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





                                 _____
 
                    MARKUP OF H.R. 4460, H.R. 4396,
                    H.R. 4316, H.R. 3162, H.R. 3229,
                  H.R. 6513, H.R. 4555, AND H.R. 6493

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

                                 MARKUP

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           NOVEMBER 30, 2023

                               __________

      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 
 55-980                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

                  Caleb Hays,  Deputy 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
Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of 
  New York.......................................................     2

                               Statement

Laurel Lee, Representative from the State of Florida.............     4

                       Submissions for the Record

H.R. 4396........................................................     7
H.R. 4316........................................................    14
Amendment to H.R. 4316...........................................    17
H.R. 3162........................................................    23
H.R. 4555........................................................    29
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4555.............    32
Amendment to H.R. 4555...........................................    39
H.R. 3229........................................................    55
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3229.............    58
Amendment to H.R. 3229...........................................    63
H.R. 4460........................................................    66
Amendment to H.R. 4460...........................................    79
H.R. 6493........................................................    86
Amendment to H.R. 6493...........................................    93
Confirmation Of Congressional Observer Access Act of 2023........    97
Roll call votes..................................................   105


                    MARKUP OF H.R. 4460, H.R. 4396,



                    H.R. 4316, H.R. 3162, H.R. 3229,



                  H.R. 6513, H.R. 4555, AND H.R. 6493

                              ----------                              


                           November 30, 2023

                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, 
Murphy, Bice, Carey, D'Esposito, Lee, Morelle, Sewell, Torres, 
and Kilmer.
    Staff present: Caleb Hays, Deputy Staff Director, General 
Counsel, Parliamentarian; Hillary Lassiter, Chief Clerk; Alex 
Deise, Elections Counsel, Assistant Parliamentarian; Thomas 
Lane, Elections Counsel and Director of Election Coalitions; 
Caitlin O'Dell, Legal Assistant and Deputy Clerk; Khalil 
Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director, Chief Counsel; Jamie 
Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Elections 
Counsel; and Sean Wright, Minority Senior 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.
    Today we have an opportunity to strengthen Americans' 
confidence in our elections by passing commonsense election 
integrity bills out of this Committee.
    Over the past year we have held nine hearings and two 
public roundtables with 42 witnesses on the issue of voter 
confidence. Today we will consider several bills that focus on 
increasing confidence in our elections.
    I want to thank Mr. Morelle and his staff for 
collaboratively working with us to move a few of these measures 
forward.
    Each of the bills will protect Americans' confidence in our 
elections from foreign interference and ensure that only 
American citizens are allowed to vote in American elections.
    Recently we have seen States across the country consider 
measures to allow noncitizens to vote in State and local 
elections.
    Right here in Washington, D.C., in our Nation's capital, 
the city council passed a bill allowing noncitizens to vote in 
city elections starting next year.
    Consider the implications of this. This means a Russian 
national, working at the Russian Embassy, holding a Russian 
passport, residing in Washington, D.C., for simply 30 days, 
next year could leave the Russian Embassy, walk to a polling 
location with his passport in his pocket, and vote for mayor in 
the city of D.C., and not even have to show his Russian 
passport.
    This is our opportunity to clean up this mess, to make sure 
that American elections are for American citizens.
    I think we can all agree that Russian nationals should not 
be allowed to vote in our Nation's capital.
    Today will bring us one step closer to blocking these 
election insecurities and strengthening Americans' confidence 
in our elections.
    Under our Constitution, most of the responsibility for 
Federal elections lies with the States, while Congress has a 
smaller role. It is important that we work with the States to 
ensure free, fair, and secure elections.
    This summer our Committee passed the American Confidence in 
Elections Act, the ACE Act. This Federalist approach offers 
States tools to improve election integrity and gets the Federal 
Government out of the way.
    The legislation we will consider today is a series of 
standalone bills that echo the ACE Act's work and help 
strengthen our elections.
    Today we will prevent Federal funds from flowing to States 
that allow noncitizens to vote. We will stop foreign 
adversaries from voting in Washington, D.C., elections. We will 
stop the Biden administration from weaponizing Federal 
agencies. We will prevent Federal dollars from being used for 
partisan election activities.
    The fact of the matter is simple: When Americans trust 
their elections, that they are secure, they are more likely to 
participate.
    American elections are for American citizens. Period. Full 
stop. The American people deserve an election system that they 
can trust.
    I look forward to today's discussions and passing these 
bills out of Committee.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 
minutes for the purpose of offering his opening statement.

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

    Mr. Morelle. Good morning.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for gathering us together for this 
markup, which consists of a series of eight separate measures 
dealing with election law.
    I note, because it bears repeating over and over, that we 
are less than a year away from the 2024 elections. There are 46 
days until Republicans gather to caucus in Iowa, and over 150 
(sic) Americans across every State and territory will cast 
ballots next year.
    Everyone in this room would agree there is a tremendous 
amount of work that needs to be done between now and next 
November to ensure that the United States is once again blessed 
with safe, secure elections, as we were in 2022, 2020, and 
every year before that.
    Unfortunately, election policy is often where those of us 
on this Committee find our disagreements most profound. We 
remain open on our side of the aisle to finding commonsense 
bipartisan agreement on provisions that expand access to the 
ballot, protect the franchise, and shine a spotlight on the 
influence of special interests.
    Let us never forget, as a Justice for the Supreme Court 
said many years ago, the right to vote is preservative of all 
rights.
    I am optimistic, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, I am 
grateful for this, that a few of today's proposed measures 
hopefully will gain bipartisan support.
    I want to express my appreciation to you and both the 
majority and minority staffs for months-long discussion on the 
confirmation of the Congressional Observer Access Act of 2023, 
which I hope will result in a bipartisan vote to report the 
bill out of Committee.
    I am also optimistic that we will find consensus on a 
measure to ensure foreign nationals do not seek to influence 
State and local ballot initiatives, referenda, or recall 
elections, a proposal suggested, as we all can recall, as part 
of the FEC's package of bipartisan legislative recommendations.
    Unfortunately, many of the other proposed bills before us 
are recycled pieces of the ACE Act, which we feel is an omnibus 
of anti-voter, pro-dark money package of bills previously 
reported by the Committee's majority.
    Counterintuitively, as States and localities prepare to 
facilitate a colossal undertaking next year, this Committee is 
considering some extreme partisan messaging bills that, 
frankly, have zero chance of becoming law and would reduce 
resources available to State and local officials.
    I continue to believe that I think it is a shame we do not 
use our limited time before the next election to take steps 
necessary to adequately resource and support election 
officials, deter and prevent mis- and disinformation, and shine 
a spotlight on the oncoming torrent of dark money.
    As the old saying goes, elections have consequences. 
Today's agenda, sadly, represents the priorities of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
    From my perspective, the measures before us today are 
solutions in search of problems. We do not inspire confidence 
in our elections by parroting disproven claims of rigged 
elections, nonexistent voter fraud, and supporting fraudulent 
audits of election results.
    I do note that we had exhaustive testimony here--some would 
say exhausting testimony--over ten hearings, dozens of hours. 
The suggestions that there is widespread fraud, suggestions 
that there have been elections which have been rigged had no 
evidence at all in any of those hearings, not a shred of 
evidence on any of it.
    For my mind, what we do in Congress and what legislative 
bodies do is hold hearings on concerns that we may have, and 
once we hear testimony, when there is evidence presented, work 
on solutions. Here we have got solutions searching for 
problems.
    Our Republican colleague from Colorado, Congressman Buck, 
recently said: ``As a Republican Party, if we are going to 
offer good, solid policy answers to the real challenges we face 
in America, we have got to get past the lies. We have got to 
have credibility with the American public. I think we can do 
that, but we have to move forward.''
    I urge my colleagues to heed Mr. Buck's call to restore 
their party's credibility with the American public by ceasing 
the baseless insinuations and the constant undermining of the 
results of the 2020 election, knowing full well they lack any 
evidence of any kind of malfeasance or fraud across the 
country.
    Indeed, the record of this Committee, as I indicated, and 
the hours and hours that we spent, there is no evidence of 
significant voter fraud in 2020. Every witness called before us 
had an opportunity to present that evidence, did not do it, and 
all indicated they thought Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
    This is a record that we build together. We should heed it. 
I urge all of us to move forward, as Mr. Buck said, by working 
on commonsense bipartisan legislation that addresses our most 
pressing concerns.
    I will have more to say on the bills, obviously, as they 
are called up for consideration.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration and 
for the work on this.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. I thank the Ranking Member.
    Without objection, the opening statements of all other 
Members will be included in the record if they are provided to 
the clerk of the Committee by 12 p.m. tomorrow.
    As required by House rules, with one exception, a copy of 
all measures has been made available to Members and the public 
at least 24 hours in advance.
    The one exception is the COCOA Act, which our Ranking 
Member was referencing.
    I thank Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Morelle, Mr. Carey, and I, we were hard at work, and we 
crossed the line late yesterday afternoon. We have posted that 
legislative text online, available, and we will bringing that 
up today. A copy of the language, as I said, was available 
online.
    I will now call up H.R. 4396, the American Confidence in 
Elections: District of Columbia Citizen Voter Act, sponsored by 
Mr. Bost of Illinois and a component bill of the ACE Act. This 
bill bans noncitizens from voting in D.C. elections, including 
local elections.
    I will now yield 5 minutes to Ms. Lee to speak on the bill.

 STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 
                         STATE FLORIDA

    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The District of Columbia Citizen Voter Act would require 
U.S. citizenship to vote in any D.C. election.
    Last year the D.C. City Council enacted the Local Resident 
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 that gave noncitizens that 
are 18 years old and have resided in D.C. for 30 days the right 
to vote in any D.C. election.
    18 United States Code section 611 prohibits noncitizens 
from voting in Federal elections. While States and localities 
are free to permit noncitizens to vote in State and local 
elections, article I, section 8, clause 17 of the United States 
Constitution gives Congress complete control over the District 
of Columbia. Therefore, Congress can and should overturn this 
D.C. noncitizen voting law.
    Elections in the District of Columbia should be an example 
for the Nation. Allowing noncitizens, like embassy staff, to 
vote in D.C. elections is inappropriate and contrary to our 
system of democracy.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    I will recognize Mr. Morelle, if you would like to give a 
statement on the bill.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would indeed.
    I think my majority colleagues and those on our side of the 
aisle disagree on the status of Washington, D.C., itself. House 
Democrats believe that taxation without representation is 
undemocratic and contrary to our Nation's founding principles.
    I think it is clear to say that in 1789 our Founders would 
never have conceived that over 700,000 Americans would lack 
full voting representation in Congress simply for living in the 
Capital City.
    To rectify this, House Democrats last Congress passed H.R. 
51, which would have established statehood for the people of 
D.C. outside the Federal district where our Federal buildings 
lie.
    Clearly--and I do not mean in this any dismissive way or 
any other way than to suggest Republicans do not see it that 
way--we have a disagreement about how we view this.
    Saving that disagreement for later discussion, the claims 
upon which this bill is based are baseless. Contrary to the 
talking points about elections in D.C., noncitizen embassy 
employees are unlikely ever to qualify as D.C. residents for 
the purpose of voting.
    Embassy employees are necessarily here for a temporary 
purpose. They are consular officers posted to the United 
States. A noncitizen embassy employee will leave D.C. when 
their deployment ends.
    By that very fact, by definition, embassy employees are not 
going to be voting in D.C. elections under D.C. law. They are 
not residents, simply put.
    Frankly, we have had no evidence in all the testimony we 
took that indicates even a single embassy employee ever voted 
in a D.C. election fraudulently. Frankly, there would be 
penalties associated with that if that were the case. No 
evidence of that kind exists.
    We are focusing on this issue because, frankly, I think my 
majority colleagues want to distract from the unpopular, 
restrictive, anti-voter policies they are trying to force on 
District residents. They are trying to draw attention away from 
the fact that this Congress has, frankly, I think from most 
people's view, has been nothing short of a disaster.
    One of our Republican colleagues from Texas, Congressman 
Roy, recently noted he knows of not one, quote, ``material, 
meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has 
done,'' end quote.
    I am always looking to find bipartisan agreement, and I am 
grateful to Mr. Roy for issuing a Republican statement I can 
support. I wish the majority would advance something more 
meaningful that we could work together on, but instead we are 
considering this bill I think as a distraction.
    I would urge defeat of the bill, and I will urge our 
colleagues to oppose it.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 43----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    Also, without objection, the bill shall be considered as 
read and open to amendment at any point.
    [House bill H.R. 4396 follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

Ms. Palagashvili.   
    
    Chairman Steil. I will recognize myself first to strike the 
last word.
    Just as a follow up to my colleague's comments, I think it 
is important to know that the law passed in Washington, D.C., 
simply says an individual has to reside in D.C. for 30 days. To 
my knowledge, almost everyone that comes and works at an 
embassy resides in Washington, D.C., for over 30 days. If it is 
unlikely, it should be even easier to pass the bill.
    I think it makes complete sense to make sure that we are 
keeping U.S. elections for U.S. citizens and, in particular, in 
Washington, D.C. Ms. Lee laid out why that is a Federal 
interest. I think this bill is not only a good idea, I think it 
is actually necessary to protect the integrity of our elections 
in our Nation's capital.
    I will yield back.
    Does any other Member wish to seek recognition?
    Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Yes, Chairman. I would like to also strike the 
last word.
    It is outrageous. The comments that have been spoken here 
about D.C.'s ability to elect their own elected officials with 
their own votes, it is so outrageous, some of the statements, 
and offensive. It is the bullies bullying the D.C. residents.
    To correct some of the unfortunate misinformation that 
continues to be spread here, I do not know if any of you have 
ever even tried to get a temporary parking permit in D.C. and 
how difficult it is to prove that you are a resident of D.C.
    In order for you to vote in D.C., you have to be 18 years 
of age. You have to prove residency not by simply renting an 
apartment. You cannot do that. Then you also cannot be a voter 
in any other State.
    So, please, stop the political theater here. Focus on 
balancing a budget, passing a budget. Your inability to be able 
to do anything in order to be able to do your job is incredibly 
frustrating, and these are the people that are trying to tell 
D.C. residents and voters and taxpayers how to live their lives 
and how to govern themselves. You are completely out of order.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    I will not dispute how difficult it is to get a parking 
permit in D.C. I think a lot of D.C. government leaves a lot to 
be desired, that is not the point here, no different than the 
massive number of carjackings in the city. This bill is focused 
in just on the voting provisions.
    I will recognize Mr. Loudermilk for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. I move to strike the last word.
    Just real quickly, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with a little 
bit of what my friend from California just said.
    Even if all of that is true, that it is that difficult to 
become a registered voter in D.C., nothing in this bill would 
make it any harder than it already is, unless you were not 
legally--you were not a citizen of the United States. I do not 
see that there is a compelling reason not to move forward with 
this piece of legislation.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Elections, 
voter accessibility is something I care very deeply about, and 
I know that all of us in this Committee do.
    I agree with my colleagues, both Ranking Member Morelle as 
well as Representative Torres, that we are looking for a 
solution to a problem that does not exist.
    I do not think that we have been able to have one example, 
concrete example, of where this actually occurred with an 
embassy resident trying to become a resident of D.C. for voting 
purposes.
    I think that the right to vote, as all of us know, is an 
American democracy cornerstone. There are currently right now 
in D.C. 712,000 residents of D.C. that do not have full voting 
representation in Congress.
    D.C. residents are American citizens. I think all of us 
would agree on that. They pay Federal taxes. They serve in the 
military. The decision that they make for their communities are 
often overridden by the interests of those who do not live in 
the District of Columbia, i.e., us in Congress.
    I am not a resident of the city of D.C., nor do I think 
anybody on this Committee is. There are--all the 712,000 
residents who are residents of D.C. do not have equal voting 
rights as American citizens.
    Forty-five percent of the residents of the District of 
Columbia are African American. The District of Columbia Citizen 
Voter Act is an effort to not only disenfranchise voters of 
color, but an effort to further distract us from the 
conversation that we should be having when we bring up D.C. 
residents, and that is a conversation on D.C. statehood.
    The residents that live in our Nation's capital should be 
able to fully participate in our democracy. They do not at 
current. We would do well as a Committee to address that 
concern instead of looking for a solution to a problem that 
does not exist.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    If not, the question occurs on ordering H.R. 4396 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 is agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. May I ask for a recorded vote?
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested.
    Chairman Steil. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
    Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
    Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
    Mr. D'Esposito?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
    Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are five----
    Chairman Steil. Mr. Loudermilk seeks recognition. I think 
he is looking to see how he is recorded.
    Mr. Loudermilk. See how I was recorded.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk is not recorded.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
    Chairman Steil. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are six ayes 
and three noes.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment--or the bill--is agreed to. 
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    I will now call up H.R. 4316, the Citizen Ballot Protection 
Act, sponsored by Mr. Palmer of Alabama and a component of the 
ACE Act.
    Many States across the country have laws preventing 
noncitizens from voting in their elections. One way they 
enforce this prohibition is by requiring proof of citizenship 
when individuals register to vote.
    This bill allows States to enforce this prohibition and 
ensure their elections are free from foreign interference.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if 
you would like to give a statement on the bill.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I think you indicated, this is one of the provisions 
from the ACE Act which we consider extremely partisan and we 
also believe is a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters that 
many of my colleagues do not want to participate.
    Requiring voter registration applicants to provide proof of 
citizenship on the Federal form with their voter registration 
application prevents eligible citizens from registering to vote 
at alarming rates. This is because millions of Americans do not 
have readily available the most common types of documents used 
to prove citizenship, including a passport, which many 
Americans do not have, or a birth certificate, which may not 
have readily available.
    For those who have either lost or not had--lost access to 
or never had those documents, securing proof of citizenship is 
a costly and lengthy process that for many proves impossible.
    Moreover, because many Americans do not just carry around 
proof of citizenship, that requirement hampers voter 
registration drives, which are a critically important tool to 
engage eligible voters in civic participation. I think my 
colleagues know this very well.
    In fact, several States have attempted to require voters to 
provide documentary proof of citizenship at the time of 
registration and it has not gone well in many cases.
    In Kansas, tens of thousands of eligible citizens, or about 
a tenth of all voter registration applicants, had their 
applications blocked in the first few years after a proof of 
citizenship requirement was implemented.
    Arizona saw similar results from its documentary proof of 
citizenship law.
    Worse yet, the rejections are not spread equally across the 
eligible voter population. Instead, adding a proof of 
citizenship requirement disproportionately prevents otherwise 
eligible voters of color, young voters, low-income voters, 
elderly voters, and voters without stable housing from 
registering to vote.
    That is not the point of the NVRA. The NVRA is a seminal 
piece of legislation designed to expand access to voter 
registration for all eligible Americans and improve civic 
participation.
    By permitting States to engage in a practice known to 
disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters, this bill does 
just the opposite.
    In fact, in 1993, when the NVRA was passed, Congress 
considered the very question of whether to add a proof of 
citizenship requirement to the Federal form and rejected the 
idea. The bill then passed with bipartisan support, including 
from Republicans representing the same States that many Members 
of this Committee represent today.
    We should be doing everything we can to expand access to 
the voting booths and to the ballot. It is essential for 
American progress, it is essential to instill confidence in 
Americans that they are going to have the right to vote because 
it is their constitutional right.
    I will be voting no. I want to uphold the goals of the 
NVRA, and urge my colleagues to do so, as well.
    With that, I will yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4316----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    Also, without objection, the bill should be considered read 
and open to amendment at any point.
    [House bill H.R. 4316 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
Ms. Palagashvili.
    Chairman Steil. I have an amendment at the desk that makes 
a small technical and conforming change.
    The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment to H.R.----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    [Chairman Steil's amendment to H.R. 4316 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
Ms. Palagashvili.
    Chairman Steil. Would any Member like to speak on the 
amendment? On the--this is on the--I apologize--on the 
technical and conforming amendment. It is a simple conforming 
with the law piece.
    If no further debate on this underlying technical 
correction, if not, the question is on the Steil amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Does any--the amendment is agreed to.
    We now bring the underlying--do any Members wish to seek 
recognition for the underlying bill?
    Ms. Sewell is recognized.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Voting is a fundamental civil right, and it should not be 
infringed upon no matter what your race or ZIP Code is. Far too 
often efforts to suppress voters--like strict ID requirements, 
bans on early voting and vote by mail, closed polling stations 
without notification, and voter roll purges and requiring proof 
of citizenship--continue to resurface.
    A recent study by the Brennan Center revealed that this 
year alone at least 14 States have enacted 17 restrictive 
voting laws. This exceeds the number of restrictive laws 
enacted in every year for the past decade besides 2021, when 33 
restrictive voting laws were passed by State legislatures.
    Section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act 
specifically prohibits requiring proof of citizenship and was 
upheld by the Supreme Court in the Inter Tribal Council of 
Arizona v. Arizona case in 2013. Yet we still see efforts to 
try to require proof of citizenship.
    Let us discuss what happened when they were tried, when 
proof of citizenship was tried on the State level in Arizona 
and in Kansas.
    In 2005, Arizona implemented a proof of citizenship to 
register law. Evidence shows that Arizona's law acts as a 
significant obstacle to registration as measured by the tens of 
thousands who attempted to register and had been rejected. More 
than 10,000 people in Maricopa County alone were blocked.
    Across the State, three of the most populous counties, one 
in three applications were rejected due to documentary 
requirement in the last 5 months of the law.
    Two and a half years after the law had been implemented, it 
had blocked at least 31,000 applicants from registering, 
according to a Federal district court. By 2008, the number of 
rejected applications reached 38,000 voters or potential 
voters.
    In 2017, a study of the Maricopa County's recorder revealed 
that 17,000 of the rejected forms were filled out by American 
citizens.
    In 2013, Kansas followed suit with a discriminatory proof 
of citizenship requirement as well. Nationally recognized 
voting experts examined attempted registration between 2013 and 
2015. Dr. McDonald's report revealed that more than 14 percent 
of the new registrants, 35,000 people, were blocked by the 
documentary requirement.
    The experience in Arizona and Kansas proved that this 
practice represents a significant obstacle to voter 
registration and is not about voter accessibility or about 
citizenship. More, it is about voter suppression.
    In fact, national studies showed that between 5 and 7 
percent of Americans do not have any documents to prove that 
they are citizens. Yet they are citizens.
    Women who require their names to be changed, in fact, 
national studies showed that women who changed their names upon 
getting married are less likely to have their documentation. 
Citizens recovering from a natural disaster are less likely to 
have documentation. 59 percent of Americans do not have a 
passport to prove documentation.
    It has been proven that this practice disproportionately 
prevents young voters, voters of color, low-income voters, 
voters with unstable housing, and elderly voters from 
registering to vote. This is what we all want to consider as a 
supposed commonsense measure to protect access to the 
franchise.
    I think those of us on this side of the aisle would agree 
that this does not. Rather, it is an attempt to further 
restrict access to the ballot box by valid American citizens.
    Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Ms. Lee is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Article I, section 4 of the United States Constitution, the 
Elections Clause, confirms that States are given the primary 
role in administering elections, not the Federal Government. 
One of the powers that is given to States is the power to 
establish voter qualifications, such as age, residency, and 
citizenship.
    It is a State decision whether to require documentary proof 
of citizenship when voters register to vote. H.R. 4316 does not 
mandate that States have this requirement. It simply allows 
them to enact and/or enforce these laws if they choose. This 
does no more than confirm and articulate States' authorities 
under the Elections Clause.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    If not, the question occurs on ordering H.R. 4316, 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 ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
    Mr. Griffith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
    Mr. Carey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are four ayes 
and three noes.
    Chairman Steil. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, 
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    Looking at Member attendance, we are going to jump ahead to 
3162, the Protecting American Voters Act, introduced by Mr. Roy 
of Texas, also included in the ACE Act.
    This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security 
and the Commissioner of Social Security to provide citizenship 
information concerning registered voters to a State upon 
request at no cost. States need the tools to ensure their voter 
lists are clean and to enforce their noncitizen voting 
prohibitions.
    I will now yield 5 minutes to Mrs. Bice to speak on the 
bill.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This legislation, sponsored by my colleague from Texas, 
Chip Roy, requires the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Social Security Administration, upon request of a State, to 
provide citizenship information concerning registered voters at 
no cost.
    States need tools to ensure voter lists are clean and they 
have the ability to remove their noncitizen voting 
prohibitions.
    Under the National Voter Registration Act, noncitizens can 
end up on a State's voter rolls when they apply for a driver's 
license. If the State has prohibitions against noncitizens 
voting, they should have the information to enforce those laws.
    The DHS does currently have the authority to share data 
regarding naturalized citizens with the States, but the 
discretion is left to the Secretary of the DHS.
    The Social Security Administration cannot share Social 
Security information for the purposes of election integrity.
    This legislation also includes safeguards to prevent the 
disclosure of Social Security numbers and ensures the 
information costs nothing to the State.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Mr. Morelle, would you like to speak on the bill?
    Mr. Morelle. I would. Thank you.
    Chairman Steil. You have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    This bill is another attack on eligible voters of color 
disguised as fraud prevention, which this Committee has shown 
no evidence exists.
    At the expense of American voters, this bill would 
facilitate faulty but extensive information sharing between the 
Federal Government and State election officials.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to wax 
poetically about how their efforts will prevent voter fraud. As 
this Committee's exhaustive series of hearings has borne out, 
voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in American elections. No 
evidence has been presented through these series of hearings.
    During the Trump administration, the Department of Justice 
charged only three people in cases involving election fraud. 
That is three out of more than a hundred million ballots cast 
in Federal elections during the former President's 4 years in 
office.
    In only one of these three instances was a noncitizen 
charged with voting illegally. Notably, I just mention 
parenthetically, in that case the defendant had also committed 
a significant amount of tax fraud.
    It makes me wonder, if my Republicans colleagues are so 
concerned about preventing fraud, why they also trying to 
defund the IRS, an agency dedicated to actually detecting tax 
fraud.
    Rather than preventing fraud, this bill is truly an attack 
on the rights of voters, threatening to give States the tools 
to improperly remove eligible U.S. citizens from their voter 
rolls.
    It is clear to me the bill fixes zero problems, and it 
creates huge ones. It would permit the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to rely exclusively on the infamous SAVE immigration 
data base to provide information about citizenship.
    The system is notoriously unreliable. In fact, the data 
base has been the subject of multiple lawsuits throughout the 
country when States have used it to verify the citizenship 
status of voter registration applicants and registered voters 
because of how often it improperly identifies U.S. citizens as 
noncitizens and results in the improper removal of eligible 
voters.
    The bill would also facilitate the use of Social Security 
information to verify citizenship status. This is nonsensical. 
The Social Security Administration is not an accurate 
repository for up-to-date and comprehensive citizenship 
information. The SSA simply does not maintain this information.
    Indeed, noncitizens who are authorized to work in the 
United States are required to get Social Security numbers 
before being allowed to start a job. That means that an 
applicant who obtains a Social Security number and later 
becomes a citizen might be improperly flagged as a noncitizen. 
It also means that the mere fact that an individual has a 
Social Security number does not confirm their citizenship 
status.
    What is more, providing information about citizenship 
status is not part of SSA's mission. This unfunded mandate 
would divert already scarce resources from the agency's 
critical work of administering Social Security benefits and 
serving the American public.
    It is clear the bill is another poorly disguised--if it is 
disguised at all--attack on American voters. I will vote no on 
this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
    I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 31----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    Also, without objection, the bill should be considered as 
read and open to amendment at any point.
    [House bill H.R. 3162 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
Ms. Palagashvili.
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member seek recognition?
    Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve.
    Mr. Chairman, the Protecting American Voters Act is 
directed at helping us achieve the twin pillars of voter access 
to elections, but also ensuring that we have accurate elections 
with a high level of integrity.
    One of the primary responsibilities of State and local 
election officials is to maintain accurate and current voter 
rolls so that we can ensure all eligible Americans are able to 
vote and also that we have an accurate and complete list of who 
those eligible voters in a community are.
    The Social Security Administration and the Department of 
Homeland Security are two entities that have access to 
information about eligibility because they do have information 
about citizenship and that is a part of a State's determination 
of voter eligibility and current and accurate voter 
information.
    This bill would enable and help support the role of State 
and local election officials in maintaining accurate and 
current voter rolls, which is certainly something that I know 
we all share an interest in them being equipped and able to do 
that role.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition on the bill?
    Mr. Murphy.
    Dr. Murphy. Thank you.
    I just would like to bring up to the fact that all of these 
bills we are trying to restore confidence in the American 
voting system.
    Now the fact that we have now 8 million people that have 
come into our border who are undocumented, who are not citizens 
of this country, with possibly an apparent motive is to get 
them to be voting individuals, I think it is paramount and 
requisite that we have each individual point that is enforced 
that American citizens are the ones who vote, not people, not 
individuals who came into this country illegally.
    Thank you.
    With that, I will yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    I will recognize myself for 5 minutes, just to follow up 
with what you said, Mr. Murphy.
    I completely agree. I think that one of the keys here is we 
are providing States the tools that they need to be able to 
maintain the election integrity standards. This is true with 
the previous bill that we just passed out of Committee. It 
provides States the tools they need, allows the Federal 
Government to conform to States.
    This is saying, if States are seeking access into the 
Social Security data base for citizenship purposes, they should 
rightly be able to have that access at no cost.
    I think this is a very commonsense reform to make sure we 
are protecting the integrity of our elections and making sure 
that U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens.
    I yield back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    If not, there is no further debate, we will--if not, the 
question is now on the bill, 3162.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
    Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
    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?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are six ayes 
and three noes.
    Chairman Steil. The motion passes. Without objection, the 
motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    We will now move on to H.R. 4555, the Federal Election 
Audit Act, which is sponsored by Dr. Murphy and is also a 
component of the ACE Act.
    This bill amends the Help America Vote Act to allow States 
to use existing Federal dollars to conduct substantive 
independent audits of the accuracy and effectiveness of voting 
systems and election procedures.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4555----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    Also, without objection, the bill shall be considered read 
and open to amendment at any point.
    [House bill H.R. 4555 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
Ms. Palagashvili.
    Dr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I have an Amendment in the Nature 
of a Substitute at the desk.
    Chairman Steil. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An 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.
    [Dr. Murphy's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

Ms. Palagashvili.

    Chairman Steil. I now yield 5 minutes to Dr. Murphy, the 
bill's sponsor.
    Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Free and fair elections are a hallmark of American 
democracy and have been our national standard for over two 
centuries.
    However, in recent years trust in our elections has eroded 
on both sides of the political spectrum. Trust in the accuracy 
of electoral outcomes should not be influenced by the outcome 
itself.
    To ensure accuracy and restore confidence in our election 
system, today we are debating the Federal Election Audit Act. 
This measure would provide Federal funds to States who wish to 
conduct comprehensive post-election audits in an effort to 
boost transparency and improve election integrity.
    As this Committee learned through the hearing process 
earlier this year, many States and localities do not conduct 
comprehensive audits, thus assuring election equipment worked 
properly and ballots were cast by eligible and qualified 
voters.
    I just would remind everybody we audit everything in every 
society. We do it in medicine all the time. Doing it now for 
one of the things that is most precious to our democracy--
elections--really should be, as we say, a no-brainer.
    The Federal Election Audit Act, as introduced, permits 
States to use requirement payments or grant funds to conduct 
audits of the accuracy and effectiveness of voting systems, as 
well as election procedures.
    This Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute includes 
several relevant expansions and improvements to the underlying 
language based on our oversight process and feedback. The 
language is also identical to what is found in this Committee's 
American Confidence in Elections Act.
    First, audits are be conducted independently. State and 
local officials, or contractors of such offices, may not 
conduct an audit.
    Second, audits are comprehensive. It prescribes what an 
examination would cover over voter registration, voter check-
in, voting tabulation, canvassing, and post-election 
procedures.
    Finally, audits are timely. States' audits should be 
conducted before the expiration so one can challenge the 
results of an election under a State law.
    In no way should this be considered a partisan issue and 
funding to aid States should ensure that elections are 
mechanically sound and taxpayer recourses are being used 
effectively.
    Further, every State retains autonomy to administer their 
own elections as they see fit. It is enshrined in our 
Constitution, and nothing in this act infringes upon this. We 
believe all eligible American voters must be able to vote and 
all lawful votes must be counted.
    This legislation was crafted with thoughtful consideration 
and a sincere recognition of the bipartisan concern of the 
American people in election integrity. It is a sound piece of 
legislation that seeks to protect the sanctity of our elections 
and instill confidence in all, and I urge passage of the bill.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if 
you would like to give a statement on the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think we all agree that post-election audits are an 
important tool to help ensure the accuracy of our elections. 
However, I have serious concerns about the bill before us 
today.
    H.R. 4555, the Federal Election Audit Act, would allow 
certain Help America Vote Act funds, HAVA funds, to be used to 
conduct and publish an audit of the effectiveness and accuracy 
of the voting systems, election procedures, and outcomes of an 
election, as well as the performance of election officials who 
carried out the election.
    While this seems like good policy on its face, we have seen 
how post-election audits can be weaponized in furtherance of 
election-related lies and disinformation and election 
denialism.
    The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by the 
majority also raises significant concerns.
    Prohibiting any individual, first of all, who is an 
employee or contractor of a State or local government office 
responsible for the administration of the election from 
participating in conducting the audit removes critical 
individuals with great knowledge and expertise from the 
process.
    State and local election administrators are the experts in 
how their elections are run. We should not be effectively 
barring them from participating in an audit.
    There are too many stark examples of bad actors conducting 
or attempting to conduct audits of the 2020 election to simply 
allow Federal funds to be used to pay third parties without any 
guardrails.
    The false claims about the 2020 election results led to the 
fraudulent post-election audits in a cynical attempt to cast 
doubt on election results. That is why they existed.
    In Arizona, for example, despite overwhelming evidence of 
President Biden's victory and without proof of any fraud, 
allies of the former President in the State of Arizona hired 
Cyber Ninjas, an organization with zero experience auditing 
elections, none whatsoever, and whose CEO had spread publicly 
conspiracy theories and election disinformation.
    They were chosen to conduct another audit of the 2020 
election results in Maricopa County, even though post-election 
audits had already been conducted. At the end of the day, the 
cost to the Arizona taxpayers was significant and unnecessary.
    Attempts to conduct deceptive or disruptive audits were 
seen in other States as well, such as Colorado and Michigan.
    Post-election audits are a necessary and critical part of 
the election administration process. We should be providing 
States with the resources they need to conduct them 
effectively.
    However, this bill, while it does allow States to use HAVA 
funds to conduct the audits, my majority colleagues fail to 
provide any election funding in their appropriations bill, in 
the Financial Services and General Government appropriations 
bill, all but ensuring that State and local election officials 
are underresourced heading into another Presidential election 
year.
    If my colleagues are going to allow Federal dollars to be 
used to conduct the audits described in the bill, they should 
allow State and local election officials to participate in 
conducting them and should ensure that proper guardrails are in 
place.
    I will be offering an amendment, Mr. Chair, shortly, that 
would do all of that. Failure to adopt that amendment would, in 
my view, lead us to vote no, and I would urge my colleagues to 
vote no on H.R. 4555.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Does any Member seek recognition?
    Do any additional Members seek recognition for the purpose 
of offering an amendment?
    Mr. Morelle. I do, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Steil. Mr. Morelle is recognized.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Steil. The clerk will please distribute and report 
the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment will be dispensed with.
    [Ranking Member Morelle's amendment to H.R. 4555 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
Ms. Palagashvili.
    
    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.
    [Ranking Member Morelle's amendment to H.R. 3229 follows:]
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The amendment that I am offering makes clear the very real 
potential for post-election audits to be abused by those 
willing to deny the outcome of an election, spread false 
information about our electoral process, and profit from the 
spread of lies and misinformation at the expense of voters and 
which ultimately undermine our democratic institutions.
    Congress has the obligation to protect the electoral 
process and the American taxpayer and ensure that any post-
election audit which utilizes tax dollars meets the highest 
standards of rigor and integrity and that taxpayer dollars are 
not used to further election denialism.
    My amendment would add findings outlining just a few 
examples of how post-election audits were weaponized by 
election deniers in the wake of the 2020 election. This is 
public record, and it is in the amendment that I offer.
    Additionally, my amendment would place limitations on the 
participation of third parties in any audit funded by these 
HAVA dollars unless the appropriate State or local official 
authorizes the third party's access, the audit is conducted 
with full transparency to the public based on a comprehensive 
plan established and made public ahead of time, the State 
implements procedures to ensure the proper chain of custody and 
security of any equipment or supplies used in the audit, and, 
finally, that the State implements procedures to protect voter 
privacy.
    Finally, my amendment requires that if HAVA funds are being 
used to conduct an audit of an election outcome under this act, 
that it must be a risk-limiting audit.
    Risk-limiting audits are considered the gold standard of 
post-election audits, and we should ensure that any audit of 
election outcomes meets that standard.
    I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
    I yield back the balance my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Dr. Murphy is recognized.
    Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, I think all of us on this Committee are very earnest 
that we want fair elections and free elections.
    I will remind the Committee, however, of former Secretary 
of State Hillary Clinton contesting the election with former 
President Donald Trump in several different regards.
    I appreciate Mr. Morelle trying to improve the bill. 
However, I find this amendment a distraction, it will, 
repeating some of the other points that we have discussed ad 
nauseam in the Committee. I would urge my colleagues to vote 
no.
    Chairman Steil. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Ms. Sewell is recognized.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to support the Morelle amendment.
    I think that we have seen in the 2020 election, after the 
2020 election, as he so eloquently said, lots of chances where 
States may have been well-intentioned but they chose third-
party vendors to actually do the audits that were biased.
    We need guardrails to make sure that we are, in fact, doing 
the audit properly and that we are not just trying to hold up 
someone from being sworn in and moving on with the process, but 
we are actually providing transparency and accountability.
    I think that because his amendment provides better 
transparency and more accountability, that we should support 
his amendment.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Seeing none, does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on 
her point of order?
    Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. If not, the question is on the amendment 
from Mr. Morelle.
    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. A roll call?
    Chairman Steil. A roll call vote is ordered, and the clerk 
will please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Chairman Steil. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes no.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    Mr. Loudermilk. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
    Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes no.
    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?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes aye.
    Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are four ayes 
and eight noes.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    If not, the question now occurs on the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute offered by Dr. Murphy.
    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. May I ask for a recorded vote?
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
    Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
    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?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
    Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are eight ayes 
and four noes.
    Chairman Steil. The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is 
laid on upon the table.
    The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 4555 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.
    Mr. Morelle. I would ask for a recorded vote, please.
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Chairman Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
    Dr. Murphy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Aye.
    Chairman Steil. 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.
    Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are eight ayes 
and four noes?
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the motion is agreed to 
and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    I will now call up 3229, Stop Foreign Funds in Elections 
Act, from Representative Fitzpatrick.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 3229----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    Also, without objection, the bill shall be considered as 
read and open to amendment at any point.
    [House bill H.R. 3229 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
Ms. Palagashvili.
    Chairman Steil. I have an Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute at the desk.
    The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An 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 offered by 
Chairman Steil follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

Ms. Palagashvili.
    Chairman Steil. This bipartisan bill, introduced by Mr. 
Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and cosponsored by Mr. Kilmer, 
would prohibit contributions by foreign nationals in elections 
or in connection with ballot initiatives or referenda.
    American elections and legislative efforts like referenda 
are for the benefit of American citizens, not foreign 
nationals. Foreign money should have no place in our politics 
at the Federal, State, and local level.
    This bill was one of the Federal Election Commission's top 
nonpartisan legislative recommendations in 2022 and comes from 
all six Commissioners. That is three Republicans and three 
Democrats.
    This amendment ensures that State or local campaign or 
ballot question committees are not subject to Federal 
registration or reporting requirements that would unnecessarily 
duplicate State efforts.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, if he 
would like to give a statement on the bill.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you. As I mentioned earlier in my 
opening statement, I am grateful to you and to staffs for 
collaboration here. I have a discrete amendment that I will 
offer a little later and make general comments.
    In the interest of time, I am happy to yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize Mr. D'Esposito for 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Chairman Steil.
    H.R. 3229, The Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act, is a 
necessary bill to protect our elections from foreign influence. 
This important piece of legislation would prohibit 
contributions or donations by foreign nationals in connection 
with State or local ballot initiatives. Federal law already 
takes several steps to ensure foreign nationals do not 
participate in Federal, State, or local elections.
    Foreign nationals cannot, directly or indirectly make a 
contribution or donation of money, or other thing of value, or 
make an expressed or implied promise to make a contribution or 
donation in connection with a Federal, State, or local 
election. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from 
contributing and donating to political party committees and 
from making expenditures, independent expenditures, and 
disbursements for electioneering communications. Of course, 
noncitizens are also prohibited from voting in Federal 
elections.
    However, Federal law does not prohibit foreign nationals 
from making contributions or donations in connection with State 
or local initiatives or referendum. This legislation rectifies 
that problem. American elections are for the benefit of 
American citizens and not foreign nationals. Foreign money 
should have no place in our elections at the Federal, State, or 
local level.
    This bill was one of the Federal Election Commission's top 
bipartisan legislative recommendations in 2022, and comes from 
all six commissioners, three Republicans and three Democrats. 
It is essential that this is implemented before the next 
election in 2024. I urge the support from all my colleagues for 
this bipartisan bill that assures that the right to vote and 
that participation in American elections belongs to the 
citizens of the United States of America, not foreign 
nationals.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I will now recognize Mr. Kilmer for 5 minutes, the 
cosponsor of the bill.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks for taking this bill 
up. I want to just commend our colleague, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for 
bringing it forward.
    As you mentioned, I cosponsored this. I think it is really 
important to keep foreign money out of our elections. That is 
really what this bill is about, also applying that prohibition 
to State and local ballot initiatives and referenda. I am 
really glad to see the Committee move this bill forward.
    As has been mentioned, this comes out of a bipartisan 
recommendation from the Federal Election Commission. If you 
follow the FEC over the years, they do not always agree on 
much, but they agree that it is important to keep foreign money 
out of our election system. I also think it is important that 
again, mirroring one of the recommendations out of the FEC, 
that we take up the amendment that would ensure recall 
amendments are also included in this prohibition. That is 
something that the Commission recommended, and I think that is 
an important step to safeguarding the integrity of our 
elections.
    I actually think it is valuable for our Committee to 
consider taking up other bipartisan recommendations that the 
Federal Election Commission has advanced. Things like some of 
their requests around staffing and recruitment. There have been 
bipartisan proposals around establishing a blue-ribbon advisory 
panel to look at how potential nominees are put forward to the 
FEC. I think that is worth our Committee looking at.
    I also just want to, you know, just on a side note here, as 
we look at how to keep foreign money out of elections, an area 
that I think we have got to fix a loophole in is online 
political expenditure. Right now, if any of us, if our 
campaigns, if an outside entity puts an ad on television, that 
is disclosed. There is a public file. They have to put their 
name on it. That is true on radio; that is true on broadcasts; 
that is not true on online political expenditure. We have a 
bill, Anonymous Ads Act, which is a bipartisan bill, just to 
replicate the same requirements that exist in TV and radio and 
have them apply to large-scale political expenditures. I think 
that is really important. Again, if we are going to be serious 
about keeping foreign money out of elections, we know more and 
more political spending is migrating into that online arena. I 
would hope to see this Committee take that up, too.
    For now, I want to thank the Committee for moving forward 
with The Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act, and hopefully, we 
can keep the bipartisan train running.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Ms. Sewell is recognized.
    Ms. Sewell. I move to strike the last word.
    Eliminating foreign interference in our local, State, and 
Federal elections is an issue that transcends party lines, 
because we all agree that the fact that corruption has no place 
in our politics. This is why I currently co-lead the Stop 
Foreign Interference and Ballot Initiative Act, which 
Representatives Porter and Gallagher have introduced to ban 
foreign donations for ballot measures and recall elections.
    Currently, it is illegal for foreign entities to donate to 
American politicians and political campaigns, but there is a 
legal loophole that enables foreign nationals to donate to 
State and local ballot initiatives. It is time to close that 
gap in our elections to protect our democracy and ensure that 
Americans can trust that their Government leaders are looking 
out for their best interests and not those of foreign 
governments, businesses, or other foreign investors.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Mr. Morelle. I do.
    Chairman Steil. Mr. Morelle is recognized.
    Mr. Morelle. I do have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Steil. The clerk will please distribute and report 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment to H.R. 3229.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment will be dispensed with.
    Did the gentlewoman from Florida----
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman reserves a point of order.
    Mr. Morelle is recognized in support of the amendment.
    [Ranking Member Morelle's amendment follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
Ms. Palagashvili.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, again, for 
who were folks working on this and the collaboration. I want to 
particularly thank Mr. Kilmer for his work and his comments 
here. More evidence that he will be missed in the next 
Congress. I am saddened by that, but grateful for his ongoing 
contributions.
    Mr. Chairman, the Federal Election Commission determined as 
has been said in a recent enforcement matter, that the Federal 
Election Campaign Acts Foreign National Prohibition does not 
reach ballot initiatives that do not appear to be linked to an 
office-seeking candidate at the Federal, State, or local level. 
To address the statutorial mission, the FEC included, as has 
been said here, a recommendation to amend the prohibition to 
include State and local ballot initiatives, referenda and 
recall elections as one of the Commission's highest priority 
legislative recommendations.
    The underlying bill here largely tracks the bipartisan 
legislative recommendations of the FEC, except for, it excludes 
the recall elections provision. This discrete amendment simply 
ensures the bill is in complete alignment with the FEC's 
bipartisan legislative recommendations. I encourage my 
colleagues to support what I consider a reasonable amendment in 
the spirit of what the FEC worked on.
    Before yielding back, I, again, want to note that I am glad 
to see the Committee taking seriously the risk of foreign 
interference in domestic election. In that spirit, I encourage 
my colleagues to consider additional comprehensive democracy 
reform, which closes loopholes for foreign campaign spending, 
like the Freedom to Vote Act, which includes the DISCLOSE Act.
    I would also welcome the opportunity to work across the 
aisle to advance additional measures, which the FEC bipartisan 
legislative recommendations included. Mr. Kilmer has already 
acknowledged that as well, and I hope we are able to secure 
final passage on the administration fines measure before the 
program sunsets later this year. I think that is something that 
you and I both agree on.
    Again, thank you for all the work on this. With that, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. I thank the Ranking Member for his 
amendment. It further enhances the underlying legislation that 
I know Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Fitzpatrick put a lot of time into. I 
thank you for the amendment. I will be supportive of the 
amendment.
    Does any other Member seek recognition on the amendment?
    Does the gentlewoman from Florida reserve her point of 
order?
    Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Is there any further debate on the 
amendment?
    If not, the question is now on the amendment from Mr. 
Morelle.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Does any Member seek recognition on the underlying 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute?
    Seeing none, the question now occurs on 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, ayes have it, and the motion 
to report is agreed to.
    The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 3229, reported 
favorably to the House.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the motion to report is agreed 
to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    I will now call up H.R. 4460, the No Vote for Non-Citizens 
Act, sponsored by Mr. Griffith and included in the ACE Act. 
This bill would ensure that only eligible American citizens can 
vote in Federal elections.
    I will now yield 5 minutes to the bill's sponsor, Mr. 
Griffith.
    [House bill H.R. 4460 follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

Ms. Palagashvili. 
    
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it. 
It is a pretty simple bill. I know some people may not like it, 
but what it says is, is that if you are going to--and certainly 
the State and local governments are able to do that, but if you 
are going to allow noncitizens to vote in your local and State 
elections, that you have to keep separate rolls, and you have 
to have separate ballots if you have two elections going on at 
the same time. If you are voting for a State or local issue at 
the same time as there is a Federal election, then they have to 
have ballots separate for the noncitizens voters as opposed to 
the citizen voters.
    That is fairly simple. I know there is some controversy 
over the funding requirements, but those make sense to me. What 
we are saying is if you do that, then you only receive 70 
percent of the money you would have otherwise received. A big 
part of that is, the Federal Government gives that money so 
that we can make sure that when we have a combined ballot, the 
Federal Government is helping the States and the local 
governments and all make sure they do that process, and they 
get it correctly.
    If you are going to have separate ballots and you are not 
going to have those ballots be the same, then the Federal 
Government's responsibility is less. Frankly, I think you can 
make intellectual argument for less than the 70 percent. We 
felt like that would be unfair to go below the 70 percent 
level. We left it at 70 percent.
    That covers most of it. I mean, if we want to get into a 
big discussion, there are a couple of other little provisions 
in there relating to maintaining communications between the 
Federal Government and the State government. If the Federal 
Government has a jury pool and they say that people should not 
be in the jury because they are not citizens, then if they make 
that determination at Federal court, then that should be 
communicated to the local and State governments that those 
folks are not, therefore, American citizens not eligible to 
vote in the Federal election process.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. I appreciate 
your work in this area, Mr. Griffith. It is an important topic, 
and I know it is passionate to you.
    Does the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, want to speak on the 
statement on the bill?
    Mr. Griffith. There is an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Steil. An amendment at the desk. The gentleman has 
an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes.
    The Clerk. An amendment to H.R. 4460.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment will be dispensed with.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a 
point of order.
    Mr. Morelle is now recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
the amendment.
    [Ranking Member Morelle's amendment to H.R. 4460 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I admit, looking at this bill I am confused about the 
guiding philosophy of the modern Republican Party. As was 
stated earlier, I think a misreading of the United States 
Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the power to do it. 
My majority colleagues often say that the States have primacy. 
Do they support the power of States to create their own laws to 
govern themselves? Are they for local control? Do they want to 
use Federal power to override and overrule local governments? 
Because that is exactly what we have here.
    They enjoy a waxing poetic of the sacrosanct nature of 
their view, States' rights and local control. This bill 
directly contradicts those principles. It strong-arms local 
jurisdictions and mandates extreme partisan restrictions. I am 
all for real-election security. This bill does not increase the 
security of our elections.
    I want to be very clear about this bill up front. Everybody 
in the room knows it is a messaging bill, has no chance of 
passage. Frankly, it is gimmicky. With next year's elections 
fast approaching, we should be focusing on how we support 
election administrators coast to coast who continue to face 
increased pressures to do their jobs and do it effectively. 
Instead, we are considering a recycled provision of the ACE Act 
that slashes already scarce funding for election administrators 
and mandates heavy-handed voter purges using flawed systems 
that disproportionately target naturalized citizens.
    Let us be clear also, Democrats ardently believe that 
Government can, indeed should, be used to expand prosperity and 
opportunity, ensure safety and health, and most importantly 
safeguard rights and freedoms. This bill is an attempt to 
restrict freedom rather than to expand it. Where Democrats, 
through our Freedom to Vote Act, aim to aid the exercise of 
democracy and self-government, this bill does the opposite, 
nothing but decrease local control without increasing election 
security.
    It would slash funds that are critically needed to keep our 
elections safe, investments necessary to the success of free 
and fair elections, which we all continue to talk about. I 
suspect my majority colleagues may think the bill is a clever 
way to punish blue States for their sovereign and entirely 
constitutional decisions. This is their right to make these 
choices. I do warn my colleagues this bill would not just 
punish Democrats, HAVA funds benefit everyone. Our election 
infrastructure safeguards the rights of every American.
    California, for example, would lose 30 percent of its HAVA 
funds under this bill. My majority colleagues might have 
forgotten Republicans received almost 4 million votes in 
California in 2022. In fact, over 13 percent of 2022 voters 
live in just four States; California, New York, Maryland, and 
Vermont. These four States which send 24 Republicans to 
Congress, including the former Republican Speaker of the House 
and the chair of the Republican conference, could lose a third 
of their HAVA funds under this bill.
    Voters in those States would be penalized by Republicans in 
Washington. Voters would see their election infrastructure 
dramatically weakened, and would vote in elections that are 
underfunded, and therefore, necessarily less secure and more 
vulnerable to malicious acts. That is not what I think any of 
us want at a time when election administrators have repeatedly 
told this Committee of their dire need for increased funding. 
Slashing these funds would be a grave mistake.
    I recently met with the commendable public servants who, 
under great strain and scrutiny, run Rochester's elections, 
Monroe County's elections. I will tell you here and now, I will 
never vote to cut even a cent of funding for these hardworking 
people. It is not just my community. Each of the public 
servants who run the elections for the 11 percent of the 
Republican conference from the four States I mentioned about, 
would lose essential funding as a punishment for decisions made 
outside of their control.
    The Committee's majority keeps pushing a narrative that the 
confidence of the American people is in crisis. I have never 
been that cynical. If anything shakes the American people's 
confidence in our Government, it is watching the slow motion 
Hindenburg disaster that has been this majority's efforts over 
the last 9 months.
    I offer this amendment to strip away the provisions of the 
bill that would punish election administrators at a time they 
most need our support. It would leave a sensible proposal that 
States or jurisdiction that allow noncitizen voting should 
maintain proper registration lists and ballots that ensure that 
all eligible voters, in their jurisdiction, are able to access 
and cast the appropriate ballot.
    If my majority colleagues will abandon denialism, 
conspiracy theories uprooted in fact, certainly untethered from 
this Committee's record that shows absolute dearth of 
legitimate reasons to contest the outcome of the 2020 election, 
then we can find common ground. That is what this amendment 
seeks to do. I urge my colleagues to support real election 
security.
    I urge them to support my amendment, and with that, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Griffith is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. I thank the Chairman.
    You know, it is interesting because you always see things 
in a different light than other folks. I think this is a very 
reasonable measure. What, in essence, is happening is in some 
of the States--and they have every right to do that. This bill 
does not attack that right, but it says if you are going to 
have two different election processes, we spend money to 
guarantee or to assure free and fair Federal elections.
    If the rules are then changing at State and local elections 
because other people are allowed to vote, that is a different 
ballot process. What this bill says is we are going to have 
separate ballots. We are going to have those folks, you know, 
two separate rolls, two separate ballots. We are trying to make 
sure there are free and fair Federal elections.
    In theory, one could argue that since it is a separate roll 
and a separate ballot, and everything is separate, that it 
should be cut to 50 percent. To say that we are slashing it 
when, in fact, we are probably giving 20 percent more money 
than we ought to because when you divide the process--I see 
confusion on Mr. Morelle's face--if you are taking the process 
that is 100 percent now and you are cutting it in two, would 
seem you should only pay for 50 percent of it.
    Mr. Griffith. If you go to the grocery store, and you only 
get half a pound of ground round, you probably do not pay for a 
whole pound of ground round. That is all we are saying. We are 
only involved in half or half of these election processes now. 
We are willing to pay a little bit more because we understand 
that it may be detrimental in some ways. It is not meant as a 
punishment. It is meant as a commonsense approach to spending 
Federal dollars that we do not have enough of, that we have a 
huge deficit over. We are just trimming it back a little bit 
and saying, We are going to pay the part that the Federal 
Government is invested in. If you have chosen to go in a 
completely separate direction, have separate rolls, and I think 
that is important that we do, but if you have separate rolls 
and you have a separate balloting process, then you have every 
right to do that. If you make that choice, that is something 
you have to pay for. Even then, we are still paying 70 percent.
    I yield back. I am opposed to the amendment if you could 
not tell.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on her point of 
order?
    Ms. Lee. No, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. If not, the question is on the amendment 
from Mr. Morelle.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. A roll call vote is ordered. The clerk will 
please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Mr. Steil. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes no.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    Mr. Loudermilk. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
    Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes no.
    Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes no.
    Mr. Carey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. 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?
    Mrs. Torres. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
    Mr. Carey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are two ayes 
and seven noes.
    Chairman Steil. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Do any other Members seek recognition?
    If not, the question now occurs on ordering H.R. 4460 
reported favorably to the House.
    All in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I ask for a recorded rote.
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The 
clerk will record the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Mr. Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
    Mr. Griffith?
    Mr. Griffith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
    Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
    Mrs. Bice?
    Mrs. Bice. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes aye.
    Mr. Carey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. 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?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
    Mr. Carey?
    Mr. Carey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote? 
The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are eight ayes 
and two noes.
    Chairman Steil. The bill is agreed to. Without objection, 
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    I will now call up H.R. 6493, the Promoting Free and Fair 
Elections Act of 2023 sponsored by Mrs. Hageman and included in 
the ACE Act. The bill would repeal a Biden executive order that 
gives Federal agencies unprecedented power to influence the 
elections process, essentially turning them into an extension 
of left's get-out-the-vote operation. I encourage support of 
the bill.
    I will now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Loudermilk to speak on 
the text.
    [House bill H.R. 6493 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to lend my 
support for H.R. 6493 by Mrs. Hageman of Wyoming. President 
Biden's Executive Order, 14019 reflects a startling expansion 
of the Federal Government into election administration, a space 
the Constitution clearly dictates that the States have primary 
authority.
    H.R. 6493 would repeal this executive order and roll back 
yet another attempt by Democrats to expand the reach of the 
Federal Government into elections. Federal agencies exist to 
help Americans solve problems they have, such as verifying 
their veteran health benefits, not to ask if they are 
registered to vote.
    The Department of Labor and the Department of the Interior, 
for example, have no statutory or logical role in voter 
administration. Yet, this executive order asks them to develop 
new voter registration activities for which they are not 
appropriately equipped, limiting the agency's ability to 
complete its actual responsibilities.
    Instead of propping up new Federal programs to register 
voters, the Federal Government should look to the agency that 
is already tasked with assisting in voter registration efforts, 
the Election Assistance Commission. The EAC, as the only 
Federal agency statutorily intended to work in the election 
administration space, is well-equipped to support Americans in 
accessing their voter registration information.
    With an agency as robustly prepared to assist in voter 
registration information already in existence, there is no need 
to expend Federal funds and resources for other Federal 
agencies to enter the election administration space.
    I urge support for 6493, and I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there further debate?
    Apologies. Mr. Morelle is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do want to just comment, again, about when I consider the 
misreading of the Federal election, which gives Congress always 
the right to alter laws, and there is no primacy identified in 
the Federal Constitution. It is a misreading of a simply 
written statement that should be easily understood. I will make 
that point. I will try to make it repeatedly.
    As it relates to the bill, the bill itself, in my view, is 
beyond ridiculous and is deeply cynical. It repeals an 
executive order by the President promoting voter participation 
by directing Federal agencies to, quote, ``consider ways to 
expand citizens' opportunities to register to vote and to 
obtain information about and participate in the electoral 
process.''
    I, frankly, for the life of me, do not understand what my 
colleagues find objectionable about that. The executive order 
has a simple purpose, directing existing Federal resources, 
like Department websites or agency social media accounts to 
encourage more people to vote. It is the American way. We want 
everyone to participate.
    Frankly, when we see the disparity between certain groups 
of Americans and their voting turnout, we should want to work 
on making sure that every single American who is eligible 
avails themselves of the ballot.
    I struggle to understand their version of encouraging 
people to participate in our democracy. That is all the bill 
does. Importantly, by using existing resources, the 
implementation of the executive order does not cost the 
taxpayer an additional penny. Without those existing resources, 
the executive order helps to make--with those without 
additional resources helps make voting and voter registration 
more accessible to all Americans while improving voter 
confidence and election security.
    Importantly, the executive order helps our servicemembers 
by directing the Department of Defense to implement an end-to-
end tracking system on military ballots and offer each member 
of the Armed Forces on Active Duty the opportunity to register 
to vote in Federal elections, update voter registration, or 
request an absentee ballot.
    I, frankly, do not understand what is objectionable about 
American servicemembers voting or being assisted and aided in 
their efforts to vote while on active duty. As the purpose was 
stated in the order itself, it is our duty to ensure that 
registering to vote, and the act of voting be made simple and 
easy for all those eligible to do so. I could not have, nor 
would I have tried, to say it better.
    The Republican bill would do exactly the opposite. It would 
make it harder for servicemembers and veterans to register to 
vote. It prevents the Department of Defense, of Veterans 
Affairs from encouraging voter participation and registration, 
which is a disservice to every single man and woman who serves 
in our Nation's uniform.
    The executive order on promoting access to voting has been 
working. After the President's executive order, the VA sent a 
survey to over 12 million veterans to understand the veterans' 
experience of the voter registration process. The VA also 
launched a website with nonpartisan voter registration and 
elections information specifically for veterans. The VA is 
developing pilot programs for VA health facilities to receive 
and accept NVRA designations.
    Now, why, in God's name, would any Member of this 
Committee, if they support our veterans and support voter 
registration, oppose the executive order? It is not just the VA 
that has been successful. Crucially, the Department of the 
Interior has been improving voter registration access for 
Native Americans who have long been excluded from the full 
Democratic participation. For example, the Department of the 
Interior's accepted NVRA designations of the Tribal colleges 
and universities it operates, ensuring students have regular 
access to voter registration services.
    Further, the Interior has raised awareness about barriers 
Native American voters face by translating the report of the 
interagency steering group on Native American voting rights 
into six native languages, both in writing and in audio. By 
supporting this bill, my colleagues will be dismantling vital 
programs that materially help Native Americans participate in 
democracy.
    Again, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want 
to do that. I applaud the administration for working on this 
executive order. The right to vote is cherished in America. It 
is what makes us the great republic we are. I urge all my 
colleagues to oppose the bill, and ensure that the 
administration, this one and future ones, can continue to 
promote voter participation in our democracy.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The Clerk will 
please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 6493.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with. Also, without objection, the bill 
should be considered as read and open to amendment at any 
point.
    Mr. Loudermilk is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to clarify a couple things my good friend Mr. 
Morelle brought up that were not exactly correct. This bill 
would not affect the Department of Defense. That is, as a 
veteran, I can tell you the Department of Defense has a totally 
separate program that is run from the Pentagon under the 
Department of Defense to deal with voting. This would not 
affect that.
    Second, the VA has enough challenges providing adequate 
healthcare and benefits to veterans. They need to focus on 
that, not on voting. We have the American Legion, which is an 
organization developed by Congress that does a great job--as a 
member of the American Legion--does great job of engaging 
people in voting.
    Look, people have a lot of distrust in the Federal 
Government. It is because of the performance of Federal 
agencies not doing their jobs. Everyone here understands that 
because if the agencies were doing jobs they should, we would 
not have constituent services. We have them because the Federal 
Government fails in most of the things that it tries to do for 
the American people. Let us focus on those rolls.
    Third, I will close with, yes, our interpretation of the 
Constitution relating to the States having the primary 
authority in setting the means and methods and ways of voting 
is not a misreading of it, unless you want to argue with the 
folks who were there at the Constitutional Convention because 
both the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers clarify 
that.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Ms. Sewell is recognized.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Voting is a cornerstone of our democracy. Far too often, 
many Americans confront significant obstacles when they try to 
exercise the franchise. These obstacles include difficulties 
with voter registration, lack of education around elections, 
and barriers to access to the polling place.
    For years, African-American voters, voters of color, voters 
with disabilities, voters with limited access to language 
assistance, members of our military serving overseas, and other 
Americans citizens that live abroad face challenges while 
trying to exercise their right.
    I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to ensure that 
registering to vote and the practice of voting is simple, 
accessible for all the American people that are eligible to do 
so. Today, we have only wasted time by discussing efforts to 
restrict access to the ballot box.
    Generations of Americans, many of whom are from my hometown 
of Selma, Alabama, march, fought, bled, and some even died for 
the equal right of all Americans to vote. It was their 
sacrifices that brought us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
    Today, we know old battles have become new again, indeed 
their legacy, and our very democracy are under attack. This is 
why I reintroduced the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act in September, because it would restore the full 
protections of the Voting Rights Act, strengthen our democracy, 
and ensure that every American has access to the ballot box.
    The Promoting Free and Fair Elections Act of 2023, which we 
are discussing, is an egregious piece of legislation that would 
make it harder for citizens to vote by limiting ways that 
citizens can access the franchise. According to a coalition 
report by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
63 million eligible Americans were not registered to vote 
during the last Presidential election, and many of those were 
disproportionately people of color.
    The study the coalition released indicated that if the 
Federal agencies integrate a high-quality voter registration 
opportunity for the people that they serve as the President's 
executive order states, they would collectively generate an 
additional 3.5 million voter registration applications per 
year.
    Voting should be free. Voting should be fair. Voting should 
be accessible for all Americans. We do our constituents a huge 
disservice when we waste time discussing ways that we can 
suppress the vote, versus trying to make it easier for 
Americans to vote.
    With that, I ask my Chairman if he would consider bringing 
up the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which 
would strengthen voting and not suppress it. Thank you.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    I know Mrs. Bice will have a friendly amendment at the 
conclusion on this, but if we can continue on discussion of the 
underlying bill.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this effort to strip 
away voter protections from the American people. At a time when 
we are so close to an election, Republicans should be focused 
on making it easier for Americans to be able to cast their 
vote. Instead, they are trying to choose who gets to vote in an 
election.
    Let me just give you an example. When we try to prevent 
military personnel, whether they are veterans or Active Duty. 
In the Senate, right now, we have a Senator that has withheld 
400--or blocked 400 promotions, which impacts 1.4 million 
Active-Duty military personnel. He has blocked these promotions 
for 266 days that equal to 6,384 hours of blocking military 
promotions.
    They are impacted by everything the Congress does. Here, 
again, you are trying to tell our military personnel that it is 
OK to mistreat them, that it is OK to take political actions 
against them, but it is not going to be comfortable for them to 
fill out a voter application, to be able to change their 
address, and to be able to cast their vote.
    I oppose this effort, and I want to encourage my colleagues 
to find a different way to be more inclusive in helping our 
voters vote rather than blocking and trying to choose who votes 
and who does not get to vote.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Mrs. Bice is recognized.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Steil. The clerk will report the amendment, will 
distribute and report the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment to H.R. 6493 offered by Mrs. Bice 
of Oklahoma. Page 1----
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment will be dispensed with.
    Mrs. Bice is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [Mrs. Bice's amendment to H.R. 6493 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a 
friendly amendment and very simple. Evidently, this bill was 
titled the exact same as an already-filed bill. We are changing 
the name of this to the Safeguarding Electoral Integrity Act of 
2023 at the request of the author, Mrs. Hageman.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes. I move to strike the last word. I do not 
object to the amendment, but this gives me a chance simply to 
read in because I do not want to argue with my dear friend, Mr. 
Loudermilk. I just want to read a sentence that is actually 
from the United States Constitution, article 1, section 4, 
clause 1, Elections Clause, ``The times, places, and manner of 
holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be 
prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof. The 
Congress may, at any time, by law make or alter such 
regulations.''
    It is a pretty clear reading. James Madison, the author, 
primarily, of the U.S. Constitution actually agreed with the 
interpretation that Congress may, at any time, by law, make or 
alter such regulations. This notion of primacy, I think about 
it this way, when I was about, I do not know, 17 years old, I 
would say to my dad, Can I go out tonight. He would say, You 
can go out tonight, but you have to be home by 11.
    I do not know how anyone else interprets that. I know in my 
household that but meant that he was making a decision. I read 
it the same way. We keep talking about this. We keep having the 
same argument, but I thought I would put into the record one 
more time what the actual Constitution of the United States 
says.
    With that, I certainly support the amendment, but wanted to 
make sure I got in on the record.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the underlying amendment from 
Mrs. Bice?
    If not, the question is on the amendment from Mrs. Bice.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The amendment is agreed to. The question now--do any other 
Members seek recognition?
    If not, the question now occurs on H.R. 6493 reported 
favorably to the house.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of chair, the ayes have it, and the motion 
to report is agreed to.
    Mr. Morelle. I would like a recorded vote.
    Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested. The 
Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil?
    Mr. Steil. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Steil votes aye.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy?
    Dr. Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes aye.
    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?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Mr. Kilmer?
    Mr. Kilmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
    Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
    Mr. Loudermilk?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Griffith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. D'Esposito?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote? 
The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are five ayes 
and four noes.
    Chairman Steil. The bill is agreed to. Without objection, 
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    I now call up the Confirmation Of Congressional Observer 
Access Act of 2023 sponsored by Mr. Carey. The Ranking Member 
and I have also cosponsored this legislation. We kind of got 
across the line yesterday, and I appreciate the work not only 
of you, Mr. Morelle, but his minority staff engaging with our 
staff to get this legislative text correct.
    The congressional Election Observers Program utilized both 
parties is authorized under the Constitution, but is not 
codified in Federal law. Official congressional observation of 
Federal elections is crucial for creating records in cases of 
contested congressional elections. The bill ensures that 
congressional observers have full access to congressional 
election administration processes, including polling places, 
and election tabulation facilities.
    I will now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Carey, the sponsor of the 
bill.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Confirmation Of 
Congressional Observer Access Act, or COCOA Act, codifies the 
authority of Congress to deploy congressional staff to observe 
close races in order to develop a record of information for use 
during the election--used during election contest. I appreciate 
the Ranking Member Morelle and his staff that worked on this 
legislation in a very bipartisan way to make this a bipartisan 
piece of legislation. I also want to thank the Chairman for 
bringing this bill in front of the Committee for markup.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ranking Member Morelle is recognized to give a statement on 
the bill.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful that 
despite whatever differences we may have on some of the bills, 
that we end on a positive note. I am grateful to Mr. Carey, my 
friend, for offering the bill, and particularly grateful to 
staff on both the majority and minority side for coming 
together, and am grateful that we are able to have a bipartisan 
agreement.
    The congressional Election Observer Program is important. I 
am grateful for the changes you were willing to make address 
the concerns we raised. I am pleased we are able to agree on 
the need to preserve the authority of election officials to 
remove an observer who is being disruptive or interfering with 
the elections process, as well as the additional language 
stating our sense that all House employees deployed as 
observers must adhere to the Code of Official Conduct while 
serving in this important role.
    I think it is important to balance transparency with 
security, particularly at a time when election officials across 
the country have raised, I think, legitimate concerns about 
safety, security, and privacy. We should hold ourselves and our 
staff to those highest standards.
    I am glad you, again, and your staff are willing to work 
with us, and that we are able to reach a bipartisan agreement. 
I support the bill and urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
yes on the measure.
    Again, thank you, all, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The Clerk will 
report the bill.
    The Clerk.
    [No verbal response.]
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the 
bill is dispensed with. Also without objection, the bill should 
be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
    Do any Members seek recognition? Does any Member seek 
recognition?
    If not, the question now occurs on the underlying bill.
    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.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    Finally, I would like to enter into the record a letter 
announcing that assistant clerk vacancy previously held by 
William Johnson, a member of my staff of November 5, 2023.
    [The COCOA Act referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Chairman Steil. This concludes the order of business for 
today's markup. Pursuant to House Rule 9, 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.
    Also without objection, Committee staff are authorized to 
make technical and conforming changes.
    If there is no further business, I want to thank the 
Members for their participation. Without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [roll call votes 1-18 follow:]

    
    
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]