Every one of these amendments were offered by members of the Democratic conference. While our amendments in the only markup process that we had for this 622-page bill were all shot down on a partisan roll call, I want the Record to show that Republicans believe in bipartisanship and this en bloc group of amendments clearly shows that.

While individually I may not have supported every one of them, this is what bipartisanship and good principle compromise leads to. It leads to us spending a lot less time on the floor debating individual amendments, but also saving time for the amendments that are that much more important.

And I certainly hope that, unlike I have seen throughout the process already, this en bloc of bipartisan amendments, this en bloc of really Democratic amendments that have been accepted on a bipartisan basis, could be the linchpin. As we move forward today, I certainly hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle can accept some Republican amendments because we have yet to accept one. So I hope this is a goodwill gesture that will lead to more bipartisanship as the day goes on.

Again, while I and many members of our conference may not have supported these amendments individually, we felt it was a good faith effort to be able to work together. And, again, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially with the House Administration Committee, a committee that has done its due diligence in putting a massive, mammoth bill forward to the floor today. I still have problems with the process, I still have problems with the overall bill, but this en bloc amendment should not be one of those.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley), my new colleague, for participating in the legislative process. This is why we are here. We are here to debate the issues, whether we agree or disagree. That is what this institution is all about. And it is great to see new Members be active on very important issues.

I have to say, I think there might be a constitutional issue with this amendment. The last time we lowered the voting age, in 1971, I believe we had 18-year-olds fighting for our country in Vietnam.

It seemed wrong back then. The kids that were eligible for the draft. Through no fault of their own, through no choice of their own, they were asked to go fight for our freedoms in a foreign country. Being 1 year old at the time, I don't really remember that debate, but I can tell you, it was the right thing to do.

However, for constitutional reasons--and, also, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't arbitrarily lower the voting age just because, right now, I believe Democrats think they will gain more votes.

H.R. 1 is bad enough because I believe it will institutionalize a Democrat majority here in this House of Representatives, but to be so brash and, possibly, unconstitutional to decide and lower the voting age only for political reasons is something that I don't think this institution should be doing.

I have two 18-year-old boys who got to cast their first vote this year. There was some thought before election day. I didn't know if I would get their votes, but since then, they told me they have voted for me. And a close race like mine, it made a difference.

But this policy is not well thought out. It is not constitutional, and it should not be part of this bill. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Green).

Madam Chair, it is a great debate to have.

The problem we have here in this country, all 16-year-olds are still legally minors. They can't be tried as adults in the court of law unless, under special circumstances, of heinous crimes.

They can't join the military. They won't even be eligible for the draft that took so many of our young men to Southeast Asia, where many never came home, the last time the voting age was lowered.

In some States, 16-year-olds can't even drive their car alone. They can't take out a loan. They can't take out a mortgage. They can't open a credit card. And they can't even run for the offices that we would be asking them to be allowed to vote for.

This is an amendment that has political reasons behind it. It is the reason that I believe the Democrats are pushing it. It is because they believe they will be able to increase the number of Democrat votes that are put forth in the next election.

This institution should not be used for that. This bill is political enough. This bill, as a whole, is nothing more than a charade to make permanent the Democratic majority that just came into existence just a few months ago.

That is why I believe H.R. 1 is a bill that should be voted against. Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, and please vote ``no'' on this amendment for the reasons that I put forth.

Again, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and my colleague from New York for being here and participating in this process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the basis of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I am not opposed to what this amendment does, although I would point out, once again, this is another unfunded mandate. This is another cost that the CBO has already said, from what they can score, this bill is going to cost taxpayers $2.8 billion with a potential for billions more for what they couldn't even offer a congressional budget score for. So I have some issues with that, although I appreciate the direction my colleague is going with this.

I think providing voter registration materials at schools is something that is probably being done now. I would hope that local county clerks--I know mine are--are already doing that. But I am not opposed to that language.

However, I disagree with my colleague from Texas that H.R. 1 is a bill by the people and for the people. Frankly, I believe every single American who is eligible to vote should have their vote counted and they should have their vote protected.

We all, as Americans--Republicans and Democrats--want every vote to count. We want to make sure everyone can get registered to vote. At a time in our country when registration turnout is exceedingly high compared to previous generations, we are doing that.

Make no mistake about it. This bill is not by the people. H.R. 1 is not for the people. H.R. 1 is for the Members of Congress who sit in this institution who are going to eventually get tax dollars to pay for their own campaign ads. That is why this bill is a bad bill. I appreciate the amendment that my colleague is offering, but by no means is H.R. 1 going to ensure that we have the protection to ensure that every eligible American voter has their vote counted and protected.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Green). Again, I agree with what Chairperson Lofgren said about the excitement of students in high schools being able to understand what it means to be able to register to vote and participate in the political process. That is why I visit high schools throughout my district on a regular basis each time we are back from Washington, off this floor and in our districts for our district work period.

I am going to, again, extend the olive branch of bipartisanship to ensure that I am not going to oppose this amendment. I want this amendment to pass through, but I will note to many of my colleagues on the floor, Madam Chairman, we just had two Republican amendments offered, and not one passed. The olive branch of bipartisanship has to work both ways. I am, again, reaching out, and I will continue to do so throughout the day, but it is not without frustration that that olive branch has not yet been returned.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I have a couple of questions. One question, in particular, is: If the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Grijalva, has this information, I would like to know. This is already the process that we follow in my home State of Illinois.

Are there any States that don't allow this already that the gentleman is aware of?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Madam Chair, I will reclaim my time, but let the Record show it is not a process, it is illegal in the State, my colleague's home State.

I am not against this process happening because it happens in my home State right now. The problem we have is we don't want somebody who is eligible to cast a ballot, who got that vote-by-mail ballot, and they decided on election day to fill it out. We want them to be able to go to their polling place and not have to wait in line, and we want them to be able to turn it in.

The problem we have on our side of the aisle is it is ballot harvesting. It is the process in North Carolina where a Republican is likely going to jail, if convicted. But that same process that will likely send that person to jail, if convicted, is legal in California. We have a problem with somebody besides that voter taking absentee ballots unwatched, not a bipartisan effort, not any control mechanisms, bringing it to the polling place or to the county clerk on election day or after election day. Those are issues that we are concerned about in the bill.

I don't oppose this amendment because, again, it is already the process we follow in my home State.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, again, I don't oppose the process. It is already in existence in my home State to ensure that every eligible American voter has their vote counted and protected.

There are legitimate concerns about the ballot harvesting process; otherwise somebody might not have to face a trial in North Carolina.

I certainly appreciate the author coming to the floor to, once again, talk

about the bill and some of the changes that were made since it was introduced on January 3, the first day of Congress, cosponsored by every Member of the other side of the aisle, a 571-page bill. I certainly hope everybody had a chance to take a look at that bill before signing their name on the dotted line, because the provision that the author put in place, if he would have reached out to any of the three Republicans on the House Administration Committee, we would have gladly discussed some of our priorities, but there was no olive branch of bipartisanship whatsoever.

The sheer fact that somehow the bill has been changed to now create this fine that is going to be corporate malfeasance dollars, it is never going to be able to get the amount of money in that candidates are going to expect when running for Congress. Candidates, even like the neo-Nazi who ran against my good friend Dan Lipinski in the last race, will now be eligible for this corporate malfeasance money.

Everybody on that side of the aisle knows, when candidates for Congress, including Members of Congress on the other side of the aisle, aren't going to get what they expect into their campaigns from this corporate malfeasance fund--which is corporate dollars that we weren't supposed to be able to take as Members of Congress in our campaigns anyway but now somehow it is a good idea to do--you know what is going to happen? They are going to say, ``I don't have the money in my campaign to run a race,'' and they are going to ask the taxpayers to bail it out.

Everybody on that side of the aisle knows that is going to happen, and the shell game they are playing right now is very frustrating.

The CBO couldn't even score this new provision. We don't even know how much this is going to cost beyond the possible $3-plus billion.

This is a bill designed to keep a Democratic majority in this Congress so that we don't have a chance to preside over these hearings anymore.

That is not the way to run elections. That is not what our Constitution wants. That is not what anybody should support.

Madam Chair, again, I am not opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 28.

Madam Chair, it is great to have many conversations with you today. This is what is great about the institution: Our forefathers set up a legislative branch to debate, to cast votes, and then to legislate.

We won't always agree on every issue. There are times we will vehemently disagree with each other. But, Madam Chair, after the debate is over, we all move on and look forward to working with each other.

Madam Chair, today, I rise in support of amendment 28 because Members of Congress, all of us in the legislative branch, are, appropriately, held to stringent ethical standards that are designed to prevent financial or material gain for actions taken while we are legislating in this institution. We should ensure all branches of government are held to high ethical standards, too.

This commonsense amendment would require the Judicial Conference of the United States to implement a judicial code that is at least as stringent as the requirements placed on Members of Congress. This amendment would be a step in the right direction for providing transparency in government, which the American people expect and deserve.

Again, I gave the olive branch to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the last two amendments, and I certainly hope that that olive branch can be returned on this Republican amendment, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Georgia for debating this amendment with me.

There are a lot of what I believe are constitutional issues with H.R. 1, legislative overreach that defies the equal branches of government. This one does not. All we are simply doing with this amendment is asking the Judicial Conference of the United States to implement a judicial code up and down the judicial spectrum.

Maybe it will actually help ensure that, as judges go through the confirmation process in the Senate for whatever level of Federal judgeship he or she may be nominated, it might help us understand who these judges are.

This is a very commonsense amendment. We are not saying Congress is going to legislate judicial conduct. We are just saying that we are the lawmakers. Why don't we ask the Judicial Conference to do it for the judges, just like our standards are set by Congress and the executive branch standards should be set by the executive branch.

These are small things that make a big difference in a big bill. Again, I have extended the olive branch of bipartisanship this entire day, yesterday, and I would certainly hope that that would be extended back to us because we have yet, in this entire process of H.R. 1--being a 622-page bill yesterday and added pages upon pages yesterday and today--not one single Republican amendment has been accepted. Not one. Maybe this is it.

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

Madam Chair, I rise this time in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I was a strong supporter of the First Step Act, and I continue to support criminal justice reform efforts.

As a matter of fact, just last week, a former czar in the Obama administration, Van Jones, said that, ``The conservative movement in this country, unfortunately,'' from his point of view, ``. . . is now the leader on this issue of reform,'' talking about criminal justice reform.

We need to make sure that we don't have petty drug users spending more time in Federal prison than Jared the Subway guy who was a pedophile, but we have to review this amendment very carefully.

We still haven't figured out the processes and procedures of an amendment that passed, part of H.R. 1 that is in the underlying bill that would allow felons to vote without any determination of whether that felon may be like Jared the Subway guy.

Who is to say he doesn't live near a polling place where his polling place is a school? How in the world can we move forward on getting voter registration materials to felons without understanding who is eligible to go to the exact polling place they are supposed to vote at or not?

I don't want pedophiles, sex offenders, going into a polling place in many rural areas that the only place they have is a school with children.

The provision in the bill needs to be changed, needs to be vetted very carefully. We need to have some certainty here.

I certainly do not support this amendment because I still am not sure that a felon who is not allowed around children won't be forced to cast his or her vote around children.

That is why this bill needs to be put back into our committees of jurisdiction, where almost 40 percent of the jurisdiction was never marked up in the first place.

This is a rush. I don't blame my colleagues who are here today. I think Chairperson Lofgren and the members of the House Administration Committee have done an excellent job putting a bill that is terrible forward, but the only reason we are here on the floor this week is because Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team are forcing this issue.

The American people and the American taxpayers aren't going to stand for the provisions that are in this bill.

I don't know why we are rushing it, and I certainly wish there was more bipartisanship. I certainly wish there was clarification on whether or not a former convicted felon who is a sex offender is going to be allowed in a polling place that happens to be a school, where they can't go into or can't get within a certain amount of yardage to, outside of election day.

Madam Chair, I can't support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I certainly wish that the underlying piece of legislation actually addressed our concerns, which is why I would urge both sides of the aisle to send this back to committee to ensure that, while it doesn't specifically say that State laws can't be followed when it comes to allowing sex offenders into polling places, it also doesn't prevent it. That is the problem with this top-down overreach.

There is nothing in this bill, H.R. 1, that would prevent a sex offender from walking in and demanding his or her right to vote while surrounded by children that he or she is not allowed around because of a previous conviction or a sex offender registration status.

I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin's work on the First Step Act, also; and I also have to offer a correction.

The First Step Act was actually to get nonviolent offenders out of our prisons, petty drug users who have been put away because maybe they didn't have the information that the assistant U.S. attorney wanted and then, all of a sudden, they are ratcheted into a long jail sentence because of mandatory minimums. These are the issues that have bipartisanship.

By no means does the First Step Act, or any act of criminal justice reform that I support or that anybody else I know would support, want murderers out of prison. That is not the case.

If that is the case, we have some more questions about this amendment and we have some more questions about this bill. We want to make sure those jail cells are reserved for the people who are the most hardened criminals.

We have got to work together on criminal justice reform to take the next step in the First Step Act. We need to make it better, but it is all for nonviolent offenders.

I have some serious concerns when sex offenders get out of prison or maybe they don't even go to prison for that long, like Jared, the Subway guy, because he may have had a lot of money, may have had the ability to hire a good lawyer; but so many petty drug offenders who are going to be the beneficiary of the First Step Act didn't.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment. I think we should work together to ensure that all those who have disabilities have access to be able to cast their vote, and I know my home State of Illinois is doing yeoman's work, our local county clerks are doing yeoman's work to ensure that all those who need reasonable accommodations get them. So I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for offering it.

Before I reserve, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Madam Chair, again, thank you to my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). I support this amendment, and I am going to ensure that we have no opposition over here.

But I do have a problem with the bill, and I appreciate the author of the bill being here. If I had that much time dedicated to authoring a 571-page bill with the help of outside special interest groups that were commended at the opening press conference, I would be here to defend it, too. But there are so many problems, so many unanswered questions.

The sheer fact that the shell game of corporate fines is supposed to fund upwards of billions of dollars to congressional campaigns--my district alone would have been eligible for $6 million-plus just by using the last campaign. Multiply that times 435 and add some extra candidates in there, like the neo-Nazi candidate who would be eligible for this funding who ran against Democrat Dan Lipinski. These are issues that we don't have questions answered because the CBO hasn't scored.

CBO has already said $2 billion-plus for sure, possibly another $1 billion to the taxpayers under this fund, but how much is going to be raised from this corporate malfeasance?

And until this day, until this week, I had no idea that the Democratic majority is okay with putting more corporate money into their own campaign coffers. Corporate dollars are not allowed in our campaigns now, as you know, Madam Chair, but we are going to use corporate fines at a level we don't know what it amounts to? We are going to use those to fill campaign coffers of Members of Congress? Seriously? That is why the bill needs to go back to committee.

I would love to work with the author. I am one of the most bipartisan Members of Congress, according to The Lugar Center, but I never got a call. I would love to help write this bill.

We tried to make that bill better. This is another olive branch to the other side on an amendment. I am going to continue to show bipartisanship that has yet to be reciprocated from the author and from the committee.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's interest in redistricting and gerrymandering.

Coming from the State of Illinois, I like the independent redistricting provisions of H.R. 1.

I have some concerns as to why one State's redistricting plan is now part of the bill when it was supposed to be a nationwide approach, but we will get to that later.

Gerrymandering is a process like in my home State of Illinois that can poison the political process. We have Democrat supermajorities in the House of Representatives in Illinois. We have Democrat majorities in the Illinois State Senate, supermajorities. We have a Democrat Governor. I certainly hope we get redistricting reform by the time 2021 rolls around.

But this amendment is about gerrymandering. This amendment is about the census, and my biggest concern goes back to, again, this bill was not even marked up in the Oversight and Reform Committee. This issue was not even brought up during a single hearing that the Oversight and Reform Committee held on H.R. 1.

This amendment also could upend a foundational principle of the census. Since 1790, the census has been counting people at their usual residences on census day. I guess, when Charles Manson was alive out in the 21st District of California, he got counted at the maximum security Federal prison.

All alternatively housed populations are actually counted the same way, or are supposed to be. Who is to say that somebody who lives at Charles Manson's old home, a relative, doesn't write him down on the census form, too. I have some concerns about double counting that this amendment does not address. But prisoners have been counted at their prison, college students have been counted at their dorms. I remember in 1990, I filled out a little census form in Mills Hall at Millikin University in Decatur, Illinois, to be counted as part of the census.

I didn't check with my mom to see if she counted me at home too. Military servicemembers are counted at their U.S. station base. Counting one population differently than other similarly situated populations only serves to decrease the accuracy of the census. The census count is actually about apportionment that State legislatures use to draw new lines, or independent commissions use to draw new congressional lines, State legislative lines. Hopefully, they don't gerrymander. This is not about redistricting.

The Census Bureau works with States to provide detailed data about prison populations that would allow the States to redistrict however the State chooses. That is why I am opposed to your amendment. I do respect you being here to participate in the process. I certainly wish that we could have sat down and maybe worked out a better amendment that would have addressed all of our concerns, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Why would the gentleman criticize one of the greatest bands of the nineties?

Madam Chairwoman, I stand here to say that my colleague from Wisconsin, I know he did not mean to offend the many thousands, upon thousands of Nickelback fans in his district in Wisconsin. I will stand here to save you from doing that and having to face the political consequences at the ballot box.

Madam Chair, I enjoyed debating back and forth and it is always good to have some good humor on the floor of the House. And, yes, I actually do have a Nickelback song on my running playlist that I listen to on a regular basis.

I was ridiculed for that when I posted my playlist one time, and I know some in this Chamber--even up at the dais--are still laughing about that.

But this amendment is a bad amendment. I wish we could have worked together on it. I hope we can work together on any gerrymandering in this Nation together as we know it, and I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future.

I do have to recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment because it does not address the underlying issues with gerrymandering, and the underlying issues that I have with this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank my good friend from Wisconsin. I didn't know if he wanted to mention Creed this time or not, but we can have a great debate on nineties music, if you like. But I do want the gentleman to come over and see my playlist after this is done. We will have some fun.

I am opposed to this amendment because American manufacturing employs more than 12 million men and women, contributes $2.25 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the largest economic impact of any major sector, and accounts for more than three-quarters of all private-sector research and development in the Nation. I support American manufacturing wholeheartedly.

However, my good friend's amendment is not about American manufacturing. It is about the many complaints that I have had regarding H.R. 1--and I have already stated--about Federal overreach in mandating States to comply with a requirement that is within their jurisdiction.

This bill continues to burden the American taxpayer by adding programs that would be footed by everyday Americans and would have to be paid for by county governments, by local governments, and municipalities that already have budgets that are stretched too thin. It is another unfunded mandate. It is another unfunded mandate from the Federal Government.

Unnecessary regulations of election equipment also present an undue burden on the States who administer these elections. This requirement gives State and local officials less options. This is ultimately a federalism issue. We believe that our State and local governments can maintain safe, secure elections that allow every one of their constituents, our constituents, to vote, and also ensure that every single American who is eligible to vote has their vote counted and has their vote protected. That is our goal.

H.R. 1 doesn't accomplish this goal, and much to my chagrin, I say to my friend from Wisconsin, I am opposed to this amendment, although I am not opposed to him.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, again, this amendment, I am opposed to because I believe it is Federal overreach, but I do want to address an issue. As we can see, this would require American manufacturers to begin producing even more pieces of equipment that would then have to comply by the standards of this amendment, which is fine.

I am all for creating American jobs, but we also have a problem with the underlying bill. I tried to pass an amendment in the only markup that happened on this now almost-700-page bill. The amendment would have made sure that anyone who helped craft this bill, especially the special interest groups who were recognized on the day this bill was introduced and announced at a press conference, people who helped write this bill should have to sign a document that says that they will not profit from this.

What doesn't happen is, if somebody who helped craft this bill decides to open a manufacturing facility and make money off of the legislation, we need to know that. Because that amendment did not pass during the markup process, we won't know if that happens.

I would love to work with my colleague from Wisconsin to put a provision in place like that, and at that point in time this may be an amendment I could support.

Before we talk about any more nineties music, I am going to yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this.

Madam Chair, I thank my friend and colleague from Florida and fellow 2012 election year classmate.

We want to make sure every vote is counted. We want to make sure that every eligible voter in this country is registered, casts their votes, and that their vote is protected.

I have a lot of faith in the American people, and I have a lot of faith in the American voters. I think simple sets of instructions under, above, or below a race may or may not be a consideration in whether or not somebody decides to vote.

I find it ironic that most of the time my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will blame ballot design, but only when they lose. The fact that a Republican won in Florida meant that there is obviously a ballot issue. The fact that a Republican won in the 2000 Presidential race, it has got to be a ballot issue.

Let's address ballot issues throughout the country. Let's make sure that we have the ability to plan ahead, and that is what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't plan ahead and allow us to look at what is the next best, safest voting technology in the future. This bill will require paper marked ballots when we don't know what may or may not be safer in the future, but we are going to limit ourselves now.

Now, my biggest concern with this amendment is it is another example of this bill being rushed. If this were a well-thought-out piece of legislation, then we wouldn't need amendments clarifying the bill's intent.

This amendment in particular shows how we should have taken more time in the markup, and we should have had more committees that had jurisdiction mark this bill up instead of the vague language that is scattered throughout the bill.

If Members had more than 15 minutes of questioning--which I had in the one hearing as the ranking Republican on the committee, the only committee that marked this bill up--then we could have gotten to the bottom of this vague language.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), my colleague.

Madam Chair, Mr. Collins is showing, once again, that in the immortal words of the best-selling band of the 2000s, Nickelback, if today was your last day, I would always yield to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Vote ``no.''

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague from Virginia offering this amendment. I know he misspoke when he said $25 is being authorized in this amendment. It is actually $25 million that is being authorized.

That is my biggest hang-up with the bill. We have got a lot of pressing things in this country that $25 million can be spent on: infrastructure projects, pediatric cancer research, and putting it towards curing Alzheimer's, ALS, what have you, a lot of other priorities. We don't need a Federal program that is going to potentially cost $25 million to do what States, localities, and local organizations are doing right now.

I commend the gentleman for wanting to get more young people involved. I have got 18-year-olds. I sometimes wish they were a little more interested in what was happening at all levels of government, but that comes with time.

It is interesting the gentleman talks about being around the dinner table with family talking about what it means to serve and what it means to enact policy. That is how I got here.

I am the son of a 16-year-old who walked into a fast-food restaurant and then never left and is going to celebrate 60 years with the same company this year. Because he had a dream to own his own restaurant one day, my dad was able to move us to Illinois and achieve the American Dream.

He and my mom, a high school dropout, taught me around the dinner table how decisions in Washington and in Springfield, Illinois, affected their ability to hire people at their local McDonald's in Taylorville, Illinois.

That is what got me interested in politics. That is what got me interested in government. Much to the chagrin of some on the other side of the aisle and some on my own side of the aisle, that is probably why I am here.

We want to encourage young people, but that encouragement happens around the dinner table. It happens already, and it shouldn't cost $25 million.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the chairperson offering her support for this amendment. She mentioned it is tough to put a price on democracy. That is exactly what H.R. 1 is doing.

The price of democracy in every single congressional district, for every single candidate running for Congress, is now, according to this bill, $4.5 million in corporate money and, eventually, taxpayer dollars. That is the price of democracy that my Democratic colleagues have put into every Member of Congress' campaign coffers if this bill goes through.

The price of democracy should be the freedoms that we enjoy on the floor of this great institution to be able to debate back and forth. The price of democracy should not be legislated at $4.5 million for each and every Member of Congress who is blessed enough to serve in this institution.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), my good friend.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, personally, Sunday mornings are sacred for me and my family and for a lot of other people, too, including those public servants who work the polls on early voting.

But this isn't about Sunday or any other day. It is about my colleagues dictating to States and local officials on how they should run their elections.

State and local election officials know their voters best and what works for them. This amendment is yet another example of the Federal Government trying to push a one-size-fits-all standard on States and localities.

I don't believe the Federal Government should be mandating to States how to run their elections, even to the minute details such as polling hours, especially because, I guess, in my home State, it already happens.

When you look at my district, they have early voting hours on Sundays, so I don't know how widespread the problem is since it already happens in Illinois. It seems like another top-down approach that could adversely affect some communities, especially rural communities, that may not be able to afford to have a polling place open on Sundays.

It is a problem with the entire bill. The costs keep going up and up and up on our local officials without a lot of certainty that funds are going to flow to help them with that.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have kind of said all I need to say about this amendment, so while I have a few extra minutes, I understand the chairperson has received an estimate from a joint committee regarding how much this new corporate funding program for congressional campaigns will bring into the Federal Government over the next 10 years.

First, I would love to see a copy of that, now that we are only 1 day away from voting on this bill. This is eerily similar to the games that my colleagues across the aisle played with the Congressional Budget Office score. I will remind them once again that we still don't have a figure of how much this section of H.R. 1 will cost American taxpayers.

Second, if we look at the potential cost of the 6-to-1 government match program and the Presidential campaign matching program, these together could represent billions and billions of dollars every election cycle.

Now, what you will hear from the other side is that, if they don't have the funds for these programs, the caps for these programs would uniformly be lowered. What that means is that either the programs will die or my counterparts across the aisle are going to turn to taxpayer dollars to ask us to fulfill what they have claimed as absolutely necessary programs.

What does this sound like to you, a well-thought-out public policy proposal or a shell game with American tax dollars?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left, if I may inquire?

Madam Chair, this is another clear example of why this bill needs to be voted down or put back, preferably put back to committee.

I am the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, and I stood across this floor from my colleagues who now use the excuse and say, Well, it was submitted into the Record yesterday.

There has been a lack of communication, a lack of bipartisan outreach from the Democratic side of the aisle, and this is another example of the ``Keystone-coppish'' behavior of the folks that have introduced now an upwards of 700-page bill that has not been marked up, has not been discussed, debated by 40 percent of the committees that have--by nine other committees that have jurisdiction over 40 percent of the bill.

So when I hear the chairperson talk about jurisdictional issues as to why she couldn't discuss this with me in our markup process, I am wondering why she couldn't turn and tap me on the shoulder, since I was about 6 inches away, and say, Hey, we don't have jurisdiction, but here is what we estimate this is going to cost.

It just goes to show that this is a shell game. This is a game that is going to cost taxpayers billions. This is a game that we, and the American taxpayers, are going to have to pay for; and it is offensive that we have zero communication.

I have shown time and time again--we Republicans have offered and supported bipartisan--supported Democrat amendments. We have offered the olive branch of bipartisanship throughout this process to try and make this bill better, and we have been shut down by the Democrats every single time we have and every step of the way.

This bill is not going to guarantee that every single American voter who is eligible to vote has their vote counted and has their vote protected. What this is going to guarantee is that this bill is going to be rammed through on a partisan roll call tomorrow.

This bill is going to cost taxpayers billions, and we are not going to have the price tag because the Democrat majority, who is trying to enrich themselves and their own campaigns, the Democratic majority, who is trying to keep themselves in a permanent majority, are going to obfuscate, put new programs, and plans, and charades, and shell games in place, that are going to end up costing taxpayers, put more corporate money into congressional campaigns and, in turn, break the American taxpayers under the guise of election reforms.

Madam Chair, this process is not what the Democratic majority promised when they took over. This process has been riddled with a lack of bipartisanship, a lack of transparency, and special interests helping write this

mammoth, now 700-page bill that is going to nationalize our election systems and put billions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Congressmen and Congresswomen throughout this Nation.

That is not what the taxpayers of this country want. That is not what we are demanding. And it is an affront. I hope everybody votes ``no'' on this amendment and this bill.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I am proud to be a champion for open and fair elections, and encouraging all American citizens to participate in their fundamental right to cast their vote.

My challenge to this amendment is similar to my larger challenges to the underlying bill. What this amendment seeks to do is already a Federal requirement and is updating its specific requirement.

This is a great example of when the Federal Government steps into legislating something that is outside of its jurisdiction, and is forced to update its own legislation.

State and local election officials are charged with determining how to best administer fair elections and open elections for all of their citizens. This includes notifying them of their polling place, and of any changes. Federally mandating details is unnecessary and, really, not the role of the Federal Government.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I again thank my friend and colleague from the great State of Maryland for offering the amendment. Unfortunately, I have to be opposed to this amendment for the variety of reasons I mentioned.

I believe in the greatness of America. I believe we have a great system where other countries from around this globe only wish they could choose their own leaders, like Americans get the opportunity to do so.

We have a system of federalism. We have a system that, I believe, works best from the bottom up; and I believe a top-down approach, that this 700-page mammoth bill will provide for our local election officials, will hinder them, and cost them, and stop them from being able to administer the best, most open elections they possibly can.

I have a lot of faith in the county election officials that are operating in my district, in central and southwestern Illinois. I believe they run a very fair election process. I want to give them the tools and the flexibility to meet the needs of my constituents and our constituents; and the Federal Government doesn't need to be the voice to do so. Our local officials can do that better.

I am ready to close, so I will just reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I have said the same thing about previous amendments. I think this is an overreach issue. I don't think the Federal Government should be involved in the minute details of early voting hours.

States aren't asking us to set our hours here in Congress; we shouldn't, as the Federal Government, ask our State and local election officials who know better how to run free, fair, and a lot less costly election processes.

We have got a problem in this country, Madam Chair, with a shortage of election day workers. We have got a problem with poll workers.

In my home State of Illinois, every other year it is a holiday. It hasn't helped us get more election workers. It hasn't helped us get more poll workers. What it has done is it has created a holiday and a day off where many people can come vote or they can enjoy the already open early voting processes that States like mine have in place and the opportunities to cast their votes in a wide variety of ways.

This is another example of a Federal top-down approach that obviously shows there is a distinct difference between my Democrat colleagues and me and all of us on this side of the aisle. We believe in a bottom-up approach of governing; they believe in a top-down approach.

The bottom-up approach, I believe, leads to more efficiencies, leads to fairer and better and freer elections, and a top-down approach is nothing but costly to the taxpayers in unfunded mandates.

One thing that really frustrates me is, if you are going to impose Federal mandates, you cannot leave States open to the potential liability because the mandate is so broad. And that is exactly what this bill does. That is exactly why I am opposed to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Maryland.

You know, like some of the legislation we pass here, it has to go through the rulemaking process later. That is no different than our forefathers and our Founders of the Constitution.

If you read Alexander Hamilton, he responds to the concerns that the power of the national government to determine the time, places, and manner of elections of the Representatives of the House might actually, at that time, result in the elevation of the wealthy over the mass of citizens.

The fear seems to have been that the national government may conspire to hold elections in only parts of the States populated by the wealthy. That would presumably prevent lower income citizens from voting.

Hamilton rejected that fear on several grounds, including the fact that such places do not exist, but that the rich are scattered throughout the States.

Hamilton argued that every member of this country should have the right to vote, but the Federal overreach should not be something we are actually encouraging right now.

Let's look at what our forefathers actually said about the provisions in the Constitution, just not using them to put forth a political agenda.

Madam Chair, I am urging a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would have the effect of the Federal Government compiling statistics without context and without vetting on very serious criminal matters. Unless there was some sort of follow-up on the reports, it could actually do more harm than good.

I am also afraid that certain partisan organizations could take advantage of this. So bear with me. Let's talk through this and let's see how this would work.

People call into this hotline, submit allegations of serious crimes, and then it is sent to the State and now the Federal Government. Partisan groups who helped author this bill would then use statistics from the hotline to then bring unverified lawsuits under the new third- party actions that are allowed in this bill.

This is a recipe for disaster. The stated purpose of H.R. 1 is to increase transparency in politics, but instead, unfortunately, this provision would only invite corruption.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I believe the EAC, Election Assistance Commission, is supposed to track this information.

The key point, too, that I made earlier is that there is no verification, and that is a problem with this amendment. It is a problem with the bill. There are no protections for bad behavior.

This is why we tried to get rid of ballot harvesting. It was why the amendment was offered in committee. I mean, we have already seen what bad actors can do.

It cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in North Carolina, and they have to run a new special election, but that is okay because that may not have been a crime in California. But that is all right. The Democrats didn't want to accept that because they might like the process somewhere else.

I think what is wrong is wrong and we ought to be able to have protections. I am not convinced that the American people have the protections that they need and that they deserve to stop what happened in North Carolina from happening somewhere else.

This is another example of overreach, another example of something already happening, already existing agencies that should be compiling this information; and there are no safeguards and there will be no verification of allegations, and that is unfortunate.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we would love to take up ballot harvesting today, too, but, unfortunately, we are not given the chance to. The Democrats voted it down in the only markup that we had, the smallest committee in Congress, 5 hours last week, with 40 percent of the bill not going through regular order, not going through the committee process.

This is not a process that has been open. It is not a process that has been transparent. It is not a process that has been bipartisan.

Clearly, we have accepted many Democrat amendments on our side. Not one single Republican amendment has been accepted by the Democrat side.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend, one of our newest Members, and a great guy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for participating in the process, and I would like to ask the gentleman a question about the amendment.

I know you have been here before. We haven't had the chance to really meet, but congratulations. I look forward to working with you.

Is this just raising the limit that political parties can give from $5,000 to $10,000?

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the clarification. I appreciate that.

I am still opposed to the amendment because, unfortunately, these incentivization programs that are code word incentivized are part of H.R. 1, and instead I think they are going to be gamed by many of the same people who are gaming the system right now.

Many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle said they want to get money out of politics, and we are talking about putting more in. The amendment here is just a small part of a big problem of what this bill is about.

Mr. Meuser talked about how bad this bill is going to be about getting money back into politics. If the goal is to take money out of politics, then H.R. 1 clearly is not the answer. This amendment, while great intentions to my colleague from Hawaii trying to do what we can, I would love to sit down with the gentleman in a bipartisan way to talk about how we can make campaign finance reforms work.

But the clear fact is we have been shown zero consideration as Republicans over here to try and work out solutions in this bill. We weren't asked to even be considered to help write provisions in this bill. No one was even called, none of us, no one on our side. As a matter of fact, I guess we didn't know the special interest groups who helped write this bill and who were touted in the press conference when this bill was announced.

We got zero Republican amendments passed during our markup in only one committee, which left 40 percent of the bill out from being marked up. That is not the regular order that the Democrats promised when you took the majority. That is what we get.

Today, the olive branch has been extended numerous times. I have accepted Democrat amendments, and do you know what? Not a single Republican amendment has passed, even one during the last round of votes that all it did was give a sense of Congress that we like free speech.

Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. You couldn't even accept that amendment? How partisan can this new Democrat majority be?

This is why this bill is terrible. It is the biggest terrible bill I have ever seen in my time here in Congress.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Real quick, I was not referring to the amendment. It was the bill itself.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is great to have you in the chair again tonight.

I rise to oppose this amendment; although, again, I want to compliment my new colleague, Ms. Houlahan, for coming down here and being a participant in the legislative process. It has been great to get to know the gentlewoman and work with her, and I look forward to working together on a bipartisan basis as we move forward during this term.

I have got to oppose this amendment because I have opposed others that are just like it.

We want every American to be able to cast their vote, to be registered to vote, and to be able to have their vote counted and their vote protected. My issue is with a top-down approach from the Federal Government versus the State and local governments. This amendment, though well-intentioned, just, again, infringes on our State and local officials' ability to determine how best to run their elections.

Additionally, this mandate increases the cost of all election offices, as it is tasked to recruit, train, and deploy additional poll workers, where we already know we have a shortage.

I would love to work with my colleague, Ms. Houlahan, moving forward to address many issues involving election reform. Unfortunately, I just don't think H.R. 1 is the answer, and I don't think it is going to be passed into law, so there are going to be opportunities for us to work together. Again, my bipartisan olive branch is reaching out, once again, to the gentlewoman's side, and I certainly hope we can do so.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the author of this bill. He and I have had some spirited discussions over the last day and a half, but I appreciate his willingness to want to address issues. I just don't think this bill is the answer.

To respond to the author of the bill, there is a big difference between offering best practices to our State and local officials about how best to run their elections, there is a big difference between best practices and suggestions versus mandates, and that is clearly what H.R. 1 is. It is going to be a mandate.

It is so nebulous. We get answers one day that change the next. There is zero bipartisanship. We haven't been included. All of a sudden, we get a new shell game: Move over; we are going to fund it by doing this and put corporate money now into congressional campaigns, which is illegal now, but I guess it is a solution for getting money out of politics to the majority.

I don't understand this. This has got to be one of the most discombobulated processes that I have ever been a part of. I can't help myself to think there is no way that every Democrat who cosponsored this bill on day one thinking they were going to talk about election reform had any idea of so many of the terrible, terrible provisions for taxpayers that are in this bill.

Again, Mr. Chairman, if you vote for this bill, you are putting corporate cash into congressional campaigns. There is no way the billions upon billions of promises that are made to congressional candidates and incumbents are going to be able to be fulfilled with this new, nebulous corporate malfeasance fund that we haven't even had scored by the CBO.

Billions of dollars of taxpayer money are going to fund a revamp of how public money goes into congressional campaigns. This is the worst of the worst of the worst of what the D.C. swamp is all about.

I am going to lightly oppose this amendment because I really respect Ms. Houlahan and her efforts. I just have a big problem with the bill, as I think you can tell.

Mr. Chairman, I will give Ms. Houlahan, likely, the last word. I reserve my right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think every American who is eligible to vote deserves to have the right to vote, to have their vote counted, and to have their vote be protected.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the language of the amendment is pretty innocuous. The problem I have is the portion of the bill that it is amending, the sheer fact that, in this now almost 700- page, mammoth bill that anyone thinks it is a good idea to weaponize the FEC by making it partisan. It is the furthest thing from where we should be as an institution.

This amendment is going to do nothing to address this partisan FEC that the bill establishes.

The biggest threat to our elections is actually partisanship, and a partisan FEC will undermine the neutrality that voters expect of an agency that oversees Federal elections, especially when the billions upon billions upon billions of new dollars come in from the programs that are created in this bill.

A partisan FEC is going to give enhanced powers to the chairman to make decisions on behalf of the commission that have been reserved for years for the full commission.

I fully expect a lower standard of protection of free speech to be embraced by a partisan FEC.

As a former chairman of our own Franking Commission here in the House of Representatives, I think bipartisan agencies can work together, bipartisan commissions can work together.

Heck, we are not even allowed to send a bulk mail piece out of this institution without Republicans and Democrats signing off on it. If we can't send bulk mail out without it being bipartisan, why in the world would we want to make the FEC partisan?

Do the Democrats really want the Trump administration to have a partisan FEC? I don't want any party to have a partisan FEC. I want it to remain an institution where it takes bipartisanship to get results.

I would urge my good friend, Mr. Phillips, if he hasn't, to sit down with some of the FEC commissioners and talk to them about their opinion of why the FEC is bipartisan, and I would urge the gentleman to work with them.

This bill is not going to pass. The amendment, likely, will get ruled by the chairman to be a part of this bill. The bill is not going to become law. It is going to go die in the Senate. But I would urge the gentleman to work with the FEC, talk with them on the reason why, why it is bipartisan.

We don't want our Ethics Committee here in the House to have a partisan edge. We don't want our Franking Commission to have a partisan edge.

Why in the world do we want the FEC to have a partisan edge?

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

Mr. Chair, again, I have a problem with the underlying bill and the FEC issue.

It is not that hard to be bipartisan when we send bulk mail in the House. It may take a little longer. It may be a little more difficult. But, you know what, bipartisanship works. There is a reason for it here.

Frankly, if the FEC isn't working, if the FEC is such an agency that has zero credibility in the mind of the majority right now, then why in the world are we spending time marking up a 700-page, mammoth bill in the House Administration Committee when we ought to just reauthorize the FEC?

I certainly hope that our committee can work toward making that happen. And that is something that has not been done that we should be able to get bipartisanship on. I look forward to working with Chairperson Lofgren when that day comes over the next 2 years.

Mr. Chair, I am going to oppose the amendment because of the underlying language regarding the FEC.

I commend Mr. Phillips for being here to legislate. I welcome the gentleman to Congress, and I look forward to working with him and appreciate his opportunity to be a part of the process. I thank the gentleman for letting me be a part of it with him.

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to rise in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment.

I just want to take the time to welcome our new colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I would like the gentleman to give my utmost thanks to his dad, who we stood on this floor, with these same microphones, and I was able to work in a bipartisan way with him to pass the EACH Act that allowed for a religious exemption from the individual mandates of ObamaCare, of the Affordable Care Act.

That is now law, and that is a sign of bipartisanship that I hope to be able to continue while we work together.

Give him my best. The Christian Scientists that are in my district at Principia College, one of the largest Christian Science institutions in the Nation, are very thankful that they are not now being penalized by the Tax Code for a religious exemption from seeking medical care from doctors and medical professionals.

So my thanks to the gentleman's father, and I thank the gentleman for being here.

Mr. Chair, I am not going to oppose this amendment. I will reserve just in case somebody wants to come up and talk about something else and I can rebut them, but I am ready to close if the gentleman is.

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to be bipartisan once again. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. It is great to see her, and I thank her for putting this amendment forward.

I have a problem with the underlying provisions of the bill. I actually support redistricting reforms.

I am from Illinois. I am a Republican. We are not going to have a single say in how the Democrats in the supermajority Illinois House and the supermajority Illinois Senate, and our newly elected Democratic Governor, we are not going to have a say in how these maps are drawn.

I certainly hope we can get an independent redistricting commission because, since this bill is not going to pass the Senate, it is not going to become law. I certainly hope that we could come together and work on some independent redistricting issues.

Mr. Chair, I will, again, not oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am highly concerned with the redistricting provisions in this bill now. It seems that now, as part of the bill, that one State is going to be exempted out.

At what point, then, do we not question why everyone doesn't have the same ability to opt out of provisions of this bill, just like the State of Iowa has done in an amendment that was accepted.

The sheer fact that if Iowa's independent redistricting commission is better and, thus, we shouldn't have to apply the same standards as the other 49 States in this great Nation, then why don't we use Iowa's independent redistricting commission standards for everyone? Why don't we make the whole bill about Iowa?

I mean, I have been talking about federalism and States having to follow top-down Federal mandates, in most cases, that are going to be unfunded or nebulously funded because we really don't know how they are going to get those funds to our States and localities. But the sheer fact that we are debating a bill that has a provision about independent redistricting that could have been very, very bipartisan, now we have exempted one State out, it basically tells all of us that is a better commission.

I hope that when we come back, after this bill passes the House, unfortunately for many of my colleagues who are going to vote for it on the other side of the aisle, I hope we can come together and have the debate on whether Iowa's commission is better than what was proposed in this bill.

You cannot have a 700-page bill that talks about how gloriously good for the people it is, for all of the provisions that are this top-down approach, and then, all of a sudden, you exempt one State out of what could have been one of the most bipartisan provisions, and that is independent redistricting.

If you are serious about governing, the majority ought to offer an amendment, ought to offer a change, to make Iowa's independent commission the language of this bill. Make it work in States, even where they have independent commissions.

I would sure like it to work in Illinois. Maybe California would want to use Iowa's commission because clearly it is better than what you have in the bill, or we wouldn't have had to take an amendment on it.

Well, I think I got my point across.

I say to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), your amendment is a good amendment. I apologize I had to use this time to address an issue that is very frustrating, but the gentlewoman is talking about redistricting.

I appreciate what she has done. I welcome her to the floor of the House, and I look forward to working with her.

Again, my offer to the gentlewoman is the same as others. When this bill fails in the Senate, let's come together on some provisions. I will continue to throw the bipartisan olive branch out toward that side of the aisle, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman. Congratulations. I won't oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although, once again, I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a great amendment. I commend Mrs. Trahan because it is vitally important that we protect the families of our Nation's military. It is very important we remember those who sacrifice everything to serve us, and we should ensure that they are able to weigh in to whomever represents them in government.

I am going to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, again, an olive branch to the other side of the aisle.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness to legislate. It is great to work with her, and I will be supporting this amendment.

Since I see the chair up, in case she says something I have to rebut, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let the Record show that I liked the amendment first. I liked it before the chairperson.

Listen, it is a great amendment, and I look forward to voting for it.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I don't know if I have had a chance to formally meet Mr. Kim. I welcome him and thank him for being here to participate in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would like to have some details on what percentage of ballots that are used in the United States right now are not printed in the U.S.

The issue I have is not with United-States-made printing materials, it is with the sheer fact that we are having a top-down approach once again.

I mean, there is always going to be extenuating circumstances. Some of our territories may raise the cost of importing paper to be able to now live up to the paper ballot marking whatever requirements that are in this 700-page bill.

We can work together on these provisions, but we also might want to work together as this bill fails in the Senate.

Mr. Chair, if this is something Mr. Kim wants to work on together, I am willing to work on it with him, but let's have some room in there for some exceptions.

I mean, let's say it is almost election day, you have got wildfires roaring all over California and there is a paper shortage in the country. We can't stop the election, so maybe we need some exceptions. We can't stop the election, maybe we need an exception.

So let's work together, let's do something like that so that nobody loses a chance to be able to cast their vote on election day, to have their vote counted, and even just as importantly, to have their vote protected.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I have got to oppose this, because there are no exceptions in here, but I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work together after this is done.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Look, I am all for increasing American manufacturing, I am all for building new paper plants, but I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to remember they are probably going to burn more fossil fuels. You know, if we are going to have to cut down more trees, maybe we will get some bipartisanship when it comes to deforestation, which could help cut down on forest fires that may cause the problems that would need the exceptions that we talked about earlier.

So I certainly hope this fits into the New Green Deal provisions that are going to be voted on in the Senate.

There is a lot of talk about paper in this bill. And in this bill, actually the paper keeps growing. It is upwards of 700 pages now.

Mr. Chair, I just got a very important piece of paper with the new CBO score, so I assume we are going to be talking about that soon.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chair, I am all for more paper production. Those paper plants that exist in my district, you know, they use recycled materials, too. I am more than happy to have more trees be deforested out of areas that are caught up in wildfires on an annual basis.

If we could have the paper that is going to work, if the other side is okay with burning more fossil fuels to make this happen, hey, maybe we won't need those exceptions I talked about, maybe we will have enough American manufacturing and paper jobs. Some of the best paying jobs in my district are at the paper mills.

Mr. Chair, I am certainly looking forward to working with the gentleman when this bill fails. Especially after seeing some of the preliminary numbers out of this new CBO score. I don't know how many cosponsors of this bill are going to actually be able to cast a vote for it, but I will reserve judgment until I see the board tomorrow.

Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, but since I have the right to close, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it. I think this is a darn good amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am going to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, it is great to work with Ms. Spanberger, and I thank her for her service as an intelligence officer for our great Nation. This is an issue that she knows better than me and she knows better than most of us here in this institution. I look forward to supporting this amendment, and I welcome the gentlewoman to the U.S. House of Representatives and look forward to working with her.

Mr. Chair, I would love to work with the gentlewoman on issues like this when this bill does not pass the Senate and is signed into law and we can work together in a bipartisan way. I will continue to show bipartisanship. I congratulate and welcome the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, let the Record show I was for the amendment once again before the chairperson. I should get kudos.

Listen, this is a good amendment. I congratulate the gentlewoman on her election, being a Member of Congress, and helping to legislate and participate.

I also want to use a few seconds to really highlight the work of our intelligence officials in the administration and our Department of Homeland Security, especially Secretary Nielsen and her team, working with our local officials in Illinois before the last election to ensure that there was no nefarious activity that could have come about in our home State.

Our home State election officials got a lot of accolades from the Department of Homeland Security, and I think the Department of Homeland Security and their team, especially Secretary Nielsen, deserve the accolades, also.

So, with that, I am ready to close. I congratulate Ms. Spanberger.

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

May I reclaim my time?

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chair, I am having a lot of fun down here, but I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I am going to do the right thing and not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I know our time together tonight is winding down. This, I think, is the last amendment we are going to debate tonight.

I thank Ms. Slotkin for her amendment and thank her for her service to our country. It is a pleasure to be able to serve in this great institution with the gentlewoman.

As I said, I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. Congratulations. I certainly wish this would be part of something that could go into law, because this bill is not going to go into law. I certainly look forward to working with her to address these issues as we move forward.

Congratulations, and I thank the gentlewoman again for her service here now.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Well, I would be remiss to not thank my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for being a cosponsor of this amendment. We have had some lively discussions back and forth. My apologies. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this amendment, too.

I am ready to close, but congratulations once again to Ms. Slotkin.

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

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a list of groups such as the Hispanic Leadership Fund, The LIBRE Initiative, Americans for Tax Reform, Coalition to Reduce Spending, the National Right to Life, Heritage Action for America, and the Chamber of Commerce and several

letters in opposition to H.R. 1, obviously, or I don't think I would be entering them into the Record.

The following organizations oppose H.R. 1:

I am not going to oppose this amendment, and it has been great debating with the other side tonight. I look forward to a livelier debate tomorrow.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, for the sake of innocent lives, I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here and follow my colleague on the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Obviously, as you will hear over the next 1 minute and 50 seconds, we disagree. This bill was rushed. This bill does not live up to the promises that the Democratic majority said they were going to do when they ran the House and how open, how bipartisan, and how transparent they were supposed to be.

H.R. 1 means this is the Democrat majority's priority. This bill was introduced on January 3, and at a press conference introducing this bill, many different outside, special interest groups were noted for having helped craft this piece of legislation.

It was 571 pages. It has turned into 622 pages. It has turned into 72 amendments that were ruled in order.

Now, let's take a step back. Ten committees of this House had jurisdiction within this bill. One committee, the smallest committee in the House of Representatives, the House Administration Committee is the only one to mark this bill up.

That is not regular order. That is not an open process. And, frankly, it is a process that the American people should demand be much different.

We Republicans were not consulted during the drafting of this piece of legislation. We Republicans during the only markup that lasted 5 hours, offered 28 amendments that would have made this bill better, and not a single one was passed. All failed on a party-line vote.

That is not bipartisanship. That is not openness. That is not a process that is inclusive, and, frankly, the American people should be very petrified what this bill will do. It is not a bill that responds to people, as my colleague, Mr. Raskin, just mentioned. This is a bill that is going to cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars, creating a mandatory program that is going to line the campaign coffers of every single Member of Congress with government money.

That is not what the American taxpayers are wanting. That is not what this institution should be doing. We want every single person in this country to be able to cast their vote and make sure that they have the right to do it, the ability to do it, and to ensure that that vote is protected. This bill does nothing to make sure that happens.

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

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a role for the Federal Government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access transparency, and election security. However, H.R. 1 was developed to serve the special interests of Democrats and the outside organizations that support the Democratic Party and will not accomplish its alleged goal of being for the people.

The greatest threat to our Nation's election system is partisanship, and that is what we are seeing right here in H.R. 1. It misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from States to administer their own elections, and threatens to limit Americans' constitutional rights.

H.R. 1 proposes all groups limit free speech and imposes vague standards that disadvantage citizens who wish to advocate on behalf of any public policy issue.

Every American has a right to support causes they believe in, and that is exactly why the American Civil Liberties Union echoes my concerns. The ACLU said that there are provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.

When groups that have traditionally supported the Democratic Party cannot support H.R. 1, it underscores why election reform legislation should not be developed in a partisan manner.

H.R. 1 overreaches our Constitution by taking power away from States that decide how their election should be administered, States that know their residents' election needs much better than a Federal bureaucracy does.

Congress should be partnering with States to support them in increasing voter registration instead of forcing a federally mandated one-size-fits-all approach that will be costly and ineffective.

This bill also fails to include safeguards, while implementing new voter registration and voting practices.

I cannot stress enough that Congress should absolutely be in favor of increasing access to the polls, but we do that by adding the necessary checks and balances to ensure these votes and that access are protected.

We should allow States to maintain their own voter rolls in order to process voters in a timely manner on election day, avoid unfunded mandates, and manage voter lists to avoid voting irregularities. A few voting irregularities can change the outcome of a single election, especially when you live in a competitive district like I do. Every single vote makes a difference between winning and losing.

If we pass new voter registration practices in H.R. 1 without creating safeguards to prevent voting irregularities in these practices, we risk taking away the choice of the American people. Simply, another way, H.R. 1 is taking away the voice of each American voter.

If we want to increase our election security, Congress should support States choosing their own methods and machines. Multiple points of entry are more secure than one system. Federalizing election security, as this legislation does, will not protect voters.

When H.R. 1 was introduced, it was referred to 10 committees in the House. This bill, which is now over 600 pages, will now have gone from introduction to general debate on the floor of the House with only half of those 10 committees holding a single hearing, and only one of those committees holding a markup.

The Democrats promised greater transparency in the majority, but we are not seeing that in their first major piece of legislation.

We just received the CBO score for H.R. 1, which egregiously underestimates H.R. 1's cost to the taxpayers by conveniently leaving out many of the legislation's most expensive provisions. H.R. 1's campaign match provision is what is being left out. CBO said they needed more time to develop a more comprehensive score. That was ignored.

Though my Democratic colleagues may have changed where exactly the bucket is, they are still using H.R. 1 to put more money into politicians' campaigns. H.R. 1 is creating public subsidies through the 6-to-1 government match program on small dollar campaign contributions of up to $200. For every $200, the Federal Government, the taxpayers, will now pay $1,200 to a politician, to Members of Congress' campaigns.

While my colleagues across the aisle now say this will be of no cost to the taxpayer--as of a new gimmick that they developed yesterday--I would like to point out that every single House Democrat signed on to cosponsor this legislation before any changes were made to this provision.

Make no mistake, the new majority wants to put your hard-earned tax dollars into their own campaigns. While they may have changed the route to get there, that is their fundamental goal with this obvious sham campaign finance reform. They say they want to get money out of politics, but they are using this bill, H.R. 1, to funnel more in.

Provisions like this do not belong in any campaign or finance election reforms. Election reforms should be bipartisan, not serving the interests of partisan politicians.

As we move forward with the debate today, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will thoughtfully reconsider their eager support of a bill that will harm the American voter and taxpayer and not simply vote, as we have seen throughout this not-open process, along partisan lines.

Every American's vote should be counted and protected.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), my colleague, good friend, and member on the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I am very privileged to stand here with somebody who grew up in the same rural county as I did, in Christian County, Illinois.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), my good friend.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the most courageous Member of Congress that I know, the man who bleeds tiger blood.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate. I am enjoying the discussion, enjoying the debate. This is why we all came here to Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Posey), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, it is with great pleasure I get a chance to introduce my good friend, whom I have known for a very long time from Illinois.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), and I would like to ask him to throw his papers in the air and hit them when he is done with his speech, too.

Mr. Chair, it is great to have the author of the bill here on the floor.

I guess if I had a chance to ask a question, it would be why, then, was this new corporate malfeasance fund put in the manager's amendment that was given to me 30 minutes before our Rules testimony last night?

There are many concerns with this bill, and a lot of those concerns hinge upon this 6-to-1 matching program that, in the end, is a new mandatory spending program that will have to be funded, have to be funded by the taxpayers to make up the difference if corporate money that is now going to be used--that we can't take right now as congressional candidates--is going to be used to fill the coffers of the campaigns that this author talked about.

I had no idea that the Democrats' solution to getting corporate money out of politics was to put more corporate money into campaign coffers of every Member of Congress. It doesn't make sense to me, which is why this bill doesn't make sense to me.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren, mentioned the NAACP, because the next gentleman that I am going to introduce, he and I both share Springfield, Illinois, which is known, after the 1908 race riots, to be somewhat of the birthplace of the NAACP.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am ready to close.

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

But before I do, Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and that is not nearly enough to talk about all the bad provisions in this bill once again.

There are so many provisions in this bill that many of my colleagues graciously came down to the floor to talk about them. As a matter of fact, I have with me a file of letters from groups

like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU, the National Right to Life, and all others that have been outspoken in their opposition to this behemoth partisan piece of legislation.

Let me remind everybody once again: we Republicans--there are only three of us on the House Administration Committee--were not consulted at all by anyone who wrote this bill, nor by any of the groups who were pointed out at the press conference announcing this piece of legislation that they helped to write this bill. Make no bones about it, this shell game, this nebulous freedom from influence or whatever fund you want to call it, the CBO estimates they don't even have enough information on it. They are estimating the taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $1 billion, and that goes in addition to the over $2 billion that the rest of the bill is going to cost the taxpayers of this country.

Now, it is interesting, I just read a tweet--I never met the gentleman, Dan McLaughlin, but it is a pretty good explanation of what I think this bill is. His tweet says: ``Professional politicians do unethical things that they've written the rules to allow.''

This bill has written the rules to allow Members of Congress to enrich their own campaign coffers that will eventually be on the backs of government and the taxpayers. This is not why we should be here.

I am for the American voter. I support that every eligible voter have easier ways to register to vote and get easier access to the polls. What I am not for is for Washington, D.C., taking over elections and enriching the campaign coffers of the people who sit in this room.

I know what difficult elections look like. It is the worst of partisan politics, and it is personal to me. I know what it looks like when people take well-intentioned laws and use them to their political advantage. I don't want that to happen, and I believe H.R. 1 will allow that to happen.

We have had disagreements. I respect the fact that my colleagues have come here to debate this bill, but this is the furthest thing from a bipartisan bill. I can't say it enough how opposed to this bill I am.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague from North Carolina's assertion that we have to be cognizant of what is happening in rural America and how, maybe a top- down approach from Washington may not be the best approach when we might not have public transportation opportunities in many of the rural areas that he and I both serve.

But, as Mr. Butterfield is a member of the House Administration Committee, I would have hoped that this amendment would have been offered during the committee markup, the markup, the only markup that was held on this 622-page bill. We offered 28 amendments on the Republican side and not a single one was accepted.

These are the types of amendments I would have loved to have seen have bipartisan support in the committee process because I am from a rural area. I understand it is sometimes difficult for people in rural areas to vote.

But we have got to leave it up to the States and localities to be able to determine where these polling places are going to go, especially in the rural areas.

We have a hard enough time having somebody here in Washington figure out where everybody is going to be in an office every 2 years. Can you imagine somebody in a concrete building out here in Washington, D.C., determining where a polling place should or should not be in a town that I represent in central Illinois?

That is my problem with this bill; it is a top-down approach that takes away the ability for locals to really truly get polling places in areas that are accessible for every voter to be able to cast their vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want every single American to be able to vote. Every vote, every single vote in every American vote deserves to be counted and protected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from North Carolina is right. We had a good, healthy discussion on how rural voters could be adversely impacted by the original language that was in the bill that would have required polling places to be next to areas of mass transit.

Well, as we both know, there are many areas we serve that don't have access to mass transit. My problem is not with what this amendment does. My problem, again, is with the process.

My problem is how are we going to determine--and my biggest fear is that if Washington is determining where polling places should go, maybe we are not allowing the locals to determine best how to ensure that voters get easiest access to being able to cast their vote.

I want to work with the gentleman from North Carolina to address many rural needs, especially when it comes to our oversight responsibility of elections. And I certainly hope--I do believe this amendment will pass--and I certainly hope, if it becomes a law, which I don't believe H.R. 1 will become law, but I would really encourage us to be able to work together after this is done and maybe work in a separate fashion to address rural voting communities' needs. And I look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I know we have a lot of amendments, so I will go ahead and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, as I mentioned earlier, I would have liked to have seen these amendments offered during our House Administration markup as my good friend from Maryland is also a member of the House Administration Committee.

There was some discussion on issues like this and I was under the impression, during that markup process, that provisions like my opponent put into this amendment were already part of the bill.

But let me add, this amendment would turn businesses and corporations into partisan political entities and shareholder meetings and votes into political conventions.

It would require corporations to poll their shareholders on whether the corporation's political spending should be

made in support of, in opposition to Republican, Democratic, Independent, or other political party candidates and political committees.

Business decisions drive corporations' political spending. This would inject partisan political considerations into corporate political spending.

And let me remind the American people, corporations are banned by law currently to be able to give directly to candidates or to organizations that will directly support or oppose candidates during an election cycle. This is going to further polarize our political environment.

This amendment also relies on unconstitutionally vague and intent- based standards for what corporate spending is covered by the shareholder preference assessment requirement. It is going to encourage the current practice of activists taking hold of proxy advisory firms to socially engineer public policies through proxy shareholder votes. There is no transparency to proxy advisory firms.

I am opposed to this amendment because it is vague and impractical, and would, again, infringe upon free speech. It is not clear what speech is covered under this amendment and that is, perhaps, the worst part.

The practical effect of this amendment would be that the companies would not have shareholder elections under this new standard. Many would probably stop paying dues to trade associations because the language might be construed to cover that. That would be a bomb on many of the largest and most important trade groups. No similar requirement for other organizations as part of this bill, of course.

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

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

Mr. Chair, look, I don't own too many stocks outside of mutual funds, but I do have one that I get statements to ask me to cast a vote for those members who are currently members of the board of directors or running to be. What I do is use the disclosure database OpenSecrets. I find out the political spending of these individuals who are going to determine the outcome of the stock that I have invested in that, hopefully, will grow in value, because that is why people invest in the stock market, and that is why people invest in corporate entities that may be publicly traded.

The problem I have with this amendment is I thought corporate money wasn't supposed to go to candidates. I don't take corporate dollars. Frankly, I am probably one of the ones standing in this institution tonight who had many of these super-PAC dollars spent against me in the last election. They can't take corporate dollars.

But the issue at hand is, in another part of the bill where this new Freedom From Influence Fund is put together, they are now going to use corporate dollars to create a fund that is flowing through the Federal Treasury that should be going to infrastructure, should be going to pediatric cancer research. Instead, it is going to flow into this new shell that is going to have corporate money go directly to congressional candidates, which is illegal now.

That, to me, is the biggest problem with this bill, and that, to me, is a problem with this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to a discussion on many other amendments throughout this long evening.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, while I appreciate my good friend from Florida's amendment, this amendment doesn't go far enough. It does nothing to stem the practice of ballot harvesting.

Ballot harvesting is a practice of States allowing any person to collect any number of absentee ballots and then deliver them to the polls. It could be even after election day.

This practice, of course, is ripe for fraud, and we saw most recently in North Carolina how it can be abused to the advantage of political campaigns.

In North Carolina's Ninth District, the individual who harvested ballots for a Republican, where we will now have a special election, was caught because the practice is illegal. It is unlikely that he would have been caught in a State like California, because the practice is perfectly legal.

Take the current law in California. A signature is invalid if the ballot turned in by a harvester doesn't match a signature in the voter file, but the campaign can cure this by getting the voter in question to submit an affidavit that they voted. Then that signature only has to match the signature in the voter file, not the signature on the ballot.

A harvester could theoretically take a bunch of ballots, submit them with forged signatures, and then collect signatures afterward, since the campaigns would later get a list of the signatures that were rejected.

Loose standards relating to providing notice to voters whose signatures were mismatched, as well as a lengthy cure process without any safeguards, disenfranchises voters who showed up and cast votes before or on election day.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's amendment. As important as recycled paper may be, this, I believe, would present an undue burden on our States and our local officials who administer these elections.

This requirement of using recycled paper is narrowly tailored for Federal office elections, yet Federal, State, and local elections often occur at the same time. This makes it incredibly impractical and difficult for State election officials to comply with this amendment. States, theoretically, may have to have two different paper ballots: one for Federal elections and the other for State and local matters.

Also, recycled paper is less available and more expensive, giving local election officials fewer options. This requirement could have an undue burden on States as they aim to comply with this amendment, and it is impractical, as voters often vote on Federal, State, and local elections on the same ballot.

This is ultimately a federalism issue. I have a problem with the entire bill being a federalism issue. We should defer to the States and their budgets on how to best administer elections tailored to their unique considerations.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to show awareness and concern over climate change and our environment. Maybe this amendment is better suited for when the New Green Deal is called up on the floor for all of us to cast a vote upon, but this is an undue, unfunded mandate from the Federal Government right down to the State and local officials.

This is something that can cost local election officials even more money to run elections and then also run the risk of them not having enough money to budget to print enough ballots that will be available on election day for the increased voter turnout that we have seen over the last few election cycles. At that point in time, it becomes a very big burden on local taxpayers.

This bill is going to be a burden on local taxpayers. This bill is estimated to already cost almost $3 billion. It creates another mandatory spending program.

I appreciate my new colleague's willingness to come here and offer amendments. I just believe that this amendment is, again, adding to the unfair, unfunded burden that H.R. 1 gives to many State and local election officials.

State and local election officials know best how to stack their ballot boxes to ensure they have enough ballots for everybody to vote, and this will now be an added cost.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting Chair. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, again, this is another added cost to the taxpayers that I believe, and my colleagues, I believe, should agree is already being taken care of. The EAC is already tasked to take on this role.

The Election Assistance Commission is an independent, bipartisan commission charged with developing guidance to meet the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requirements.

The EAC has already done extensive work on best practices for ballot design that are available to State and local officials already. In fact, the EAC published their insights on the importance of good ballot design just last month and are already in the process of updating its guidance based upon the feedback it has received. I would assume that would have been studied already.

Additionally, every 2 years following an election, the EAC sends its election administration voting survey to election officials in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and our four territories. The survey includes national-, State-, and county-level data on voter registration; uniformed and overseas voters; early, absentee, provisional voting; voting equipment usage; and poll workers, polling places, and precincts.

All that to say, again, this is a waste of taxpayer dollars to be redundant and have the EAC perform another study that is going to cost the taxpayers of this country.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's intention, and I appreciate his willingness as a new Member of this institution to come down here and participate in the amendment process. We need folks who come to this institution and they want to legislate, they want to be on the floor, they want to offer amendments.

My biggest problem with this amendment is we don't know how much this study is going to cost taxpayers. These are the types of studies that I believe the information that my colleague wants to get is already going to be in place. Why do we need to spend any more tax dollars on another study that is going to provide the same answers that my colleague has already asked them to now do a new study on? The EAC is doing their job.

Now, let's get back to the overall issue of H.R. 1.

H.R. 1 was a bill introduced on January 3 with zero Republican input, zero outreach to anybody on my side of the aisle, let alone the three Republicans that we have serving on the House Administration Committee, the only committee that marked this bill up.

At that announcement of this 571-page bill that is cosponsored by every member of the Democratic conference, it was shown that, heck, the author thanked all the outside special interest groups who helped write it.

We were given no input whatsoever on this legislation that is going to cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I am going to do everything I can to make sure we lessen the amount of undue influence and unfunded mandates coming through this amendment process, and this is my one chance to do that.

Now, I am glad that my colleague mentioned the H.R. 1 of the last Congress. I learned my lesson not to yield back, as he just did, because now I get the last word.

This is an opportunity to remind my colleague, my new colleague, that it has even been reported 80 percent of what the Congressional Budget Office estimated that our tax cut bill that put thousands of dollars in the pockets of middle-class families, it has already paid for itself by 80 percent. In less than a year, we changed this. This is why H.R. 1 of the last Congress actually helped families put more money in their pockets.

H.R. 1 this year is going to actually cost taxpayers billions and put more money in the pockets of Members of Congress' campaigns.

This is a travesty that is no comparison, and that is exactly why this bill is terrible. And no offense to my colleague; I just oppose his amendment because I think it is redundant.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity.

I am not necessarily opposed to this amendment, and if the gentleman is willing, I am ready to move towards closing. I am ready to close on this debate, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Danny Russell, the morning show host on WMKR in Taylorville, Illinois, who is leaving the broadcasting industry after 40 years.

Local media is so important to our communities and Danny's service is a prime example of this.

Danny graduated from the radio-tv program at Lewis and Clark Community College in Godfrey and spent 17 years as the weekend weathercaster for WICS-TV Channel 20 in Springfield.

His career has included stints at several Springfield radio stations and in 2011, he joined the Miller Media Group to become the Morning Show host on WMKR Genuine Country 94.3.

Additionally, Danny has been the Miller Media Group production director, host of the Saturday Retro Request Show and the ``Brown Bag Rewind'' show. He has also broadcast live from countless events thru- out central Illinois over his nearly 8 years with Miller Media Group.

I congratulate Danny on 40 years of success in the broadcasting industry, and I wish him well on his next chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important and irreplaceable work done by our court reporters during National Court Reporting and Captioning Week, which is February 9 through 16.

As guardians of the record, court reporters have had and do have a large impact on capturing history for posterity.

During our nearly 250 years of American history, court reporters have been a cornerstone of our American justice system. From George Washington's farewell address to Lincoln's ``House Divided'' speech, these noble servants have transcribed some of the most important pieces of American history.

Today, with the help of new technology like that utilized by CART captioners, reporters have been able to expand beyond the courtroom to provide accessibility for millions of Americans who are deaf and hard of hearing by providing captioning in real time for live sporting and theater events, church services, movie theaters, and many other venues.

As I speak to you now, a stenographer, Julia, is seated next to me, quietly but promptly recording my every word.

So, on behalf of myself and all Members of Congress, thank you for all the hard work you do in support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition of H.R. 1, legislation that was introduced by the Democratic leadership that they claim is for the people.

Let me be clear: There are some voting and election reforms where I believe Republicans and Democrats can find common ground; however, H.R. 1 abuses taxpayer dollars, criminalizes free speech, and encourages voting irregularities. I cannot support it in its current form.

One of the most egregious provisions in H.R. 1 creates a 6-to-1 government match to small donor campaign contributions up to $200. This means for every $200 that a political candidate receives, the Federal Government, with your tax dollars, is giving $1,200 to a politician's campaign.

Since when does the Federal Government become a congressional candidate's ATM?

This is only one example of how H.R. 1 legislation is not designed to serve the people but to serve the Democratic majority.

This House should work in a real bipartisan fashion to create election reform that the American people deserve, and I am willing and ready whenever my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing and ready to talk.

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

Mr. Chairman, I obviously rise in support of our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, before I offer my comments.

Mr. Chairman, in my short time here in this institution, I have found that, when you offer an amendment to a bill that has jurisdiction of a committee that you don't sit on, it is always good to have the chairman and ranking member be in support of your amendment. So I want to thank Chairman Takano and Ranking Member Roe for their help--and their team's help--in helping us craft this commonsense solution.

And I really want to thank my good friend and colleague Jimmy Panetta, who is a main cosponsor of this amendment. Jimmy and I have worked together on a wide variety of issues, but not many more important than making sure that our families, our heroes, get access to the childcare and the services that they need.

This Veterans' Access to Child Care Act, also, Mr. Chairman, builds upon a successful pilot program and is finally going to provide some certainty and better access to mental and intensive healthcare services for our heroes, our veterans, through increased access to childcare while our veterans attend the appointments that they need to attend to.

The intention of this amendment, as you heard from the chairman and the ranking member, is to make sure that the VA does not determine that this bill is meant that there is only one primary caretaker in the family and then, arbitrarily, have a bureaucrat at the VA decide who that caretaker is.

Without this change, some veterans this bill is intended to help would not be able to access childcare over a technicality. Our amendment, as you heard, clarifies this language to help eliminate barriers to mental health services for our veterans with families.

When our veterans face a mental health crisis, I want to ensure that they are not alone, and that we are doing everything we can to properly support them and their families.

While we have been successful in passing legislation that prevents many veterans from having to drive long distances to access care, it is possible that, in some cases, a veteran in my district could have to drive 4 hours to the nearest VA hospital, and ensured access to childcare will encourage them to get the services that they need.

I don't want a technicality to get in the way of our heroes. I want to make sure they get access to the services they need. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

I urge all Members to support our amendment to H.R. 840, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Graves, for the surprising yielding.

This is a program, and this bill needs to be passed.

My district in central and southwestern Illinois contains numerous scenic byways, and I am excited that this bill is such a bipartisan bill, too.

This bipartisan bill needs to pass because the Department of Transportation has got to undertake a process to designate the scenic byways in my district, in Rhode Island, in Louisiana, and throughout this Nation, designate them under this program. This good fix is a message of bipartisanship that the President delivered last night on this floor, and I certainly hope this bill passes.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honored to be here today.

I recognize the chairperson of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee and thank her for her support, Ms. Holmes Norton. I appreciate her support on this issue. As her ranking member on the committee, I look forward to working with her in a very bipartisan way to make sure that we put infrastructure first when it comes to the United States of America, and I congratulate her on her chairmanship.

I thank my colleague who has joined us on the floor, my partner in getting this bill passed in the last Congress, too, Grace Napolitano. We kind of sit on both sides of Route 66: I in central Illinois, and Mrs. Napolitano on the far west side with a lot more ocean air than in the middle of Illinois in her district near Santa Monica, California.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 66.

I thank the Speaker of the House for giving us this designation of H.R. 66 because it is very important for the historical context of this bill that creates the Route 66 Centennial Commission.

I am proud to have Route 66 run right through the middle of my district. As you know, in 1926, Route 66 became our Nation's first all- paved highway under the U.S. highway system, connecting Chicago, Illinois, which is about 3 hours north of me. Right through the middle of the 13th District in Illinois runs this road.

Early on, this road, of course, ended in Santa Monica, California, but it was used by hundreds of thousands of Americans, as Ms. Norton said, seeking escape from the Dust Bowl. It provided critical employment opportunities for road crews and infrastructure investment during our Great Depression.

During World War II, our highway transported troops, equipment, supplies to military bases across our country, and it was used after the war by thousands of troops coming home to see their families.

By the 1950s, Route 66 began to see a rise in tourism and became the true symbol of American freedom and independence that we know today.

In April of 2017, my colleague from central Illinois, Darin LaHood, and I went on an extended tour along with numerous State legislators in Illinois, like my good friend Representative Tim Butler and my State representative, Avery Bourne, and we toured the stretches of Route 66 that we share.

I had the opportunity to personally witness the economic impact of the Mother Road throughout my district and throughout Congressman LaHood's district. It supports many jobs and key economic activity in many of our smaller rural communities that we are blessed enough to represent. This keeps many of those communities alive, economically.

Now travelers along Route 66 in my district can see a giant pink elephant. It is a big statue. You can't miss it

even when you are traveling on Interstate 55. But what you also can see there on a Sunday afternoon, because of the tourists and tourism opportunities along Route 66, the parking lot at the Pink Elephant Antique Mall and the diner attached to it in the small town of Livingston, Illinois, is packed. I took my family there to eat lunch not too long ago, and you could barely find a parking spot on a Sunday afternoon.

You can also stop in Edwardsville, Illinois, at the Wildey Theatre, and you can experience the same theater experience that many in the 1950s experienced right in Edwardsville, Illinois. That theater opened in 1909, and it has been redone.

I got to stop by Jungle Jim's breakfast in Springfield, too. I got some good food, got some good pancakes; just don't eat too many of them.

These are just a few of the thousands of local businesses along Route 66, which is why this bill is so important. This is a system of not just roadways and trail paths.

I want to make sure that we give this route what it deserves in our Nation's history. That is what this bill will do. That is why I am so supportive. I am glad to be an original author of this bill.

I thank, again, my colleague, Mrs. Napolitano, and I look forward to her remarks.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

15\1/2\ minutes. Awesome. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, look, we can't say much more about this bill. This is another true example of bipartisanship. This is what we do together in this institution to ensure that historical areas like Route 66 that span this great Nation are given the recognition that they deserve.

This road, from Chicago to Santa Monica, California, that I have yet to take up--my colleague, Mrs. Napolitano, has offered to drive the entire distance on Route 66. Maybe we will have to do this during the 100-year anniversary that this bill allows us to plan for.

Let's give Route 66 its due. Let's think of the small-town communities that rely upon the mother road to survive. Let's continue to work together, like we are today, to put good bills through the House to the Senate. And let's get the President to sign them into law.

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, January 30, 2019, I was absent from the House because at the time of votes I was attending to a family matter back in my home district. Due to my absence I did not record any votes for the day. I would like to reflect how I would have voted.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 64; and YEA on Roll Call No. 65.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Ken Leonard, head coach of the Sacred Heart- Griffin Cyclones, for being nominated by the Chicago Bears for the 2018 Don Shula NFL High School Coach of the Year Award. This year, he follows his son, Derek, who was nominated last year.

Coach Leonard was nominated for this prestigious award because of his leadership, dedication to the community, and his commitment to the health and safety of his players and their on-field success. This past year, Coach Leonard became the all-time leader for victories in Illinois high school coaching history--ironically, beating his son's very good Rochester team to get that record.

As the head coach since 1984, Coach Leonard has an outstanding 379 win and 74 career loss record, including five State championships in eight title game appearances. He has spent countless hours on the field, in classrooms, and in chapels teaching players about character and helping prepare them for a very successful future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ken for his service to the Springfield community over the years and congratulate him, his family, and his team on this great honor.