Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 226, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman has laid out the case quite eloquently.

I simply wanted to say that, while the government could never own or should never own the news media, we may have a role to create an environment where local news can flourish without our saying in any way how or what they should cover. But we know that local news covers local stories, and without the local news, you will never find out what is going on in city hall, what is going on in the board of supervisors, and what is going on on the planning commission and the like.

So what Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Cicilline, and others have outlined here is a very important challenge for the United States of America. If we are going to have control of our governments, we need to have information; and if we are going to have information, then we need to have a free press all the way from city hall up to the White House. We have got some holes in that coverage right now.

So, Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Cicilline, and others for the efforts that they are making, and I look forward to supporting them as they move forward.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H. Res. 245 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, due to my attendance of a funeral I was not present for the vote, on March 14, 2019, on H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress. Had I been present for rollcall vote 125 I would have voted ``yea.'' I am pleased that this resolution calling for the release of Special Counsel Mueller's report to the public and to Congress passed decisively.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following summary of revenue estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Summary of Revenue Estimate From Joint Committee on Taxation

(3/4/2019--Very Preliminary)

Estimate of proposed 2.75% special assessment on criminal

penalties and civil penalties, generally limit nontax

penalties to organizational defendants. All estimates below

are in millions of dollars, by fiscal year. Details may not

add to totals due to rounding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution today.

We have a responsibility to the American people to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, and we also have an obligation, as a separate and equal branch of government, to act as a check on the executive branch.

Without access to necessary information, we can't fulfill our constitutionally prescribed duties. We must have not only this report, but the evidence collected to support the report.

If the President has nothing to hide, then he would also support this resolution by tweet or verbal approval.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is very important for our country.

Madam Chair, I just want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Colorado for offering this refining amendment. I think he is exactly right. In order to fully engage the American people, we need to make every effort for them to participate.

And for young people who feel that they really don't have a say, allowing them to pre-register helps them buy in to our American system of government.

You know, somebody on the other side of the building said, well, this is a power grab, to make sure that--H.R. 1 is a power grab. It is. It is a power grab for the American people, to take the power away from the special interests and give it to the American people. The gentleman's amendment helps further that worthy goal, and I thank him for offering it.

Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) on this very smart amendment. I am not surprised. It is typical that she would make this a bipartisan amendment. It is very helpful. It is very smart. I am glad that she is back here in Congress to show this leadership.

Just one word on the CBO: It shows that there is indeed no tax money involved in the freedom from influence fund.

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

Madam Chair, for 8 years, this Chamber has been silent, a silence that harms people. We have allowed measures to reduce people's access to vote, measures that caused the Fourth Circuit to find that African American voters were targeted with surgical precision, measures that excluded voters on Indian reservations and that wrongfully tried to remove 95,000 naturalized Texans from the rolls.

Today that silence ends. This bill is not for its own sake. A Member of the U.S. Senate said that H.R. 1 is a power grab. He is right. It grabs power away from the special interests, the elites, and the 1 percent and gives it to the American people.

I tell you plainly what it does: automatic voter registration to allow 50 million eligible citizens to vote, prohibits deceptive practices, increases access to polls for voters with disabilities, helps States replace outdated voting machines, and requires disclosure of dark money donors, not limiting their speech but simply asking them to stand by it. These reforms aren't difficult, but they will require courage to make.

Mr. Frederick Douglass saw what our democracy was and what our democracy could be and said: ``Where all is plain there is nothing to be argued.''

For that reason, I do not argue. But I look forward to joining and doing the will of the people and supporting this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), leader of H.R. 1, the author of the bill.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.

Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable John Lewis, hero of the voting rights and civil rights movement.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1 already prevents noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, whether they are here lawfully or undocumented. In fact, the motion to recommit notices that. They say: ``Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections.''

H.R. 1 utilizes the authority in Article I, Section 4 to extend in Federal elections the opportunity for every American to vote.

This motion to recommit is an effort to divert us from the mission that we are on to expand voting rights to every American citizen in Federal elections. I urge its defeat.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the hero of the voting rights movement.

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

Madam Chair, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 172, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

This package of 17 important amendments was made in order by the rule. The substance of these amendments ranges from commonsense information-gathering to protecting our Nation from foreign influence.

For instance, one amendment expands an existing ban to protect against a greater universe of threats. It provides that the Federal Election Campaign Act, which already bans foreign nationals from contributing to American elections, ought also to ban them from contributing to State or local ballot initiatives or referenda, where their undue influence might allow outside control of State and local matters.

Our colleagues have also joined with us in efforts to understand and appreciate the different experiences of American voters and to ensure that voters of all kinds are included at the ballot box by supporting information-sharing between States and the Election Assistance Commission.

One amendment focuses on greater reporting of demographic information, shining a light on who is voting so that we can better grasp who is participating or perhaps feels left out of our diverse electorate.

In States where information about age, gender, race, and ethnicity is already available to the State, this amendment will simply require States to include that demographic information about voters in their annual report to the Election Assistance Commission on voter registration statistics.

Our colleagues also support efforts by the Government Accountability Office to study the extent to which membership diversity requirements have been met in State redistricting commissions, ensuring that justice and fairness in representing the people is the priority, not partisan advantage to either party.

In a similar vein of being welcome to diverse voters, an amendment requires that the poll worker training manual provided by the Election Assistance Commission ensures that services are delivered in a culturally competent manner to voters who need these services, including voters with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, and voters of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, all regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the prospective voter.

This amendment seeks to give each voter full and equal access to the poll worker services that are critical to inclusive and efficient election administration and engagement with our sacred duties in this election.

This amendment also contains several component parts that focus on transparency and accessibility of information to everyday citizens so they can feel confident about the integrity, prudence, and independence of this government.

One amendment would stop campaign contributions providing an endless piggybank to candidates long after they have left office, or their campaign.

Another amendment gives citizens an important and accessible window into lobbying information. It would require the Attorney General to establish within the Department of Justice a single lobbying information disclosure portal through which members of the public could obtain hard copies and electronic copies of registration statements filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. The effect of this amendment would be to combine and make easily accessible information that is currently available from disparate sources, including the House, the Senate, and the Department of Justice. Efforts like these increase information flow, transparency, and confidence in our government.

Madam Chair, I think these amendments are worthy of our support.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, a few of the Members who have offered amendments would like to speak briefly on them.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Harder).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran), who has several amendments.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), who has an amendment here.

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

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

Madam Chair, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. It strips the subpoena power from the Director of the Office of Government Ethics.

Recent years have made it clear that the OGE needs to be strengthened. The subpoena power is a key enforcement tool, and a necessary one, for the Office of Government Ethics.

The former head of OGE said, in working with the current administration it has become clear we need to strengthen the ethics program. That individual resigned as head of the agency in July of last year, after almost 5 years as its head.

The OGE was set up in the aftermath of the 1970 Watergate scandal to clean up government. Some of that cleanup has relied on norms of behavior that are no longer in effect. We need to make sure that we have the ability with the OGE head to actually obtain information so they can do their job.

I do want to touch on a few other points raised by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

You know, there has been a lot of discussion over and over that the small donor program is funded by taxpayers. That is incorrect. You can just read the bill and see that is incorrect.

The freedom from influence fund is entirely funded by a nominal, additional assessment on criminal tax fraud cases, at the upper end, and corporate malfeasance fines and forfeitures. That is the entire source of funding. If there is not enough funding from those sources to fully fund the program, then the program is not fully funded.

That is in the bill itself; so I think it is important that we all understand that.

In terms of the automatic voter registration system, this has worked very successfully in a number of States, and six more are in the process of implementing it.

There are quite a few--we think, ample--safeguards to make sure that only those eligible to vote are, in fact, registered to vote. AVR agencies have reliable data about citizenship status and age, and there are separate rules for those agencies that don't collect that information.

I would note, also, that there has been discussion about how this is an unfair Federal imposition on States. This is only for Federal elections. This whole bill, H.R. 1, is about Federal elections. And why is that? Article I, Section 4 gives the authority to Congress to pass laws about the conduct of Federal elections.

We have seen over and over, throughout the United States, efforts to suppress the vote in ways we think are improper by purging eligible voters from the rolls, by preventing people from registering through bogus and arcane ID rolls, by making sure that voters can't get to the polls because they have moved the polls, by eliminating early voting that is so helpful to people who work so hard that they might not be able to get to the polls before the poll closes. So this is for Federal elections.

And why is that important? Each one of us here in the House of Representatives has one vote. That is as it should be, as the Founders established it.

The people who send us here should have the equivalent right to vote for their Representative. There shouldn't be a way that one person in one State has an adequate right to vote but the vote is suppressed in some other State. That is not democracy; that is not fair; and that is what H.R. 1 will fix.

Madam Chair, I urge that we oppose the gentleman from Georgia's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, reluctantly, because it is only the last paragraph in the amendment that causes concern.

The amendment expresses a sense of Congress that free speech should be protected. Who can disagree with that? Our Founding Fathers envisioned a robust and open discourse. They did not fathom speech that was unaccountable to anonymous corporations that would drown out the voices of individual Americans.

The concern we have on this amendment is the last paragraph, really, is an attempt to protect the Citizens United decision and the flow of unlimited dark money into our politics and elections.

It is important to note that, under the guise of free speech, some are suggesting that we need to protect anonymous special interests. Nothing stops people or entities from donating to political campaigns or politicians, but they must be transparent about it.

Justice Brandeis indicated, and I think he is very wise, that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the American people cannot fully exercise their First Amendment rights if they do not have all of the information necessary to react in an informed manner.

We all have the right to know who is trying to influence elections, and it may well change our minds if we know who is saying what. Ultimately, this amendment is flawed because disclosure does not limit speech.

In Citizens United, the Court affirmed holdings in other cases, that disclaimer and disclosure requirements impose no ceiling on campaign- related activities and do not prevent anyone from speaking. Indeed, the Court held the disclosure is ``a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations.''

Lauded conservatives have long espoused this principle, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed disclosure because it helps voters hold elected leaders accountable. In fact, eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices upheld disclosure in the Citizens United case as necessary for voters to hold leaders accountable.

Perhaps no one said it better than Justice Antonin Scalia in Doe v. Reed. Justice Scalia said: ``Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.''

Much has been said about the ACLU, and I appreciate what the ACLU does on many scores, but they have a storied history of litigating constitutional issues that I support. However, we have differed on our approach to campaign finance laws. They have upheld and supported the Citizens United decision and they oppose McCain-Feingold. While I support so much of the good work they do, I think they are mistaken on this issue.

I include in the Record a letter from Democracy 21, which is a very thoughtful rebuttal to the ACLU's position.

Democracy 21,

March 7, 2019.

Re Response to ACLU Letter on H.R. 1.

Dear Representative: Democracy 21 strongly supports H.R. 1,

the ``For the People Act of 2019,'' and urges you to vote for

the legislation, which is the most comprehensive effort to

repair our democracy since the post-Watergate reforms of the

1970's.

In particular, the bill contains a series of important

reforms to address serious problems with our campaign finance

system. The legislation provides a small donor, matching

funds system for House and presidential elections that will

encourage small donations and remove candidate dependence on

wealthy contributors and special interest money. It also

contains important improvements to the disclosure laws to

address the growing problem of undisclosed ``dark money''

that is being spent to influence federal elections. And it

provides effective standards to ensure that supposedly

``independent'' spending is not done in cooperation or

coordination with candidates or their agents, thus evading

contribution limits.

We want to address constitutional concerns about some of

these measures that have been raised by the ACLU in a letter

dated March 6, 2019. We note that the ACLU has participated

as a plaintiff or amicus to seek invalidation of reform

measures in key Supreme Court cases, including Buckley v.

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93

(2003) and Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010). Many

of the ACLU's challenges to campaign finance reform measures,

including disclosure requirements, were rejected by the Court

in these cases.

ACLU concerns about disclosure provisions

The provisions of the DISCLOSE Act incorporated into H.R. 1

are essential to closing gaping disclosure loopholes through

which, in the last four elections, wealthy donors and special

interests gave $1 billion in secret, unlimited contributions

to nonprofit groups that spent the money to influence federal

elections. Unlimited, secret contributions, also known as

dark money, are the most dangerous contributions in American

politics because there is no way to hold the donor and

officeholder accountable for corrupt practices.

In its March 6 letter, the ACLU particularly criticizes the

DISCLOSE Act incorporated into H.R. 1. Those provisions

require disclosure of the sources of funding used for

``campaign-related disbursements'' that are intended to

influence federal elections. Dating back to the Buckley case,

and as reaffirmed in Citizens United, the Supreme Court has

consistently upheld disclosure requirements because they

serve the important governmental interests of ``providing the

electorate with information about the sources of election-

related spending'' in order to help citizens ``make informed

choices in the political marketplace.'' Citizens United, 130

S. Ct. at 914.

As Justice Kennedy wrote for an 8-1 majority in Citizens

United, disclosure provisions ``impose no ceiling on

campaign-related activities'' and ``do not prevent anyone

from speaking.'' Id. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court

upheld disclosure provisions applicable to section 501(c)(4)

nonprofit groups.

The ACLU's principal objection is that H.R. 1 requires

disclosure of spending that ``reaches beyond the bounds'' of

express advocacy. ACLU Ltr. at 12. Yet the Court in Citizens

United addressed precisely this issue and upheld a disclosure

requirement for a broadcast ad that referred to a candidate

in the pre-election period, but that did not contain express

advocacy.

The Court explicitly stated that ``we reject Citizens

United's contention that the disclosure requirement must be

limited to speech that is the functional equivalent of

express advocacy.'' Id. at 916.

Thus, the principal constitutional argument raised by the

ACLU with regard to the

DISCLOSE Act--that disclosure requirements cannot extend

beyond express advocacy--has already been squarely and

overwhelmingly rejected by an 8 to 1 vote in the Supreme

Court. While the ACLU states that it particularly objects to

disclosure requirements for ``electioneering

communications,'' i.e., non-express advocacy ads that refer

to a candidate in the pre-election period, ACLU Ltr. at 13,

this is the very issue that the Court addressed in upholding

such disclosure requirements in Citizens United.

The ACLU also objects to disclosure requirements for money

spent on ads that promote, support, attack or oppose (PASO)

the election of a candidate, complaining about ``applying

vague and subjective standards to regulation of political

speech.'' ACLU Ltr. at 14. Yet again, the Supreme Court

directly addressed this issue, and rejected an identical

criticism of the same test in the McConnell case.

In McConnell, the Court stated that the words used in the

PASO test--promote, attack, support, oppose--are not

unconstitutionally vague because they `` `provide explicit

standards for those who apply them' and `give the person of

ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what

is prohibited.' '' 540 U.S. at 170 n. 64 (internal citations

omitted).

The Court further stated that ``any public communication

that promotes or attacks a clearly identified federal

candidate directly affects the election in which he is

participating. The record on this score could scarcely be

more abundant.'' Id. at 170. These rulings should put to rest

the objections raised by the ACLU about the PASO test.

The ACLU also raises privacy and associational concerns

with the disclosure requirements in the legislation. It

invokes the Court's decision in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S.

459 (1958), which protected the associational interests of a

civil rights group against disclosure of the group's

membership lists when the group was under attack from

government officials in the 1950s South. We note that the

NAACP today is itself a supporter of H.R. 1, and that the

disclosure provisions in H.R. 1 could not be more different

from the disclosure requirements addressed by the Court in

the 1958 NAACP decision.

The DISCLOSE Act provisions in H.R. 1 require disclosure

only of donors who give $10,000 or more in a two-year

election cycle to a group which engages in campaign-related

spending. That high dollar threshold alone will exclude

disclosure of the vast majority of donors to, and members of,

most membership organizations, and instead will require

disclosure only of very large donors to such groups.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in both Buckley and

McConnell has already rejected the analogy between campaign

finance disclosure requirements and the disclosure of

membership lists that was struck down in the NAACP case. The

Court said in McConnell, ``In Buckley, unlike NAACP, we found

no evidence that any party had been exposed to economic

reprisals or physical threats as a result of the compelled

disclosure.'' Id. at 198.

Indeed, H.R. 1 has an explicit safe harbor from disclosure

for any donor who may be subject to ``serious threats,

harassment or reprisals.'' Sec. 4111(a) adding Sec.

324(a)(3)(C). This again aligns with the Supreme Court's

requirements on this issue.

The Court has made clear that disclosure requirements are

not invalid because of a generalized or theoretical concern

about ``public harassment,'' but instead are invalid only in

specific cases where a group can show a ``reasonable

probability'' that disclosing the names of its contributors

would ``subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals

from either Government officials or private parties.''

Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 916.

Absent such a showing, campaign finance disclosure

requirements are constitutional. And even if there is such a

specific showing of a specific threat, the disclosure

requirements would be held unconstitutional only for the

specific group involved based on the specific showing of harm

to that group. The disclosure laws would otherwise remain

constitutional.

The ACLU states a concern that the bill would ``require

disclosure of an overbroad number of donors,'' ACLU Ltr. at

15, but it fails to acknowledge or to give proper weight to

other protections for privacy interests that are contained in

the bill. A group can set up a separate bank account for its

spending on campaign-related disbursements and then is

required to disclose only those donors of $10,000 or more to

this separate account. All other donors to the organization

would not be disclosed.

In addition, any donor can restrict his or her donation to

the organization from being used for campaign-related

disbursements. If the group agrees to the restriction and

segregates the money, the identity of the donor is not

disclosed. By these measures, groups and donors can ensure

that donors whose funds are not used for campaign-related

expenditures are not subject to any disclosure, thereby

respecting any donor's particularized privacy interests.

ACLU concerns about coordination provisions

A second area of concern with H.R. 1 raised by the ACLU is

the provisions related to strengthening the coordination

rules in the campaign finance laws. These rules play a major

role in protecting the integrity and efficacy of contribution

limits which are, in turn, the major bulwark against

corruption.

While independent spending is not subject to contribution

limits, any spending that is coordinated with a candidate or

his agents is treated as a contribution and therefore is

subject to limits. Because of weak rules and even weaker

enforcement by the Federal Election Commission, the existing

coordination rules do not effectively restrain campaign-

related spending by Super PACs, nonprofit groups and other

outside spenders from being functionally coordinated with the

candidates supported by the spending.

In this fashion, the rise of individual-candidate Super

PACs has played an especially pernicious role. These Super

PACs are typically set up with the involvement of the

candidate or his or her close associates, and the candidate

is often involved in helping to raise unlimited huge

contributions for the Super PAC.

This money is then spent, purportedly independently of the

candidate, to promote the candidate's election. But because

there are not effective rules against coordination, these

individual-candidate Super PACs have operated in de facto

coordination with the candidates they are set up to support.

In practice, they have become dedicated soft money campaign

accounts for candidates, thus eviscerating the contribution

limits which should apply to money raised and spent by

federal candidates.

While the use of individual-candidate Super PACs began

after Citizens United with presidential candidates in 2012,

they rapidly have spread to congressional races. By the 2018

election cycle, 259 individual-candidate Super PACs

supporting federal officeholders and other candidates had

raised $176 million in unlimited contributions.

The coordination provisions in H.R. 1 strengthen existing

coordination rules to conform to Supreme Court decisions

which require independent spending to be ``totally''

independent of a candidate. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47.

The ACLU tempers its objections to these provisions of the

bill, noting that it ``strongly supports stricter enforcement

of rules restricting coordination between campaigns and

outside groups'' and acknowledging that ``H.R. 1 would make

strides in the right direction by clarifying the definition

of coordinated expenditures treated as contributions to a

campaign.'' ACLU Ltr. at 17. Yet it objects that the

definition of coordination could encompass ``communications

with the candidate about the public policy issues of the day

without a sufficient nexus to the potential corrupting

influence of very large expenditures.'' Id. at 18.

In stating this objection, the ACLU fails to give proper

weight to an explicit provision in the bill which protects

such communications by creating a safe harbor from

application of the coordination rules for any person's

``discussions with the candidate or committee, or with any

agent of the candidate or committee, regarding that person's

position on a legislative or policy matter (including urging

the candidate or committee to adopt that person's position) .

. .'' Sec. 6102 adding sec. 326(b)(2).

The ACLU acknowledges this safe harbor, Ltr. at 19, but

misinterprets it. As set forth in the text of the bill, the

safe harbor applies to legislative or policy discussion ``so

long as there is no communication between the person and the

candidate or committee . . . regarding the candidate's or

committee's campaign advertising, message, strategy or

policy,'' id. (emphasis added).

The ACLU's concern that ``[d]iscussion of `message' or

`policy' is integral to discussion of legislative and policy

positions,'' id., is already adequately addressed by the safe

harbor provision, which permits all legislative message and

policy discussion so long as it is not about campaign policy,

or the campaign's message.

Raising additional concerns, the ACLU objects to treatment

as a coordinated expenditure of a payment by an outside

spender for republication of a candidate's own campaign

material, although it correctly notes that this same

republication provision has long been part of existing law.

ACLU Ltr. at 18. It notes that there are regulations issued

by the FEC which have interpreted this provision of existing

law, and claims those regulations are necessary to the

constitutionality of the law. Even if true, there is nothing

in H.R. 1 which would prevent the FEC from similarly

construing the bill's re-promulgation of the same

republication language, which is all that the bill does on

this matter.

Finally, the ACLU notes that the coordination provisions of

H.R. 1 create a new category of ``coordinated spenders,''

based on certain specified relationships, activities or

status between candidates and outside spenders. The bill then

provides that certain specified categories of campaign-

related spending by such ``coordinated spenders'' will be

treated as coordinated. The ACLU questions whether such

treatment can be ``based solely upon a speaker's identity.''

ACLU Ltr. at 19.

This is, at best, a half-hearted objection because the ACLU

also then ``agrees that a speaker's identity coupled with the

contents of the communications can be factors in determining

whether a particular communication was coordinated with a

candidate such that it should be considered a campaign

contribution.'' Id. The ACLU nonetheless questions whether

spending can be treated as coordinated ``absent any

additional information indicating the speaker acted pursuant

to a common plan.'' Id.

But the Court has never limited the definition of

coordinated spending only to spending pursuant to an explicit

discussion about,

or a ``common plan'' for, a particular expenditure. The Court

has instead cast a wide net in demanding that independent

spending be ``totally independent,'' Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29,

and ``not pursuant to any general or particular understanding

with a candidate,'' Colorado Republican Federal Campaign

Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 614 (1996), and ``truly

independent'' or ``without any candidate's approval (or wink

or nod).'' FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign

Committee, 533 U.S. 431, 442 (2001).

The standards set forth in H.R. 1 look both to certain

relationships between the outside spender and the candidate,

and certain activities between the outside spender and the

candidate, to determine whether the spending meets the

standard set by the Court of being ``totally'' and ``truly''

independent. If the relationship between the candidate and

spender, or the activities of the candidate on behalf of the

spender (such as helping to fundraise for the spender),

indicate that they do not meet this high standard for true

independence, then the proposed rule would appropriately deem

spending by that person to be coordinated.

Conclusion

The reforms contained in H.R. 1 will make essential

improvements in the transparency of the money spent to

influence federal elections and in shutting down avenues that

are currently being exploited to evade and eviscerate

candidate contribution limits. The bill is carefully drafted

to conform to the Supreme Court's campaign finance rulings,

and to appropriately balance constitutionally protected

privacy and speech interests with the government's compelling

interests in deterring corruption and the appearance of

corruption through disclosure and the restoration of

effective contribution limits.

Democracy 21 urges you to vote for H.R. 1.

Sincerely,

Fred Wertheimer,

President.

Donald J. Simon,

Counsel.

Madam Chair, I would note, also, that we have just received a letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights expressing their strong support for H.R. 1. This is an organization that no one can fault for their firm leadership on human, civil, and constitutional rights for many decades.

I include in the Record a letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, March 1, 2019.

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

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200

national organizations committed to promoting and protecting

the civil and human rights of all persons in the United

States, and the 50 undersigned organizations, we write in

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

H.R. 1 represents a transformative vision for American

democracy. It would create a democracy that welcomes every

eligible voter's chance to participate in civic life, and a

democracy that demands integrity, fairness, and transparency

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

suppression has been a shameful reality in our country--

undercutting the power and representation of African

Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders,

Native Americans, and other groups historically excluded from

our political process. The ability to meaningfully

participate in our democracy is a racial justice issue. It is

a civil rights issue. And the need for legislative action is

urgent. We commend the 235 House co-sponsors of this critical

legislation.

Our nation will soon mark the 54th anniversary of the

Bloody Sunday march, where John Lewis and 600 voting rights

activists were viciously beaten and attacked on March 7, 1965

on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. History was

made in August 1965 with the passage of the landmark Voting

Rights Act (``VRA''), which sought to end racial

discrimination at the ballot box. Nearly five decades later,

in 2013, five justices of the Supreme Court gutted the VRA's

most powerful tool--the preclearance system. That system had

enabled the Justice Department and federal courts to block

proposed discriminatory voting restrictions in states with

well-documented histories of discrimination.

In the aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder decision,

North Carolina, Texas, and other jurisdictions previously

covered in whole or part by the VRA preclearance requirement

began to implement voter suppression laws. In striking down

the North Carolina law in 2016, the Fourth Circuit described

the law as ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina

has seen since the era of Jim Crow'' with provisions that

``target African Americans with almost surgical precision.''

There have been findings of intentional discrimination in at

least 10 voting rights decisions since Shelby County.

The Trump administration has only made matters worse by

damaging our democracy and institutions--from elections to

the census to the free press. The administration's assault on

voting rights can be seen in the creation of the sham Pence-

Kobach commission, a political ploy that was ultimately

discredited and disbanded. We also saw it in its defense of

Texas's discriminatory photo ID law and Ohio's voter purge

efforts. The Trump administration has not filed a single VRA

case, despite numerous recent state and local efforts to

block access to the ballot in communities of color. Yet the

Trump administration cited its need to enforce the VRA as its

justification for adding an untested citizenship question to

the 2020 Census--a justification that a federal judge

recently found to be pretextual and unlawful.

People turned out in record numbers during the 2018

election to reject this assault on voting rights and cast

their votes for democracy reform. Not only is this reflected

in the most diverse Congress in our nation's history, but

voters also cast their ballot to end gerrymandering and make

voting more accessible in red and blue states across the

country. However, many states continue to create barriers to

voting, and that is why H.R. 1 is so critical.

H.R. 1 would enhance and ensure democracy in America by:

Committing to restoring the Voting Rights Act: H.R. 1

contains a commitment to restoring the landmark VRA and

updating its preclearance provision, which is crucial to

ensuring that our political process functions fairly and

equitably. VRA restoration is being pursued on a separate

legislative track that will involve investigatory and

evidentiary hearings, thus enabling Congress to update the

preclearance coverage formula and develop a full record on

the continuing problem of racial discrimination in voting. In

2006, the VRA was reauthorized on a unanimous vote in the

Senate and a near-unanimous vote in the House. We need the

same type of broad and bipartisan support for restoring the

VRA today. Safeguarding democracy should not be a partisan

issue.

Restoring voting rights for formerly incarcerated people:

H.R. 1 would restore voting rights for people with felony

convictions, a necessary repudiation of our nation's

discriminatory and racially violent past. This would re-

enfranchise approximately 4.7 million voters nationwide.

Reforming felony disenfranchisement has bipartisan support;

last November, 65 percent of Florida voters cast their

ballots to restore the right to vote for over 1.4 million

people.

Reforming voter registration: In the November 2016

election, nearly 20 percent of people who were eligible but

did not vote cited registration hurdles as the main reason

for not voting. H.R. 1 would modernize America's voter

registration system and improve access to the ballot box by

establishing automatic voter registration (``AVR''), same day

registration (``SDR''), and online voter registration for

voters across the country, and by ensuring that all voter

registration systems are inclusive and accessible for people

with disabilities. AVR alone could add an estimated 50

million people to the voter rolls and SDR increases voter

turnout by roughly 10 percent.

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

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

Randolph Institute that allowed Ohio to conduct massive

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

elections. Such practices disproportionately target and

remove traditionally marginalized people from registration

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

Prohibiting deceptive practices and voter intimidation:

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

elections to hinder or discourage voting. This provision is

particularly important in an era in which Facebook and other

digital platforms have been readily manipulated to spread

misinformation about the time, place, and manner of voting to

vulnerable communities. The bill would also increase the

criminal penalties for intimidating a voter for the purpose

of interfering with their right to vote, or causing them to

vote for or against a candidate.

Banning voter caging: H.R. 1 would ban voter caging and

prevent challenges to voters' eligibility to vote by

individuals who are not election officials, unless the

challenge is accompanied by an oath under penalty of perjury

that the challenger has a good faith factual basis to believe

the person is ineligible to vote or register to vote.

Creating a federal holiday and ensuring early voting and

polling place notice: H.R. 1 would make Election Day a

federal holiday. It would also require at least 15

consecutive days of early voting, including weekends, in

federal elections and ensure that early voting polling places

are accessible by public transportation. The bill would also

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

if the state decides to change their polling place location.

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

battle against the extreme partisan gerrymandering our

country has witnessed in recent years, by requiring states to

draw congressional districts using independent redistricting

commissions that are bipartisan and reflect the demographic

diversity of the region. The bill would establish fair

redistricting criteria and ensure compliance with the VRA to

safeguard voting rights for communities of color.

Modernizing election administration: H.R. 1 would

reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission--an

independent, bipartisan commission that plays a vital role in

ensuring the reliability and security of voting equipment

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

election reliability and

security by requiring voter-verified permanent paper ballots

and enhanced poll worker recruitment and training. And H.R. 1

would prohibit state election administrators from taking an

active part in a political campaign over which they have

supervisory authority.

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

campaign finance and ethics reform. It would correct the

rampant corruption flowing from the corrosive power of money

in our elections. It would replace the current campaign

finance system that empowers the super-rich and big

corporations with one that relies on small donors and public

matching funds. It would end secret election spending and

force disclosure of all election-related spending. And it

would call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the

disturbing Citizens United decision that made it impossible

to restrict outside spending by corporations or billionaires.

In addition, H.R. 1 addresses our government ethics crisis

by, among other things, requiring the development of a code

of conduct for Supreme Court Justices to enhance

accountability on ethics and recusal issues; overhauling the

Office of Government Ethics to strengthen federal ethics

oversight; establishing more robust conflict of interest

requirements for government officials; prohibiting members of

Congress from using taxpayer dollars to settle allegations of

employment discrimination; and requiring presidents to

disclose their tax returns.

H.R. 1--the For the People Act--provides a North Star for

the democracy reform agenda. It is a bold, comprehensive

reform package that offers solutions to a broken democracy.

Repairing and modernizing our voting system goes hand in hand

with reforms that address the rampant corruption flowing from

the corrosive power of money in our elections, and reforms

that address the myriad ethical problems that plague all

three branches of the federal government. The reforms in H.R.

1 are necessary to advance racial justice and ensure that our

government works for all people, not just a powerful few. The

civil and human rights coalition is strongly committed to

expanding the franchise and fixing our democracy, and we urge

Congress to pass this historic legislation.

Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; AFL-

CIO; African American Ministers In Action; American

Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees;

American Federation of Teachers; Asian Americans Advancing

Justice; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO;

Brennan Center for Justice; Center for Community Self-Help;

Center for Constitutional Rights; Center for Responsible

Lending; CLASP; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Coalition

for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Common Cause.

Council on American-Islamic Relations; Demos; Fair

Elections Center; Faith in Public Life; Feminist Majority

Foundation; Franciscan Action Network; Hispanic Federation;

Human Rights Campaign; Justice for Migrant Women; Juvenile

Law Center; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law;

League of Conservation Voters; League of Women Voters; U.S.

MALDEF; Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Muslim Public Affairs Council; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense

and Educational Fund, Inc.; NARAL Pro-Choice America;

National Action Network; National Association of Social

Workers; National Center for Transgender Equality; National

Coalition for the Homeless; National Council of Jewish Women;

National Education Association; National Employment Law

Project.

National Employment Lawyers Association; National

Immigration Law Center; National Organization for Women;

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; People For the

American Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of America;

Prison Policy Initiative; Service Employees International

Union (SEIU); Sierra Club; UFCW Minority Coalition.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we have no additional speakers at this point.

I would just note that--and I understand the gentleman's points one through four. I completely agree. It is number five in your amendment that causes me concern about whether there is actually an undercutting of H.R. 1's disclosure requirements, and that is the concern we have and why I am so sorry that I cannot support the amendment.

I do think that we have a disagreement over disclosure. I don't understand why, because the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, recommended that to us, and we never followed up with Justice Scalia's admonition that we should have disclosure as a remedy for concern over unlimited money.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I understand, but the concern that has been expressed to me by a number of people who have read this, probably lawyers who spent more time on constitutional cases than I have, is that the concern is that this, as a part of the bill, would undercut the disclosure requirements that are established within it, and that is the reason we cannot come to an agreement.

This is a splendid amendment. It will do a lot to allow young people to channel their excitement and to understand they are important and they are going to be participating as voters when they turn 18. It works well with the amendment that will be offered by Mr. Neguse later that allows for preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds so that when they turn 18 they will automatically be registered to vote.

I know that there is some concern on both sides of the aisle about the idea of a 16-year-old preregistering, that change in the voting eligibility. We don't know how that amendment will turn out, but certainly these amendments would do much to make sure that young people are thoroughly connected to our government and understand that the government belongs to them and their families.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, nothing in H.R. 1 impacts any State law that requires an individual who has been convicted of an offense against a child staying away from a school. Luckily, we have vote-by-mail and early voting at county facilities in the bill, so that is really not a real issue.

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

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

This amendment aims to exempt States that have taken measures to increase voter turnout that are not subject to additional Federal voter registration mandates, and I think what it really does is undermine the progress that would be made under H.R. 1.

In November of 2016, the general election, nearly one in five people who were eligible to vote but who did not vote cited registration issues as their main reason for not casting a ballot.

H.R. 1 sets a national standard for voter registration and access to the ballot in Federal elections.

Now, an improvement in participation rates is fine, but it doesn't mean that proven programs, such as the automatic voter registration program, aren't necessary.

You know, automatic voter registration is not simply to increase turnout. It serves a more fundamental purpose: to protect the right to vote by removing bureaucracy and obstacles from the process of registering to vote.

Now, nearly every State that has implemented automatic voter registration has seen dramatically increased registration rates. High rates of voter registration are inherently healthy for a democracy.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter that I received just yesterday from Kate Brown, the Governor of Oregon.

State of Oregon,

March 6, 2019.

Dear Members of Congress: I write in strong support of H.R.

1, the For the People Act of 2019, which includes bold and

necessary reforms to strengthen our democracy, protect and

expand voting rights for all Americans, and improve campaign

finance laws. As the Governor of Oregon and former Secretary

of State, this is an issue that I--like many Americans--care

deeply about, and I urge you to vote in support of this

legislation.

Voting is our country's greatest collective responsibility,

and we must work continuously to safeguard the sanctity of

our elections. Across the country, the fundamental right of

voting itself is increasingly at risk. More states are moving

to obstruct voting rights than are increasing access to the

ballot. It's imperative that Congress take action to bolster

our democracy and fight every effort to undermine it by

ensuring that, as a country, we are making it easier, not

harder, for people to have their voices heard.

Several key provisions in H.R. 1 reflect the work that

Oregon has done to lead the way on expanding voter access,

including creating a national automatic voter registration

system, allowing citizens to register to vote online, and

expanding vote-by-mail.

As you know, Oregon was the first state to pass automatic

voter registration (AVR) in 2015. This law, combined with our

vote-by-mail election system, makes Oregon the most modern,

efficient, and secure state to vote in the country. Oregon's

AVR program has added nearly 400,000 voters to the state

rolls, already significantly increased voter turnout, and has

ensured 90 percent of eligible voters in our state are

registered.

Across the country, this success is being recognized and

replicated. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia

have since adopted some form of automatic voter registration.

These reforms have been successful in creating a stronger and

more inclusive democracy. And here in Oregon, it's supported

by both Democrats and Republicans.

Every eligible voter in the U.S. should have equal, easy

access to the ballot box, and I commend Congress for their

focus on this critical issue. This week, I urge you to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Governer Kate Brown.

Madam Chair, Governor Brown notes that Oregon was the first State to have automatic voter registration. It went into effect in 2015 and has added nearly 400,000 voters to the State rolls. Nearly 90 percent of eligible voters are, in fact, registered to vote. What that means is they can participate in our elections, which I think is very important.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the spirit with which this amendment is offered, but I disagree.

This is about Federal elections. The Constitution says that the Congress has the ability to promulgate laws about Federal elections.

The reason why we are looking at it is there have been States who have gone into AVR, they are grandfathered into the bill, but the problematic States are those States that are trying to suppress the vote, trying to keep people from voting, and we need to do something about that.

Madam Chair, while we are here, I do want to say something about, not the gentleman's comments, but the prior comments of the ranking member about the costs of the bill.

We have a score from CBO, and almost all the money that CBO has scored goes to grants to the States to upgrade their computer systems: $1.5 billion from 2019 to 2024; 750 for other computer assistance; and the other big amount is for making polling places accessible to disabled voters. So it is not about the other provisions in the bill.

I would also like to note, and I put this into the Record yesterday, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the fine and forfeiture fund that will go into the Freedom From Influence Fund is estimated to raise $1.948 billion between 2019 and 2029. They also estimate that it will reduce the deficit by $83 million, which is interesting, because it will deter people from cheating on their taxes. So the comments made about the money were simply incorrect.

I know that the Joint Committee on Taxation material is in the Record under general leave. I will make sure that the CBO report is also included.

Madam Chair, I would just end with this: I appreciate the tone of the gentleman's arguments and the intent of his amendment, but I do think it severely undercuts the advances that H.R. 1 would make.

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

Madam Chair, I think there has been a lot of talk about transparency today. We have had a transparent process in the committees, 15 hours of hearings, but this repeals a rider that was privately put on an appropriations bill by Republicans to prevent the SEC from doing something that they want to do.

Let's get real. I mean, this actually just undoes a secret rider on an appropriations bill. This is the way bad law gets made.

We are here in the middle of the day, in public, debating amendments, not secretly putting little riders on appropriations bills that hamstrung the SEC for making sure that there is sunlight on what corporations are doing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, just to note, Congress never intended for 501(c), for social welfare organizations to just be conduits for dark campaign spending.

In exchange for nonprofit status and tax exempt status, the law requires them to engage exclusively in the promotion of social welfare.

Now, how is that defined? The IRS was trying to get a bright line on that, but they were stopped by a secret rider put in an appropriations bill.

Obviously, the appropriation at large got votes from both sides of the aisle because you need to keep the government down. But that is not the way you legislate. That is a sneaky way to change the law.

To repeal this provision of H.R. 1 would be a huge mistake, because what we are doing is setting things right so that people know what they can do and what they can't do.

Yes, you can speak, but don't expect to get a tax break because you are speaking about politics. You get a tax break because you are doing charitable work.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I think this amendment improves the bill. It revises the election infrastructure grant program and includes an emphasis on increasing voter participation, in addition to the emphasis on improving election infrastructure that is currently included in H.R. 1.

I am especially pleased that it engages the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, which is really the premier agency to help us on technical issues. So I think it is a very good amendment.

And while I have the floor, I would like to note that I will include in the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO and a letter from the American Federation of Teachers urging support of H.R. 1.

Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the thoughtful comments made by the ranking member, but I do think this is a special situation, and it is why the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund is in support of this amendment.

As the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund has noticed, the practice of counting prison inmates as part of the district where the prison is located has a disproportionate impact on African American and Latino communities. That is because members of those communities, for a variety of other bad reasons, are incarcerated at higher rates and housed at prisons farther from their homes than other communities.

The gentleman from Illinois is correct. You may be counted in the census at your university dorm, but you can also vote from your university dorm. The inmates can't vote.

Actually, they are properly allocated to the communities where they are from. Doing otherwise has the impact of disenfranchising communities of color around the United States, and that is why this amendment is an important one and why the Brennan Center for Justice and the NAACP supports it.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I support this amendment, given the level of foreign interference in the elections in 2016 and 2018 and efforts to penetrate our voting systems. I think it makes sense that we use American-manufactured systems as well as software. But I would note this: this amendment is not proscriptive. It says that ``States shall seek to ensure.'' That is not a mandate to do it. Really, this is saying this is a good thing to do. I think it is a good thing to do.

While I have the microphone, I would like to note that we have just received

a letter from 27 religious institutions, including the Alliance of Baptists, African American Ministers In Action, the National Council of Churches, the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice and the Presbyterian Church in the United States, in favor of H.R. 1, which I include in the Record.

March 6, 2019.

Dear Representative: As national faith-based advocates and

congregations we urge passage of H.R. 1--the For the People

Act. Our organizations strive for policies and systems that

diminish inequality, support the most vulnerable, nurture

human potential, and protect the health and well-being of all

members of our society and of creation. We look to our

government to reflect those ideals and we support a strong

democracy:

. . . where voting is a fundamental right and a civic

responsibility.

. . . that serves the people rather than the private

interests of public officials and wealthy political donors.

. . . where our influence is based on the force of ideas,

not the size of our wallets.

. . . where people know who is trying to gain influence

over our representatives, who is trying to influence our

votes, and how and why policy is being made.

. . . that works to respond to the needs of all people and

their communities, building trust in governance and equity.

A broken democracy has clear and detrimental impacts on the

issues important to us. We are faithful advocates who work

within the existing political system, yet that system no

longer seems capable of contending with the big problems

facing our country, our communities, and our congregations.

The faith community offers witness to what is obvious to most

Americans: our democracy is out of balance.

The current system allows powerful corporate and wealthy

interests to regularly defy the foundational principles of

fairness, equity, ethics, accountability, and respect for the

rule of law. The unfortunate result is that our government

has become more responsive and accountable to wealthy

political donors than to the public. Today's broken

democratic system subjugates deeply held, age-old values to

the profit motive.

People of faith know that Washington is not representing

their best interests when millions of Americans who are

eligible to vote cannot do so because they are not

registered, voter ID laws are used as a tool to suppress the

vote, millions of Americans are disenfranchised due to a

felony conviction, and a number of states are improperly

purging eligible voters from the registration rolls.

People of faith know that Washington is not representing

their best interests when congressional districts are drawn

to achieve highly partisan results at the expense of fair

representation for citizens.

People of faith know that Washington is not representing

their best interests when ethics rules governing our highest

leaders and decision-makers are deeply flawed and are not

subject to proper oversight and enforcement.

People of faith know that Washington is more accountable to

corporate interests than to the public when they can spend

huge sums of money influencing our elections and our

government.

People of faith know that we can't fix the issues that the

faith community cares about the most--such as poverty,

immigration, climate change, racial justice and health care--

until we fix our democracy.

To that end, the undersigned national faith organizations

support H.R. 1, The For the People Act.

We recognize the historic opportunity our country faces to

repair our political system and, as people of faith, we are

hopeful in the possibility of renewal.

We applaud efforts to reform our election processes and our

governing politics so that the interests of all are served,

not just those with money.

We support attempts to restore ethical norms which inhibit

self-interested corruption on the part of lawmakers.

We support provisions that enhance the influence of low-

income and middle-income people on policy-making through

their vote and their engagement in the civic body.

We support campaign finance reforms that sustain and

encourage elected officials to serve their constituents and

to legislate on behalf of the common good.

We embrace reforms that favor accountability and

transparency in our government and in our lawmakers'

decision-making.

We urge Congress to seize this moment to pass the

comprehensive democracy reform H.R. 1.

Alliance of Baptists; African American Ministers In Action;

American Friends Service Committee; Church World Service;

Conference of Major Superiors of Men; Congregation of Our

Lady of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces; Disciples Center for

Public Witness; Ecumenical Poverty Initiative; Faith in

Action; Faith in Public Life; Franciscan Action Network;

Friends Committee on National Legislation; Islamic Society of

North America; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Leadership

Conference of Women Religious.

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good

Shepherd; National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund; National

Council of Churches; National Council of Jewish Women;

National Religious Campaign Against Torture; NETWORK Lobby

for Catholic Social Justice; Pax Christi USA; Presbyterian

Church (U.S.A.); South East Asian Faith Initiatives; United

Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; Unitarian

Universalist Association; Unitarian Universalists for Social

Justice (UUSJ).

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

This amendment clarifies that the election administration improvement grants that are in the bill may be used by localities or the States to implement and model best practices for ballot design, ballot instructions, and, I will say, testing of ballots, which is very important.

Most of the grants are really oriented towards computer systems, which is also very important, but I have seen some of these ballots where you could see why you could get confused; and, really, if you look at our friends in the tech world, you can design something so you vote yes or no just by the way the design is done.

Now, I think most of the ballot mistakes--there is no evidence it is by intention; it was just error. But you can create something so that people make a mistake.

The last thing we want for the most precious right that we have is for people to make inadvertent errors. We want people to cast their votes for whom they choose and then to have their vote counted for whomever it is they choose. It is that simple.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for the amendment. I think it is a good one.

Madam Chair, I commend Mr. Beyer and Mr. Butterfield for this amendment providing grants.

Over the period of time that the bill covers, this is actually a pretty small amount of money, and it is subject to appropriations.

I do think it is difficult to put a price on our democracy. We need to make sure that young people are involved from the get-go. We have seen that young people don't necessarily have the tools to become engaged in our democracy.

It is fine if our ranking member gave his instruction to his twins around the dinner table. I commend him for that. But not every person in America has been so fortunate, and we need every American to participate.

I would like to say that this amendment, coupled with Mr. Al Green's amendment for the pilot project and Mr. Neguse's amendment, which will come later in the proceedings, really does put on the agenda outreach to the young people of America to participate in our democracy.

I know that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have concerns about changing the voting age in this bill and want to study that further. For

those people, these amendments are going to create vigorous outreach to the young people of America so they can be participants, and I commend the gentlemen for offering it.

Madam Chair, first, I would like to thank Congressmen Brown and Crist for an excellent amendment that improves the bill considerably.

On the point just raised by the ranking member, the report given by the Joint Committee on Taxation was put into the Record yesterday, and it is their estimate of how much will be raised, and their estimate that we will reduce the deficit by $83 million.

We are waiting; the CBO is crunching numbers, which is hard to do because each amendment has to be crunched as we go along.

But I will say this: During the markup in the House Administration Committee, we did outline the vessel for the Freedom From Influence Fund. We didn't have the jurisdiction to do the assessment on criminal wrongdoing by corporations and tax cheats, but we did create the Freedom From Influence Fund, and we did create the step-down on the program if there is insufficient funding. So this is not a new thing.

I think it is sound policy.

Madam Chair, I just want to say how much I appreciate the amendment offered by Mr. Brown. It improves the bill by making sure that voters are notified, not just 7 days before the poll is moved, but before early voting begins, maximizing the opportunity to actually get to the poll.

Many Americans, right now, have a single day to vote, and if you are a working person, you may not even have time off, you may not even be able to get to the polling place. That is what H.R. 1 is all about.

And just getting to the federalism issue. Article I, section 4 explicitly says, ``Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations'' about Federal elections. That is what we are doing here.

We need to do more because there are jurisdictions in our country that are specifically trying to prevent people from voting based on race. That is why we have got the Voting Rights Act that

is going to be coming later. We are compiling the evidentiary record for the Voting Rights Act right now.

But this bill just relates to Federal elections which we have jurisdiction to do. We need to make sure that the efforts to keep people from exercising their right to vote in Federal elections are defeated. That is what H.R. 1 is about. That is what Mr. Brown's amendment is about, and I am grateful to him for offering it.

Madam Chair, I would like to commend the gentleman for this amendment.

When you make a phone call in to complain about harassment or intimidation, that information may or may not ever become known, so this is really a pro-transparency measure.

The amendment says: ``together with a description of actions taken in response to such instances of voter intimidation or suppression.''

The State legislatures may not know, we may not know how many efforts are being made. We should know that to see whether what we have done here is sufficient, whether the Voting Rights Act that will be following along this bill later in the spring needs to address this.

Madam Chair, this is an excellent amendment.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, it is a good amendment because it allows the FEC to be represented in an effective way.

As to the underlying bill, I can't think of another agency of the Federal Government, commission, where you have an even number. Most have an uneven number so you don't have deadlocks.

We are deadlocked at the FEC. They are dead in the water.

Is it because of bipartisanship? Right now there are two Republican commissioners, one Democratic commissioner, one independent commissioner, and two vacancies. They can't make a decision.

There are backlogged cases that go on for years. This is really a disservice to America to not be able to play that cop on the beat, because it is a completely dysfunctional agency.

We need to change that. And that is what the underlying bill does. It allows a nonpartisan career staff to make initial fundings. It provides that there can be no more than two commissioners in the same party, so we are not going to have a partisan takeover. And then it allows the commission to overrule the nonpartisan staff, if necessary.

We need reform at the FEC. This amendment is part of it, and I credit the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Massachusetts for simply an excellent amendment. This strengthens the provisions in the underlying bill to make sure that agents of foreign principals would have no role in these commissions.

I think it is important that we understand that the citizens who serve on these commissions have no agenda, not for one party or the other, and certainly not for some foreign country.

It is really a very good amendment. I am so glad that she offered it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say what a smart amendment this is, and I am so grateful that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts has taken the time to put this together.

We all care about our men and women in the armed services, to make sure they are treated fairly. But over the years we have been here, none of us came up with this amendment before this evening.

I really thank the gentlewoman. Great kudos to her. We are lucky that she is a Member of our House of Representatives.

Like the ranking member, I will be happy to vote ``aye'' on this amendment. I think it is very important, and I am grateful to the gentlewoman for offering it.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentleman of the recycled ballot amendment that had passed earlier today relative to the issue of cutting down trees.

Mr. Chairman, this just goes to show how lucky we are that someone with the background of Congresswoman Spanberger has been elected to the House. With her background in the CIA, we gain a special expertise on issues of national security.

You know, States don't have a CIA, they don't have an NSA, and if foreign actors are attacking us, they are not in a position to find that out.

I think that the gentlewoman from Virginia understands the workings of our national security agencies and the importance of giving them metrics on what to do and with whom so that we are completely safe.

Mr. Chair, I am so delighted that she has offered this very smart amendment, and I look forward to approving it, and I thank her so much for the wisdom that she brings to the House.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chair, I join in the celebration of the new Members of this House of Representatives. The gentlewoman from Michigan has experience in preserving our national security. Not everyone who is here serving has done what she has done, and the gentlewoman who preceded her.

Our body is richer because of the experience that they have brought to this Congress, and I think this excellent amendment really is a product of the expertise that she brings to this institution.

I am grateful for her amendment. I look forward to joining the ranking member in approving it and in celebrating her service to our country here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019.

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

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 will begin the process of returning the government to the people. Many provisions of H.R. 1 have been pending and ignored for years in this House. No more.

H.R. 1 has been the subject of hearings in five committees and 15 hours of testimony from witnesses. Throughout these hearings, we have heard our Republican friends bemoan a rushed process when, in fact, they had 8 years to consider these proposals but failed to do so.

Today, we deliver on our promise to the American people. H.R. 1 is critically important at this point in our history.

Trust in government and in many institutions has eroded because of years of putting profit before the people and letting politicians pick their voters.

Dark money has been allowed to poison our system, drowning out the voices of the very people who we were sent here to represent.

Access to the ballot box has been impeded by arbitrary obstacles that have made voting a privilege, not a right.

Without trust, our representative system suffers. Too many Americans view themselves as shut out from our democracy. Others cannot participate because of election administration procedures that fail to account for how Americans live and work in the 21st century.

Some of these barriers make it harder for certain populations, including communities of color and other underrepresented groups, to vote. This is especially the case after the Supreme Court gutted core provisions of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision has further empowered wealthy special interests and ushered in nearly a billion dollars in money from undisclosed sources, even though the Court affirmed the importance of disclosure by a vote of 8 to 1.

H.R. 1 reverses course and strengthens our democracy and makes it easier and more convenient for all eligible Americans to vote. It offers solutions to the dominance of big money in politics, and it ensures public officials will work in the public interest.

One of the things that has been discussed is the proposal for a freedom from influence fund that will allow for small donors to reclaim control of candidates through $200 or less donations.

I want to make it clear that no taxpayer funds are permitted to flow into this freedom from influence fund. Instead, as was approved in our last vote, a modest additional assessment of 2.75 percent on Federal fines, penalties, and settlements for certain tax crimes and corporate malfeasance will be the sole source of funding for this freedom from influence fund. In fact, the bad guys will be funding the clean system.

This bill will lower barriers to voting for all eligible Americans. It will save costs, bolster the integrity of election administration, and, for example, it will modernize voter registration systems by enabling automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration, taking advantage of technology to ensure all Americans can register and update their voter registration status online. Automatic voter registration, alone, may bring up to 50 million new American citizens onto the rolls and, therefore, able to vote.

It makes improvements to ensure ballot access for voters with disabilities as well as our overseas and military voters.

It ensures early voting for at least 15 days and will require States to use voter-verified paper ballots. This is a commonsense safeguard to cybersecurity threats, especially after the 2016 election showed vulnerabilities in our system.

H.R. 1 will reform redistricting to ensure fairness in the process to guard against partisanship and respect communities of interest.

This legislation will shine a light on dark secret money that influences campaigns and will protect everyone's right to know who is influencing their votes and their views.

As I mentioned earlier, it provides an alternative voluntary system for candidates to finance their campaigns by empowering small dollar contributors all without taxpayer money. This will reduce candidates' reliance on wealthy special interests and open the political process to more people. This will create a government for the people.

H.R. 1 will also implement high ethical standards and boost confidence in self-government.

It has been said that we should not take these steps, but Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress may, by law, regulate votes in Federal elections.

It is time that we take this step. Democracy is resilient, but it requires our continual work to ensure that it lives up to its promise.

H.R. 1 is a major, comprehensive step forward, a step that we must take if we are to be true to our promise of our representative government.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a pioneer and leader in clean government.

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

I have to note that the last speaker failed to read the entire section. Article I, section 4 says: ``The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof;'' as was mentioned. And it then goes on to say, ``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. . . . `' And that is what we are doing here.

Why? Because we have seen in States throughout the country efforts to prevent people from voting in Federal elections. And so a voter in one State is treated differently than in another State, and that is what we are going to change with H.R. 1.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a valued Member of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has served so faithfully on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the one person who probably has worked harder than anyone else on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a leader for civil rights and justice in our country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

I yield the gentleman from Washington an additional 30 seconds.

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

Before yielding to the gentlewoman from Michigan, I would just like to quote one of the most conservative justices, who said that ``the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election.'' That was in the Citizens United decision.

Now, I didn't agree with that decision, but the court posited that the solution to the dark money that they were unleashing on the country was disclosure, and that is what this bill does.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I would just like to say that saying it is tax money does not make it so. We have prohibited appropriations into the freedom from influence fund. The total source of funding is a 2.75 percent assessment on people who have committed tax crimes or corporate malfeasance.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chair, before yielding to the gentleman from New Jersey, I would like to just address a couple of simple points.

The DISCLOSE Act really pivots off the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. And as they said in that decision: Disclaimer and disclosure requirements impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities and do not prevent anyone from speaking.

Concern has been expressed about the ability to remain private. That is provided for in this bill. It is simple. If you don't want to be disclosed, note that your donation is not for campaign purposes, and you will not be disclosed.

Further, there is an express protection provided for any donor who fears that they may face threat of harassment or reprisal. So we have thought of this, and this was dealt with in our markup.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Haaland).

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the prime author of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to make a couple of observations and perhaps corrections.

It has been alleged that somehow the assessment on tax crimes and corporate malfeasance has been transformed into taxpayer money--I think that is clearly incorrect--but that if the money is insufficient, then the taxpayers would be on the hook.

When we marked up the bill in the House Administration Committee, we outlined how the money would be reduced if there were not enough money in the fund; and in section 5101(f)(3), it talks about mandatory reductions of payments in the voucher program. In 541(d)(2), it talks about mandatory reductions in the congressional program and Presidential and so on, if there were insufficient funds.

So there is no way under the terms of this bill that the taxpayers could ever be on the hook for these funds, and I think it is important to know that.

I want to talk a little bit about the concern about free speech.

I am an advocate of free speech. I think we all are and honor our Constitution here in the House of Representatives. But the ACLU has a storied history of litigating constitutional issues. They have done good work, but we have differed on our approach to campaign finance law, particularly on how to shine a light on secret, dark money in elections.

The ACLU has opposed applying disclosure laws to organizations spending money on electioneering communications, which are paid ads that mention candidates in the days leading up to the election.

As we have mentioned earlier, the Court, in Citizens United, said the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate before an election and pointed out that disclosure does not prevent speech. I think that is one of the reasons why we have

gotten a marvelous letter from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, which I include in the Record.

National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People,

Washington, DC, March 4, 2019.

Re NAACP strong support for H.R. 1, legislation to greatly

improve and expand the democratic voting process

Hon. U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's

oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based

civil rights organization, I would like to urge you, in the

strongest terms possible to support through passage H.R. 1

and to oppose any weakening amendments. This legislation will

expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the

discriminatory influence of big money in politics, prevent

voter fraud, and strengthen ethics rules and accountability

for public servants. H.R. 1 is supported and celebrated by

the NAACP: since our founding in 1909, free and unfettered

access to the ballot for all eligible Americans, and the

assurance that our vote has been counted, has been a critical

driver behind all that we do.

H.R. 1 represents a coordinated effort to protect and

promote the voting rights of all Americans. This vital

legislation includes many of the tools the NAACP has

identified throughout our nation as improving voter turn-out

and successful voter participation: it includes provisions to

establish on-line and automatic voter registration. H.R. 1

would require early voting in all states; voting would have

to start at least 15 days before an election, including

weekends. H.R. 1 would require same-day voter registration on

election-day and during early voting. Under a provision in

H.R. 1, states would be prohibited from restricting an

individuals' ability to vote by mail. H.R. 1 would require

that ``provisional ballots'' be counted and provides

assistance to states and localities in improving the

provisional ballot process. The measure would prohibit voter

caging, voter deception and voter intimidation. H.R. 1 also

promotes voter registration via the internet and establishes

a strict code of ethics for all federally elected and

appointed officials, including the President, the Vice

President, his cabinet, and every Member of Congress, so we

are not constantly distracted by the ``scandal of the day.''

H.R. 1 would also re-enfranchise ex-felony offenders who

have served their sentence and have been released from

prison. Because voting is such an integral part of being a

productive member of American society, the NAACP has

advocated strongly to allow felons who are no longer

incarcerated to reintegrate themselves into society and vote

in federal elections.

H.R. 1 also begins to fix the damage done to the crucial

1965 Voting Rights Act by the US Supreme Court decision in

Shelby v. Holder. The legislation specifically states that

Congress is committed to reversing the effects of the 2013

Supreme Court decision which effectively invalidated a

requirement that certain states and jurisdictions receive

federal preclearance on changes to voting procedures. Prior

to the Shelby decision preclearance was required for states

and local jurisdictions that had a history of voter

discrimination.

The measure would state that Congress should respond by

modernizing the electoral system to improve access to the

ballot, enhance voting integrity and security, ensure greater

accountability, and restore protections for voters. Finally,

but no less importantly, H.R. 1 contains strong provisions to

bring about genuine campaign finance reform measures which

will withstand the scrutiny of the Courts.

The NAACP strongly supports H.R. 1. This is not a partisan

issue: the right to vote should be supported by all Americans

who believe in democracy. We should be making voting and

involvement in the democratic process easier, not throwing up

barriers which may seem insurmountable to whole groups of

eligible voters. Should you have any questions or comments,

please do not hesitate to contact me at my office.

Sincerely,

Hilary O. Shelton,

Director, NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President

for Policy and Advocacy.

Mr. Chair, I will not read the entire letter, but it does say this:

``Dear Representative,

``On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest, largest, and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil rights organization, I would like to urge you, in the strongest terms possible, to support through passage H.R. 1 and to oppose any weakening amendments.''

It goes on to say: ``This legislation will expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the discriminatory influence of big money in politics, prevent voter fraud, and strengthen ethics rules and accountability for public servants. H.R. 1 is supported and celebrated by the NAACP.''

I would urge us to support this bill and listen to the advice that we have received from the NAACP on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House, representing San Francisco.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would like to wrap up, I will also wrap up.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill for many reasons. We have seen all over the United States efforts to prevent Americans from being able to vote, from moving polling places out of a jurisdiction without any public transportation so voters can't get there, to reducing early voting, to voter ID requirements that have a disparate result and disadvantage young people. For example, in Texas you can show your hunting license but not your University of Texas ID. I think there is a rationale behind that.

We have had enough. We believe that American citizens ought to be able to vote and that we should do everything in Federal elections as the Constitution provides to allow those American citizens to vote.

That is why this bill provides for at least 15 days of early voting for Federal elections, no-excuse absentee ballots, that provisional ballots are treated uniformly so a voter in one State is treated the same way as a voter in another State when they are voting for the House of Representatives. We want to improve access for voters with disabilities and for overseas and military voters.

We know that we are vulnerable to hacking. We have voting machines that are using software that is no longer even updated. They are vulnerable to hacking. We have got to have paper ballots that are subject to a recount.

Much has been said about elements of this, but one of the things that I think is very important is the Federal congressional redistricting provisions. If there is one thing that makes Americans upset it is politicians manipulating the districts so that even if they don't get the votes, they get to win the seats. That is gerrymandering. This bill does away with it for the House of Representatives.

It requires all States to establish independent redistricting commissions for the purpose of developing and enacting congressional redistricting plans. It exempts States that meet the minimum requirements, including the State of Arizona, contrary to one of the comments made earlier here today.

There has been a lot of discussion about money, but I will include in the Record the preliminary report we have received from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The estimate of the proposed 2.75 percent special assessment on criminal penalties and civil penalties is that it would raise $1.948 billion between 2019 and 2029 and that it would reduce the deficit by $83 million because people would be deterred by the additional penalty. That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation. I didn't make that up.

So this bill has a lot of sound provisions in it. It discloses big money so that there is transparency, as the court in Citizens United suggested that we do. It empowers small donors so the big money guys don't own the government. It reforms the ethics process for the President, the Congress, and for the judiciary.

I am sorry to say that some candidates win only when they suppress the vote, and we have seen that happen across the United States. We are not going to allow that to happen. Every American has a right to vote, to have their vote counted and let the chips fall where they may. That is what H.R. 1 will do.

Mr. Chairman, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would just note that the ballot harvesting issue, I think, has very little to do with the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings and that the remedy that has been suggested by my friend, Mr. Davis, was to use the system that was in place in North Carolina. Obviously, that didn't work. The remedy to fraud is prosecution, which is what is happening in North Carolina.

I would note that, as we mentioned at the Rules Committee last night, in California, you can give your ballot that is sealed not only to your son, but to your next-door neighbor. You might be an elderly person who doesn't have family around.

There has been no credible allegation of fraud, and we had monitors from both the Republican and Democratic parties, people from House Administration. There was no credible allegation of a problem.

Mr. Chair, let's not compare apples and oranges. Let's support Mr. Hastings' amendment.

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

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

The gentleman's amendment to H.R. 1 would keep in place a provision of law that was inserted into must-pass pieces of legislation over the past few years. It makes it harder for voters to follow the money when it comes to government contractors and political spending.

The amendment is anathema to the purposes of H.R. 1, which is to bolster confidence and trust in the American Government and shine a light on secret spending in elections. The gentlemen's amendment would further the status quo of dark money in our elections, and it would protect a culture of pay-to-play politics that Americans reject.

Republicans in Congress, as Mr. Cole has mentioned, first included this language in the 2012 appropriations bill, then the 2014 appropriations bill, and finally in the 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

H.R. 1, in title IV, subtitle G, repeals the restriction on requiring disclosure of campaign-related spending by those submitting an offer for a Federal contract. Repealing this restriction will curb the appearance of corruption that can go along with campaign-related money in government contracts. It will shine a light on dark money in politics.

Americans have a right to know who is trying to influence them with political advertisements and campaign spending and what big campaign spenders want from the government in return.

The Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on Federal contracts. Campaign-related spending should have nothing to do with influencing a contract, and disclosure will protect the integrity of the process and curb any appearance of corruption.

After the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in 2010, undisclosed sources have spent more than $950 million in dark money to influence Federal elections, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The money flows through a complex web of corporations, dark money, nonprofit organizations, super-PACs, and other groups. When money from

government contractors enters this web, it poses the exact type of threat to the integrity of our democratic system that our campaign finance laws are intended to protect against.

While Federal law prohibits contracting entities from contributing to political candidates and parties, their directors, officers, and other affiliates could still give unlimited sums of dark money to groups that do not disclose their campaign-related donors, and that is why H.R. 1 would repeal the restriction on disclosure.

The court held 8 to 1 in Citizens United that ``The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.''

The public has a right to follow the money, including money from government contractors to dark-money groups that did not disclose their spending.

H.R. 1 ensures disclosure and transparency, both of which are critical to open and responsive democracy that protects the public interest. And this amendment, although I am sure well-intentioned, takes us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that when a rider is added to the appropriations bill, you have to vote for the whole package to keep the government open.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require applicants for motor vehicle licenses to indicate whether they previously resided in a different State and which State the applicant intends to be their residence for the purpose of voter registration. I think it could be helpful in terms of preventing registrations in two States. However, it is potentially redundant with other provisions in H.R. 1.

When all States implement automatic voter registration, States will transmit change of address duplicate license information electronically and wouldn't need to collect this information from individuals.

Further, States are able to use a reliable set of data for sharing information on registered voters, called the Electronic Registration Information Center, established originally by the Pew Charitable Trusts, currently utilized by 26 States--by the way, including Arizona--so it has a very high accuracy rate.

Nevertheless, redundancy is our friend, and I certainly do not oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I withdraw my motion for the Committee to rise.

I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication and commitment of William G. Morin as a technology policy leader and champion of the Silicon Valley innovation ecosystem who retired from Applied Materials on February 1, 2019 after representing the company for more than 23 years in Washington, D.C.

With a history degree from Pennsylvania State University, Mr. Morin chose to launch his career in the service of our nation. He trained intensively as an Arabic linguist and intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army and was posted to the Presidio in Monterey. This gave Bill his first taste of California and forged lifelong links to the region that would become Silicon Valley. Following four years of service in the military, he joined the National Association of Manufacturers where he worked to create American jobs by advancing intellectual property, trade and technology policy.

In 1996, Bill joined the small team of R. Wayne Sayer and Associates, one of the first Washington firms specializing in issues to support the rapidly expanding U.S. high technology industry and began to represent Applied Materials. In 2002, he opened and led Applied's first direct office in Washington, D.C. Over the years, he advocated for public policy that would allow high-tech manufacturers like Applied to maintain a strong footprint in the United States while accessing fast- growing overseas markets and reinvesting in the innovation and R&D that would ensure American leadership in technology. The policies he advocated for on behalf of Applied Materials helped it develop into a major U.S. manufacturer and exporter, a world leader in materials engineering solutions and a model Silicon Valley corporate citizen.

Madam Speaker, upon Bill's departure from our nation's capital, he has wisely chosen to spend his retirement in California, returning to the shores of Monterey Bay where he began his career. I congratulate Bill on his retirement, for his service to our country and for his service to Applied Materials where his contributions helped open the world's markets to the innovations of Silicon Valley.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Eastside Church of God in Christ (Eastside Church), whose ministry serves the City of San Jose through service and prayer. On February 17, 2019, the Eastside Church will celebrate a true milestone, its 50th anniversary. I would like to commend the Eastside Church for its half a century of fellowship and leadership in the San Jose community.

Founded by Pastor and Superintendent Sherman Harris, the Eastside Church has been at the heart of its members most important priorities-- family and faith. It serves to inspire, uplift and gather all those who seek a deeper connection with God, and their community. It offers an opportunity to worship in community with others and serve others.

In 1979, Eastside Church moved to the East San Jose after outgrowing their previous location. The Church quickly became a beacon of hope and help to the Eastside through their Outreach Ministry, providing clothing and household goods for families in need and their Food Ministry Program, which distributes boxes of food to over 100 families on a weekly basis. They take special care to provide resources and activities for children in the community with the Back to School backpack program and the Sherman Harris Youth Center. The Center offers pre-school for low-income families, sports facilities and a venue for community functions.

Through its decades of service, Eastside Church has earned its place as a trusted source of hope and comfort in the San Jose community. As the Eastside Church of God in Christ enjoys its 50th Golden Anniversary Celebration, I join in congratulating them and wishing them the best for the next 50 years and beyond.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Ms. Patricia Gardner and commend

her on her career and contributions to our community.

Ms. Gardner worked as a nonprofit executive manager for over two decades before she joined Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (``SVCN'') as CEO in 2001. Under her leadership, SVCN followed its mission to foster and magnify the influence and contribution of nonprofit agencies and business in Santa Clara County. SVCN works to help our community by assisting individuals and families who are disenfranchised and who struggle to meet basic needs. SVCN also helps guide our local nonprofits through difficult financial times and to build up their capacity to become better service providers. As SVCN increasingly became an important voice with the nonprofit sector, local foundations, and local and state governments, it expanded from a small group of fewer than 50 agencies and a budget of under $100,000 to representing over 200 agencies and a budget of over a million dollars.

In addition to her role with SVCN, Ms. Gardner was actively involved in a variety of local concerns to our community. Among other things, she served on a number of key policy committees, including the Blue Ribbon Committee on Housing and Homelessness, the City of San Jose and County Senior Nutrition Task Forces, the Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative, the City of San Jose General Fund Structural Deficit Committee, and the Measure A-Hospital Bond Oversight Committee.

Ms. Gardner received recognition for her service in our community. Senator, then-Assemblyman, Jim Beall, selected her as Woman of the Year, and the local nonprofit, United Way, named her Community Builder of the Year in 2011. The following year, Community Solutions awarded the Community Builder Award to SVCN for Ms. Gardner's advocacy to preserve funding for essential services. In 2018, Ms. Gardner received the Siempre Award from Grail Family Service and the Alumni of the Year award from the San Jose State University's College of Social Sciences-- Political Science. The San Jose Business Journal added Ms. Gardner to its Women of Influence list, and she is generally known across our state as one of the leaders in nonprofit advocacy.

I have known Ms. Patricia Gardner for over forty years. She is efficient, capable, organized and a leader. But most of all, she is a caring human being whose passion for justice and compassion have led her to a life of service to others. I feel privileged to know her as a friend and fortunate to live in a community that is healthier and more fair because of her service.

I wish to congratulate Ms. Gardner on her career. Today we honor her for her leadership and advocacy in our community. I wish her the best of luck in exploring her next chapter as she transitions to her next pursuit.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 41 to reject White nationalism and White supremacy. I applaud Mr. Clyburn and the House for acting against hate speech. Representative King has rightly been stripped of committee assignments by his colleagues, but today's vote has been a long time coming. His latest comments were not the first time Representative King has made ugly, offensive, demeaning, and unashamedly racist remarks. Unfortunately, for more than a decade now, House Republican leadership did nothing while Representative King freely espoused white nationalism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry. Today, under Democratic Leadership, the House is taking appropriate action against a member of the House who has time and again promoted hate speech in Congress and Republicans have finally acted to impose discipline for miscount. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 41 to reject Representative King's racism, bigotry, and hate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Kenny Foreman, who passed away on December 16, 2018. I spoke three years ago on the impact he made on Santa Clara County and it saddens me that he has left us so soon. He was a beloved member of our community whose passing is deeply felt.

Pastor Kenny Foreman dedicated his life to the ministry. He started to travel the country at age seventeen as an evangelist minister. With his wife, Shirley, he continued his commitment to his beliefs and established the Cathedral of Faith in 1965. Since then Pastor Foreman was a pillar in our community's spiritual life. He has touched thousands of lives with a congregation of more than 12,000 members with over 70 ministries.

As his life's work, the Cathedral of Faith, serves the spiritual needs of the community and gives help to those in need. One of the ministries, ``Reaching Out,'' is a food assistance program that operates one of the largest and most efficient food programs in the State of California. Their mission is to serve the low-income, disadvantaged, and homeless in Santa Clara County. Other ministries serve those recently released from incarceration, give support to those with addiction, and aid parents with children who have special needs. These programs are just a few that support our community and are emblematic of Pastor Foreman's life-long service to others.

I first met and worked with Kenny Foreman nearly forty years ago. I know personally of his love for God and his dedication to our community and especially to those in need. He was a remarkable man and someone I was privileged to consider a friend.

Pastor Kenny Foreman is survived by sons, Ken and Kurt; their mother, Shirley; four grandchildren; two great-grandchildren; and countless friends. Mr. Speaker, our Santa Clara County community mourns his passing, but we are grateful for his life, his generosity, and contributions. He has left our world a better place and will be dearly missed.