[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                     MARKUP OF H.R. 8281, H.R. 8399, 
                  H.R. 7640, H.R. 4544, and H.R. 4317 

=======================================================================

                                 MARKUP

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                              MAY 23, 2024

                               ----------                              

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration








    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







                             www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov



































                    MARKUP OF H.R. 8281, H.R. 8399,
                  H.R. 7640, H.R. 4544, and H.R. 4317

=======================================================================

                                 MARKUP

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 23, 2024

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration








    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]












                             www.govinfo.gov 
                           www.cha.house.gov 
                           
                           
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
55-771                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia              Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida

                      Mike Platt,  Staff Director 
                 Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director  
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
    Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     3
Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of 
  New York.......................................................     3
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     5

                       Submissions for the Record

H.R. 8399........................................................     9
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8399.............    21
First amendment to H.R. 8399.....................................    33
Second amendment to H.R. 8399....................................    98
Alito flag.......................................................   163
Third amendment to H.R. 8399.....................................   168
H.R. 8281........................................................   174
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8281.............   197
First amendment to H.R. 8281.....................................   221
Second amendment to H.R. 8281....................................   442
Roll call votes 1 through 9......................................   447

 
                    MARKUP OF H.R. 8281, H.R. 8399, 
                  H.R. 7640, H.R. 4544, and H.R. 4317

                              ----------                              


                              May 23, 2024

                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:38 a.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Steil, Griffith, Bice, Carey, 
D'Esposito, Lee, Morelle, and Sewell.
    Staff present: March Bell, General Counsel; Annemarie Cake, 
Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Alexander Deise, 
Parliamentarian; Thomas Lane, Elections Counsel; Kristen 
Monterroso, Legislative Clerk; William Neitzel, Deputy Director 
of Member Services; Michael Platt, Staff Director; Jackie 
Bossman, Counsel; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff 
Director; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Andrew Garcia, 
Minority Staff Assistant; Nicole Hansen, Minority Elections 
Counsel; Sarah Nasta, Minority Senior Advisor and Director; 
Owen Reilly, Minority Professional Staff; Sean Wright, Minority 
Chief Counsel; and Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Elections 
Counsel.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE 
 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           WISCONSIN

    Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will 
come to order. I note that a quorum is present.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Before we begin, I would like to recognize one of our 
colleagues who is not here today, Dr. Murphy. This week, he 
announced that he was diagnosed with a base-of-skull tumor.
    All of us on this Committee know that Dr. Murphy is a 
fighter, and I think I speak for everyone when I say we are all 
keeping Dr. Murphy in our thoughts and prayers. We wish him a 
speedy recovery and are looking forward to him being back on 
this dais with us again soon.
    Knowing Dr. Murphy, I am guessing he is probably watching 
the live feed from home, and so if you are, Dr. Murphy, we look 
forward to having you back.
    Today, we will consider legislation to stop foreign 
influence in our elections, prevent noncitizens voting, and 
strengthen our election administration.
    Over the past several months, this Committee has examined 
different pieces of legislation that would increase confidence 
in our elections. When Americans are more confident that their 
elections are secure, they are more likely to participate. As 
Chairman of the Committee, my focus has been on increasing 
confidence and participation in our elections.
    Last week, we held a hearing focused on noncitizen voting 
and foreign influence in our elections. Witnesses discussed the 
difficulties the National Voter Registration Act can place on 
States and the challenges States have of maintaining clean 
voter rolls.
    We have also demonstrated how foreign nationals are trying 
to influence our elections here in the United States. Federal 
law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to campaigns, 
yet we continue to see foreign nationals use loopholes to get 
around this.
    We will consider legislation today to address this issue. 
My legislation, the Preventing Foreign Interference in American 
Elections Act, would close the loophole and strengthen donor 
privacy protections.
    We will also consider legislation to help States clean 
their voter rolls and prevent noncitizens from voting. 
Noncitizen voting in our elections must be stopped.
    You may hear my colleagues on the left say noncitizen 
voting in Federal elections is already illegal. As we discussed 
in last week's hearing, there have been noncitizens registered 
to vote in Ohio, in Virginia, in Pennsylvania.
    Here in our Nation's capital, the D.C. City Council passed 
legislation to allow noncitizens to vote in municipal 
elections, and noncitizens will be voting this fall. The D.C. 
Board of Elections recently confirmed that nearly 500 
noncitizens have registered to vote in our Nation's capital, 
and that number is only growing. Early voting for D.C.'s 
primary election is happening right now, and, as we sit here 
today, noncitizens are voting to elect members of the D.C. City 
Council. That is absurd.
    We must do two things: One, we cannot allow the D.C. 
citizens voting law to spread across the United States. Two, we 
need to ensure noncitizens are not voting in Federal elections 
across the United States. While it is illegal today for 
noncitizens to vote in our Federal elections, it is also 
illegal to evade Border Patrol and unlawfully enter the 
country, and, as we have seen, that has not stopped anyone. We 
must end noncitizen voting now.
    It is critical that we provide States the tools they need 
to verify citizenship for individuals registering to vote. As 
we discussed last week in this Committee, it is difficult for 
States to maintain clean voter rolls. Last week, we found in 
Ohio 137 noncitizens were on the voter rolls. In May 2023, 
Virginia removed 1,481 noncitizens from their voter rolls.
    Across the country, Democrat jurisdictions are allowing 
noncitizens to vote in their elections. This will continue to 
create challenges for States to maintain clean voter rolls 
unless we stop noncitizen voting.
    The Constitution and Federal law only protects the rights 
of citizens of the United States to vote in U.S. elections. 
That is why only U.S. citizens should be voting in U.S. 
elections.
    I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on the 
legislation before us today, and I yield back.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 
minutes for the purpose of offering his opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

   PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                   ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

    Today, we will consider legislation to stop foreign 
influence in our elections, prevent noncitizens voting, and 
strengthen our election administration.
    Over the past several months, this Committee has examined 
different pieces of legislation that would increase confidence 
in our elections. When Americans are more confident that their 
elections are secure, they are more likely to participate. As 
Chairman of the Committee, my focus has been on increasing 
confidence and participation in our elections.
    Last week, we held a hearing focused on noncitizen voting 
and foreign influence in our elections. Witnesses discussed the 
difficulties the National Voter Registration Act can place on 
States and the challenges States have of maintaining clean 
voter rolls.
    We have also demonstrated how foreign nationals are trying 
to influence our elections here in the United States. Federal 
law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to campaigns, 
yet we continue to see foreign nationals use loopholes to get 
around this.
    We will consider legislation today to address this issue. 
My legislation, the Preventing Foreign Interference in American 
Elections Act, would close the loophole and strengthen donor 
privacy protections.
    We will also consider legislation to help States clean 
their voter rolls and prevent noncitizens from voting. 
Noncitizen voting in our elections must be stopped.
    You may hear my colleagues on the left say noncitizen 
voting in Federal elections is already illegal. But, as we 
discussed in last week's hearing, there have been noncitizens 
registered to vote in Ohio, in Virginia, in Pennsylvania.
    Here in our Nation's capital, the D.C. City Council passed 
legislation to allow noncitizens to vote in municipal 
elections, and noncitizens will be voting this fall. The D.C. 
Board of Elections recently confirmed that nearly 500 
noncitizens have registered to vote in our Nation's capital, 
and that number is only growing. Early voting for D.C.'s 
primary election is happening right now, and, as we sit here 
today, noncitizens are voting to elect members of the D.C. City 
Council. That is absurd.
    We must do two things: One, we cannot allow the D.C. 
citizens voting law to spread across the United States. And, 
two, we need to ensure noncitizens aren't voting in Federal 
elections across the United States. While it is illegal today 
for noncitizens to vote in our Federal elections, it is also 
illegal to evade Border Patrol and unlawfully enter the 
country, and, as we have seen, that hasn't stopped anyone. We 
must end noncitizen voting now.
    It is critical that we provide States the tools they need 
to verify citizenship for individuals registering to vote. As 
we discussed last week in this Committee, it is difficult for 
States to maintain clean voter rolls. Last week, we found in 
Ohio 137 noncitizens were on the voter rolls. In May 2023, 
Virginia removed 1,481 noncitizens from their voter rolls.
    Across the country, Democrat jurisdictions are allowing 
noncitizens to vote in their elections. This will continue to 
create challenges for States to maintain clean voter rolls 
unless we stop noncitizen voting.
    The Constitution and Federal law only protects the rights 
of citizens of the United States to vote in U.S. elections. 
That is why only U.S. citizens should be voting in U.S. 
elections.
    I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on the 
legislation before us today, and I yield back.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                            NEW YORK

    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First and most importantly, let me join with you in wishing 
our friend and colleague, Dr. Murphy, a full and speedy 
recovery. We are keeping him and his family very much in our 
prayers. Best to him.
    As it relates to the hearing that we held last week--which, 
in my view, was not only a waste of this Committee's time but a 
waste of the taxpayer resources that this Committee has 
expended to disseminate the disproven lies to actively 
undermine American faith in our democracy.
    I appreciate my colleague who talks about confidence in 
American elections and the importance of Americans having 
confidence. Unfortunately, everything this Committee has sought 
to do, everything the former President seeks to do, is 
undermine that very faith.
    I know that every one of my majority colleagues understands 
that this narrative will aggravate the perilous infection of 
election denialism that is spreading in the American civic 
body, and the rest of us know it too.
    Just a point about last week's hearing. The Associated 
Press, in an article that ran in the Wisconsin State Journal 
this past Tuesday, said, and I quote, ``Republicans who have 
been vocal about voting by those who are not citizens have 
demurred when asked for evidence that it is a problem.''
    USA Today, one of the largest circulations in the country--
so, many Americans are reading USA Today--said that the SAVE 
Act is the same, quote, `` `rigged election' disinformation 
that Trump has been hawking for almost 8 years.''
    The Washington Post said that Republicans, quote, ``feel 
compelled to construct a boogeyman to toe Trump's line on 
combating voter fraud--even as they freely acknowledge they 
cannot say what the boogeyman is made of,'' end quote.
    The deluge of articles published in the last 2 weeks alone 
shows what a transparent game people are playing. The American 
people see through this as well.
    Election denialism was unpopular in 2020. It was equally 
unpopular, if not more so, in 2022. It will be unpopular this 
November.
    Just as the Speaker's trip paying homage at Mar-a-Lago 
tarnished our American tradition of democracy, just as the 
Speaker's conspiracy-fueled press conference on the steps of 
this Capitol fanned the flames of extremism, and just as our 
hearing energized efforts to undermine American confidence in 
elections, this markup today is the latest blemish on the 
majority's anti-democracy quest.
    We have been here before. Former President Trump is leading 
this party and, strikingly, leading this very Committee down a 
terribly dangerous and un-American path.
    This is a man who yearns for, according to his own campaign 
materials, a ``unified Reich'' in this country. This is the man 
you have chained your electoral prospects, to say nothing of 
your moral leadership and historic legacies, to. Aren't you 
embarrassed? I, for one, am embarrassed for you.
    Today's markup of the SAVE Act is a repugnant use of our 
time. Committee Democrats have grave concern about each of the 
bills, and we will offer several amendments in an effort to 
make these bills better or, at the very least, to offer 
Americans an alternative vision of democracy, one based in 
fairness, in justice, not based on fear, cynicism, and doubt.
    Our vision of democracy is based on a Constitution that has 
moved ever forward from our founding, expanding its wings of 
equality and enfranchisement to formerly enslaved people, to 
women, to Native people, to young people.
    That is the story of this Nation--one of a democracy that 
grows more inclusive, that ensures that the voices of every 
American can be heard by those of us who have been entrusted to 
walk the halls of Congress.
    The SAVE Act is the opposite of that. It is contrary to the 
American story that has been told for 247 years and, God 
willing, will be told for countless years to come.
    This is the fundamental difference between our parties 
today. The Democrats on this Committee will not stop fighting 
for the rule of law, for the peaceful transfer of power, and 
for the very survival of this Republic.
    What Committee Democrats will not do is subvert American 
faith in elections in an effort to supplicate to a proven con 
man. We will leave that to our Republican colleagues.
    With that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                 ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

    As it relates to the hearing that we held last week which, 
in my view, was not only a waste of this Committee's time but a 
waste of the taxpayer resources that this Committee has 
expended to disseminate the disproven lies to actively 
undermine American faith in our democracy.
    And I appreciate my colleague who talks about confidence in 
American elections and the importance of Americans having 
confidence. Unfortunately, everything this Committee has sought 
to do, everything the former President seeks to do, is 
undermine that very faith.
    I know that every one of my majority colleagues understands 
that this narrative will aggravate the perilous infection of 
election denialism that is spreading in the American civic 
body, and the rest of us know it too.
    Just a point about last week's hearing. The Associated 
Press, in an article that ran in the Wisconsin State Journal 
this past Tuesday, said, and I quote, ``Republicans who have 
been vocal about voting by those who are not citizens have 
demurred when asked for evidence that it's a problem.''
    USA Today, one of the largest circulations in the country 
so, many Americans are reading USA Today said that the SAVE Act 
is the same, quote, `` `rigged election' disinformation that 
Trump has been hawking for almost 8 years.''
    The Washington Post said that Republicans, quote, ``feel 
compelled to construct a boogeyman to toe Trump's line on 
combating voter fraud even as they freely acknowledge they 
can't say what the boogeyman is made of,'' end quote.
    The deluge of articles published in the last 2 weeks alone 
shows what a transparent game people are playing. The American 
people see through this as well.
    Election denialism was unpopular in 2020. It was equally 
unpopular, if not more so, in 2022. It will be unpopular this 
November.
    Just as the Speaker's trip paying homage at Mar-a-Lago 
tarnished our American tradition of democracy, just as the 
Speaker's conspiracy fueled press conference on the steps of 
this Capitol fanned the flames of extremism, and just as our 
hearing energized efforts to undermine American confidence in 
elections, this markup today is the latest blemish on the 
majority's anti democracy quest.
    We have been here before. Former President Trump is leading 
this party and, strikingly, leading this very Committee down a 
terribly dangerous and un American path.
    This is a man who yearns for, according to his own campaign 
materials, a ``unified Reich'' in this country. This is the man 
you have chained your electoral prospects, to say nothing of 
your moral leadership and historic legacies, to. Aren't you 
embarrassed? I, for one, am embarrassed for you.
    Today's markup of the SAVE Act is a repugnant use of our 
time. Committee Democrats have grave concern about each of the 
bills, and we will offer several amendments in an effort to 
make these bills better or, at the very least, to offer 
Americans an alternative vision of democracy, one based in 
fairness, in justice, not based on fear, cynicism, and doubt.
    Our vision of democracy is based on a Constitution that has 
moved ever forward from our founding, expanding its wings of 
equality and enfranchisement to formerly enslaved people, to 
women, to Native people, to young people.
    That is the story of this Nation one of a democracy that 
grows more inclusive, that ensures that the voices of every 
American can be heard by those of us who have been entrusted to 
walk the halls of Congress.
    The SAVE Act is the opposite of that. It is contrary to the 
American story that has been told for 247 years and, God 
willing, will be told for countless years to come.
    This is the fundamental difference between our parties 
today. And the Democrats on this Committee will not stop 
fighting for the rule of law, for the peaceful transfer of 
power, and for the very survival of this Republic.
    And what Committee Democrats won't do is subvert American 
faith in elections in an effort to supplicate to a proven con 
man. We will leave that to our Republican colleagues.

    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, the opening statements of all other 
Members will be included in the record.
    Chairman Steil. As required by House rules, a substantive 
copy of the measures to be considered today have been made 
available to Members and the public at least 24 hours in 
advance.
    I now call up H.R. 8399, the Preventing Foreign 
Interference in American Elections Act.
    As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this legislation 
would close the loopholes foreign nationals can use to donate 
to campaigns.
    Today, under current law, foreign nationals can pay for 
activities like voter registration, ballot harvesting, and get-
out-the-vote activities. In recent years, we have seen the 
impact that ``Zuckerbucks'' have had in reducing confidence in 
elections administration.
    Our hearing last week demonstrated that foreign nationals 
are using nonprofits as a pass-through to contribute to 
campaigns, often Democratic super-PACs.
    When we had the Federal Elections Commission before our 
Committee, both Democrat and Republican commissioners agreed 
that we must close this loophole.
    Congress must close the loophole. We must pass this bill in 
order to do so.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if he 
would like to give a statement on the bill.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would.
    I fervently believe Congress has a duty to stem the tide of 
foreign money in our elections.
    For this reason, I have been proud to advocate for the 
passage of the Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA), which contains 
several provisions aimed at stemming this tide, including the 
DISCLOSE Act and the Honest Ads Act.
    I was also happy to support the majority's efforts last 
Congress to advance a bipartisan recommendation of the FEC 
related to foreign money in ballot initiatives.
    This bill seems incongruous, however, with that critical 
duty. This bill does absolutely nothing to get foreign money 
out of our politics.
    On the one hand, the measure suggests it is important to 
ensure that foreign money does not influence American 
elections. Fine. On the other hand, however, several provisions 
of this bill make it more likely that foreign donors would be 
able to fund election activities in the United States by 
hampering disclosure and the FEC's law enforcement capacity.
    We know this to be true: Americans are frustrated by a 
campaign finance system that seems to be stacked in favor of 
special interests and dark-money donors. We know that robust 
transparency is the best way to reassure the American people 
that their political system works for them. As Justice Louis 
Brandeis famously stated, ``Sunlight is the best 
disinfectant.''
    Why in the world would this Committee's majority propose 
legislation that undermines transparency, inviting even more 
undisclosed, dark, likely foreign money to infiltrate our 
political system, as this bill as drafted would do?
    Why in the world would the majority hamstring law 
enforcement's ability to ensure the rule of law, to see to it 
that our Federal campaign finance laws are fairly enforced, as 
this bill as drafted would do?
    If there are drafting errors--and I hope there are--I would 
ask the chair to reconsider bringing this bill to a vote today.
    I recognize the bill includes some exemptions for the donor 
shielding provisions. The exceptions, however, do not salvage 
the bill. Instead, they gloss over systemic issues that need to 
be solved.
    In 2017, the Trump administration reversed a years-long 
rule requiring certain 501(c) organizations to report major 
donors to the IRS. Since then, the dark-money ecosystem has 
hobbled the IRS. Moreover, millions in dark money goes 
unreported to the FEC due to loopholes unsolved by this 
measure.
    Finally, a dysfunctional FEC has ceased all meaningful 
enforcement of existing laws. Indeed, the FEC has informed this 
Committee that it had acted on barely half of the nonpartisan 
staff's recommended foreign-interference investigations, 
including none that involved Mr. Trump, his campaign, or his 
associates.
    In matters requiring dark-money groups to register a report 
with the FEC, the FEC acted on only five of nonpartisan career 
staff's two dozen recommendations.
    I want to be clear: I would be eager to work in tandem with 
you to find common ground and common accord to fulfill our 
important duty, and I would be happy to work with you to find 
bipartisan consensus here.
    In that vein, I will propose several amendments today to 
ensure that we are able to comprehensively stop foreign money 
infiltrating our elections. I hope my colleagues join me in 
supporting them.
    If, however, the bill is designed to further open the 
floodgates to undisclosed foreign donations, to kneecap the FEC 
and other law enforcement agencies, then we will strenuously 
oppose.
    Mr. Chair, you can tell me whether we work together to 
limit foreign money or whether the majority intentionally 
drafted this measure in such a way to make it even easier for 
foreign donors to hide the sources of their contributions.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 8399----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    [House bill H.R. 8399 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Steil. Also, without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
    I have an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute at the 
desk. The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute is considered as read and will be 
considered as original text for the purpose of further 
amendment.
    [The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8399 
follows:]  



    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. The question now occurs on adopting the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye----
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Chairman Steil. Considered as original text for purpose of 
further amendment.
    The question now occurs on adopting the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the AINS 
is now considered as original text for purposes of further 
amendment.
    Mr. Morelle. I have an amendment.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. 
The clerk will please report.
    The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment will be dispensed with.
    [The first amendment to H.R. 8399 of Ranking Member Morelle 
follows:] 

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a 
point of order.
    Mr. Morelle is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the 
amendment.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment, which is the DISCLOSE Act, is about making 
sure that the American people have transparency around the 
foreign and big money spenders that have such a significant 
impact on our electoral system. Voters should be able to follow 
the money.
    Critically, Congress should close loopholes allowing 
spending by foreign nationals in domestic elections.
    For example, in 2021, the Federal Election Commission, the 
independent Federal agency charged with protecting the 
integrity of the Federal campaign finance process, found reason 
to believe and conciliated a matter where an experienced 
political consultant knowingly and willfully violated Federal 
law.
    The consultant had solicited a contribution from a foreign 
national by offering to transmit a $2 million contribution to a 
super-PAC through his company and two 501(c)(4) organizations 
to conceal the origin of the funds.
    This scheme was only unveiled after a news article reported 
the solicitation. The same political consultant was later 
convicted of a near-identical scheme involving a Russian 
national.
    Congress must do more to stem the tide of foreign money 
seeking to influence our elections. The DISCLOSE Act clarifies 
the scope of the foreign-nationals ban and incorporates the 
bipartisan FEC recommendation to capture ballot initiatives, 
among other reforms.
    The DISCLOSE Act also addresses the problem of money that 
is laundered through various front groups or shell entities to 
hide the original source of campaign-related spending.
    The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed disclosure, 
because it helps voters hold elected leaders accountable.
    This is a commonsense amendment that would increase 
transparency in American democracy and stop foreign 
interference--something that should have bipartisan support. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    The question is on the amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is requested. The clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
    Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are five noes 
and two ayes.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. 
The clerk will please distribute the amendment.
    The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8399, offered by Mr. Morelle--
--
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment will be dispensed with.
    [The second amendment to H.R. 8399 of Ranking Member 
Morelle follows:]   


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman reserves a point of order.
    For point of clarification, the previous point of order was 
waived, unanimous consent. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Morelle is now recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
the amendment.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment would add a prohibition to this bill to 
prevent foreign donors from promoting, supporting, attacking, 
or opposing the nomination of Senate confirmation of an 
individual who is under consideration for a Federal judgeship.
    At a time when Americans are rightfully concerned about 
malign donor influence in the Federal judiciary, including on 
the U.S. Supreme Court, this amendment will reassure Americans 
that foreign donors will not be able to influence our courts.
    Several high-profile investigations have in recent months 
revealed deeply concerning relationships between Supreme Court 
Justices and Republican mega-donors.
    Indeed, whether it has been the brazen financial dealings 
between Clarence Thomas and billionaire Harlan Crow or Justice 
Samuel Alito's astonishingly bad judgment in flying an upside-
down American flag, a discredited symbol of extremism and 
election denialism, outside of his home in the days following 
the January 6th attack on this Capitol, the American people are 
in disbelief about the State of our judiciary.
    Just last night, public reporting confirmed that Justice 
Alito has been flying another flag associated with Donald 
Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election, the ``appeal to 
heaven'' flag, outside of his vacation home. This was a flag 
that rioters carried as they stormed the United States Capitol 
on January 6th.
    Polls have shown that these ethical lapses have deeply hurt 
Americans' faith in the fairness of our judiciary. Americans 
should not have to worry that foreign donors, in addition to 
extremists and conservative activists, are influence-peddling 
on our Nation's highest court.
    This amendment should have bipartisan support. I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes.
    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this 
picture of the upside-down American flag, the symbol of ``stop 
the steal'' extremism, and the insurrectionists' ``appeal to 
heaven'' flag, both of which flew outside the homes of Justice 
Samuel Alito.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, I object.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman objects on?
    Mr. Griffith. The gentleman asked for unanimous consent. If 
the amendment were to pass, it might make sense, but if the 
amendment does not pass, why would we insert into the record on 
this bill, your bill, something that is totally irrelevant to 
your bill? Unless the amendment passes, in which case I will 
withdraw my objection.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, I would just strongly urge--the items I 
have asked to be entered into the record are germane to the 
amendment which is being considered in front of this House. I 
have never, in my 6 years here in Congress, ever heard anyone 
object to a unanimous consent on filing something as part of 
the record.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I withdraw my objection. I think 
it is totally superfluous to the debate we are supposed to be 
having.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman withdraws his objection.
    Without objection, entered into the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]  
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Steil. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I would now recognize myself for 5 minutes to strike the 
last word.
    I think there is grounds that we could definitely look, in 
particular, as it relates to the confirmation process and 
foreign money and foreign interference. Would love to work with 
my colleague on that.
    The underlying legislation we have before us is focused in 
on elections. I will not go through a germane process and 
remove the bill on germane; I am happy to vote it up or down. I 
think, at its core, it is not germane in the sense of what we 
are trying to go after here in the underlying legislation, 
which is to remove foreign interference in U.S. elections.
    I think it is a worthy conversation to have that the 
gentleman brings up as it relates to Senate confirmations and 
any potential foreign interference in that space, and I would 
enjoy having a dialogue and work with my colleague to find 
common ground in that space. It is just not the purpose of the 
underlying legislation, which is to address foreign 
interference in U.S. elections.
    Further, this amendment, as the previous amendment, strikes 
key donor privacy protections that I think are absolutely 
essential to maintain our First Amendment rights and to 
maintain the integrity of the broader electoral system.
    I encourage my colleagues to not support this bill.
    I will yield back.
    Does the gentlewoman from Florida seek recognition? For 
what purpose?
    Ms. Lee. I do, Mr. Chairman. Just to note as follows, that 
the discussion we are having----
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes 
to strike the last word.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    --that we are discussing at this time preventing foreign 
interference in elections, and I take exception to the comments 
directed at two of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and 
would simply note that there is zero evidence to suggest that 
there is either an actual or even the appearance of any 
impropriety on the part of those Justices or any influence on 
the part of foreign actors on those Justices and their work at 
the Supreme Court.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Seeing none, does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on 
her point of order?
    Ms. Lee. I do not, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. If no other questions on the amendment by 
the gentleman from New York, all those in favor, signify by 
saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The 
clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil, for this vote, there are two 
ayes and five noes.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have one last amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. 
The clerk will please distribute the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8399----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    [The third amendment to H.R. 8399 of Ranking Member Morelle 
follows:] 

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida, with a 
working microphone, reserves a point of order.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of his amendment.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    As I mentioned previously, I had hoped that we could keep 
working together on this bill because Democrats would like to 
prevent the spread of foreign money in our elections.
    This bill, as drafted, would do the opposite. It would 
allow undisclosed foreign donations to inundate our politics. 
It would also prevent the FEC from investigating potential 
campaign finance violations, further weakening our ability to 
keep foreign money out of our politics.
    This amendment would strike the sections of the bill that 
would allow foreign donors to contribute undisclosed amounts to 
political campaigns but would leave in place the prohibitions 
that I believe have bipartisan support and I would like to see 
passed.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and allow us 
all to support the underlying bill.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes to strike the last word.
    The gentleman's amendment strikes key donor privacy 
protections. Again, as my comments on the previous two 
amendments, I maintain concerns about striking these essential 
donor privacy protections.
    I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
    I yield back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Does the gentlewoman from Florida maintain her point of 
order?
    Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. There being no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman 
from New York.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. A roll call vote is requested. The clerk 
will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there is one aye 
and five noes.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    If no, per our conversation on the side to go back to the 
AINS just for clarification, without objection, the Amendment 
in the Nature of the Substitute will be voted on.
    The question now occurs on adopting the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the AINS 
is adopted.
    Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. The 
clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Yes.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes yes.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes yes.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes yes.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes yes.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are five ayes 
and one no.
    Chairman Steil. The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
is agreed to.
    The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 8399, as amended, 
reported favorably to the House.
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chair, is a quorum present?
    Chairman Steil. A quorum is present.
    Mr. Morelle. For the purpose of recording a vote?
    Chairman Steil. It would be whether or not the roll call 
has a sufficient number. I know one of our Members--one is just 
outside the room, and the other is maybe 5 feet further, who 
will be here in time for the roll call.
    At the time of the--a quorum is present. The question I 
think that the gentleman might be asking is whether or not 
there is a sufficient number to report favorably to the House.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. I am of the view that there will be a 
sufficient number.
    Mr. Morelle. OK.
    Chairman Steil. With that, the clerk will please call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted?
    Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will please report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are six ayes 
and one no.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is agreed to and will be 
reported to the House floor favorably.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    I now call up H.R. 8281, the Safeguard American Voter 
Eligibility Act.
    Today in our Nation's capital, noncitizens are eligible to 
vote in municipal elections. Later today, we will vote on the 
House floor to overturn D.C.'s noncitizen voting scheme.
    In this Committee, we are working to ensure elections 
across the U.S. are for American citizens only, which this 
legislation will accomplish. This bill ensures noncitizens 
cannot vote in Federal elections and provides States with the 
tools they need to maintain clean and accurate voter rolls.
    In our hearing last week, Mr. Hans von Spakovsky outlined a 
past example of noncitizens voting in Federal elections in 
California's 46th House District in 1996. Congress studied 
whether or not noncitizens actually voted in the elections and 
found proof that noncitizens did, in fact, cast ballots. The 
margin of victory in that case was 1,000 votes, and the report 
found clear and convincing evidence that 624 documented aliens 
had registered and voted in the election. If the bill we are 
considering today had been law in 1996, this would not have 
happened.
    As we all know, it is not uncommon for the House to have 
close races. In 2020, our colleague Mariannette Miller-Meeks 
won by just six votes.
    It is critical that we are preventing noncitizens from 
voting in upcoming elections. That is what we are here to do 
today. In Ohio, they recently found 137 noncitizens on their 
voter rolls.
    We want to ensure States have the tools they need to run 
secure elections, and we want to ensure only American citizens 
are voting in U.S. elections.
    I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on this 
legislation.
    I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if you 
would like to give an opening statement on the bill.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    My colleagues like to say their goal on the Republican side 
is to make it easy to vote, hard to cheat. I agree with that 
goal. That is why I am going to continue to support advancing 
legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act that would do just 
that.
    During a hearing last week on this measure, in my opening 
remarks, I expressed my sincere concern with the SAVE Act. This 
bill is unreasonably restrictive. The bill would create extreme 
documentary requirements nationwide, making it much, much, much 
harder to vote, burdening every potential voter and 
particularly affecting people who have difficulty obtaining the 
required documents, including married women who have changed 
their names, students on a college campus, the elderly, lower-
income people, members of Tribal nations, naturalized citizens, 
and, yes, even Republicans.
    I do not know if my Republican colleagues even realize how 
restrictive this is. Most Americans would be unable to register 
to vote with just their driver's license, which is the way I 
did it when I registered to vote many, many years ago.
    How many Americans are prepared to bring their birth 
certificates to the election office just to cast a rightful 
ballot? Or bring their passports? How many members of our Armed 
Forces are prepared to bring their military service records, 
with place of birth identified?
    Not only are the bill's requirements extreme, the SAVE Act 
would impose severe criminal penalties on election 
administrators for simple, good-faith mistakes.
    We know this bill is not a serious legislative exercise. It 
is a vehicle to undermine American confidence in elections. If 
it were ever to become law, its provisions are so draconian 
that it would surely disenfranchise millions of eligible 
Americans.
    This bill is a solution in search of a problem. The law is 
already clear. It is unlawful for noncitizens to register to 
vote. It is unlawful and a felony for individuals who are not 
U.S. citizens to vote in Federal elections.
    Worst yet, the bill is the latest step by House Republicans 
to preemptively cover Donald Trump's lies, both past and 
future.
    Here, we thought the Republicans were only focused on 
restricting women's private personal healthcare decisions. They 
continue to support Donald Trump, a man who appointed the 
Supreme Court majority that destroyed women's right to choose. 
Just yesterday, former President Trump indicated he would 
restrict women's access to contraception.
    Just as Republicans seek to restrict women's access to 
abortion, they now want to seek and restrict Americans' access 
to the ballot.
    This is a deeply un-democratic bill. It is indicative of a 
cynical outlook the Republican Party has on American democracy 
and the contempt with which they hold American voters.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 8281----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    [House bill H.R. 8281 follows:]  
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Steil. Also, without objection, the bill may be 
considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
    I have an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute at the 
desk. The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
8281----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute is considered as read and will be 
considered as original text for purposes of further amendment.
    [The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 8281 
follows:]   


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to seek recognition?
    Mr. Morelle. I have an amendment at the desk, sir.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman from New York has an 
amendment at the desk. The clerk will please distribute.
    The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
H.R.----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    [The amendment to H.R. 8281 of Ranking Member Morelle 
follows:]  

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman Steil. Does the gentlewoman from Florida seek a 
point of order?
    Ms. Lee. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a 
point of order.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I have explained repeatedly how damaging I believe the 
underlying bill before the Committee will be and how damaging 
the conspiracy theories are that Republicans use that underpin 
the legislation and continue to repeat.
    It is important for the American people to understand the 
divergent paths the two parties are offering, because you could 
not have more opposing views of American democracy.
    The Republican SAVE Act, cloaked in lies about nonexistent 
noncitizen voting, would disenfranchise millions of eligible 
American voters.
    The bill would prevent Americans from voting simply because 
they do not have or cannot afford or do not need a passport or 
do not have access to their birth certificate or have trouble 
overcoming the various other documentary hurdles this bill 
seeks to impose.
    In place of this odious bill, Democrats offer as an 
amendment the relevant portions of the Freedom to Vote Act, the 
most pro-democracy legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 
1965.
    For my colleagues on the other side, we figured we would 
save you some work. We have had the Legislative Counsel's 
Office scrub the amendment of all the Freedom to Vote Act 
provisions that are not germane to the underlying bill. We 
thought we would save you some homework.
    Where the SAVE Act would block American access to the 
ballot, the FTVA would expand automatic voter registration and 
same-day registration.
    Where the SAVE Act would create massive hurdles, the 
Freedom to Vote Act will set a national standard for no-excuse 
vote-by-mail for every eligible voter, as is done in many, many 
States across this country and has been done without complaint 
and without objection for decades.
    Where the SAVE Act would prevent millions of Americans from 
registering to vote at all, the Freedom to Vote Act will 
protect the integrity of our voter registration lists by 
prohibiting unlawful and faulty voter purges.
    The SAVE Act would make it harder to vote. The Freedom to 
Vote Act will expand early voting by requiring States to offer 
early voting at least 2 weeks prior to election day.
    The SAVE Act does nothing to ease access to the ballot for 
people who may need additional assistance. The Freedom to Vote 
Act will protect access to the ballot for individuals with 
different physical abilities.
    Unlike the SAVE Act, the Freedom to Vote Act will make 
election day a national holiday.
    The SAVE Act does nothing to root out real, proven foreign 
interference in politics. The Freedom to Vote Act will prevent 
enemies, foreign and domestic, from subverting the will of 
voters by restricting the politicized removal of election 
officials and cracking down on foreign influence in our 
politics.
    The SAVE Act does nothing to address the crisis of 
intimidation against election workers. The Freedom to Vote Act 
will crack down on the violence and threats against election 
workers and officials, who remain in constant danger since the 
former President and his allies targeted several public 
servants with threats and harassment.
    The SAVE Act ignores the power of special-interest donors 
over our political system. The Freedom to Vote Act will end the 
flood of dark money in American elections, amplifying the 
voices of everyday Americans and shifting power away from the 
Republican-aligned billionaires and corporate interests that 
spend endless money on our political campaigns.
    What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offer 
in this bill? Lies meant to undermine American confidence in 
elections.
    American democracy is in peril. Only the Freedom to Vote 
Act will defend our Republic against those who actively seek to 
undermine our election integrity. For the sake of our 
democracy, for the sake of our Republic, I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes to strike the last word.
    I am not sure if, in incredible speed, my colleague struck 
the nongermane aspects following my comments on the germaneness 
of a previous amendment at this markup, but I do appreciate the 
effort to strike out the nongermane aspects of your so-called 
Freedom to Vote Act, which really stands in contrast to the 
underlying legislation that we are doing.
    We are working to increase the integrity of our elections, 
block noncitizens from voting in our elections. Your bill, as 
pushed by Democrats time and again, really does the opposite.
    I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. It 
strikes the core concept of our legislation, which is to 
prevent noncitizens from voting, increasing and enhancing the 
integrity of our elections. The legislation and the amendment 
put before us moves us in the opposite direction, decreasing 
Americans' confidence in our elections.
    We have seen time and again, as we took this Committee to 
Georgia, introducing the ACE Act, and we explored in particular 
Georgia's election integrity legislation, exactly the opposite 
of what President Biden claimed would occur.
    Many of those in the media and those on the left who went 
hook, line, and sinker along with the President's misleading 
and false statements said, well, we actually looked, when we 
explored the empirical data, is actually people participated in 
record numbers in Georgia, and people were actually, across the 
board, pleased with the elections, which is a good thing.
    When we saw the University of Georgia study set forth that, 
following the Georgia election, following the Georgia election 
integrity law being passed, overwhelming support in all--
including all key demographic groups. In particular, Blacks in 
Georgia had overwhelming support for the legislation. That is a 
positive thing. What we saw was significant voter participation 
in Georgia--again, a very positive thing.
    I think what we see at its core is, when we pass good, 
solid voter integrity legislation, Americans have more 
confidence in the elections, participate, and we have stronger 
elections.
    I think this amendment goes in the opposite direction. It 
strikes the core provisions of our legislation. Not only that, 
it actually weakens voter integrity provisions that are 
essential for States to be building confidence in our elections 
to garner more people to participate.
    I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
    I yield back.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment?
    If no, the question--does the gentlewoman from Florida 
maintain her point of order?
    Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman. I will waive it and yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman waives her point of order.
    The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from 
New York.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. The 
clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes no.
    Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted?
    Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will please report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there is one aye 
and six noes.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Does any Member wish to seek recognition?
    Ms. Lee of Florida.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman has an amendment at the 
desk. The clerk will please----
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman from New York reserves a 
point of order.
    The clerk will please distribute the amendment.
    The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Ms. Lee----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    [The amendment to H.R. 8281 of Ms. Lee follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, our Committee Members and staff have 
been hard at work making improvements to further strengthen the 
SAVE Act.
    My amendment to your AINS makes a few technical and 
conforming changes that the bill's sponsor has presented.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. Morelle. Sorry, Mr. Chair----
    Chairman Steil. Does the gentleman seek recognition to 
strike the last word?
    Mr. Morelle. I would like to seek recognition to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, thank you.
    I only, obviously, had just a few seconds to look at it, 
but I fear that nothing in this bill, in my mind, can make it 
any better, so I would urge defeat of the amendment, defeat of 
the underlying bill.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the bill?
    Seeing none, does the gentleman maintain his point of 
order?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman removes his point of order.
    If there is no further debate on the bill, the question is 
now on the amendment from Ms. Lee of Florida.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman from New York requests a 
recorded vote. The clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
    Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are six ayes 
and one no.
    [11:36 a.m.]
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is agreed to.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    If not, the question now occurs on adopting the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute, as amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the AINS 
is agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. The 
clerk will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
    Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    Have all Members voted?
    The clerk will please report the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are six ayes 
and one no.
    Chairman Steil. The Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute, as amended, is agreed to.
    The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 8281, as amended, 
reported favorably to the House.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion to report is agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. A 
recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will please call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
    Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted?
    Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are six ayes 
and one no.
    Chairman Steil. The Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute, as amended, is reported to the House floor 
favorably.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    This concludes the order of business for today's markup. 
Pursuant to House rule IX, clause 2(l), I ask that Committee 
Members have the right to file with the clerk of the Committee 
supplemental, additional, minority, and dissenting views on 
each of the items marked up today.
    Without objection.
    Also, without objection, the staff is authorized to make 
necessary technical and conforming changes.
    If there is no other business, I thank the Members for 
their participation.
    Without objection, the Committee on House Administration 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [roll call votes 1 through 9 follow:]  
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    [Amendment 1 to H.R. 8399 can be found on page 33 in this 
hearing] 

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Amendment 2 to H.R. 8399 can be found on page 98 in this 
hearing] 

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Amendment 3 to H.R. 8399 can be found on page 168 in this 
hearing]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [The Amendment in the Nature of a Subsitute to H.R. 8399 
can be found on page 21 in this hearing]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [House bill H.R. 8399 can be found on page 9 in this 
hearing]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Morelle Amendment 1 to H.R. 8281 can be found on page 221 
in this hearing]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Lee Amendment 1 to H.R. 8281 can be found on page 442 in 
this hearing]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [The Amendment in the Nature of a Subsitute to H.R. 8281 
can be found on page 197 in this hearing]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [House bill H.R. 8281 can be found on page 174 in this 
hearing]

                                 [all]