[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-256 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
MARKUP OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019, OR A RELATED MEASURE, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
(Chairperson of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Zoe Lofgren, Jamie Raskin, Susan
Davis of California, G.K. Butterfield, Marcia L. Fudge, Pete
Aguilar, Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mark Walker, and Barry
Loudermilk.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Majority Staff Director; Eddie
Flaherty, Director of Operations; Sean Jones, Legislative
Clerk; David Tucker, Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian;
Elizabeth Hira, Elections Counsel; Stephen Spaulding, Elections
Counsel; Khalil Abboud, Chief Elections Counsel; Veleter
Mazyck, Chief of Staff, Office of Representative Fudge; Mariam
Malik, Staff Assistant; and Jen Daulby, Minority Staff
Director.
The Chairperson. A quorum being present, the Committee will
come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time, and we know that we have a couple of
members on their way, but the Ranking Member assures me it is
fine to begin.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 4 and clause 2(h)(4) of House
Rule XI, the Chair announces that she may postpone further
proceedings today when a recorded vote is ordered on the
question of approving a measure or a matter or on adopting an
amendment and so let us begin.
The Committee meets today to consider H.R. 1, The For the
People Act. I would like to thank the members for their
participation in our hearing two weeks ago. I would like to
also thank our colleague from Maryland, Representative John
Sarbanes, for his work on developing these reforms to our
democracy.
H.R. 1 makes it easier, not harder, to vote. It ends the
dominance of big money interests in our politics and it ensures
public officials work in the public interest. Today, the
Committee will consider just areas of the proposal that are
within the jurisdiction of this Committee.
I have consulted with the Office of the House
Parliamentarian on making these determinations and believe, and
they concur, that my amendment in the nature of a substitute
fairly reflects the jurisdictional limits that are provided for
in House Rules.
We will consider automatic voter registration. That could
add up to 50 million new voters to the polls. We will consider
same-day registration and protection against improper voting
purging. We will also consider improvements to ballot access
for voters with disabilities as well as overseas and military
voters.
H.R. 1 will also require States to use voter-verified,
paper ballots, and we authorize grants to States to do so. We
will require early voting for at least 15 days and prohibit any
condition on absentee voting. Furthermore, we will give States
additional resources to train poll workers.
H.R. 1 establishes new disclosure requirements so that the
American people know who is trying to influence their
elections. We also establish new requirements to make sure
people know who is paying for political advertisements, whether
on television or online. And we make those funders stand by
their ads.
We also establish a completely voluntary system of public
financing for Congressional and Presidential campaigns, and as
my amendment makes clear, no appropriated--in other words,
taxpayer--funds will be used to support political campaigns.
We will fix the Federal Elections Commission. It is no
secret that the FEC is one of the most dysfunctional agencies
of our government. By changing the composition of the
Commission and establishing a blue-ribbon advisory panel to
recommend Commissioners, we will put a cop back on the campaign
finance enforcement beat.
H.R. 1 was introduced on January 3rd, 55 days ago. The
House has had five hearings on H.R. 1 in five different
Committees with over 15 hours of testimony from bipartisan
experts.
I hope today's markup will be fruitful and we will consider
amendments on matters within our jurisdiction. It is my
intention to keep the process moving along cordially and
fairly, and I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for
any opening statement he may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren. It
is great to serve with you. I appreciate the process,
appreciate my colleagues on both sides of this dais.
The greatest threat to our Nation's election system is
partisanship. H.R. 1 was drafted to serve the special interest
of Democrats and the outside organizations that support the
Democratic Party. It was created without any input from even
just us three Republican Members of Congress on this Committee,
let alone any other Republicans that represent districts from
across this Nation in the House of Representatives and also
without the consultation of officials or election
administrators.
In fact, there isn't a single Republican cosponsor. H.R. 1
is a prime example of the Democratic Party telling States that
the Federal Government knows better than they do, and the
Washington, D.C., swamp is taking over the country's election
system.
This legislation overreaches our Constitution. It violates
a citizen's basic free speech rights under the First Amendment,
such as expressing displeasure with the electoral process by
not participating.
H.R. 1 also overreaches our Constitution by taking the
power away from States to decide how their elections should be
administered, States that know their residents' elections needs
much better than a Federal bureaucracy does.
H.R. 1 forces a nationwide approach that will be costly and
ineffective. H.R. 1 will weaken our voting system by
centralizing the voting process, creating unsurmountable
vulnerabilities. This bill disregards safeguards upon
implementing many new registration requirements and voting
practices.
We should absolutely--absolutely--be in favor of increasing
access to polls, but without adding the necessary checks and
balances to ensure these practices are protected, we are
opening the door for fraud in our election system. A few
fraudulent votes can change the outcome of a single election,
something I can personally attest to. Out of everyone here on
this Committee, I had the closest election results in the 2018
election and probably every other election in my career since I
represent a much more bipartisan district than everyone on this
Committee. In the 2018 election, I won by 0.8 points, 2,058
votes. Almost got me. It is okay.
There is not as much room for error in my district as there
are for some of you. I know my good friend Congresswoman Fudge
won by 64 points. I don't know what that is like.
Ms. Fudge. Is that all?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. That was it. Chairperson Lofgren won
by 48 points. When you live in a competitive district, every
single vote makes a difference between winning and losing. If
we pass these new voter registration practices in H.R. 1
without creating safeguards around the practices to ensure we
eliminate the possibility of fraudulent voting, we risk taking
away the choice of the American people who voted fairly. If we
leave any room for fraud in the system, we take away the voice
of each American voter.
American voters have the Constitutional right to choose
their Representative. In the case of Reynolds v. Sims, the
Supreme Court stated the right of suffrage can be denied by a
debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just
as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of
the franchise.
Democrats boast that H.R. 1 is for the people. Yet they are
failing the people by not doing their due diligence to ensure
that H.R. 1 will protect each American's vote. When H.R. 1 was
introduced, it was referred to 10 House Committees who were
each designated to have jurisdiction over areas of this bill
and out of those 10, only 5 committees have held hearings on
H.R. 1, and out of those 5, this Committee is the only one to
hold a markup.
Speaker Pelosi has made it clear that they want to advance
H.R. 1 as soon as possible, even sending out a Dear Colleague
letter declaring it would advance to the Floor this month. It
is not a leap year. I doubt it is going to happen.
My colleagues across the aisle insist that H.R. 1 is their
serious effort for election reform but they are imprudently
rushing to get this 571-page bill to the Floor without ensuring
the Committees of jurisdiction have time to properly review and
amend it.
This process of review on H.R. 1 has been so rushed; we
still have no CBO score to determine how much this mammoth
legislation is going to cost. We don't even have a preliminary
estimate. H.R. 1's campaign match provisional loan will be an
outrageous mandatory cost to the American taxpayers.
H.R. 1 is creating public subsidies through the 6-to-1
government match on small-dollar contributions of up to $200.
For every $200, the Federal Government will pay $1,200 of
taxpayer money to a political campaign.
The Democratic Members of this Committee received roughly
$800,000 in small-dollar contributions this last election
cycle. That would be $5 million taxpayer dollars going to their
campaigns. Imagine if every Member of Congress, not counting
all the candidates in each race, just the 435 Members, received
a million dollars in matched funds from the Federal Government.
That is a half a billion dollars that are going to subsidize
political campaigns. Welcome to campaign-finance socialism.
Election reform should be bipartisan. I hope my colleagues
on this panel will consider voting in favor of the amendments
we are introducing today so that we may put forth legislation
that is meant to serve the people and not serve the interest of
one party.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time that I
don't have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I
will just note, for the record, that we certainly welcome the
minority to participate in finalizing this bill. That is why we
are having this markup today. The bill has been posted online
and available for review for 55 days, and I have read it three
times. I don't have a photographic memory, but I certainly am
aware at this point of the outlines of it.
I would now ask that the opening statements of all other
Members be included in the record without objection and would
like to call up H.R. 1. The clerk shall report the title of the
legislation.
The Clerk. H.R. 1, To expand Americans' access to the
ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and
strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other
purposes.
The Chairperson. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with, and without objection, the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The Chair now recognizes herself to offer
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment has
been made available in advance and is in front of each member,
and the clerk shall designate the amendment.
The Clerk. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 1, offered by Ms. Lofgren of California. Strike all after
the enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1, short
title----
The Chairperson. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read and be considered as original text for
purposes of amendment and shall be open for amendment at any
point.
[The amendment of The Chairperson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. I would now recognize myself for the
purpose of offering an amendment. This amendment has been made
available in advance and is in front of each Member. The clerk
shall designate the amendment.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Ms. Lofgren of California.
In section 5----
The Chairperson. Without objection, the further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
[The amendment of The Chairperson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. This amendment is technical in nature. It
fixes a drafting error.
It simply changes one word, changing the word ``subtitle''
to ``section'' and, in doing so, fixes an inadvertent drafting
error. I hope that we can adopt this unanimously, even if you
are opposed to the measure, at least it should be accurate.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, this is clearly a
drafting error, and it is an example of bipartisanship. I
intend to vote for this amendment but this is what happens when
a bill is rushed through to the floor. There are numerous areas
of this bill that suffer other drafting errors, and we hope to
address those in our amendments as we move forward today, and I
support this amendment.
The Chairperson. Thank you.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on this technical amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
Does any Member wish to be heard, seek recognition?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Madam Chairperson, I reserve a
point of order.
The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved, and
Mr. Davis is recognized to introduce his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. This amendment----
The Chairperson. First, we should have the clerk report the
amendment and distribute it. The clerk will read the title.
Mr. Jones, you can read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis----
The Chairperson. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized on behalf of
your amendment.
Before doing so, does Mrs. Davis insist on her point of
order?
Mrs. Davis of California. Proceed.
The Chairperson. Okay. Mrs. Davis withdraws her point of
order.
Mr. Davis, proceed.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. This Davis thing will get
confusing. I apologize if I answer to the wrong Davis.
The Chairperson. Oh, that is right.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. That is okay, that is okay.
I don't want anybody to be offended if we start to talk
over each other a little bit.
This amendment strikes Section 1001. This provision of H.R.
1 requires every State to implement online voter registration
to Federal standards. I am all for States providing online
voter registration, but I am against federalizing online voter
registration.
At least 37 States have already implemented some type of
online voter registration and by mandating a new Federal
standard, it takes power away from State and local election
officials, as well as State legislatures. Many officials from
States that have implemented online voter registration will
tell you that a huge obstacle in rolling this out is the
cybersecurity challenges that come with it.
Any time parts of the voting process are connected to the
internet it invites hacking attempts. The process of developing
and testing proper safeguards takes time and money and that
process cannot be rushed without unnecessary risk. This
provision would also allow for voters to provide a signature
electronically without any validation through a DMV database,
serving to weaken the overall integrity of online voter
registration.
I support this--I support the passage of this amendment,
and I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. You know,
internet voting registration is really a commonsense, 21st
century measure to increase participation in the polls, and far
from leaving systems open to irreversible and rampant hacking,
online voter registration has been adopted by 37 States and the
District of Columbia. These registrations supplement, but do
not replace, other methods of voter registration, and as with
all other registrations provided by H.R. 1, online voter
registration will allow election officials to review
registrations for eligibility and voters to cure any
discrepancies in their registration at the time of requesting a
ballot in an election as provided by Section 1001, titled
Requiring Availability of Internet Voter Registration.
Now, internet registration provides valuable cost savings
as well. According to the 2010 report, ``Online Voter
Registration: Case Studies in Arizona and Washington,'' Arizona
experienced a reduction in per-registration costs from 83 cents
per paper registration to 3 cents per online registration.
Other States have experienced significant cost savings as
well. I would just note that I understand the gentleman's
objection to federalizing Federal election eligibility, but
that is really what this bill is about. Under Article I,
Section 4, Congress has the ability to make every voter have
equivalent access to the polls and that is what we are doing
here. I would urge that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
And, with that, are there other Members who wish to be
heard on the amendment?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I believe that if
you look at some of the writings of the colleagues who served
before us in creating this great Nation, they will say that--
Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Papers would say that
specific provisions were left out of the article that you
mentioned of our Constitution because many at the time were
afraid that States would go ahead and decide to not have
elections and, therefore, diminish the ability of the
government that we have today.
I disagree with the assessment that Article I gives us, in
Congress, the ability to tell election officials nationwide how
to run their elections. As a matter of fact, the Federal
Government, Madam Chairperson, does not have a good history of
providing cost-effective internet access to many programs--such
as the Affordable Care Act, for example--to be able to then
provide how States should run online voter registration.
We have States that have already implemented these programs
that will now have to bear the cost to change them if the
Federal Government takes over and H.R. 1 becomes the law of the
land. That is why this amendment is so important. That is why
this amendment is in order, and I certainly hope we can get
many of our colleagues to support it today.
The Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
We are operating under the five minute rule. I did not want
to interrupt your statement, but ordinarily we need other
Members to get time. I am not going to let other Democratic
Members speak more than once either, but I didn't want to
interrupt you and be rude.
Are there other Members that wish to be heard on the
amendment? The gentlelady from California has withdrawn her
point of order already.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
The Chairperson. All those in favor of the amendment will
say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I request a roll
call vote. I get the confusion. We are on the opposite sides.
The Chairperson. That is right.
Mr. Davis has asked for a roll call vote. So the clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, two
Members voting yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member seek recognition?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member is recognized, and the
clerk will distribute the amendment and read the title.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order again.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California reserves a
point of order.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, Madam Chairperson, this
amendment strikes Section 1012(d). This provision in H.R. 1
would prohibit States from treating 16- and 17-year-olds as
ineligible to vote for purposes of automatic registration.
Automatically registering individuals to vote has inherent
risks and opens the door to fraud.
This provision requires the registering of 16- and 17-year-
olds who are, in fact, not eligible to vote, only furthering
that risk. As a matter of fact, 16- and 17-year-olds may not
know the consequences of casting a vote that they are not
eligible to cast.
Additionally, there is a privacy issue, as voter
registration lists are publicly available, and this bill would
require States to automatically register minors, which, in
turn, would make their information publicly available.
My twins are 18 years old. They registered to vote and
voted in their first election. I certainly wouldn't want their
information publicly available for more mail to come into my
mailbox when they were 16 and 17.
Furthermore, it violates a citizen's basic free speech
rights, such as expressing displeasure with the electoral
process, by choosing not to participate. This provision is at
best inviting mass confusion and disorder at polling locations
across the country and at worst inviting election fraud. I
support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
H.R. 1 does not actually change the voting age. As we know,
16- and 17-year-olds often do interact with our local
Departments of Motor Vehicles, and as part of this process, 16-
and 17-year-olds will have the option to preregister to vote.
This preregistration is voluntary, and this will just make sure
that when they turn 18, they are registered to vote. This has
been used in California with tremendous success, and so I would
urge that we vote no on the gentleman's amendment. Are there
additional Members wishing to be heard on the amendment?
Is the point of order withdrawn?
Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw.
The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn.
All those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I request a roll
call vote.
The Chairperson. A roll call vote is requested. The clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Definitely yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
[No response.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Why do you guys always win?
The Chairperson. Because our cause is righteous.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I like when our Chairperson uses the
word ``righteous.''
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, two
Members voting yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member seek recognition?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis' amendment will be distributed,
and the clerk will read the title.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California reserves a
point of order.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 1013.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, this amendment
strikes Section 1013. This provision in H.R. 1 would require
each State and Federal contributing agency and universities to
transfer customer data for the purposes of registering them to
vote. Currently, only 16 States have automatic voter
registration. This provision proposes to force every State to
adopt automatic voter registration and, in addition, force most
State agencies to transfer customer records to their State
election agency for the purposes of registration.
These automatic voter registration requirements propose to
fix a nonexistent problem. Let's be clear: It has never been
easier to register to vote in this country. From a practical
standpoint, these State agencies are not equipped to handle
this type of function, and it would divert them from their
primary mission. Never mind the astronomical cost associated
with this.
This provision includes colleges and universities to
automatically register students. That is not the role of our
colleges or other State agencies. As a matter of fact, who is
going to make sure that colleges don't raise tuition just to
cover the cost of another unfunded mandate?
In the past, DMVs have had a terrible track record of
verifying citizenship and incorrectly placing noncitizens on
the voting rolls. The amount of data that would have to be
transmitted if H.R. 1 were to be enacted would be enormous and
would only exacerbate problems that we have seen at DMVs. These
problems would lead to a significant amount of litigation and
cost for years to come.
The goal of everyone voting is not necessarily a shared
goal of everyone. Voting is a privilege of being in a
democracy. I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield
back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. I would urge a
``no'' vote on the amendment. Automatic voter registration is
far from unvetted. The reality is it has been demonstrated to
be effective. And according to the Brennan Center for Justice,
AVR is also functioning successfully in nine States and the
District of Columbia, and six more are in the process of
implementing it. You know, the accuracy improves with AVR.
The fact that you are registered does not require you to
vote, but we are here to remove barriers to those who want to
vote. We know that something like a quarter of the people who
didn't vote, when queried in the last election, said they
didn't do it because of registration problems. We want to make
sure American citizens have the option to vote, and one way to
do that is to make sure that those who are eligible to vote are
registered to vote.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote. Does any Member wish to be
heard on the amendment? If not, the question is on the
amendment.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And the noes
have it.
Does any Member----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I need a roll call vote. We just had
it. Oh, wait, I have got an amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. Do you want a roll call vote on the last
amendment?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No, we just did it.
The Chairperson. No, we did a voice vote.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, I request a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. I didn't hear you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Chairperson. We will have a recorded vote, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, two
Members voting yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member seek recognition?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have another
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
Mrs. Davis of California. Madam Chairperson, I reserve a
point of order.
The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved, and
the clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois. Strike Section 1014.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment strikes Section 1014. This provision
requires a one-time transfer of data from contributing agencies
to State election agencies for the purposes of registration.
This provision takes the transgressions outlined in Section
1013 and makes it retroactive, violating the privacy of those
who have interacted with these agencies prior to the would-be
enactment of H.R. 1.
Additionally, large-scale transferring of individuals'
information would certainly be done electronically, and that
cannot be done without a risk that the personal information
becomes compromised.
Furthermore, there is no way to authenticate if data being
transferred or transmitted is accurate. What if the data
conflicts with other data on file?
I support the passage of this amendment and yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. As was
discussed in the prior amendment, the effort is to allow all
American citizens the opportunity to vote and, in order to do
so, to be registered.
I would note also that this is opt-out. So individuals who
do not wish to be registered can opt out of this process and
remain unregistered. And, with that, I would yield back.
Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order?
Mrs. Davis of California. No. Withdrawn.
The Chairperson. She withdraws her point of order.
On the amendment, unless there are further Members wishing
to be heard, all those in favor will say yes.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would like another 5-2 vote.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member has asked for a
recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voting no, three
Members voting yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member seek recognition?
Mr. Walker. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved. The
amendment will be distributed, and the clerk will read the
title.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Mark Walker of North
Carolina. In Section 1015(a)(2) of the bill, strike the period
at the end and insert the following: ``, unless the individual
made a false affirmation of United States citizenship.''
[The amendment of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment strikes and replaces Section 1015(a)(2) and
would allow States to alert authorities if someone knowingly
certifies citizenship and is not a citizen.
Under the scheme proposed in this section, noncitizens who
knowingly certify U.S. citizenship and ultimately are
registered to vote would be protected from prosecution or any
other civil adjudication concerning immigration status.
This provision would further handicap the efforts of
Federal immigration officials and their missions to promote
homeland security and public safety by enforcing immigration
laws. To be clear, this amendment does not require States to
turn over noncitizens for prosecution; it simply allows States
to do so while not protecting those that represent their
immigration status for the purpose of voter registration. I
support the passage of this amendment and yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment?
If not, I will say that I oppose the amendment for the
following reasons: It is already illegal to do this. This
amendment is unnecessary, and the protection that is written in
the bill is to protect someone who without their knowledge was
registered.
If you were not eligible--and it is not just someone who
lacks citizenship. Let's say you have another defect and,
unknowing to you, you were registered, then you would not be
held accountable. You would have to know in order to be held
accountable for that error. I think that is just fairness.
And, with that, I would yield back and ask if there are any
individuals----
Mr. Walker. I request the yeas and nays
The Chairperson [continuing]. Who would--all those in favor
will say yes.
All those opposed, no.
Mr. Walker. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have
it, and a recorded vote has been requested----
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson [continuing]. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and
three Members are yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to. Does any
Member seek recognition.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The gentleman--point of order is reserved.
The amendment will be distributed, and the clerk will read the
title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois. Strike Section 1017.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes on behalf of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment strikes Section 1017. This provision
authorizes $500 million for the purposes of implementing
automatic voter registration. Let's be clear: Once again, we
want everyone to have access to registering to vote. Nobody--
and I mean no one--who is eligible to be registered should be
dissuaded from doing so. Let's be clear: Our system of
government today when it comes to election registration is at
its highest level of access. What this bill does is, it extends
and puts a national footprint on the registration process that
is working so well in this country today.
This amendment would strike Section 1017, which authorizes
$500 million in fiscal year 2019 to be spent on grants for
States to create or update online voter registration systems,
accelerate compliance with H.R. 1, public education campaigns,
and automatic registration system enhancements. The grants
would be awarded by the Elections Assistance Commission.
Furthermore, it authorizes such sums as may be necessary
each succeeding fiscal year and makes any money appropriated
toward this authorization no-year money.
H.R. 1 still does not have a score from the Congressional
Budget Office, and because this section is so open-ended in
terms of funding authorization, there is no way to tell how
much this is going to cost. Additionally, we have worked with
the House Budget Committee Ranking Member, Steve Womack, to try
and get a score on H.R. 1, but have, to this point, have been
rebuffed. This is fiscally irresponsible. I support this
passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Are there additional Members who wish to be heard on this
amendment?
Does the gentlelady from California insist on her point of
order? She withdraws her point of order.
Let me just say: I oppose this amendment. There is no
evidence whatsoever that the dollar amount proposed by the
Ranking Member is necessary. In fact, all the evidence is that
you save money with online voter registration. As I mentioned
earlier, Arizona experienced a reduction in preregistration
costs from 83 cents per registration to 3 cents per online
registration.
Now I know that the Democrats are sometimes thought of as
the ones who want to spend money, but in this case, this is not
a necessary thing to do. So I would urge the opposition to the
amendment. Unless there is further comment, all those in favor
of the amendment will say aye--oh, did you wish to be heard? I
am sorry.
Mr. Loudermilk. Point of order. Strike the record.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. I would like to yield as much time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I want to correct
something that I believe you said. I did not propose $500
million be spent. $500 million is authorized in this bill. It
is open-ended and without a Congressional Budget Office score,
we need to know the impact of that to the taxpayers and to the
Federal budget.
We want to make sure that everyone has access to voting.
Again, I cannot be more clear: We want everyone who is
registered or can be registered to vote to have the ability to
do so. We don't need to continue to wonder how much taxpayer
dollars are going to be spent by putting a Federal fingerprint
on this.
The Federal Government has not done a good job of
implementing any online voter registration system, and this
bill, this section, is not limited to online voter
registration. It is the entirety. Imagine, imagine, the cost of
putting an online voter registration system together at the
national level and the possible cybersecurity concerns, let
alone the billions of dollars after the Federal contracting
procedures that will have to be followed, would cause the
taxpayers to have to foot the bill.
I enjoy seeing many of my Democratic colleagues worry about
the Federal debt and deficit when it comes to other pieces of
legislation, but clearly, clearly, the cosponsors of this bill
have not taken into any consideration the billions, possible
trillions, of dollars that this bill would cost.
And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Loudermilk. I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back. Before calling
the roll, I will note that I have every expectation that we
will have a CBO score before this bill is heard on the floor.
It is going through several committees, as we know, and
amendments will be made in all of them.
Does the gentlelady from California insist on her point of
order?
Mrs. Davis of California. No, I withdraw the point of
order, but I would say, Madam Chairperson, if it is possible,
to just note that----
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California is
recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Davis of California. You know, in fact, we have a
number of States that are enacting this kind of legislation and
process. So it is possible to find out what that is costing,
and we know, and, in fact, we are saving money as you have
mentioned. I just wanted to--you know, the sense I get of some
of these amendments is to really go backwards rather than
forward. We have been going forward, and we want to continue
that process.
The Chairperson. Will the gentlelady yield back?
Mrs. Davis of California. I yield back.
The Chairperson. Then, on the amendment, all those in favor
of the amendment will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request recorded vote, please.
The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four yeses and two noes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member wish to be recognized?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member is recognized.
Mr. Tucker. Can he reread the tally again? I think it was
misreported.
The Chairperson. I am sorry?
Mr. Tucker. I think he said four yeses and two noes.
The Chairperson. I don't think so. I think he said four
noes and two yeses.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four noes and two yeses.
The Chairperson. All right. The gentleman is recognized for
five minutes. His amendment will be distributed, and the clerk
will read the title----
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson [continuing]. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 1019(b).
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for five minutes on behalf of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, before I get into
this amendment discussion, I am glad you have let us know that
this bill will be marked up in other Committees. I was under
the impression that we could still possibly be voting for this
bill very soon since the Speaker said we would vote by the end
of this month. Since we are coming up to the end of this month,
I certainly hope that other Committees will have the same
process as we have to be able to offer amendments. Have you
been assured by the Speaker that we will have markups in other
Committees?
The Chairperson. I expect regular order.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Great. That is good to hear.
Previous statements by the Speaker have not given me the
confidence. So good. Then that will give us a chance to have
more discussions. This amendment strikes Section 1019(b). This
provision allows third-party vendors to handle voter
information. Aside from these provisions creating a nightmare
of entanglement of Federal law for States and creating a mass
amount of customer data vulnerable to cyber intrusion, this
provision takes it a step further and allows third-parties to
manage all the sensitive data.
We have all heard countless news stories reported in recent
times about private companies being hacked and, as a result,
enormous amounts of data being compromised. Allowing this
provision to stand would be inviting more of that.
One of the top goals of H.R. 1, as stated extensively at
the press conference announcing this bill, was to ensure
security of the elections. How is allowing third-party vendors
to handle voter information accomplishing that goal? I support
the passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
The Chairperson. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
this amendment?
The gentlelady----
Mrs. Davis of California. Withdraw.
The Chairperson [continuing]. Withdraws her point of order.
If no other member wishes to be heard, I will simply urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment. These entities are subject to
the same privacy and security standards as any government
agency. The amendment is not necessary, and I would urge a
``no'' vote.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
All those in favor the amendment will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And the noes
have it.
Does any Member wish to be heard?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members are no, and two
Members are yes.
The Chairperson. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member wish to be--the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes on behalf of his amendment. The gentlelady reserves a
point of order. The amendment is being distributed, and the
clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
Georgia. Strike Section 1019(e).
[The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
One of the concerns that I have with this bill--there are
many, many concerns I have, but one predominantly is the speed
of which we are moving on such a major piece of legislation. We
have 50 States. We have 50 Secretaries of State. We have 50
Governors that this would have a huge--I repeat, a huge--
impact, not only on the way that they handle their elections,
because there are more than just Federal elections--there are
State elections; there are local elections; there are school
board elections--that ultimately would be impacted by this
legislation. This provision that we are amending here is one
that could have a significant cost factor to the States.
This amendment simply strikes Section 1019(e). The
provision extends the private right of action under the NVRA to
the previous sections. While this may be well intentioned,
undoubtedly it will result in a huge number of civil litigation
cases brought by election attorneys, which would put our States
in the situation of having to defend against multiple--
multiple--potential lawsuits, not brought up necessarily by
people but outside organizations.
The provision is not designed to protect people. It is
designed to create more business for special interest election
attorneys and would inevitably not only cost the States, the
counties, the cities, an enormous amount of money, but it would
also clog up our court systems, which are already very busy in
this country. With provisions like this included in H.R. 1, it
does not appear to be For the People Act, but rather a ``For
the Lawyers Act.'' I support passage of this amendment, and I
yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do any other members wish to be heard on the amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. I will withdraw my point of
order.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California withdraws
her point of order. I would just note that voting rights
provisions are almost entirely now enforced through a private
right of action. That is true for previous sections. It will be
true for these as well. I know that a right without a remedy is
no right at all. So I would urge that we oppose the amendment.
I would ask those who are in favor of the amendment will
say aye.
Those who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Loudermilk. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. The gentleman asked for a recorded vote,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote yes, and
two Members vote no.
The Chairperson. No. Four voted no and two voted yes.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and two
Members are yes.
The Chairperson. Thank you.
Does any Member wish to be recognized?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have an amendment at the desk, and
I certainly would have taken that last roll call vote.
The Chairperson. I know you would have.
The gentleman is recognized, the amendment will be
distributed.
The gentlelady from California reserves a point of order,
and the clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois. Strike Section 1031.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. This
amendment strikes section 1031. This section would require
same-day voter registration for all Federal elections. Same-day
voter registration invites fraud and undermines the voter-
registration process. Even with certain safeguards in place, it
is impossible to verify the eligibility of an individual in
such a short period of time.
Additionally, same-day voter registration can put an undue
burden on poll workers who are typically already working
extremely long hours and are often retirees.
Matter of fact, another section of this behemoth 571-page
bill recognizes that we have a shortage of poll workers and
adding long lines because of same-day registration invites
issues in poll worker shortages.
Once again, Illinois has same-day registration. Somebody in
my district with Illinois election authorities can walk in with
something like a Jimmy John's receipt that is a proof of
address, without any verification on that same day.
In the midst of long lines, in the midst of poll workers
being overworked, how in the world are they going to verify
that that person is eligible to cast a vote in that district?
That is why we have to have more safeguards in place. We want
everybody to vote. We want everybody to be registered to vote.
But in the end, we want to make sure those who are voting are
voting in the districts that they are eligible to vote in. I
support the passage of this amendment, and I will reserve the
balance of my time.
The Chairperson. The gentleman reserves the balance of his
time. Actually, that is not something that we are used to doing
under the five-minute rule.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I will yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order?
Mrs. Davis of California. No. Withdrawn.
The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn. Does any
other Member wish to be heard on this amendment?
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. You know, in
the November 2016, general election, nearly one in five people
who were eligible to vote but did not vote cited registration
issues as the main reason for not casting a ballot. Demos,
which has done a study of this, suggests that same-day
registration increases turnout by upwards of 10 percentage
points.
The same-day registration provisions in Section 1031 would
make registration straightforward. It provides that each State
shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal
election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is
permitted for a Federal election to register to vote in such
election and to cast a vote in that election. Same-day voter
registration is not an unvetted practice. It is already
successfully in place in States across the United States, and
according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 17
States and the District of Columbia already have same-day
registration.
The lack of same-day registration has a different impact on
African American and Hispanic voters than it does on white
voters. The Atlantic reports that more than 1 in 10 African
Americans and Hispanics missed the registration deadline to
vote in 2016 as opposed to just 3 percent of White voters.
African American and Hispanic respondents were twice as likely
as white respondents to have been unable to get time off from
work for voting. So flexible provisions for voting, such as
same-day registration, will increase access of diverse voters
to the polls. According to recent polls, more than 60 percent
of Americans support same-day registration.
With that, unless there are further Members wishing to be
heard, all those who are in favor of the amendment will vote
aye.
Those opposed will vote no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members voting no, two
Members voting yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member wish to be heard--yes, sir?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I think he said four no, two no.
The Chairperson. No, he said four no, two yes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Oh.
Mr. Loudermilk. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for his
amendment for five minutes. The clerk will distribute the
amendment, and the clerk will read the title. And the gentleman
is recognized for five minutes on behalf of his amendment.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
Georgia. Strike Section 1041.
[The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. Loudermilk. As I mentioned regarding the last
amendment, which, by the way, barely failed; I think we only
lost by two votes. So we are getting close here, Ranking Member
Davis.
As the Ranking Member said, voting is a--almost a sacred
thing in this country. We not only have to make sure that we
extend every available opportunity for those who want to vote
to be able to vote, but we also have to be able to protect the
integrity of the voting system. And with 50 individual and
unique States, 50 Governors, 50 Secretaries of State, countless
numbers of county and city voting registrars, I don't know that
we have reached out and we have gotten the feedback that would
be necessary, in my opinion, to move forward with such a
sweeping law that would affect every single State and every
single voter.
I think this is something we should pause; we should take
careful consideration and get the feedback. I know my Governor
and our Secretary of State has not had ample opportunity to
read through such a large piece of legislation as I know my
colleagues have not had ample opportunity to really work on it
in a way that there is probably some areas in here we could all
agree on.
But this is one of those areas that, again, I am very
concerned about. This amendment strikes section 1041. The
section would place additional conditions that States must meet
to remove registrants from voter rolls through cross-check
systems. This section is broad. It is too broad in nature, and
it puts additional burdens on States' already existing
processes that work. Again, additional cost to States.
I am sure we have some States that do a phenomenal job at
this already, and there are probably some States that need some
work on it. But the cost and the unfunded mandates that we are
putting on the States through this bill, we don't know the
impact it is going to have on the States. We don't know the
burden it is going to place on the States. We don't know the
impact it would have on the election processes in those States
because there are more than just Federal elections that are
held.
The Electronic Registration Information Center and other
interstate databases already serve as valuable and reliable
tools for States to use if they choose to. While these cross-
check systems are not perfect, to limit their use is
shortsighted. One of the comments we have heard most often from
States is that they would love to utilize ERIC, but more can't
due to cost. I don't know that this bill addresses that cost.
Again, this is a huge, unfunded mandate that we are placing
on 50 States, many of those which have struggled financially in
recent years. What is the point of adding this data without
methods of maintaining it in a way that does not compromise the
integrity of the voting system? I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment, and I
yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order? It is
withdrawn. Do other members wish to be heard on the amendment?
If not, I will say that I hope that we will vote against this
amendment. Cross-check is a system that has been used and
studied for accuracy. The Brennan Center, one of the prime
election centers of analysis, has found that cross-check is
wrong 99 percent of the time.
Illinois, the State of Illinois, just dropped this system,
and more States are following suit because it disenfranchises
voters. So I would hope that we can vote against this
amendment.
And those who are in favor, please say aye.
Those who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. And unless
there is a request for a recorded vote, we will----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis requests a recorded vote, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, two
Members vote yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Does any Member wish to be heard?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The amendment will be distributed.
The clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 1502.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved by the
gentlelady from California.
Mr. Davis is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
This amendment strikes section 1502. This provision
requires the use of paper ballots in Federal elections.
This bill preempts State laws as well as the historical and
constitutional role of States and localities in choosing the
method of voting for their citizens. This provision requires
that paper ballots must be counted by hand, optical scanner, or
other counting device, thus ending the use of many ballot
marking devices that I will remind my colleagues the Federal
Government paid millions upon millions of dollars for.
We have not heard from States regarding this provision, nor
voting equipment manufacturers. We have no basis for this
proposal in this section of H.R. 1.
We also have no idea what the cost associated with this
provision will be. But it would almost certainly require the
reworking or even rescinding of State contracts with election
machine vendors, so I imagine the cost would be enormous. But,
again, we do not yet have a CBO score on what H.R. 1 will cost
taxpayers.
I am concerned that proposals like this will bring us back
to the days of Florida during the 2000 election. I support the
passage of this amendment.
And I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Are there other Members who wish to be heard on this
amendment?
Does the gentlelady withdraw her--she withdraws her point
of order.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
You know, eight national entities, including the FBI, the
NSA, the Department of Justice, DHS, and others, confirmed the
fact of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Experts
convened by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine subsequently warned that election administrators
should use human-readable paper ballots by the 2020 elections.
That is so if there is an audit and there is a problem we can
go and look and see what the voter actually intended.
With over 40 States using 10-year-old electronic voting
machines on out-of-date platforms like Windows 2000, which
aren't even being updated or patched for security problems,
paper ballots, so voters can check and verify their votes, are
important.
I would note also that the amendment in the nature of a
substitute does not preclude optical scanners. It simply says
there must be a paper ballot. It is anticipated, although not
required, that States will in fact move to the optical scanner
system that has a paper ballot that can allow for a recount if
necessary.
Without further discussion, all those who are in favor of
this amendment will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
And, in the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Loudermilk. I request a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. There is a request for a recorded vote,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. And Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, two
Members vote yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments to be offered?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have another
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized.
The clerk will distribute the amendment.
The gentlelady is recognized for a point of order being
reserved.
The clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 1504.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment strikes Section 1504. This section requires
standards for paper ballots.
If we suppose that the paper ballot requirement proposed in
Section 1502 is sound policy, there is still the question of,
why these requirements for the paper ballot? Why not understand
that we may not know what the best technology may or may not be
in the future when it comes to protecting us from hacking
attempts from foreign agents or anyone who may want to try and
hack into election systems?
We need to make sure that the election systems in this
country have a paper trail, a paper trail, not prescribed
mandates that would force new technology that could be safer in
the future from being implemented, which is why we offered the
amendment that just failed and which is why we are offering
this amendment now.
We have heard from no experts in this field. We have heard
from no experts or a single State or local official regarding
these requirements that are in this 571-page bill. But here we
are trying to create a Federal mandate from Washington, D.C.
I again remind my colleagues the Federal Government does
not have a good track record of offering a cost-effective,
secure data platform in other parts of our government. Why in
the world, without proper vetting, without talking to the
experts, why in the world would we decide to offer a mandate to
our election officials right now, just assuming, assuming, that
the Federal Government is going to get it right?
We should really be consulting with these local and State
election officials regarding any standards that are proposed in
a 571-page bill. I support the passage of this amendment.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do any other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
The gentlelady withdraws her point of order.
Seeing no one, I would simply note that the arguments
against this amendment are similar to those for the prior
amendment. This strikes a provision that simply requires that
the paper ballots can withstand multiple handlings that would
then allow for accurate recounts if needed. And I would urge a
``no'' vote on the amendment.
With that, all those who are in favor of the amendment will
vote aye.
All those who are opposed will vote no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. There is a request by the Ranking Member
for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, and two
Members vote yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes, Madam Chairperson. I know you are
surprised. I do have an amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. No, I am not.
The gentleman's amendment will be distributed.
A point of order is reserved by the gentlelady from
California.
The clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
Georgia.
[The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized
for five minutes on behalf of his amendment. The gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Again, I reiterate my concern of the lack of working with
the 50 States and the secretaries of state and the governors on
this. Even though I think this may be well-intentioned, again,
there are unintended consequences.
This amendment strikes Section 1601. This section requires
States to count provisional ballots regardless of the precinct
at which a voter tries to vote.
Now, that sounds good on the surface, but, again, the lack
of foresight is that our elections are more than just Federal
elections. When you go to the ballot--or you go to a polling
precinct in Georgia and you walk into there and you pull up a
ballot, there of course are the Federal offices on there, but
there are also State representatives, there are State senators,
there are county commissioners, there are municipal elections
that are candidates on there. Those are by precincts.
It may be more convenient, if you are at work and you work
40 miles away from your home, to go to a polling place that is
near your place of business and to walk in there. Well, that
may help with the turnout for Federal elections, but what you
do is disenfranchise the voter from effectively voting in their
local elections, which in most cases impact their lives more
than the Federal elections. Especially in the State of Georgia,
because of the system of government we have, we believe that
the government closest to the people is the most effective.
When you are going to force a State to allow someone to
vote at a polling place that is not their home polling place,
they will not have the accurate ballot, and it will
disenfranchise them from voting on those elections that matter
the most to them.
I think, again, this is one of the areas that was well-
intentioned, but the unintended consequences would actually
disenfranchise voters from their votes actually meaning
something in those local, those State, and those municipal
elections.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on this amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. Withdrawn.
The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The Section 1902, titled ``Minimum Notification
Requirements for Voters Affected by Polling Place Changes'', on
page 138, line 20, provides effective measures to give voters
information about their correct polling site.
The section requires that notice of any changes arrive at
least seven days in advance of the election and that, in the
event of the State making the change fewer than seven days
before the election, the State shall make every reasonable
effort to enable the individual to vote on the date of the
election.
However, citizens should not be deprived of their right to
vote in the statewide election because they have mistakenly
ended up at the wrong polling place. Provisional ballots are a
necessary and helpful backstop to ensure all eligible voters
are heard.
Providing for provisional ballots to be counted uniformly
and in a nondiscriminatory fashion in H.R. 1 will not open the
floodgates of provisional ballots. H.R. 1's other measures will
provide a diverse array of options to vote, including early
voting and vote by mail, so any discrepancies in registration
can be caught early and remedied. Provisional balloting thus
remains a useful last resort, not a first resource.
Provisional voting is good for robust democracy and
encouraging citizens to engage with voting. Provisional ballots
protect the integrity of elections, as they are checked for
eligibility after the provisional vote is cast, while also
protecting the right of the voter to have that vote counted if
they are in fact eligible.
Provisional voting has built-in protections. After a
provisional ballot is cast, election officials have time and
processes to discern the eligibility of the voter and retain
the opportunity to reject the vote if the voter was indeed
ineligible to vote.
A lack of provisional voting creates a far greater
possibility of harm. A prospective voter who is eligible to
vote could be turned away from the polls, losing their instant
opportunity to vote and potentially even deterring future
voting.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote.
All those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
All who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member has asked for a roll
call vote. The clerk will call the roll, please.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and two
Members are yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments to be heard?
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved.
The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will
read the title.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
Georgia. Strike Section 1611.
[The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes on behalf of this amendment.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Again, I reiterate the swiftness in which this is moving
forward without adequate consulting with our State governments
on the impact it would have on them.
I was in the State legislature in Georgia when we passed a
law to allow for early voting. We thought it was a good
proposition, and it has worked well in Georgia. Since we did
that, the early voting law has been modified several times. The
reason it was modified was to make it the best possible early
voting system that fit the State of Georgia. It is different
than early voting in other States. In fact, one of the things
that the legislature did is saw that some people who were
working five days a week were even having a hard time getting
to the poll during the workday for early voting, so we amended
it and added a Saturday, that there is a Saturday that the
polls are open.
The point I am getting to is that government governs best
when it governs locally, the closest to the people.
Every State is different. I lived in Alaska for 10 years,
and in Alaska some people live in areas they can't physically
get to a polling place.
So every State is unique, every State is different, every
State is autonomous, especially when it comes to the voting
system. The States need to have the ability to tailor their
voting, their early voting, to what maximizes voter turnout and
access that is unique to that State, to that municipality, to
that county.
Again, this is big Washington bureaucracy trying to create
a one-size-fits-all system for the entire State. The reason we
have 50 States is because different geographical areas have
different demographics, different, obviously, geographic--we
are unique. We are not the United States as one big country; we
are a unity of 50 individual States. Our State governments have
a purpose, they have a reason. It is to meet the needs of the
people of each State.
I am all for giving voter access. I just believe the States
can do a better job of tailoring voter access to their people
than big government bureaucracy can.
Right now, on customer service rankings, the Federal
Government is dead-last of all industries, of all governments.
The Federal Government is dead-last in customer satisfaction
and customer service, and we are dead-last in efficiency. The
State governments are well ahead of us in that.
All we are going to do is drag down this system to another
big government bureaucracy if we continue to do this huge
Federal overreach. I believe we should leave this, especially
the early voting aspect, to the decisions of the State
lawmakers, the Governors, and our secretaries of State.
I support passage, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. Withdrawn.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California withdraws
her point of order.
Other Members wish to be heard?
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
You know, the provision in our bill sets a floor for early
voting, and that is important, because millions of Americans
are given only a single day to vote, Tuesday, a workday for
most people, when voting will inevitably be squeezed in among
errands and jobs, and some people can't get off to get to vote.
Early voting in this section provides that each State shall
allow individuals to vote in an election for Federal office
during an early voting period which occurs prior to the date of
the election in the same manner as voting is allowed on such
date. The section provides for a period of consecutive days,
including weekends, which begins on the 15th day before the
date of the election or even earlier at the option of the
State.
This 15-day early voting period will not suppress turnout.
It will work alongside other measures, like absentee voting and
same-day registration, to ensure every voter has a chance to
vote when it is possible for her, either by mail before
election day at the polls or at the polls on election day. This
is expanding the freedom to vote for our American citizens.
States have proven that early voting works to meet voter
needs. More than two-thirds of the States--that is 39--plus
D.C., offer some form of early voting.
Early voting works for diverse populations. That is why I
believe it is under attack in some States. Consider a post-
Shelby 2013 law in North Carolina later struck down for
targeting African Americans with, quote, ``surgical
precision,'' unquote. That is what the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit wrote. After learning that African Americans
used early voting in greater numbers than white voters, North
Carolina legislators changed their bill to eliminate the first
week of early voting, eliminating one of two Souls to the Polls
Sundays in which African-American churches provided
transportation to voters.
Protecting early voting protects the franchise for
everyone. That is precisely why it is dangerous to those who
want to see fewer people voting in some States.
In-person early voting and absentee voting have
administrative benefits. They ease congestion on election day,
leading to shorter lines, improved poll-worker performance, and
improved voter satisfaction. And they also allow for earlier
correction of registration errors and voting system glitches.
Early voting was one of the principal recommendations of
the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election
Administration. It wrote, quote, ``Election officials from both
parties testified to the importance of early voting in
alleviating the congestion and other potential problems of a
single election day,'' unquote.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. I
won't take the full five minutes. I want to thank you for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. I am beginning to read
through it as quickly as I can.
I want to just make an observation or two about Section
1611, the early voting section.
With respect to Section 306, paragraph--oh, I guess it
would be (b)(1), that speaks to a minimum of four hours of
early voting for each one of the early voting dates except for
Sunday, and it appears it would authorize the States to have
less than four hours on Sunday, I wanted to ask the
Chairperson, is there a reason why we would want to reduce the
number of hours on Sunday?
The Chairperson. Well, the thinking was this: There are
States that may want to have Sunday morning not part of the
voting day. But you would still have four hours after church on
Sunday----
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
The Chairperson [continuing]. For people to go.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for answering that for me.
The Chairperson. Certainly States could do more than four
hours, should they wish.
Mr. Butterfield. That helps me tremendously.
Finally, further down on line 10, it speaks to requiring
the polling place to be within walking distance of a public
transportation route.
I just want to say, for those of us from rural areas, some
of our towns and cities don't have transportation systems in
those cities. If we could just consider some language in the
future that would simply say that the early voting site could
be near populated communities in addition to transportation
centers.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I would like to echo the concerns my colleague from North
Carolina has. I also represent a rural district.
This shows once again that this bill is being rushed
through this markup process. This bill is being rushed to the
floor of the House for political reasons rather than actual
good policy--good fiscal policy and good policies to ensure
that everyone gets access to early voting.
I personally participate in early voting. Three of the last
four election cycles, I cast my vote early. I think it is a
great process. But we have to make sure there are safeguards in
place. And the Federal Government does not have a good track
record of being able to implement systems from a top-down
approach.
The Federal Government still has not even given us, through
Federal Government bean-counters, how much this bill is going
to cost. Imagine: In many of the rural areas that Mr.
Butterfield and I serve, how are the election officials going
to pay for not only infrastructure improvements in their roads
and their bridges, how are they going to dedicate now more
resources to actually implementing provisions that were put in
place by a law that was written by groups here in Washington,
D.C., without any input or bipartisanship?
It is very frustrating to me that this markup is being held
after I and my colleague Mr. Loudermilk only had 15 minutes of
time to ask questions to the panel that was put in front of us.
Madam Chairperson, I don't blame you for that. I blame the
fact that many here in your leadership team want to rush this
bill to the Floor, and they want to ensure that this is a
political message rather than good policy.
I would like to yield the balance of my time to my
colleague from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. I thank the Ranking Member.
I appreciate what Mr. Butterfield brought up because it
goes back to the concerns I have of the Federal Government
stepping in and doing a one-size-fits-all.
As I said, I spent 10 years in the State of Alaska. I
worked in the bush. I worked in a city that had a summertime
population of about 50 and a wintertime population of about 15.
There is a polling place in that city. There are 15 permanent
residents there who vote in that election. Is this legislation
going to put a cost burden on this city that has a polling
place, with the population of 15 people, to where they have to
open and maintain a polling location for 15 days prior to an
election when pretty much everybody shows up within a 15-
minute-to-2-hour period on election day and they all cast their
ballot?
Again, because we are rushing this thing through, we are
not considering and we are not asking the States their input on
this. I believe that we are still uncovering unintended
consequences that not only could suppress votes but be a huge
cost factor to our municipalities and our States.
I yield back to the Ranking Member.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
Again, I certainly wish we had more time to debate this
bill, just as much as this bill requires local officials to
give for individuals to early vote, and we have not had that
opportunity.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I would just note in response to the concern about the stop
on a public transportation route, it says ``to the greatest
extent practicable.'' That is the preamble. So, if there is no
public transportation route, that would not be practical to
have it.
This was in response to the situation we found in Dodge
City, Kansas. We had a young man who was a witness, where the
polling place was moved, it looked like intentionally, to a
place that was inaccessible even though there were accessible
places.
But for rural areas where there is no public
transportation, obviously, that would not be practical and
would not be required.
If there are not further Members wishing to be heard, those
who are in favor of the amendment will say aye.
And those who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The gentleman from Illinois has requested a roll call. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. And Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members vote no, and two
Members vote yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The clerk will please distribute the
amendment and the clerk will read the title.
A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 1621.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized
for five minutes on behalf of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment requires voting by mail in Federal
elections. We wish to strike this provision because this
provision would force no-excuse no voting on every State and
locality.
Currently, 28 States have vote-by-mail programs, but these
programs have been tailored to those States and their
constitutions and their State laws. This provision would upend
these schemes that have been put in place to provide access for
people to vote in favor of a Washington-imposed one-size-fits-
all mandate.
As we just saw with the debate over the last amendment,
there are concerns that need to be addressed that have not been
adequately vetted by the processes that have been put in place
by the majority to get questions answered about the impact to
local election officials. This one-size-fits-all mandate is not
something that needs to happen.
Additionally, this provision mandates that States verify
identity through signature match. This requirement would
preempt the law of many States--and I think this was
intentional--that require witness signatures, photo ID, and
non-photo ID or other ways of identification.
This Committee has heard no evidence that signature match
is the right way to confirm identity, and may in fact be the
worst way, as a person's signature changes over time, while
identification numbers, such as Social Security or driver's
license, tend to remain the same.
I will use me as an example. They know me in my polling
place, thankfully, because a signature that I used when I
turned 18 in Christian County, Illinois, is not the exact same
signature that I use today that I am allowed to send franked
mail with from this institution.
I support the passage of this amendment.
I will yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does the gentlelady insist on the point of order?
Mrs. Davis of California. No, I withdraw, but I would like
to speak.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California is
recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
You know what I am wondering here is, what excuse is
justified or not justified? You know, what we have in hopefully
more States than not, at least 30 States, that work with no-
excuse voting--and when we have spoken to people, our
Secretaries of State, our registrars of voters, you know, we
ask them about this. Generally these will just somehow end up
in a drawer somewhere, and they are really not acted upon
because you can't justify it. If you can think of some that are
justified, you know, I am happy to hear that, but I think that
that is really a problem.
We also know that it invades privacy. My colleagues who are
concerned about these issues, I hope that they would think
twice about that. Because in some States they ask if someone is
pregnant. What does that have to do with whether they are
voting or not?
The other thing we know is that, if people are going to be
sick, they don't often know that they are going to be sick. So
to get an excuse from the doctor doesn't make a whole lot of
sense.
I think we need to be certain, and that is why we are
asking that there is, across the board, no-excuse opportunities
for people to vote by mail. When you look at it, when you look
at the cost, when you look at the verification, we know that
requiring a signature check has worked and, in fact, they are
updated. I know that because my husband was asked to update his
signature.
This is real for those States across the board that find
this is what people want to be able to do because they can't
get to the voting place all the time. And this gives them the
opportunity, the privacy at home to be able to think through
what is on the ballot and be able to act accordingly.
So I think we need to turn this down, reject this
amendment. Because if you go to people--and I remember one of
our colleagues here a number of years ago had asked, should we
take away the ability to vote by mail? I think everybody who
has voted by mail would tell you no. It is almost as foolproof
as voting can be.
I really do hope that we will reject this one.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I totally agree with my colleague. Georgia has implemented
a no-excuse, no-reason absentee voting system. My objection, I
believe Representative Davis's objection, to this is the
signature aspect only. Because, as he pointed out, his
signature has changed significantly since he was 18 years old.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Longer than that.
Mr. Loudermilk. I mean, it was like an ancient time for
him.
Again, it could disenfranchise voters if you don't allow
the States to use the security that the best way of ensuring
the person that is sending in the ballot is the person who
actually filled out the ballot. And a signature, in most cases,
is not a valid enough reason. It opens it up for too much voter
fraud, which disenfranchises the very people that we are trying
to protect in the voting system.
I will yield whatever time my colleague may need.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you to my colleague and
friend, Mr. Loudermilk.
Mrs. Davis, we want to make sure that vote by mail is
utilized in a manner throughout this Nation. It is utilized in
States like Georgia, California, Illinois, and others, and many
take advantage of the no-excuse system.
The problem we have, again, is Washington--this bill is,
again, being used to usurp already-working State policies and
procedures. I don't believe that is our job as Federal
officials, to stop what is working in States and ask for a top-
down approach.
To my colleague, Mrs. Davis, she mentioned that she has
been in contact with many local and State election officials.
Clearly, that has not been a part of the hearing and markup
process here. We invited Washington's Secretary of State, and I
got to ask her just a few minutes of questions. We clearly did
not--and we got five minutes of written testimony. We clearly
have not vetted this with local and State election officials.
Again, I don't believe this rush attempt to move a 571-page
bill with zero Republican input in drafting this bill, I don't
believe it is the fault of my colleagues on this Committee. I
believe it is political messaging by the leadership of the
majority that wants this bill to be pushed through.
We don't know what the cost of this bill is going to be. We
don't know what the final rules and regulations could or could
not be. Concerns were brought up by both Republicans and
Democrats in many provisions.
I would certainly hope that this amendment, any amendment,
any of our amendments that were offered in good faith--there
aren't any ``gotcha'' amendments here. These are amendments
that were offered to help fix the bill. I would certainly hope
that my colleagues on this Committee would realize that there
need to be fixes in place.
We are not going to be given the opportunities to put these
fixes in place because of the process that I believe is at your
leadership level and not at the level of this Committee.
The Chairperson. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Loudermilk. I yield back.
The Chairperson. I will recognize myself for five minutes
and yield to Mrs. Davis for final comment.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I just wanted to go back to the question that I asked
earlier, if we can think of any excuse that would be
acceptable. And that, in fact, we have a history in all these
States that has worked very well. And there really has been
nothing that has been stated that questions the ability of
people to do this and to have no excuses.
The Chairperson. Reclaiming my time, I would note, just
before we go to a vote--and then we will go to the floor--that
there are substantial due-process elements in the bill to
prevent for mistakes when it comes to signature verification.
And, with that, I would ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
All of those who are in favor of the amendment will say
aye.
Those opposed will say nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it.
A roll call is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
[No response.]
The Clerk. And Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, four Members are no, and two
Members are yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
The Committee will stand in recess until after the votes on
the Floor. I think we are about 9 minutes from close of votes.
We will return immediately after the votes on the Floor.
We are in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairperson. The vote on the Floor is over, and the
House Administration Committee will reconvene at this point.
When we departed for votes, we were in the process of
considering amendments, and we will return to that process at
this point.
Are there Members who wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, Madam Chairperson. I have an
amendment at the desk, Davis Amendment 13.
The Chairperson. All right. The clerk will provide the
amendment.
Mrs. Davis of California reserves a point of order.
The clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 1802.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I know that we
need more poll workers, and this is a provision that--1801
grants Federal employees six days of paid vacation to serve as
poll workers. I support measures to increase those numbers, but
using taxpayers dollars to take Federal workers away from their
duties is not the way to do it.
We just went through the longest government shutdown in
history. How in the world can we say to those essential
employees who were working hard every day that now you are
going to get six more days off?
I have Federal prison workers in my district that can't
hire enough prison guards at the Federal prison in Greenville,
Illinois, because salaries aren't competitive enough right now.
How are they going to staff--how are they going to staff very
important parts of our Federal agencies when we are telling
agencies they have to give six days off?
Allowing Federal workers to take paid leave away from their
jobs will impact that level of service the agencies they work
for can deliver. And, also, imagine veterans needing assistance
from the VA and that service being delayed because Veterans
Affairs workers are being paid to work at the polls.
There is nothing to stop a Federal employee from
volunteering on their own time if they wish to do so.
Also, my home State of Illinois, every general election,
every State worker gets the day off. I argue, out of the 18
districts in Illinois, I represent the most State workers, and
we still, especially in the rural areas of my district, we
still have a problem getting poll workers.
We do a lot of pilot projects around here in Washington,
D.C., and in Congress. Let's look at Illinois as a pilot
project. It doesn't work there, and it is not going to work
here.
However, I am going to withdraw this amendment, as Section
1801 is the primary jurisdiction of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
The Chairperson. Would the gentleman suspend for a minute?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Chairperson. The written amendment says 1802, but I
think it was your intent to do 1801, correct?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would like to make a clerical
change, yes.
The Chairperson. Okay. With unanimous consent, the
amendment will be altered to reflect ``strike Section 1801.''
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I appreciate the Chairperson's
diligence and patience, and I promise no one behind me will be
fired for it.
The Chairperson. Good.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I withdraw the amendment.
The Chairperson. All right. The amendment is withdrawn. It
is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee.
The Chairperson. Are there further amendments that Members
would like to offer at this point?
The gentleman is recognized.
The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will
read the title of the amendment.
Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
Georgia. Strike Section 1811.
[The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Again, our efforts here are to try to avoid, as this
massive piece of legislation rushes its way through the
process, to try to avoid any unintended consequences that,
again, I think disenfranchises voters.
This amendment would strike Section 1811, which is a
provision that creates a private right of action for private
plaintiffs to sue under title III of the Help America Vote
Act--HAVA, which includes a multitude of ways a plaintiff could
argue he or she was aggrieved.
Now, I think the intention here is good, but from the
experience that we have had in previous elections, especially
in the last election cycle and especially in Georgia, I can
tell you that the voters out there are really sickened by
politics these days, especially--I have had many come to me and
say, what does it matter if I go to the polls and it is going
to be up to the courts to decide who won? What value is my
vote?
I believe this is just going to weaponize the candidates
who don't like the outcome of the election to be able to take--
I mean, I think a good example was something that was brought
up earlier, something Mr. Butterfield brought up and, Madam
Chairperson, you brought up, that the language of the bill
states ``to the greatest extent practicable'' when it comes to
where polling places are going to be located near public
transit. Well, who is defining what ``the greatest extent
practicable'' really means? That is going to be a judge
somewhere in a court somewhere, and you are going to empower
trial lawyers to be able to sue if somebody doesn't like the
outcome of an election.
I think it is going to be counterproductive to what we are
doing because this is disenfranchising the voters, and it takes
away the power of the ballot away from the voter and hands it
to lawyers. If you don't like the outcome of the election, find
somebody who can come up and say, well, I don't think the
polling place was put at the greatest extent practicable.
Somebody is going to find that--some lawyer somewhere is going
to take that case up and take it to the courts, and we are
going to have the courts deciding elections, not the people. I
think we need to empower the people, not the courts and not
trial lawyers.
Again, I don't think we have run this through a proper
vetting. Have we talked to the courts? Can they handle a
greater load of cases? Right now, I have a family member who
has been involved in a traffic accident and now is in the
second year of just trying to get a court date to deal with an
insurance settlement because the courts are backed up.
I think that this has good intentions. I think it is a lot
of unintended consequences. Again, this would disenfranchise
the voters and take away the power of the ballot and hand it to
trial lawyers.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do additional Members wish to be heard on this amendment?
If not, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Actually there is a right of action. This does not create a
new cause of action. It merely allows aggrieved parties to also
have a right of action. The Attorney General has the right to
sue already.
A private right of action is necessary for justice, and
this has been discussed earlier today. Most enforcement of
voting rights law today is done by aggrieved citizens. And with
so few election officials willing to stand for them, I don't
think we can depend on the Attorney General to bring
enforcement actions. Unfortunately, we have seen that.
As I said this morning, a right without a remedy is
actually not a right. So I think this is an important provision
of the act, and I would urge opposition to the amendment.
Unless there are further comments, all those who are in
favor of the amendment will say aye.
Opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Loudermilk. I request a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. A vote has been requested. The clerk will
please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members vote no, and
three Members are yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
The clerk will read the title.
And Mrs. Davis reserves a----
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order,
please.
The Chairperson [continuing]. Point of order.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 1901.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment strikes Section 1901. This provision
expresses the sense of Congress that students would be allowed
to establish a second residency.
This would allow college students to establish a second
residency, which is just another example of this bill weakening
the voting system and increasing the election system's
vulnerability to fraud while again failing to implement the
necessary and basic verification measures on who is registering
to vote.
This provision opens a huge door to voter fraud by allowing
students to vote at their university without any change in
their legal residency or creating any mechanism for removing
them from the voter rolls at their legal residence. Under this
provision, students could vote absentee at their legal
residence and vote in person at their university.
Look, I have twin 18-year-old boys. They don't always make
the best decision. They are going to be going to college next
year, and what if they thought it was great to vote at home for
their dad and also vote at school for their dad? What it would
get them and what it would get any other student who did this
is prosecuted. I don't believe that is the intention of this
provision, but that could be the end result.
In my home State of Illinois, also, for example, the
requirements imposed by the State for somebody to prove that
they are part of the university community are so lax that at
colleges in my district you can meet the qualifications for
proof of residency by presenting an emailed receipt from Jimmy
John's.
There is no other population of people that gets the option
to be registered in two locations. I certainly would hope that
my colleagues would feel the same about extending this same
option to members of the military.
This is yet another provision of this bill that impedes on
States' rights to determine their own registration and voting
practices, as protected under Article I, Section 4 of the
Constitution.
I support the passage of this amendment.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. Before I call on the gentleman from
Maryland, I would like to say I think the amendment relies on
an incorrect reading of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
State law already allows students to choose their domicile.
This merely provides a sense of the Congress that rearticulates
existing law. It doesn't create a new right for students.
Mr. Raskin is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I was just simply going to make the point that the
Chairperson just made. I think this question was settled in the
1960s and 1970s in a series of cases called the college student
voting rights decisions, where there were challenges to
restrictive efforts by States to keep students from voting at
their college campus. There was a parallel set of cases dealing
with military servicemembers. The Texas case, I recall, was
called Carrington v. Rash.
In all those cases, the Federal courts and the State courts
said that it is essentially an optional question for the voter,
whether to choose as their voter domicile their college
residence or their residence as a member of the military or
their original place of residence, overriding precisely the
kinds of objections that we just heard from Mr. Davis.
So it is really up to the person to decide. I don't read
anything in H.R. 1 to try to give people the right to vote in
two places at once. The dilemma that Mr. Davis's sons face
about where they should register to vote exists today. They can
decide today whether to vote on campus or to vote back home.
Since you have twins, one could vote at home and one could
vote on campus, and that is perfectly Constitutional and legal,
because domicile is referred by virtue of physical presence
with intention to remain at least for the time being. And the
people get to decide basically where they want to do it.
The Chairperson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Raskin. Yes by all means.
The Chairperson. You know, it is worth noting voting twice
is illegal. It is illegal now; it will be illegal after
hopefully this bill becomes law. This doesn't change it.
Are there additional Members wishing to be heard?
The gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I would like
to yield to my good friend from Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Look, I appreciate the comments,
Chairperson Lofgren, and my good friend, Mr. Raskin. But,
looking at the legislation, I do believe that this causes
confusion, and I do believe it could lead to the determination,
when this law is implemented, that college students will be
able to choose their domicile, as of today, at their university
while also keeping their domicile at home, thus increasing the
opportunities for somebody to make a bad decision and try and
cast two votes.
I don't believe that is the intent of what you want in this
bill, but the way the bill is written, I believe that is the
intent that you absolutely have right now.
So this is another reason why a 571-page bill should not be
rushed through. I have had 15 minutes of questions with two
panels that I have been able to ask the witnesses. The same for
my colleagues here. This is not the process that we call
regular order. This is a rushed process that leads to many
questions and many debates that we may have throughout further
provisions in this bill.
I would certainly hope that if a provision in a sense of
Congress is being asked to be given to not just college
students, let's make sure we express a sense of Congress that
we also want to make sure that we protect from any possible bad
decisions that someone will make. And let's also maybe express
a sense of Congress that we afford this same ability to our
members of the military.
So these are the issues that have to be addressed, and they
are not being addressed because this bill is being pushed
through to get a vote, to send a political message, and not
enact good policy.
I yield back.
Mr. Loudermilk. I yield back.
The Chairperson. Do additional Members wish to be heard?
If not, on the amendment, those who favor the amendment
will say aye.
Those who oppose will say nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it.
Mr. Walker. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk
will call the roll, please.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report, please.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members are no, and three
Members are yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment does not prevail.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Loudermilk. Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
The amendment will please be distributed.
And Mrs.----
Mrs. Davis of California. Point of order.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order.
The clerk will please read the title.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1 offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
Georgia. Strike Section 1904.
[The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Again, because of the speed that this thing is being pushed
through, I can see numerous unintended consequences, but, in
this case, I think this may be an intended consequence, to
undermine what many States have spent many years in the
legislation and debate to protect, the integrity of their
voting systems, to ensure that only those who have the right to
vote and legally can vote vote. Because whenever someone
fraudulently votes in an election, it discredits those who have
legally cast their vote.
Now, what this amendment does, simply strikes Section 1904,
which is a provision that allows for a sworn statement of
identification to be in place of an actual ID that is required
by many States.
Again, I go back to: The States are the closest to the
people. The States know what is best for the populations that
they represent, for their citizens. And many States already
have a voter ID law in place. This would circumvent that and
simply go to a sworn statement.
I was at a convenience store during this last recess, and a
gentleman, probably about my age, that was in front of me went
up to buy a packet of chewing tobacco, or chaw, as they call it
in Georgia. A guy about my age. You know what the clerk did? He
asked for his ID because the law says you have to be 21 to buy
tobacco in the State of Georgia, and that clerk had to check
his ID.
In the State of Georgia, it has been required that you have
to show an ID to get your ears pierced, to show that you are of
age.
This would undermine something that is of much greater
importance than either one of those, is to prove you are who
you are and that you are allowed to vote.
Now, in Georgia, we do have provisional ballots that are
available. If you don't have your ID, they will let you vote on
a provisional ballot.
I can see that there is a multitude of issues that will
come up here, especially when we go back to the last amendment
that I proposed, to where, if now we have people who are coming
up and they are just doing a sworn statement that they are who
they say they are and they are allowed to vote and it turns out
they are not, you know, what do you do then? Do you kick their
votes out? Then does somebody go and find a lawyer and sue
against that?
I mean, I think that we need to slow this process down.
More importantly than that, we need to take this to the
governors, to the Secretaries of State, have input from the
States, not just simple hearings in a State that a few people
are invited to, but actually have those who have been elected
to represent the people of those States who are going to bear
the cost. They are going to bear the legal costs. They are
going to bear the cost of implementing this.
And, also, we are overriding those things that the States
have done effectively well.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Are there additional Members who wish to be heard?
The gentlelady from--first, does the gentlewoman from
California insist on her point of order?
Mrs. Davis of California. Point of order withdrawn.
The Chairperson. It is withdrawn.
The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
You know, I hear a lot of discussions about voter ID laws.
Let me just suggest to the gentleman from Georgia that buying a
pack of cigarettes is not a constitutional right; voting is.
You cannot compare the two things. Voting is a right. It is in
the Constitution that we read in this building all the time.
Buying a pack of cigarettes is not, going to a movie is not,
getting on an airplane is not. And so I think you cannot make
an argument--I mean, I guess you could--but it certainly
doesn't make a lot of sense to me that you would compare
something as simple as a child going to get a pack of
cigarettes to the right to vote.
I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
Would additional Members like to be heard on the amendment?
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Walker. I will yield my time to Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. I thank my friend from North Carolina. You
make a very good point. That is why it is so much more
important to ensure that the person voting does have a right to
vote, not someone who doesn't have a right to vote, showing up
to vote, and circumventing their right that their voice be
heard in this government. You are making the argument that I am
making, is, it is much more important that we ensure that those
who should be voting are the ones who are voting, and the only
way to do that is with proper ID.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. As we know, voter ID
laws have deprived many voters of their right to vote. They
reduce participation and they prevent many Americans from
participating in the democratic process. Studies have shown
that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have
government-issued photo ID, and that percentage is even higher
for students, people of color, people with disabilities, low-
income voters, and students.
Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs,
because the underlying documentation, like birth certificates,
is often difficult or expensive to come by.
I would note that also, in-person voter fraud is
exceedingly rare. A recent study found that from 2000--the year
2000 to 2014, there were only 31 Federal allegations of voter
impersonation, the only type of fraud that photo IDs could
prevent, during a period in which over 1 billion ballots were
cast.
These voter ID requirements do have a partisan effect. I am
not going to go into all of that. I am not--if you take a look,
for example, in the State of Texas, voter ID, your gun permit
is accepted but the University of Texas ID is not. I think that
that is an example of the pernicious impact of these voter ID
laws that so often prevent people from--who have a right to
vote from exercising that right.
I will just close with this. One of the things that upset
me more than any other report was a World War II vet went out,
served his country in World War II, the greatest generation. He
is very old, he doesn't have a driver's license, he is too old
to drive. He didn't have a photo ID and so he could go and say
he fought the Nazis, but he couldn't vote on Election Day. That
is what voter IDs will do.
So unless there are additional Members who would like to
speak, those who favor the amendment will say aye.
Those who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Loudermilk. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
and three Members have voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Walker. Madam Chairperson, I have an amendment at the
table.
The Chairperson. The clerk will please distribute the
amendment. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order, and the clerk
will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Mark Walker of North
Carolina, in title I of the bill redesignate----
The Chairperson. I would ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment would add a new subtitle to the bill,
prohibiting the practice of ballot harvesting. Ballot
harvesting is the practice in which organized workers or
volunteers collect absentee ballots from certain voters and
then drop them off at a polling place or election office. While
this process seems innocuous at first, it has been used to take
advantage of voters and has been severely abused by political
operatives, really, throughout the country.
Most recently, we saw a new election ordered in North
Carolina's Ninth Congressional District because of ballot-
harvesting allegations. In California, this practice is legal,
and we saw it affect multiple races. Valadao was up six points
on election day and lost 3 weeks later. Young Kim was up by
8,000 votes and then lost by 5,000 votes. One more example was
Jeff Denham lost because of the 57,000 vote-by-mail ballots
cast and counted after election day.
This amendment prohibits the practice of ballot harvesting,
while allowing for commonsense exceptions for the disabled and
elderly, of course. I support the passage of this amendment,
and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Are there----
Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw my point of order.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis withdraws her point of order.
Are there other members who wish to be heard on this
amendment?
Yes, Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Well, I think you have offered a
number of examples, and I appreciate that, but I think that we
know that ballot harvesting, as you are thinking about it, is
not the fact that people are allowed to cast absentee ballots
up until election day. That is legitimate in the State of
California. It also means that we are allowing as great an
access as possible to the electorate. This actually--while we
don't want to have the kind of situation that happened in North
Carolina--and obviously, there is going to be another election
there at the same time, the way that these activities have
continued with people being in control of their ballots, should
not be confused with this issue of ballot harvesting.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California yields
back.
Mr. Davis, do you wish----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
The Chairperson. You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Rest assured this issue has to do
with ballot harvesting. We have just recently seen that there
is possibly criminal behavior in North Carolina. We have a new
election because election officials said there could be
possible fraud. Now, I hate to break it to anybody, but that is
just not going to be relegated to North Carolina.
The problem we have is, the process that is illegal in
North Carolina that was ripe with fraud, is legal in other
States. McCrae Dowless, who could possibly go to jail in North
Carolina, would be walking free in California for what he did.
That is wrong. He could be walking free in other States. That
is wrong.
If we are going to try and federalize every other part of
the election system in this country with this 571-page bill
that we have no input in as Republicans, then why in the world
wouldn't you want to federalize a process that has been
possibly criminal in one State? We have seen the impact. We are
having a brand-new election. There were--millions upon millions
of dollars are going to be put back into the political system
that made my colleagues in this chamber say you want to get
money out of politics. So why in the world, if you want to
federalize everything else, why wouldn't we stop this process?
Because it is ripe for possibilities of fraud, and everybody
sitting on this dais knows that.
What is illegal and what is criminal in another State, and
we have seen it--you can't close your eyes and say you did not
know that it could happen somewhere else. That is wrong. That
can affect the outcomes of the elections. I want fair elections
for everyone. I want everyone to know that they can cast a vote
and it is going to be counted fairly.
We saw what happens when people criminalize this process.
Not everyone--I know it is a shock to people in this room, not
everyone in the election process is a do-gooder like all of us
sitting here at this table. There are bad people, and bad
people are going to take advantage of bad processes. This is
wrong in North Carolina; it ought to damn well be wrong in any
other State in this Nation. And if we are serious about
elections and elections being fair, then this amendment should
pass. And I would certainly hope that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would recognize this.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Are there additional Members who would like to be heard on
the amendment?
Mr. Aguilar. Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. Mr. Aguilar is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. I will take the bait, Madam Chairperson.
You know, what we saw--and I appreciate the gentleman from
North Carolina bringing this to the forefront. He has seen in
his State, let's just call it what it is, it was election
fraud, and it was meant to skew the outcome of an election. But
make no mistake, other processes in other States, their
intention is to count every ballot, and that should be the
intention of this Committee. It should be the intention of
every individual who casts a vote, is to have their ballot
counted.
Let's not conflate the two: widespread election abuse that
we saw in North Carolina versus having an ability to cast your
absentee ballot on the day of the election and having it
counted. I don't care how many votes you were up on election
night or where you went to bed and you were winning and you
ended up losing. What matters is, is every vote counted. That
is what this Committee has the obligation to discuss. That is
what this piece of legislation does. Let's not conflate the
two, and let's not add issues that don't exist.
So where there is election abuse and fraud, individuals
should--can and should be prosecuted. And whether that is in
any State, my home State or in North Carolina, individuals
should be prosecuted if they don't play by the rules. And I
trust that that will be the case.
But at its peak, we need to ensure that every ballot is
counted, and that is exactly what other States have done. There
has been no reported abuse. And if there are evidence of
abuses, individuals should be held accountable, and I look
forward to my colleagues on the other side raising those
issues.
I would like to yield my remaining time to Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
You know, I am really kind of shocked by those comments. It
is judge and jury by innuendo. I think in California, there is
no attempt to fill out other people's ballots and to go house
to house and pick them up. People are receiving absentee
ballots. They can be encouraged by family members or others to
vote, to get their votes in. We do it, you know, on television.
You know, please, you know, mail in your absentee ballots. But
that is a very different process.
I think we really don't want to go there, because access is
one thing, but fraud is something very different, and that is
what will--that is what a jury and a judge can decide in North
Carolina. That doesn't mean that everybody else is under that
same auspices.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back?
Mr. Aguilar. I yield back.
The Chairperson. Do other Members wish to be heard?
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Obviously, this is one of those issues that--I mean, from
the--from what I am hearing here is that it is okay if you are
in a Democratic State, but it is not going to be okay if you
are in a Republican State. I mean, this is institutionalizing
the potential for fraud. When you look at this, you look at
this bill as a whole, we weaken the ability to ensure that the
right people are voting, and then we are going to
institutionalize a system that has been shown that it can be
fraudulently used.
This is the problem I have with taking anything from the
States and moving it to the big bureaucracy of the Federal
Government, which is much, much further away from the people
than the State governments and the local governments, which I
think, as in any case, there have been issues. There is always
issues. But the issues with the States are much less impactful
than with anything that the Federal Government begins doing.
With that, I would like to yield whatever time he may
consume to my good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk.
Just a couple quick things here. To my colleague from
California, I think your quote was, you are in control of your
ballot, but the fact is, that is--the whole reason for this
amendment is that I don't believe that you are. You actually
have volunteers, these are not even paid people really
accountable to anyone. These are volunteers going around
collecting these absentee ballots.
Speaking of North Carolina, my other friend from California
mentioned that this was widespread fraud. Actually, it wasn't,
but it shows you how much damage one individual can do when you
have one county, Bladen County, go from 25 absentee ballots to
over 500, obviously there is an issue with that kind of growth,
and the more you looked into it, the more we saw what was going
on.
But my question is this: Should we not have some
consistency in our Federal voting laws that even if it is a
gray area, what is legal in one State, you can do that a little
bit over here, maybe--I don't understand why there is not a
consistency across the board, that if it is even close to being
illegal in North Carolina, why in North Carolina--or why in
California, that you would have volunteers--now, McCrae Dowless
did lots of things that we are still uncovering, and I don't
want to acknowledge him in any way, but some of what he did may
have been legal if it would have been in California. There may
be some other things where he acted more improper where he
actually filled some of it out. We are still looking into that.
But just his whole process of going to these places and
collecting some of these ballots, to me, it looks like that a
volunteer could do that in California but not in North
Carolina. I see some of the staff even shaking their heads
behind you there.
This is a problem. If a volunteer in North Carolina can go
and collect these absentee ballots, but you can't do that in
California, should we not have consistency here is my question
and with that I yield back to Mr. Loudermilk the remaining
minute 55.
Mr. Loudermilk. I will yield my remaining time to Mr.
Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I appreciate the comments made by
those on the other side of the dais. I do want to go there, as
my colleague Mrs. Davis said. This amendment would make sure
that people could vote on election day in absentee. What we are
trying to do is stop the potential for more McCrae Dowlesses in
every other State in the Nation.
You all want to federalize the national election system--
that is what this bill does--but you don't want to federalize a
process that has been shown to be ripe for possible criminal
behavior. And we have evidence from people on the ground when
these ballots in certain California races were being counted,
you had somebody who worked for a campaign--their goal is to
win. Nothing more, nothing less--who was a ballot harvester and
a poll watcher and somebody who was there when they were
counting the ballots.
Mr. Butterfield. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No, I only have 56 seconds left. You
will get your time in a second.
Mr. Butterfield. All right.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have got to take everything I
have.
This is a problem, and to say that you don't realize that
this is a problem and to look and just--because of
partisanship, put this amendment down, we know that this has
been a problem in North Carolina. William Wilberforce said, you
can choose to look the other way, but you can never again say
that you did not know. This is something that needs to be
addressed for fairness. If this bill really is about fairness,
if this bill is about giving everybody the chance to vote, then
let's make sure that no one can just pop a ballot out the back
door of their car because they know they may have picked up
another party's ballot.
You want to talk about bipartisanship? Bipartisanship will
matter when we have a fair election process that does not allow
ballot harvesting.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
First, I want to get a clarification on the--the amendment
appears to speak to Section 1931, Subtitle O, but I am trying
to find that in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I
am trying to get the----
The Chairperson. It adds. It adds a new subtitle.
Mr. Butterfield. It would be a new subtitle?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Butterfield. Okay, that clears that up.
Okay. I understand, Mr. Davis, that you want to limit who
handles ballots to family members and election officials and
postal officials and all of that. Do you also want to address
those who handle applications for absentee ballots?
See, in North Carolina, we have two processes, step one and
step two. First you have the application process where the
voter seeks to have a ballot mailed to him or her, and step
number two is when the voter mails the ballot back to the Board
of Elections.
Your amendment, I just want to get this clear, your
amendment does not speak to the application process?
The Chairperson. Will the gentleman yield for the----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We are talking about ballot
harvesting. You are talking about vote by mail, where it goes
through the Postal Service and gets delivered directly to the
election official.
Mr. Butterfield. I am.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. But not another set of fingers put
on it that could possibly commit the same fraud that we saw
exist in your home State.
Mr. Butterfield. But absentee voting by mail is what you
are addressing?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No. We are addressing ballot
harvesting. We are addressing somebody----
Mr. Butterfield. In general?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We are addressing a process that is
legal in the State of California right now for anybody to go
and pick up ballots and then be trusted to bring them back to
the election officials' office without any bipartisanship that
occurs----
Mr. Butterfield. These are live ballots after they have
been completed?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. Or as far as we know. Did
McCrae Dowless complete--did he pick up only completed ballots?
That is why this process needs to be outlawed. That is the
questions we have right now, Mr. Butterfield. Because what was
illegal in your State is not illegal to do in other States.
In particular we saw the ballot harvesting process possibly
determine the outcome of elections to Congress. Imagine how
many local officials that could have been impacted by those
same ballot harvesters. There are no safeguards. That is the
problem here. That is again why I say, we can all choose to
look the other way, but we can never again say we did not know.
Mr. Butterfield. Reclaiming my time. Thank you, I yield
back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chairperson, thank you, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment. Although I confess that I am
somewhat charmed by the argument from our friends who have been
saying that they don't want to interfere with the State,
suddenly to try to rewrite the laws of 50 States with respect
to voter fraud when it is completely unnecessary.
Now, as I understand what Leslie McCrae Dowless did in
North Carolina was he picked up the absentee ballots, and then
some of them they threw away, some of them they lost. Some of
them they may have written their own way. That is voter fraud.
It is voter fraud in North Carolina. It is voter fraud in
California. This guy is not in trouble because he delivered
somebody's ballot successfully to the Board of Elections. He is
in trouble because he committed voter fraud. You know,
anybody--any third grader would recognize that what he did was
to try to distort and alter the outcome of the election. That
is against the law in California right now, as I understand it.
I just----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Raskin. By all means.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. What we are trying to do is prohibit
a process that we saw could be corrupted.
Mr. Raskin. Can I ask you about that then? Okay.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. What the rest of this bill is trying
to do is prescribe--prescribe a process to our States. That is
the difference between this amendment and the rest of this
bill. So that is why I wanted to respond to your--but, yes, I
will answer your question.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, well, just reclaiming my time then.
Your solution strikes me as an exceedingly broad one to the
problem of a few bad actors. I mean, the Dowless guy also had
been convicted of insurance fraud a few years before where he
took out a life insurance policy on a dead man and collected
$165,000. You may as well rewrite the life insurance policy law
in California because he did that. But why would you? What he
did was fraud in North Carolina. It is fraud in California too.
Now, under your law, you would still allow the practice,
which you have described as ballot harvesting, if the person's
a household member, a family member, or a caregiver. Those
terms are not defined anywhere. Why would you allow that? Now,
I happen to think it is fine, but if I can give my ballot to, I
don't know, you tell me, a brother-in-law, a stepbrother, a
half-brother, why can't I give it to my roommate, who I have
lived with for the last 50 years, my best friend from college
to take in, if I am disabled, and do I need to be disabled in
order to do it?
So, the argument is presented as this sweeping categorical
prohibition, but then it is riddled with exceptions with all
these people that you want to allow to be----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Raskin. Shouldn't we leave that to----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. The people of California and North
Carolina and Florida to decide, because all of them have their
own prohibitions against voter fraud, which is a completely
recognizable species of misconduct.
By all means.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. We are assuming in
California, because the election results have seated Members of
Congress, that there wasn't fraud, but we cannot sit here and
say that this process is not ripe for fraud, because what is
illegal--what is alleged--and I believe there was fraud in
North Carolina, which is why I think this process needs to be
changed. The sheer fact that the same process that could
prosecute and send this gentleman back to jail--and I am--you
know, I don't think he should lose his right to vote, right,
because he was a convicted criminal in the past.
Mr. Raskin. Not when he gets out of prison because----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yeah, so--but he----
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. The purpose of punishment is
rehabilitation.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. But he committed a process that is
going to probably send him back to jail. And we have got to
make sure we have processes in place that don't encourage that.
And we are trying, with this amendment, to identify those who
States can then identify who they trust to bring in as a ballot
harvester.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Reclaiming my time.
I don't think you are trusting the States to decide. You
have defined the categories--you haven't really defined them.
You have designated them without defining them, and so I--
basically, I think that your amendment doesn't even have the
courage of its convictions. If you want to ban it, you should
just ban it without offering a whole string of exceptions. But
let the States decide what it is that they want to do.
California doesn't seem to be having a problem, and I don't see
why we should superintend their law for them on this.
I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I would also urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
California Election Code Section 3017 provides that, quote, a
vote-by-mail voter who is unable to return the ballot may
designate any person to return the ballot to the elections
official who issued the ballot to the precinct board at a
polling place or vote center within the State or the vote-by-
mail ballot dropoff location within the State.
Now, there are criminal penalties for doing this wrong.
California Election Code Section 18577 provides that any person
having charge of a completed vote-by-mail ballot who willfully
interferes or causes interference with the return to local
elections officials having jurisdiction over the election is
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding 6 months and by a fine not exceeding
$10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
I will say that this--you know, I think the amendment to
some extent is illogical. The North Carolina law prohibits
voter harvesting. You can only give it to a family member. So
that is the standard that is being urged, and yet it is in
North Carolina that the election fraud occurred because this
individual violated the law, and he will be held accountable
for his misbehavior.
But there have been no credible reports of fraudulent or
otherwise illegal provisions in California. I understand that
many people outside of California were perplexed about why the
count took so long. Those of us in California know why. It is
because the ballots that are postmarked on election day are
still counted. And it can take, you know, days to be delivered.
And then each ballot has the signature on the outside, needs to
be compared to the microfiche that is in the election office.
It is a very time-consuming process. It was no surprise to any
of us in California that it took a long time, and the late-
breaking ballots did not go for the Republican incumbents in
our State up and down the State.
But there were observers from both parties in all the
contested elections, and there were no allegations, that I am
aware of--and I took quite some time to find out--of fraud in
any of these elections. I do think it is important that
individuals who are homebound, who have no family to delegate
this role to, have an opportunity to give their ballot to
someone who will turn it in for them, and I would hope that we
may----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I know I have no
more time left.
The Chairperson. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, thank you. I just want to say,
federalize a criminal penalty for a local election official who
may mistakenly have an employee who may be an intern or a temp,
remove somebody from the voter rolls unintentionally, but we
are not willing to federalize a crime that you say is illegal
in your State, that is obviously--the process is illegal in
North Carolina. I think this shows--the debate we are having
here today shows clearly that this Committee ought to have a
hearing on ballot harvesting.
This Committee ought to have witnesses from North Carolina,
from California and others, sitting at that table, and we ought
to be able to get an idea of what ballot harvesting means in
this country and what safeguards we can put in place. Because
the sheer fact is, if somebody grabs a bunch of ballots and
they are coming in, in California, and it was so late to count
these ballots because they kept coming in, your congressional
districts aren't that big. It doesn't take days to get ballots
that were postmarked on election day to the local county
election office. It just doesn't work that way.
When they are out there, it is ripe for possibilities of
fraud. That is why we ought to have a hearing. We ought to have
more openness, and that is the biggest complaint I have about
this markup, is we are not given the right data before this
bill is pushed through.
The Chairperson. Reclaiming my time.
I will just close, before my time expires, by indicating
that the vast majority of the votes that were counted in all of
these races were, in fact, delivered by mail. And it does take
a long time. The Central Valley districts are not compact. Try
going from one end to the other in Congressional District 21,
it is not an easy or compact district.
But in any case, the remedy being urged on us by our
friends on the other side of the aisle is the North Carolina
model, which, in fact, did not help prevent the fraud.
My time is expired. The time of all Members has expired.
Those who favor the amendment will vote aye.
Those opposed will vote no.
The Chairperson. In the opinion----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. I have to say, in the opinion of the
Chair, the noes have it, and a recorded vote is requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members voted no, and two
Members voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment does not prevail. Are there
additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I have an amendment at the
desk, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis has an amendment. The clerk will
distribute the amendment. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order,
and the clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois. Insert after subtitle N of title I----
The Chairperson. I would ask unanimous consent that we
dispense with the reading of the amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis is recognized for five minutes
in support of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Leave it to me to go back to the last debate quickly, but I
have been to California 21 and that district is not that large.
Come to Illinois, go to Montana. The sheer fact that ballots
were coming in after election day shows this process is ripe
for possible fraud. That is why we should have had a different
vote on that amendment and we did not. And that frustrates me,
because it is about fairness, I heard. But it failed.
This amendment that I am offering would add a new subtitle,
prohibiting any funds authorized in this bill to be made
available to anyone who does not certify that they did not aid
in the creation or enactment of this bill.
The amounts authorized to be appropriated in H.R. 1 are
staggering. We still have not received a CBO cost estimate to
even know how much it will cost. And we still have not had our
questions answered on who assisted in the drafting of this
bill. It was bragged about at the press conference announcing
the bill. I don't know who helped write this bill. Who were
they? Are they going to gain from the possibly billions that
are going to be put into the campaigns? Are they going to go be
a political consultant? Are they going to work for the TV
stations?
By all appearances, H.R. 1 is simply a way for political
operatives to enrich themselves. I support the passage of this
amendment, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
I am just getting familiar with the amendment right now.
And as always, Mr. Davis has an inspired suggestion here. I
would almost like to argue that we universalize this for all
legislation that goes through Congress, that anybody who has
lobbied for it can't benefit from it in any way, but I think
that that extension of the principle demonstrates precisely
what is wrong with this, which is it is a naked violation of
the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has determined that the right to lobby
and to participate in the legislative process is protected by
the First Amendment. So this violates the doctrine of
unconstitutional conditions, which says that you can't
condition the receipt of public money and public funding on
surrender of a constitutional right. And essentially what you
are saying is, if you want to enjoy the benefits of this
legislation, or by extension, any other legislation, you can't
have participated in the legislative process that leads up to
enactment.
I would say, if for no other reason, we shouldn't pass this
because it is unconstitutional. I yield back.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis withdraws her reservation.
Are there additional Members who wish to be heard on the
amendment?
I would just note, in addition to the comment made by the
gentleman from Maryland, that the funds made available in the
act are made available to State election officials, and that
the States should not necessarily be constrained in how to
administer those funds, and this prohibition would be an
overreach in restricting who States can contract with.
The gentleman asked to be recognized.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Walker. I will yield my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yeah, we have in this amendment
exception for State and local governments. So State and local
government officials helped to write this bill that we don't
know about. They would be exceptions. What we are talking about
are the same special interests that this bill is supposed to
get out of politics. We don't know if lobbyists, we don't know
if different groups who are active politically helped to write
this bill.
Our colleague at the press conference announcing this bill
said that we want to thank these different groups who helped us
write it. That is exactly why we must ensure that they cannot
gain from the drafting of this bill.
I appreciate the--look, my friend from Maryland, I
appreciate your friendship and your tenacity too, but it shows
we can have policy disagreements but not be disagreeable, but
this is clear. This is clear. Somebody who wrote the bill
shouldn't be able to profit from it, because it is going to put
billions upon billions upon billions of dollars--I mean, look,
my good friend Mr. Aguilar, you look at what he raised from
under $200 in contributions, he would have been eligible for up
to 3 million bucks to spend. He didn't have a race. He could
have spent it on somebody else's behalf.
It is more money getting into the political system. It is
people who say they helped write a bill that is going to take
money out of the political system and instead replace it--not
even replace it--add to it with tax dollars, and we still don't
know how much this bill is going to cost. There is no CBO
score. This is being rushed through.
Again, I reiterate, I don't blame my colleagues sitting on
the other side of this dais. I believe it is your leadership
that is pushing this bill to move to the floor, to send a
political message, and it is not real legislation. This is a
political message meant to help drum up support for what have
you in the electoral process, and it is very frustrating to me.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, I will.
Mr. Raskin. But I wonder, would you be willing to
universalize this principle and attach it to every piece of
legislation that goes through Congress? So I am thinking of one
very special case, for example, that was discussed recently
about the prohibition in Medicare for the government not to be
able to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, which was
put in very explicitly at the behest of the big pharmaceutical
companies, and would we want it to say, they can't benefit from
this legislation if they had any involvement in the legislative
process?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, it is very interesting that my
colleague wants to offer an amendment that would be outside of
this jurisdiction of this Committee, because I had to withdraw
an amendment that is outside of our jurisdiction.
I would defer to the Energy and Commerce Committee, who
held many hearings on our Medicare program and Medicare Part D,
who, you know, created a process that involved many, many hours
upon hours upon hours of hearings. We have not had that here,
Mr. Raskin. I have had 15--as the Ranking Member of a standing
Committee in the House of Representatives, the most open
process that we have had is me asking 15 total minutes of
questions to two panelists, and this is--and then we got a 571-
page bill.
Look, I read the last 200 pages of this bill on a treadmill
Sunday, and I walked five miles while I did it. Tell me, tell
me that this is something that we should put through to the
American people that is going to nationalize our election
processes. That is what is frustrating to me. I get it. I know
it is not the members of this Committee's fault that we are
doing this, I know that. This is something that leadership
wants. They want to send a political message. They don't want
to govern. They want--if this ever got through, it would
seriously nationalize the electoral process. It would seriously
undermine the States' responsibilities to have and to hold
elections on the days that they see fit.
We have so many problems with this bill. I would certainly
hope that when the ballot-harvesting amendment failed, that we
would recognize as we go through further, that there has got to
be a part--there has got to be some bipartisanship in this.
There is none right now. And I am giving you 40 opportunities
to show some, and I got nothing.
I will yield the 33 seconds to Mr. Walker if he wants it.
Otherwise, I yield back.
Mr. Walker. I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much, Madam Chairperson.
If that is the case, Mr. Davis, then I think we need to go
back and repeal the tax bill, because I know probably half of
the people in this Congress benefited from it, and it had not
one hearing. Not one. Not one. So if that is the case, I am
happy to go back and repeal it. I think it would be a great
idea.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from Ohio yields back.
I just wanted to note that I think my comment was
misunderstood. It is not that State election officials were
exempt because, you know, if they participated; it is that the
grants will be administered by the States, and that we would be
constraining them.
You know, this is a bill that was introduced by our
colleague from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. There are a number of
bills that were introduced by other people that were compiled
into the bill as there--a book I read years ago called The
Dance of Legislation, and, you know, when you write bills,
people give opinions, constituents write in. It is a process
that is interesting and inclusive, and that is, I think,
generally, a good thing.
I think this amendment not only would violate the First
Amendment, but it is probably not a good practice. I would urge
a ``no'' vote.
The time of all members has expired.
So I would ask those who are in favor of the amendment to
vote aye.
And those opposed to vote no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. A roll call has been requested. The clerk
will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members voted no, and
three Members voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments for consideration?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis' amendment will be distributed.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order, and
the clerk will please read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois, strike section 2502.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
minutes in support of your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and
thank you to my colleagues for going through this process. This
is a process that I am glad we can have open amendments. I am
glad we can discuss our concerns with this bill, because, you
know, I am for open processes, and you know what, it is an
epiphany.
All of you who said we didn't have enough hearings on the
tax bill or the healthcare bill, hey, you were right. You were
right. Why are you doing the same thing to us when you take
control? That is--you were right. We need to have more. We need
to have more processes. We ought to have more hearings. And we
are not going to get that. We are not going to get that.
This amendment strikes Section 2502. This provision would
overturn the Supreme Court and prohibit States from removing
invalid voters from their rolls. National Voter Registration
Act requires--a bill that passed this House--requires States to
conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to
remove the names of voters who are ineligible by reason of
death or change in residence.
Approximately 24 million voter registrations, one in eight
in the U.S., are either invalid or inaccurate. And about 2.75
million people are registered to vote, more than--that vote in
more than one State. And that is straight from the Supreme
Court Husted opinion.
Voter list maintenance is critical to keeping election
costs down and lines at the polls short. I know costs don't
matter with this bill because we have seen that.
The Supreme Court laid out a good standard in Husted, and
that was just in 2018. This wasn't some decision made back
decades ago. In Ohio, for example, to remove a voter from the
rolls, mail has to be preaddressed, prepaid postcard to voters
who haven't voted in two years to determine if they have moved.
If they don't vote in any other election for four more years,
then they are presumed to have moved and are removed from the
rolls. That seems like a pretty reasonable process to keep the
election costs down in our States.
Your bill would not allow this. Your bill would not allow
this to happen.
Section 2502 would make this requirement nearly impossible
for States to comply with already existing law, the National
Voting Rights Act. Now, I will give you an example. In
Alexander County, Illinois, there are more registered voters
than people who were counted in the census. What H.R. 1 will do
would codify that we will have more registered voters in so
many more census tracks, almost, could be all of them in this
country, if it is implemented, than people who say they live
there.
So local election officials, they are going to print as
many ballots as they can for the possibility of a hundred
percent turnout. And if they are wrong, if they try and save
costs like we have seen in the past, and then there is unheard
of turnout, you know who is going to get criticized? It is the
local election officials. When what this bill would do would be
requiring them to take that gamble. That is why this bill is a
serious infringement on free speech. This bill is a serious
infringement on States and local governments to run their own
election processes.
We want everybody to vote. I can't state that enough, we
want everybody who is eligible to vote to vote. We want
everybody who is eligible to register to vote. But what this
Committee has shown me is that they have no regard for putting
safeguards in place. Not a single amendment that offers what I
believe are commonsense safeguards has been voted for by the
majority. Not one. This is our time to show bipartisanship, and
I am getting none.
If this bill wants to be shoved down our throat in a
partisan roll call, just like many bills I heard in the past
from my Committee members were shoved down their throat when we
were in the majority, that process is taking place right now.
And that is wrong. Doesn't matter who is in charge, it is
wrong.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. Do additional Members wish to be heard on
this amendment?
Is the reservation withdrawn?
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
The Chairperson. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. I
think the minority is mischaracterizing Section 2502. It does
not prevent States from removing ineligible voters. Instead,
Section 2502 ensures that voters do not lose their right to
vote simply because they have chosen not to vote in an
election. Voting is a right, not a use it or lose it privilege.
Section 2502 still allows for numerous options for States
to remove ineligible voters. For example, States can remove
voters from the rolls because they passed away or changed
addresses. Federal standards exist to help ensure accurate
voter rolls, but they don't really protect the right to vote.
You know, it is interesting that the purge rates greatly
increased in covered States after Shelby County v. Holder. And
those previously preclearance States appear to have engaged in
purging with an agenda. It is important that that not be
permitted. And this amendment would undo that.
I will say, Mr. Davis, that we don't agree with the
amendments you have offered so far, which is why we are not
voting for them, primarily because they strike the bill that we
agree with. We are certainly willing, and hopefully we will be
able to come to agreement on some of the amendments. But come
up with a better amendment and maybe we can do that.
So unless there are further comments on this amendment, I
would ask that those who favor the amendment say aye.
And those who oppose it, say no.
And in the opinion of the Chair----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson [continuing]. The noes have it. A recorded
vote has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members voted no, and
three Members voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment did not prevail.
Are there additional amendments that Members wish to offer?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I would like to offer, I
believe it is out of order, Davis amendment No. 19.
The Chairperson. Okay.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved. The
clerk will distribute the amendment, and the clerk will please
read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois, amend Title III to read as follows --
The Chairperson. I would ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
minutes to support your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Every one of the amendments we have offered, except this
one, has been about five pages on average. You don't like our
amendments because of the way they were written. Well, I don't
like your 571-page bill, which is why I offered 40 amendments.
Only 40. We are nowhere close to 571 pages. So I am going to
give you a chance to show bipartisanship, because this
amendment that strikes Section 3001, it authorizes funds for
Title III and replaces it with the Secure Elections Act. It is
a bipartisan bill from the 115th Congress.
Nothing about H.R. 1 has been open or transparent. The
Secure Elections Act was a bipartisan bill and is the model we
should be adopting in the House. Again, bipartisan.
This bill designates Federal elections and their
infrastructure as critical infrastructure, ensures that every
vote is cast by a paper ballot, marked or verifiable by the
voter; encourages security audits and the adoption of basic
cybersecurity standards for voting infrastructure. It improves
post-election auditing, especially through statistical
sampling. Additionally, it articulates a retaliatory policy
that threatens to impose costs on those who seek to threaten
the integrity of the U.S. elections.
The Secure Elections Act is not a perfect bill; it is a
much better starting point than H.R. 1. I support the passage
of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw the point of order.
The Chairperson. The point of order is withdrawn.
I would like to note I personally thought that this was not
germane, but the Parliamentarians overruled us. So----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We will take it.
Mrs. Davis of California. It is bipartisan.
The Chairperson. That is right. You know, we have moved
forward in terms of knowledge since 2002. The Secure Elections
Act does not provide State and local governments the resources
they need to improve election security. Rather it approaches
the same old one-and-done approach to funding that got us into
this situation of inadequate security.
H.R. 1, in contrast, provides States the surge funding they
need to secure elections in time for the 2020 election, and the
predictability of funds in the future, so they can plan, make
deliberate security investments, and continue cybersecurity
training for election officials.
The Secure Elections Act, although well intentioned at the
time it was devised, fails to impose sufficient transparency
requirements for election service providers.
H.R. 1 provides greater transparency related to election
security vendors, including requiring the disclosure of supply-
chain information, and it requires that vendors be owned and
operated by a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, among
other things, which was absent from the prior bill.
Finally, H.R. 1 would ensure that audits take place by hand
rather than a machine, and that is critical for election
security if the electronic counting system has also been
infected. I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment was
offered, but I think H.R. 1 is an improvement over the prior
effort, so I would urge opposition to the amendment as offered.
Are there additional comments to be made?
If not, all those in favor will say aye.
Opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. A recorded
vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
three Members have voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not adopted.
Are there additional amendments that Members wish to offer?
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Chairperson. The gentleman from North Carolina has an
amendment.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis has reserved a point of order.
The clerk is distributing the amendment.
Will the clerk please read the title?
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Mark Walker of North
Carolina, strike Section 4122.
[The amendment of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes on behalf of his amendment.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment strikes Section 4122. This provision creates
a new standard of judicial review, creates new standards of
judicial review that weakens the rights of respondents in
Commission matters. Let me break it down. If a respondent
challenges in court a Commission decision finding that it
violated the law, the court would then defer to any reasonable
interpretation the agency gives to the statute. But if the
respondent wins at the Commission, no deference will be given
to the FEC's decision if challenged in court.
Basically, this ``heads I win, tails you lose'' approach
harms respondents and biases court decisions against speakers.
I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw my point of order.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis does not insist on her point of
order.
I would just note that Section 4122 simply establishes that
challenges to the constitutionality of campaign finance laws go
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with
an appeal to the D.C. circuit. It also provides a right for
Members of Congress to intervene in support of or opposition to
the position of a party to the case regarding the
constitutionality of any challenged provision. It doesn't
create a new standard of judicial review. It is simply
procedural as to where these matters will be heard.
Are there additional Members wishing to be heard on the
amendment?
If not, then on the amendment, those in favor will say aye.
Opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. There is a request for a roll call vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Okay, Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted
no, three Members have voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments to be heard?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis' amendment will be distributed.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. A point of order is reserved. The clerk
will----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Amendment 22. Pardon. I have
skipped.
The Chairperson. Okay. Amendment 22.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, the amendments
will be distributed. I apologize, but as much as I know, my
good friend Marcia wants to hear me go through all my
amendments, I have chosen to skip a few.
Ms. Fudge. Really?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, yes. I know it is not usually
my style, but we did it.
This amendment strikes Section 4208----
The Chairperson. Oh, this is--no. This is 41--this is the
same amendment. So we need----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. 4208, yeah.
Voice. So 4206 you are skipping?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We are skipping 4206.
The Chairperson. Okay. Can we find the correct----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Trust me, this process is still
shorter than me talking on the other ones.
The Chairperson. That is all right.
Thanks very much. The clerk will report the title of the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois, Strike
Section 4208.
And a point of order is reserved--actually, and withdrawn.
This is germane.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right. Ready to roll?
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
This amendment strikes Section 4208. This provision creates
new political record requirements for online platforms. Any
person or group spending as little as $500 during a calendar
year on qualified political advertisements on many popular and
widely accessed internet platforms, including news, social
media, social networking sites, search engines, mobile apps--a
lot of us spend that on franking--so they would have to provide
certain information to those platforms, and the information
would have to be posted in an online public file.
The term ``national legislative issue of public
importance'' is not defined, and is borrowed from the public
file requirements for broadcasters under the Federal
Communications Act, which also does not define this term.
I know we had some debate earlier about terms that I have
defined in some of my amendments. This is another example where
the Committee could show the same consideration, because the
process could truly disrupt free speech. And we want free
speech for everyone. So--not just those who helped write the
bill, that we don't know.
Grassroots groups using social media to promote contentious
but important causes, such as support or opposition for a wall
on the U.S.-Mexico border, immigration reform, the Tea Party,
the Women's March, to targeted supporters, may find themselves
targeted for harassment and retaliation by opponents monitoring
the content and scope of their online advertising campaigns,
using the information reported in the public file.
I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. Do other Members wish to be heard on the
amendment?
I would just like to note that it is true that the Honest
Ads Act borrows from the approach that applies to political ads
on television and radio. It extends those standards to online
platforms and requires those platforms to keep public records
of political ads. The bill does also include a safe harbor for
those online platforms to show their best efforts. It does so
in Section 4208 which adds a subsection titled Safe Harbor for
Platforms Making Best Efforts to Identify Requests which are
Subject to Record Maintenance Requirements. In accordance with
the rules established by the Commission, if an online platform
shows that the platform used best efforts to determine whether
or not a request to purchase a qualified political
advertisement was subject to the requirements of this
subsection, the online platform shall not be considered to be
in violation of such requirements.
It only applies to big platforms, those with 50 million or
more unique monthly visitors from the United States that sell
political advertising. That is specified in Section 4208(A),
which includes a subsection for online platforms that defines
them as having 50 million or more unique monthly visitors or
users for the majority of months during the preceding 12
months.
The Honest Ads Act has flexibility to deal with changing
mediums, but at a minimum, people should know who is paying for
an ad. This bill is about paid online advertising. It isn't
about people's Facebook or Twitter accounts or their blogs.
According to Borrell Associates, in 2016, more than $1.4
billion was spent on online political advertising. The Honest
Ads Act is about ensuring our disclosure laws keep pace with
changing technology.
Digital advertising can have a far greater reach than
broadcast advertising, and it is time for the rules to be
updated to reflect how campaigns are run in the 21st century.
It is about curbing illegal foreign influence in our election.
Facebook disclosed that Russian entities spent $100,000 in
political advertisements to amplify the different social and
political messages in 2016. Our online platforms can be
exploited to sow distrust in American democracy. And that is
something I think we all oppose. I oppose this amendment and
would urge its defeat.
Unless there are further comments----
Mr. Walker. I would like to yield my time to the gentleman
from Illinois.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized and yields his
time to Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I appreciate you
brought up what we do need to address, and that is the possible
Russian interference that we saw on Facebook, but your safe
harbor provision in the same statement would allow whomever to
decide that Facebook did their best to ensure that they weren't
compromised. That doesn't make sense.
My amendment is the only way that I have a voice in this
process on a 571-page bill that has been jammed down our
throats. I mean, could you--I mean, would this bill with the
safe harbor provision let Facebook off the hook? I don't
understand. That is why we need to have more hearings. That is
why we need to have a better process. That is why I offer this
amendment, to bring attention to the problems in this bill, and
I am not going to run away from the problems in this bill.
The safe harbor provision would allow platforms like
Facebook to walk away from responsibility that they now see
that they should have taken before the 2016 elections. They
chose not to. Unless this bill is strengthened, they are going
to have the opportunity to choose not to again. Ladies and
gentlemen, that is not what we are here for.
I yield back. Although, I will tell you, we are working
through more amendments to get this process going faster, so
bear with us if we don't get the right amendment in front of
you.
The Chairperson. That is all right.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. Does the gentleman from North Carolina
yield back?
Mr. Walker. Yes, I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Davis, did you wish to be recognized?
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from California is
recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Davis of California. I was going to ask my colleague
to just--if you could pinpoint where is the problem here? I
mean, this is kind of like a floor, I guess you would say, and
so I am just wondering where would you like to strengthen it?
You mention Facebook, and I would agree with you when it comes
to Facebook. I think that they were not open. Maybe that is a
different way of saying it.
The Chairperson. I think you can get unanimous agreement on
that.
Mrs. Davis of California. But I am just looking for, you
know, where the----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Excuse me for not remembering the
exact provision in this 571-page bill that the Chairperson
referred to when she mentioned the safe harbor provisions. What
she relayed to us and what I took it as is that a platform,
regardless of the size--because I brought up concerns about
groups who want to participate in the political process.
Remember, I heard a lot of talk about free speech from both
sides here but what Madam Chairperson talked about in her safe
harbor provision was, oh, it is okay. You know, somebody will
judge whether they did their best to ensure that bad actors
weren't allowed in the process; did their best to ensure that,
okay, maybe we didn't disclose that these were Russian troll
farms buying $100,000 worth of ads on Facebook.
Would Facebook be liable? Could they just say, oh, it is
okay, we tried? Well, that still can have an impact. I am only
working off of what this discussion has been, Susan, and I
appreciate you are allowing me to actually respond too.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady.
Mrs. Davis of California. Well, I appreciate your response,
and I think that we know that we have to do a far better job in
being able to see through what is going on, and I think we have
that experience now. We should be able to do it better. But it
is important to--where in this can it be strengthened, and we
can work on that in the future.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. If the gentlelady would yield to me, I
would just note that there is a rule for the FEC here, because
there are complicated questions, for example, on establishing
search interface requirements. As we discussed at the hearing,
it may be unduly burdensome to have a disclosure that is verbal
in a 10-second ad, so they are going to make some decisions on
that, as well as the other things on page 268, and it is not a
blanket. It is a rulemaking process that is provided for.
Are there further Members who wish to be heard?
If not, those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
Opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Are there additional--there is a request for a roll call
vote. The clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
three Members have voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis has an amendment.
Can you identify it for the clerk?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. It will be Davis amendment 23.
It will strike Section 5101. 5101.
The Chairperson. The amendment is being distributed. The
clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois, strike Section 5101.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
minutes in support of your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. I will read fast so we
don't take that long.
This amendment strikes the section that creates the My
Voice Voucher pilot program. It provides citizens vouchers
which they can then give taxpayer dollar financed vouchers to
political candidates as contributions. This is simply a money
grab for politicians. If the goal is to get money and
corruption out of politics, I mean, who--who believes that this
won't lead to more money in politics? How is it going to get
dark money out of politics when we allow tax dollars to not
replace it but be added to it? This is what is so frustrating
about this bill.
This is not a serious attempt at getting money out of
politics. This is a serious attempt to invest taxpayer dollars
to supercharge the amount of money that is being spent in
congressional campaigns throughout this country. Supercharge
it, turbocharge it, whatever you want to call it. I would have
gotten a million extra dollars in this campaign based on this
bill passing just in the last election cycle. You know what I
would have done? Well, I wouldn't have gone 80 thousand into
debt, but I would have spent the last, the other $920,000 on TV
ads and radio ads and thrown it into our local economy, but is
that what the intention of this bill is? I don't think so. It
shouldn't be, but that is the result.
This is not the business of Federal Government. Creating
this program is taking the federalization of elections and
campaign financing to a whole new level. The FEC is in no
position to manage this program and would move the Commission
away from their central mission.
Additionally, some States are already doing this. Allow
these experiments to play out. Just like we are not allowing
Illinois to be used as a pilot program as to why we should give
Federal workers election day off, let alone add 6 more days,
when it hasn't truly addressed the problem in Illinois by
giving State workers election day off every two years. We still
have poll watching shortages. People just look at it as a day
off. They are not getting active in the process. Heck.
Hopefully they are early voting.
We do not have a CBO score on this either. Unlimited
taxpayer dollars going to political campaigns is certainly not
what I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want
out of this. Taxpayer dollars going to their campaigns? Really?
I don't know how the American public is going to react to that
when they know about it. Thankfully, we are having this markup.
We haven't had enough hearings. They are not made aware of what
is in this bill. This is our chance to make people aware of
what is in it.
I support the passage of this amendment, and I yield back
my two minutes and 26 seconds.
The Chairperson. All right. Thank you very much.
I would like to just make a couple of points here, if I
may. First, this is a pilot program that is based on a
successful program adopted by Seattle voters for local
elections that would run in three States and for a program
operation period that will run two election cycles. In Seattle,
when they implemented a similar small dollar democracy voucher
program, the number of donors participating in local elections
tripled, and the new donors better reflected Seattle's
population.
This is an alternative and completely voluntary way to pay
for campaigns. It does not rely on special interests or Big
Money donors. The program is about advancing the public
interest, not special interests. Right now, big donors and
wealthy special interests fund campaigns, and even if not
funding everyone's campaign directly, they are funding big
super-PACs and dark money groups.
The intent of this is to give power to everyday Americans
boosting their influence and voice in our elections, to empower
more people who would otherwise be incapable of affording
campaign donations to participate in the political process by
contributing to candidates.
I would like to note that all payments to the three States
for the democracy vouchers are going to come from the Freedom
from Influence Fund. I have heard Mr. Davis complain about the
process in our hearing, but one outcome of the hearing was we
heard you in terms of complaints about taxpayers' funds funding
elections. So in the manager's amendment, it says no
appropriated funds, no taxpayer money will be used and put into
this Freedom from Influence Fund. All payments are subject to
mandatory reductions of payments in case there are insufficient
amounts in the fund, and there is a strict cap of $10 million
for each of the three States participating in the pilot.
Now, it is not in our jurisdiction to develop the funding
source here in the House Administration Committee. That is
beyond our jurisdiction. So essentially what we have done is
created a vessel for nontaxpayer money to be placed in this
Freedom from Influence Fund. No taxpayer dollars. So I think
the amendment is misplaced. We will see whether the pilot
program expands participation, as has been done in the States
where it has been tried. If not, we will reevaluate.
But without using taxpayer funds, we have an opportunity to
see whether this really does get us away from the grip of
special interests controlling elections through their money.
Are there other Members who would like to be heard?
The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I think we have the same end goal here on this particular
area, but I do have a--may I ask a question of the Chair?
The Chairperson. You can ask, and if I know the answer, I
will tell you.
Mr. Walker. This particular model, are we basing it on what
we have seen in Seattle? Is that one of the----
The Chairperson. That is one of the examples, yes.
Mr. Walker. Okay. All right. It is my understanding that
that particular model was--about half the administrative costs
didn't get to where it needed to be. There may be some fraud as
well. Is that a particular issue as far as this particular
amendment that we need to strike?
The Chairperson. Well, the Congressional small donor
program is different than the voucher program, but we do think
that this can be successfully managed. And obviously, we are
going to have to have--if this becomes law, we are going to
have to have oversight on this.
Mr. Walker. Would it not make sense--thank you for
entertaining me--maybe a potential hearing because of the
concerns that we are seeing out of this? Is that something that
maybe we could consider?
And with that, I will yield back. Thank you.
The Chairperson. Thank you.
Are there other Members that wish to be heard on this?
If not, then those who are in favor of the amendment will
please say aye.
Those who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote, please.
The Chairperson. A roll call has been requested. Will the
clerk please call the roll?
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Votes no.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Abstain.
The Clerk. Okay. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Okay. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members have voted no,
three Members have voted yes, and one abstention.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments to be heard?
Yes, sir, the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. This
will be the amendment striking Section 5111. It should be the
next amendment.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order,
strikes. The clerk will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Barry Loudermilk of
Georgia, strike Section 5111.
[The amendment of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Okay. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Before I begin on this, let me again say that you have done
a very good job of managing this. I apologize that we have had
to spend this much time in here, but at the speed that this is
moving and the lack of input that we have had in the process
all together, this is our only opportunity to address some of
the grave concerns that we have. In fact, as I read over this
bill, it is about like reading a Stephen King novel, that you
don't know what you are going to get around the next turn. And
it seems like every time we get another turn, there is
something else that surprises us greater than what we had
already looked at.
I mean, so far, some of the issues that we have looked at
is a bill that undermines over 200 years of States responding
to the needs of the voters and the citizens of those States, of
tailoring their laws to ensure that not only is there easy
access to the polling places, as in the State of Georgia, three
weeks of advance voting, including adding a Saturday vote in
there, no restrictions on absentee voting. These are things
that the people wanted, then the States responded to, that
States are different of those stated. We have got 200-plus
years of States responding to the needs of the voter, and then
we are just going to strip that out because of every idea that
somebody throws out there. We see an idea that is somewhere in
the Nation, and we will grab it and throw it in this bill and
we will just see how it works.
From what we have seen, some of the ideas facilitate the
potential of voter fraud, disenfranchises individual voters by
many, many ways, which again, I think is unintended
consequences because we haven't taken the time to actually
engage those who know the election systems best in their
States, which is the governors, which is the secretaries of
state, and those elected--the election officials.
It is a huge unfunded mandate; weakens the power of
individual ballot by letting or allowing the weaponization of
the people's votes, empowering trial attorneys to let the
courts decide elections in some cases; institutionalizes
questionable campaign practices; strips away the ability for
States to put the best policies that meet the needs of the
citizens in place; creates not sanctuary cities, but sanctuary
polling places.
Now, when I turn to the next chapter, I see that we are
creating a government subsidy for politicians, and I think that
is going to fly over real well with the voting public out there
who already doesn't trust us. I had somebody say recently, you
know what politics means? Poly is many, and ticks are
bloodsucking parasites. You know, I hate to tell you, but that
is the way people think about us up here.
Now we are going to ask the taxpayers to fund the campaigns
of people who probably disagree with--that they are going to
fund elections of people they possibly disagree with. Oh, but
of course, the Federal Government does a great job of handling
finances so far. I mean, just look at our $22 trillion debt.
Yeah, we do a good job of finances, so why don't we just take
on more and give out more money, especially to the politicians?
None of this makes a lot of sense to me when the idea is to
get government closer to the people, and all we are doing is
stripping it away because of an idea we see here and an idea we
see over there.
Now we come to this, Section 5111, that creates a 6-to-1
small dollar match program of government taxpayer money to go
to candidates to help fund their elections. Now, I don't know
about the rest of the country, but I can tell you what most
people think of the Federal Government around Georgia. In fact,
well, I can tell you about the rest of the country, because I
have been working on customer service legislation. The more we
dig into customer service legislation, the more we found out
that more people in this Nation today distrust politicians and
government officials in Washington, D.C., than ever before in
the history in this country. Why? Because of the things that we
do up here. That is why this place is called the swamp, and all
we are doing now is opening the doors of financing to refill
the swamp.
There is a reason that people refer to us as a swamp up
here, because we do a terrible job with our finances. We do a
terrible job with fiscal responsibility. We do a terrible job
with efficiency. Why? Because this Nation was established to
get government closest to the people, not further away from it,
and this is exactly what this horror book is doing to the
American people. I think if this thing was to--I pray that this
will never pass, but if it does, I can almost guarantee you, we
are going to be back here in a few years undoing the damage
that this has done, but you are never going to get back to
where it was before.
As I look at this, this government subsidy for politicians
is the most unbelievable thing that I think I have encountered
since I have been here in Congress.
I think I have expressed my opposition to this program, but
I am in support of this amendment. I do appreciate it, Madam
Chairperson. You have done a very good job of managing this.
Thank you for allowing us and not shutting us off to bring our
grievances because, you know, this is about--we have
disagreements on things, and this is the forum that we should
bring this, and I do appreciate you allowing us and even
putting up with Mr. Davis through all this.
But with that, I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Davis. I withdraw the point of order.
The Chairperson. The point of order has been withdrawn. The
amendment is germane.
Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I do, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. You have five minutes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
I have got to agree with my colleague on multiple issues.
The fact that you have managed this very well, I certainly
appreciate it. It has been great to be able to have a
principled debate with our colleagues on issues that we
disagree on. There is a lot that, as you know, after this
markup, that I disagree with this bill. This has to be near the
top, if not at the top, the most egregious provisions that are
put in place.
Look, I get it. I get it. The Democrats running for
Congress weaponized small dollar donors through platforms like
Act Blue. Heck, you outraised us $374.9 million to $114.9
million. So who would have thought that somebody, maybe a
special interest group that we don't yet know about that helped
write this bill, wouldn't think about, hey, let's add taxpayer
dollars to turbocharge this a little more.
Listen. Using the top 20 winning Congressional campaigns as
the cap for participation in this program, using the formula
that was created by every Democrat member in this institution
that cosponsored this bill, the formula they say they
appreciate, that would make the cap $4.5 million. $4.5 million.
It doesn't even include the special elections that we know are
even more expensive. How much would the Georgia special
election have added to the cap of taxpayer dollars?
Look, supporting this bill without my amendment? Supporting
this bill means that every member of this institution who is
voting supports putting taxpayer dollars, millions, $4.5
million more potentially in congressional races.
Look, I have got a couple of examples. I will use me. Look,
my opponent used Act Blue to outraise me when it came to small
dollar donors. She would have had $2.8 million more of taxpayer
money financing her campaign. Heck, she had so much to spend,
she rented out a city block for her victory party. Sorry to
ruin that. Texas' 23rd District. Will Hurd's opponent would
have gotten an extra $4.247 million of taxpayer money to spend.
Maybe they could have rented out a couple blocks.
That is not what the American people want, and we still--I
mean, this is the reason why we have got to slow down. We have
got to have more hearings. We don't even have a CBO score.
Heck, I am going to have to send this to the CBO to make sure
they know, because here is the formula. I don't even know if
the bean counters over there would not have their heads explode
over this one.
Look, again, Madam Chairperson, you have done a phenomenal
job managing this. I know the reason we are here today is not
because of anyone on this Committee. The reason we are here
today is because the Democratic leadership in this institution
has said we want this bill to pass and make it as seemingly
open as possible. It is not open, ladies and gentlemen, and
this provision, I certainly hope--I certainly hope we are going
to be transparent enough to tell the taxpayers of this country
that we expect just in two races, two races, to have $6 million
and $8--$9 million, respectively, given to both candidates.
Are the taxpayers in this country clamoring to get dark
money out of politics, saying replace it--or not even replace
it, add to it. Add to it with your hard earned tax dollars.
That is crazy, but that is what is in this bill. A vote against
this amendment accepts that. That is wrong.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Who would have thought? I guess if I am not mistaken, my
understanding is in terms of Presidential candidates who at the
time could take public financing, Ronald Reagan was the chief
beneficiary of those dollars. Now, maybe you are suggesting
that that is not the case. I have seen it--I think there is an
issue there.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. This is not a Presidential
election----
Mrs. Davis of California. I am sorry, but----
The Chairperson. The gentlelady controls the time.
Mrs. Davis of California. It is my time.
I think what we are trying to do is think of a way that
people can feel participatory in elections, including today
they do not. It is not the small donors that people mistrust;
it is the large ones.
There is a way of trying to gather a replacement for what
we have seen today, and that is not pretty, and we know that.
So bringing more people into the process, developing their
interests, having some investment on their part, what we know
about civic participation is that people don't feel that they
are being asked to join. This is another way of approaching
that issue. It wasn't there necessarily for our Presidents. Of
course, they have chosen to not use public financing. We all
acknowledge that. But this is an attempt to find a different
way of approaching the issue.
I think that Mr. Sarbanes and others who have worked on
this, Members of Congress, have tried to come up with a way of
using fines that are there for purposes where people have
gotten into some difficulty, but they have been able to answer
it through fines that they propose. It is not taxpayer dollars.
We know about taxpayer dollars, and certainly those are issues
that we haven't had a full chance to be part of as well.
But we can change the whole perception of the general
public, I think, through trying to come up with a better way,
and that is really what we have in front of us.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Walker. Madam Chairperson, I would like to yield my
time----
The Chairperson. The gentleman from North Carolina is
recognized, and he yields to Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I appreciate my colleague from
California, Mrs. Davis' concerns about money and politics. I
have to apologize for interrupting you without asking you to
yield time, so I apologize. I got frustrated. I won't let that
happen again, and I will be respectful for your time and ask
for permission in the future. I do apologize for that as this
debate goes on.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund, as we see it, is
much different than what is being proposed here. Candidates
have a choice to take either/or. Now, there are other
provisions in this bill that fix--that don't fix it, make it
worse. The candidates are allowed to take taxpayer dollars and
spend unlimited amounts, but that is not what we are talking
about here.
We are talking about the infusion of billions of dollars in
elections--billions of dollars in each election cycle to
candidates like all of us, and there is no either/or. It is
added to it. You can say we want to match the small dollar
contributions, but, heck, you are not saying then you can't
take PAC money. You are not saying then you can't take other
sources. You are just supercharging the money that is coming
in. That is the problem with this bill. That is the problem I
have.
It is no--it is nothing compared to the current
Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Look, there is $374
million, I believe, right now sitting in the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund. John McCain was the last person to use
it. Barack Obama was the first one to say I don't want it,
because he knew he could go raise more. That is a problem.
Mrs. Davis of California. I agree.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. That is why I didn't donate this
year on my tax form to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund,
because it is sitting there, and major candidates aren't using
it. Why in the world, then, would anybody who helped to write
this bill say that that is the model that we should use to
infuse billions of dollars into the coffers of campaigns of all
of us sitting around this table? Taxpayer dollars. That is
wrong. That is why we have to stop. We have got to put a brake
on this, and we can't approve something like this.
That is why this is one of the most egregious provisions
that we have in this bill. That is not what the American people
have asked for. And seriously, who helped write this bill? A
legislator? An outside group that was credited at the press
conference when introducing this bill? Who thought it was a
good idea to weaponize what Democrats did much better than
Republicans with small dollar donors in the last election
process? Who thought it was a good idea to be able to go to the
taxpayers and go, here is how we are going to make elections
better? Here is how we are going to get dark money out of the
politics.
We are going to give you taxpayer dollars, but, hey, don't
worry about the money that is already there, because you can
still spend it. I mean, look, I gave you $9 million in two
races. Two. $9 million more that would have been put into the
system, taxpayer dollars, that is much, much different than the
current Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
I know we are skipping other amendments. I think we have a
couple left, so bear with us. And if one of them is not
amending the Presidential Election Campaign Fund language in
here, this is my chance to say, what you have put in that
portion is supercharging the amount of money that will go into
the Presidential race too.
You know who is the biggest small dollar donor candidate in
the history of politics? Our President, Donald J. Trump.
Provisions in this bill potentially, if passed, could add more
money to his coffers than anyone in history that has ever
thought about using the Presidential campaign. Think about
that. Think about that before you vote for this bill. Think
about that before you vote against our amendments and show no
bipartisanship here. Think about that. That is what this could
do.
I know--again, I don't think it is any of us sitting around
this table that are forcing this issue of having this markup
today, but we need to take a step back and say enough is
enough. Do we want to infuse this many more hundreds of
millions, billions of dollars into the political system that
taxpayers and voters believe is oversaturated right now? I urge
you, go to a competitive district. Get in a competitive race.
We don't need in my race $6 million more dollars. It is
saturated enough in central Illinois.
It is wrong. This bill is wrong. This process is wrong.
This is why this amendment, this amendment, this one of any of
them, should pass. Nobody should codify lining the campaign
coffers of people sitting around this dais, which this portion
of the bill does. No one. No one should be okay with this. Not
us, not taxpayers, no one.
The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired.
I would just like to make an important point, which is all
the funds that would be used come from the Freedom from
Influence Fund that is established in this bill. In the
provision, it specifies that no appropriated funds shall be
used for the Freedom from Influence Fund. In other words, there
will be no taxpayer money in the Freedom from Influence Fund. I
think that is an important correction. No taxpayer money
whatsoever in this program.
The intent of the program is a voluntary way to pay for
campaigns to not rely on special interests or Big Money donors.
It is an alternative way to fund campaigns. It gives political
power to everyday Americans, boosting their influence and voice
in our elections. Candidates need to raise at least $50,000
from 1,000 small donors; that is at $200 or less. And, in fact,
as the Ranking Member has pointed out, this could benefit, as
to the Presidential section. President Trump, not someone who I
voted for, shows that we are truly operating in a bipartisan
way as we approach this bill.
Unless there are other members who wish to be heard, I
would ask that members who favor the amendment indicate their
support by saying aye.
Those who oppose will say nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I would request a
roll call vote.
The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Abstain.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Absolutely, yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, five Members have voted no,
three Members are yes, and one has abstained.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I would like to skip over to
Davis amendment 25, creating a threshold for reporting small
dollar donors.
The Chairperson. A point of order has been reserved. The
clerk is distributing the amendment. Would the clerk please
read the title?
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois. In paragraph 2 of Section 522(a) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as proposed to be added by
Section 5111 of the bill, strike the period at the end and
insert the following: among such payments, shall----
The Chairperson. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five
minutes in support of your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment would require the identification of every
small dollar donor under Section 5111 if the aggregate of
qualifying small dollar donations from outside the district
exceeds $250,000. This 6 to 1 match program is inviting outside
interference in elections. This amendment will shine the light
on that fact as it would require disclosure of small dollar
donations after the aggregate of qualifying small dollar
donations from outside the district exceeds $250,000.
If a candidate is receiving great sums of money outside the
district, then the donors should be disclosed like others. I
remind everybody sitting around this table, currently, any
donation below $200 does not have to be itemized. We are simply
saying, if you are getting all your money from outside the
district, itemize it. This would ensure that people in each
Congressional district would know how much outside money was
coming in through this matching program that, again, the
Majority codified by knocking out our amendment.
I support the passage of this amendment. You know why?
Because Act Blue. Act Blue. Again, hey, if people want to play
partisan politics, I am okay if they want to--if they want to
play it but be open about it. Be transparent. But the sheer
fact that Democrats did a better job raising small dollar
donations than Republicans did shouldn't mean that, again,
taxpayer dollars should not go to add more money to politics.
Act Blue had $1,580,437,210 small dollar contributions in
2018. That was from an analysis from the Center for Responsive
Politics. And no CBO score. None. It is a problem.
I know the Majority's tasked with pushing this bill through
so we can get it to the Floor, send a message. Boy, that is a
terrible message to send. A terrible message to send.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be heard on the amendment?
Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order?
Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw the point of the
order.
The Chairperson. Withdrawn.
I would note that the bill, Section 522, already provides
for enhanced disclosure of information on donors. It includes
mandatory identification of individuals making qualified small
dollar contributions, and that is contributions between $100
and $200. This helps to ensure compliance with Federal campaign
finance laws. These qualified small dollar contributions are
being matched with funds from the Freedom from Influence Fund.
As for small dollar contributions that are not matched,
regular disclosure rules apply, which means that contributions
that are less than $200 and not matched are not required to be
disclosed. And that is just current law.
Now, I want to talk a little bit about Act Blue, because
Act Blue is already required by Federal law to report the
details of every single contribution that comes into and out of
its platform to the Federal Elections Commission. That is why
we know how much money and exactly from whom Act Blue has
processed. It does not matter how large or small the
transaction. Act Blue is considered a conduit under Federal law
for individual contributions made through its platform. It is a
payment processor. And under Federal law, contributions made to
Act Blue are made by individuals themselves. They are not PAC
donations.
Whenever a donor contributes to a candidate or political
committee through Act Blue, it provides the contributor's name,
address, occupation, and employer information, along with the
details of the donation, in its regularly filed reports with
the FEC. Each candidate, committee, or organization receiving
donations may also include this information in their regulatory
reports.
As for candidates and parties and PACs, they are required
to identify contributors giving more than $200 in their
disclosure reports. Lowering the disclosure threshold will not
provide the public with the useful information about Big Money
donors who are trying to influence elections. You know, some
have opposed disclosure for $10,000 donations by big
corporations and secret front groups but want disclosure for
$25 grassroot donors. I just don't think that is reasonable. I
think this amendment is misplaced. I would urge that we oppose
the amendment.
Unless there are further comments on it, I would ask that
those who favor the amendment indicate their favor by saying
aye.
And those opposed by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no,
three Members have voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. One last one.
The Chairperson. Ah.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Go ahead and cheer. It is okay.
Mrs. Davis of California. I don't have to say point of
order anymore?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. One more time. One more time.
Mr. Walker. You can and probably will be through the night.
The Chairperson. The clerk is distributing Mr. Davis' last
amendment. Mrs. Davis reserves a point of order, and the clerk
will read the title.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois, strike Subtitle A of Title 6.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, we are combining three
amendments: amendment 29, amendment 30, and amendment 31.
The Chairperson. All right. Let's see if the clerk can
distribute all of those before we proceed.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The one we distributed is good. It
is multiple pages.
The Chairperson. Oh, okay.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. It reflects those three pages.
The Chairperson. Okay. Very good.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Again, thank you all. I love the
markup process. I love the hearing process. That is why we came
to Congress is to legislate. I don't agree with your votes, you
don't agree with mine, but that is okay. That is okay. But this
one, I certainly hope we can get some agreement on.
In amendment 29, what we do is we strike Section 6002, and
this provision in H.R. 1 changes the current six-member
commission of the FEC to a five-member commission. Look, we
can't even mail bulk mail out of the House of Representatives
without going through a completely equal bipartisan commission,
the Franking Commission. I chaired it last Congress. Mrs. Davis
was the co-Chair. We had some disagreements, but in the end, we
had more disagreements than disagreements, but we had to work
together, and we did. We did.
So this provision will take away the bipartisan nature of
the FEC right now. The FEC shouldn't be weaponized by any
administration, Republican or Democrat. I mean, are you
comfortable with President Trump naming a partisan FEC? Thank
you, Marcia. I am not, either. I am not comfortable with any
President naming a partisan FEC.
I don't believe this is a partisan amendment, you know.
Some of my colleagues expressed some concern during the hearing
that we had, the one hearing we had, in regard to provisions
like this going through the FEC.
Amendment No. 30, which is the second amendment that was
combined, gives new powers to the Chair of the Commission that
currently require bipartisan support. Who the heck wants a
czar, an FEC czar to chair the Commission? That is partisan. It
is appointed by a President. Look, and maybe there is going to
be gridlock. Maybe a Democratic appointee in the future can't
get through that evil, bad Mitch McConnell in the Senate. Then
you have got a partisan--you have got a partisan warrior who
has been given power by the previous President that you may or
may not have knocked out, and then all of a sudden, you are
still weaponized with the FEC. That should concern us. That
should concern us for the balance of Constitutional powers that
we have here in this institution. We don't need a free speech
czar sitting over at the FEC.
A third portion of our amendment, third amendment, is
rolled into this. This one is classic coming out of many who I
am sure helped write this bill. They give a lawyer--they give
the general counsel of the FEC new authority, and actually
takes the power away from the appointed and confirmed
Commissioners whose job it is to enforce campaign finance law
in a bipartisan way. Just like Susan and I enforced franking
laws, mailing laws. We were forced to do it in a bipartisan
way. Forced to do it in a bipartisan way.
The decision to hire and fire agency general counsel in the
past required some degree of bipartisan agreement, but H.R. 1,
as written, without this amendment, would destroy that
bipartisan requirement, allowing the President's appointed
chair to name the general counsel with the support of any two
of the other four Commissioners appointed by that same
President. No bipartisan support. Do we want the FEC operating
like this markup today? I certainly hope my colleagues on the
other side of the dais don't.
We see a process that, once an investigation has begun,
according to H.R. 1, it will enhance the power of the general
counsel to issue subpoenas on his or her own authority. There
has got to be another drafting error. Seriously. This has got
to be a drafting error. I would certainly hope that we might
have a quick markup someday to fix this. Really? We are going
to accept this? We have Commissioners that are confirmed. We
are elected officials. We are confirmed by our voters every 2
years.
Come on. Help me with this one. I combined three into one.
Show some bipartisan support. Does anybody sitting around this
dais really want to weaponize the FEC? Even our Congressional
Ethics Committee does not have a partisan leaning. I know we
are joined by the former chair of that committee. Nobody would
decide, ``You know what? Let's slide a provision into a 571-
page bill, and let's go ahead and make the Ethics Committee
partisan.'' No. Let's not make the FEC partisan either. Help me
out here. Please. I am begging you. I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be heard on this amendment?
Mrs. Davis of California. I withdraw the point of order.
The Chairperson. Mrs. Davis withdraws her point of order.
I would like to make a couple of comments. First, the FEC's
mission is to protect the integrity of our Federal campaign
finance laws, and it is supposed to enforce and administer the
laws on the books and ensure that political spending is
transparent, and I think it is obvious that the FEC is a
completely failed agency. The current state of affairs at the
FEC only serves to benefit those who want to rig the system and
those who benefit with no referee on the field.
Former FEC Chair Ann Ravel, who I have known for 40 years,
told The New York Times that the FEC, and this is a quote, ``is
worse than dysfunctional and that the likelihood of laws being
enforced is slim.'' She published her report in 2017 showing a
huge increase in deadlocked votes over the past decade. That is
because the FEC has gotten bogged down in dysfunction and
deadlock. Hundreds of enforcement cases are languishing, and
that is not fair to candidates or to the public or to anyone
who depends on fair administration of the law. It has not
enacted major disclosure rules after Citizens United, even
though the Supreme Court really invited them to do so. It
cannot even agree to hire a permanent general counsel. There
has been no permanent general counsel for more than 4 years, 5
years. H.R. 1 breaks the gridlock by setting up a five-member
commission instead of a six-member commission. H.R. 1 prevents
a partisan takeover of the FEC by mandating that no more than
two of the five Commissioners can be from the same political
party so that no one party can take over the Commission, and it
sets up a blue ribbon panel to help name nominees to the
Commission. That will make the nomination process more fair and
more transparent. It also lets nonpartisan career staff make
initial findings in enforcement cases while at the same time
ensuring that the Commission can always overrule the career
staff.
To say that this sets up an election czar with a powerful
chair is incorrect. The Chair gets the same powers typically
given to other agency chairs: preparing a budget, hiring a
staff director, being the chief administrative officer. While
it is true that the Chair will have the power to issue a
subpoena, so can the rest of the Commission with a majority
vote.
It is true that H.R. 1 provides new powers in that way to
hire a staff director, but that is really not that unusual.
While the chair is also given the power to issue subpoenas, as
I say, the Commission can exercise the same power and check on
the Chair.
Finally, as to the general counsel, the bill provides that
an initial decision to open an investigation can be made by the
general counsel but can be overridden by a majority vote on the
Commission within 30 days. Now, that is an important way to
streamline the enforcement process. Cases right now languish
for years on the FEC's enforcement dockets, and that is just
not fair to complainants nor respondents. It doesn't unduly
empower the general counsel because the Commission has the
final say as to whether to find probable cause in a case and
whether to pursue an enforcement action. And even when it comes
to starting an investigation, the Commission can overrule the
general counsel.
The current FEC has two Republicans, one Independent, one
Democrat, and two vacancies. They can't do anything, and we
need to break this logjam. I think what is in H.R. 1 is a
reasonable effort. I think it has a high probability of success
and that our enforcement of our laws is not weaponizing the
FEC; it is making sure that the laws that we have already
enacted relative to campaign finance reform actually are
enforced.
Are there additional Members who wish to be heard? The
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I will be
very brief.
It is true that we have some gridlock at the FEC, and it
takes time to get things done. But we are restricting free
speech. It ought to be hard. And from what I see in this bill,
there is significant restriction on free speech. I would also
add that how long has it been since we have reformed the FEC?
It has been a long time. Why? Because it is really hard to do
these things, and if things aren't right, it takes a lot to
undo it. And that is what I am afraid will happen if this bill
goes forward and we see all the things that we have warned
about in here in terms of unintended consequences. This doesn't
just affect us. It affects the millions of people in this
Nation. It may be near impossible to do those.
Again, I thank you for the time and for the good job of
managing it, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be heard?
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I just want to add a postscript to your comments. Most
Federal commissions and agencies operate on an odd number
composition. The FEC has been the exception, and it has been an
exception which perhaps demonstrates the wisdom of the general
rule because it has been the absolute paradigm of dysfunction
and paralysis and deadlock to the point where they can barely
even hire staff members. There is a multiyear backlog of cases
over at the FEC. So, by revamping the composition so it is in
line with the other Federal agencies and commissions, I think
all we are doing is improving its operation and giving it the
opportunity to actually work. I mean, one can only imagine what
it would be if we used the current FEC principle and imported
it to other Federal commissions like the FTC and the SEC and
the FCC or to the Supreme Court, for that matter. It would be a
recipe for complete paralysis.
So I think that, yeah, I would like to be able to help our
friend from Illinois in backing one of his amendments, but I am
afraid that this one moves us backwards instead of moving us
forward to a functional and improved FEC.
The Chairperson. Thank you. Are there additional comments
on this amendment? If not, we will move the--I think the point
of order has already been withdrawn.
So I will ask those who favor the amendment to signify that
by saying aye. Those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the
Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. One last request for a recorded
vote.
The Chairperson. A request for a recorded vote has been
made. The clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. I think I will do a yes on this one.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted no;
three Members have voted yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
It is my understanding that was the last amendment, and
there being no further amendments, the question would then be
on agreeing to H.R. 1, as amended.
All those in favor will please say aye.
And those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
H.R. 1, as amended, is agreed to.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. A recorded vote has been requested. You
have to actually find that the ayes have it, and you would like
a recorded voted now?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would like a recorded vote.
The Chairperson. The clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. No.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, pursuant to House
Rule XI, clause 2(l), I request that all Members have two
additional calendar days to file supplemental minority
additional or dissenting views in the Committee report to the
House accompanying H.R. 1.
The Chairperson. Certainly, I was going to do that myself.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I was just told by these folks to
read it.
The Chairperson. We will unanimously agree to that.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report the final vote.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members voted yes; three
Members voted no.
The Chairperson. The ayes have it. H.R. 1 is agreed to, and
the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
I move that H.R. 1, as amended, be reported favorably to
the House.
All those in favor of reporting H.R. 1, as amended,
favorably to the House, say aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion is agreed to, unless there is a recorded vote asked for
again.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Chairperson. And there is. The clerk will call the
roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren.
The Chairperson. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. No.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, six Members have voted yes;
three Members have voted no.
The Chairperson. On that H.R. 1, as amended, is ordered
reported favorably to the House.
Pursuant to clause 2(l), Rule XI--oh, we have already done
the additional days unanimously.
Also, without objection, the staff is authorized to make
any technical and conforming changes.
Unless there are additional matters of business before us,
without objection the Committee will stand adjourned with
thanks to the Members for your active participation on this
bill.
[Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]