BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRIST. Madam Chair, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), for his leadership on this issue.
Souls to the Polls is a bedrock of Florida elections. For my colleagues who may be unfamiliar, minority communities, particularly African American and Latino, use Sunday early voting to energize their communities to make their voices heard. For those without reliable transportation or with unpredictable work schedules, Sunday voting is critical and sacred.
This is how a healthy democracy should work, communities organizing themselves to increase participation, doing their civic duty. Higher turnout and greater participation strengthen our democracy, giving elected leaders a stronger, more representative voice.
Unfortunately, some States have targeted Sunday Souls to the Polls voting. My own State tried to shut it down in 2012.
This amendment would block States from using voter suppression tactics against Souls to the Polls.
I urge my colleagues to support the Brown-Crist amendment and let the underlying bill pass.
Let's refresh our democracy, for the people.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have kind of said all I need to say about this amendment, so while I have a few extra minutes, I understand the chairperson has received an estimate from a joint committee regarding how much this new corporate funding program for congressional campaigns will bring into the Federal Government over the next 10 years.
First, I would love to see a copy of that, now that we are only 1 day away from voting on this bill. This is eerily similar to the games that my colleagues across the aisle played with the Congressional Budget Office score. I will remind them once again that we still don't have a figure of how much this section of H.R. 1 will cost American taxpayers.
Second, if we look at the potential cost of the 6-to-1 government match program and the Presidential campaign matching program, these together could represent billions and billions of dollars every election cycle.
Now, what you will hear from the other side is that, if they don't have the funds for these programs, the caps for these programs would uniformly be lowered. What that means is that either the programs will die or my counterparts across the aisle are going to turn to taxpayer dollars to ask us to fulfill what they have claimed as absolutely necessary programs.
What does this sound like to you, a well-thought-out public policy proposal or a shell game with American tax dollars?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT