For the People Act of 2021

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I call up the bill (H.R. 1) to expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021. Today, we can deliver this to the American people. We can deliver the gold standard of reforms to protect the right of Americans to vote. We can take a huge step to fulfill that promise in our Constitution of a more perfect Union.

More voters cast a ballot in the 2020 election than in history, in an election that has been called the most secure in American history by election security experts.

The last election, conducted during a once-in-a-generation pandemic, saw changes that made it easier for many Americans to vote, with reforms like absentee voting and early voting. It also put into stark focus what many of us already knew: deep inequities persist in our democratic system.

Now comes the backlash to the increase in voter participation. That record turnout, with no credible instances of election irregularity, stimulated hundreds of bills in State legislatures to make it harder for Americans to vote in the future.

We should protect access to the ballot, not restrict it. H.R. 1 gives voters choices for how to cast their ballot. They want and need that.

The bill has a minimum of 15 days of early voting, minimum standards for the number and location of ballot drop boxes, and a national standard for no-excuse absentee voting. It improves access for voters with disabilities, addresses challenges faced by Native American voters living on Tribal lands, and improves access for uniformed and overseas voters.

H.R. 1 ends the practice of disenfranchising Americans with a prior felony conviction who are no longer incarcerated. It unrigs the drawing of congressional district lines by requiring independent redistricting commissions, removing politics from the process and creating fairer maps.

H.R. 1 begins to remove the advantages of dark money and secret donors and lets our neighbors and communities regain their voice to fully participate in our political system.

H.R. 1 will amplify the voices of small donors with an alternative, voluntary matching system for financing campaigns by empowering small- dollar contributors, without any taxpayer funds.

The bill will save money and bolster the integrity of election administration. It makes improvements to our election security and requires States to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots, a simple safeguard from cybersecurity threats that ensures an auditable paper trail.

H.R. 1 will also strengthen congressional and executive branch ethical standards.

Democracy is resilient, but the falsehoods spread in the lead-up to and following the 2020 election, as well as the shocking events right here on January 6, showed us all that democracy requires us to defend it.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1 and ensure all Americans have an equal voice in our democracy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to some of the comments that are made here this morning. We have talked a lot about Article I, Section 4, that says that the Congress may at any time regulate these elections. But what is the basis for that? It is really Article IV, Section 4, which says, ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.''

If a majority of voters vote and their votes are not powerful, they are not counted. Or if Americans are prohibited from voting, even though they should be able to cast their vote, that is not a Republican form of government. So what we are doing here is the most important thing we could do, which is to preserve our American democracy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I just received word that the legendary civil rights leader Vernon Jordan has passed. In addition to our beloved John Lewis, I feel we are considering this bill in his memory and also to honor those who came before us who worked so hard to preserve our American democracy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a number of letters, the first from more than 150 groups urging support for the For the People Act, including the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Disability Rights, Common Cause, Franciscan Action Network, the League of Conservation Voters, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice and the Sierra Club. Declaration for American Democracy, February 5, 2021. Re More than one hundred and fifty Groups urge support for the For the People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1).

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the below organizations representing tens of millions of Americans, we write in strong support of H.R. 1/S. 1, the For the People Act. This transformational democracy reform package would help return power to everyday American families and amplify the voices of communities that have historically been marginalized in our democracy.

For far too long, special interests, wealthy donors, and vote suppressors have dominated our politics and attempted to silence the voices of everyday Americans, especially in Black and Brown communities. The For the People Act would help shift power away from bad actors and transfer it to ``we the people.''

The 2020 election has underscored the urgent need for transformational democracy reform. Across the nation, Americans experienced unprecedented voter suppression, historic levels of dark money spent to drown out the voices of everyday Americans, and rampant ethical abuses. One bill, the For the People Act, addresses many of these problems. Therefore, we are urging Congress to make this pro-voter, anti-corruption legislation a first priority in the 117th Congress.

Common-sense reforms in the For the People Act, most of which are deeply popular across the political spectrum and have passed in many states and localities, aim to accomplish three overarching goals: (1) protecting and strengthening the sacred right to vote, (2) ending the dominance of big money in politics, and (3) implementing anti-corruption, pro-ethics measures to clean up government.

Many of the critical issues that our nation faces--ensuring quality, affordable health care, creating good paying jobs, combating climate change, and achieving racial justice, to name just a few--cannot be fully solved until we fix our broken democracy. Wealthy special interests have too strong of a grip on the status quo, and we need to first unlock this stranglehold that they have on our political system.

We therefore urge you to support and vote for H.R. 1/S. 1, the For the People Act, early in the 117th Congress to help put the people back in charge of our democracy. Sincerely,

Declaration for American Democracy (DFAD), African American Ministers In Action, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Friends Service Committee, American Promise, Americans for Financial Reform, Americans for Tax Fairness, Bend The Arc, Brady United Against Gun Violence, Brennan Center for Justice, Center for American Progress, Center for Disability Rights, Center for Media and Democracy, Center for Popular Democracy, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Clean Water Action, Climate Law & Policy Project, Climate Reality Project, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Common Cause.

Communications Workers of America, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; DC Vote, Defend Democracy, DemCast USA, Democracy 21, Democracy Initiative, Democracy Matters, Democratic Policy Center, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Endangered Species Coalition, End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund, Equal Citizens, Faith in Public Life, Faithful America, Fix Democracy First, Franciscan Action Network, Free Speech For People, Friends of the Earth U.S., Government Accountability Project.

Green Latinos, Greenpeace USA, Herd on the Hill, Hispanic Federation, JPIC Committee of USA/Haiti Province of Religious of Jesus and Mary, Ladies Who Launch, Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), Leadership Conference of Women Religious, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters of the United States, Main Street Alliance, March for Our Lives, Maryknoll Sisters, Mi Familia Vota, Moms Demand Action, MomsRising, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of Social Workers.

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC), National Council of Jewish Women, Natural Resources Defense Council, Network for Responsible Public Policy, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New American Leaders/New American Leaders Action Fund, Oil Change U.S., Pax Christi USA, People Demanding Action, People For the American Way, People's Action, Poligon Education Fund, Population Connection, Pride at Work, Progressive Turnout Project, Protect Democracy, Public Citizen, Public Wise, Publish What You Pay-US, Reclaim Our Democracy, Rock the Vote, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Sierra Club, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team, Small Planet Institute, Stand Up America, Stand for Children, The Loyal Opposition, The Workers Circle, Transparency International U.S. Office, Unitarian Universalist Association, Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, Vote.org, We Are Casa, Woman's National Democratic Club, #VOTEPROCHOICE, 20/20 Vision. Selected State/Local Organizations Arizona

Arizona Advocacy Network

Chispa Arizona

Fuerte Arts Movement

Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA)

National Council of Jewish Women Arizona

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona

Progress Arizona

Rural Arizona Action

Sierra Club--Grand Canyon (Arizona) Chapter Nevada

Chispa Nevada

MPower 360

Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

Silver State Equality-Nevada New Hampshire

Coalition for Open Democracy and Open Democracy Action

Indivisible New Hampshire

New Hampshire Independent Voters

NH Ranked Choice Voting

New Hampshire Voters Restoring Democracy

New Hampshire Youth Movement

NH Sierra Club

350 New Hampshire

603 Forward Virginia

Activate Virginia Arlington Young Democrats

Indivisible Below the Beltway

Madison County Democratic Committee

Network NOVA

Persist Fairfax

RepresentUS Virginia--The Clean Money Squad

RISE for Youth

SW Poor People's Campaign

Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington Virginia

Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of Virginia

Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax

Virginia Coalition of Human Rights

Virginia Democracy Forward (VADF)

Virginia Justice Democrats

Virginia Political Cooperative

Winchester Frederick County Democratic Committee West Virginia

Catholic Committee of Appalachia

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action

National Association of Social Workers West Virginia Chapter

National Rural Social Work Caucus (WV)

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Our Future West Virginia

RiseUpWV

West Virginia Environmental Council

West Virginia Poor People's Campaign

Women's March West Virginia

WV Citizens for Clean Elections

WV Citizen Action Group

WV Working Families Party

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record more letters in support of this legislation, H.R. 1. I also include letters from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a letter from attorneys general around the United States: the attorneys general of Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. The attorneys general of all of these States have written in support of H.R. 1. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, January 19, 2021. Support H.R. 1, the For the People Act

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 220 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, and the 82 undersigned organizations, we write in strong support of H.R. 1, the For the People Act. We are pleased that the incoming Senate leadership has today announced it intends to introduce this critical bill as S. 1.

The For the People Act represents a transformative vision for American democracy. It would create a democracy that welcomes every eligible voter's chance to participate in civic life and a democracy that demands integrity, fairness, and transparency in our nation's elections. For far too long, voter suppression has been a shameful reality in our country--undercutting the power and representation of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, people with disabilities, Arab Americans, and other communities historically excluded from our political process. The ability to meaningfully participate in our democracy is a racial justice issue. It is a civil rights issue. And the need for legislative action is urgent. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the For the People Act in March 20 I 9, and we are pleased that Speaker Pelosi has committed to making this bill a top priority in the new Congress.

The recent and deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol by far- right extremists attempting to overturn the free, fair, and secure 2020 presidential election was a catastrophic reminder of the fragility of our democracy. This violent insurrection did not happen in a vacuum. It was paired with numerous hurdles that voters faced during the pandemic-plagued 2020 election cycle and exacerbated by the relentless efforts by President Trump to undermine election integrity, impose barriers to the ballot box, and discount the votes of communities of color. These experiences reinforce the urgent need to repair our democratic system. The historic voter turnout in the November election despite these challenges demonstrated the determination and resilience of the American people.

Not every flaw in our democracy can be easily fixed, but there are strong and ready solutions to many of the most significant voting rights problems. H.R. 1 would enhance and ensure democracy in America by establishing many critical reforms in federal elections, including:

Ensuring early voting and polling place notice: H.R. 1 would require at least 15 consecutive days of in-person early voting including weekends, for a minimum of 10 hours each day, and ensure that early voting polling places are accessible by public transportation. The bill would also require that voters be given a minimum of seven days' notice if their polling place location is changed.

Safeguarding the right to vote by mail: Sixteen states require voters to provide an excuse as to why they are unable to vote in person on election day in order to receive an absentee ballot. This practice is designed to impede the vote and was particularly galling during the COVID-19 pandemic. H.R. I would eliminate such restrictions on the right to vote by mail. The bill would require the prepayment of postage by the government on return envelopes for absentee ballots or voter registration forms.

Reforming voter registration: Nearly 20 percent of people who are eligible but do not vote cite registration hurdles as the main reason for not voting. H.R. 1 would modernize America's voter registration system and improve access to the ballot box by requiring states to establish automatic voter registration (``AVR''), same day registration (``SDR''), and online voter registration for voters across the country, and by ensuring that all voter registration systems are inclusive and accessible for people with disabilities. A YR alone could add an estimated 50 million people to the voter rolls, and SDR increases voter turnout by roughly 10 percent.

Ensuring reasonable wait times to vote: Voters in some states last year were forced to stand in line for more than 10 hours to vote, and recent studies have shown that such barriers occur more frequently in communities of color. H.R. I would require states to ensure that voters do not have to wait longer than 30 minutes to cast their ballot at a polling place.

Permitting voting without a photo ID: Between 2010 and 2020, 16 states enacted strict voter identification laws. H.R. I requires states to allow registered voters in states with a photo ID requirement to sign a sworn affidavit to vote if they lack a photo ID.

Requiring access to drop boxes: During the 2020 election cycle, some states politicized and limited the use of drop boxes. H.R. 1 would require states to provide secure drop boxes as an option for voters casting absentee ballots.

Restoring voting rights for formerly incarcerated people: H.R. I would restore voting rights for people with felony convictions who have finished their sentence, a necessary repudiation of our nation's discriminatory and racially violent past. This would re-enfranchise approximately 4.7 million voters nationwide. Reforming felony disenfranchisement has strong bipartisan support; in 2018, 65 percent of Florida voters cast their ballots to restore the right to vote for over 1.4 million people.

Combating voter purging: H.R. 1 would overturn the Supreme Court's troubling 2018 decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute that allowed Ohio to conduct massive purges from its voter rolls based on non-voting in past elections. Such practices disproportionately target and remove traditionally marginalized people from registration rolls. Voting should not be a ``use it or lose it'' right.

Prohibiting deceptive practices and voter intimidation: H.R. 1 would ban the distribution of false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting. This provision is particularly important in an era in which Facebook, Twitter, and other digital platforms have been readily manipulated to spread misinformation about elections and voting rights to vulnerable communities. The bill would also increase the criminal penalties for intimidating a voter for the purpose of interfering with their right to vote or causing them to vote for or against a candidate.

Reforming redistricting: H.R. 1 would be a milestone in the battle against the extreme partisan gerrymandering our country has witnessed in recent years, by requiring states to draw congressional districts using independent redistricting commissions that are bipartisan and reflect the demographic diversity of the region. It would establish fair redistricting criteria and safeguard voting rights for communities of color.

Modernizing election administration: H.R. 1 would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission--an independent, bipartisan commission that plays a vital role in ensuring the reliability and security of voting equipment used in our nation's elections. It would also promote election reliability and security by requiring voter-verified permanent paper ballots and enhanced poll worker recruitment and training. And H.R. 1 would prohibit state election administrators from taking an active part in a political campaign over which they have supervisory authority.

Committing to restoring the Voting Rights Act (``VRA''): H.R. 1 contains a commitment to restoring the landmark VRA and updating its preclearance provision, which is crucial to prevent racial discrimination in the voting process. VRA restoration is being pursued on a separate legislative track that will involve investigatory and evidentiary hearings, thus enabling Congress to update the preclearance coverage formula and develop a full record on the continuing problem of racial discrimination in voting. In 2006, the VRA was reauthorized on a unanimous vote in the Senate and a near- unanimous vote in the House. We need the same type of broad and bipartisan support for restoring the VRA today.

H.R. 1 would also make significant advances in the areas of campaign finance and ethics reform. It would correct the rampant corruption flowing from the corrosive power of money in our elections. It would replace the current campaign finance system that empowers the super-rich and big corporations with one that relies on small donors and public matching funds. It would end secret election spending and force disclosure of all election-related spending. And it would call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the disturbing Citizens United decision that made it impossible to restrict outside spending by corporations or billionaires. In addition, H.R. 1 addresses our government ethics crisis by, among other things, requiring the development of a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices to enhance accountability on ethics and recusal issues; overhauling the Office of Government Ethics to strengthen federal ethics oversight; establishing more robust conflict of interest requirements for government officials; prohibiting members of Congress from using taxpayer dollars to settle allegations of employment discrimination; and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.

The For the People Act provides a North Star for the democracy reform agenda. It is a bold, comprehensive reform package that offers solutions to a broken democracy. Repairing and modernizing our voting system goes hand in hand with reforms that address the rampant corruption flowing from the corrosive power of money in our elections, and reforms that address the myriad ethical problems that plague all three branches of the federal government. The reforms in the For the People Act are necessary to advance racial justice and ensure that our government works for all people, not just a powerful few.

Congress must also pass two other essential racial justice and democracy reform bills: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act--which would restore a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act gutted by the Supreme Court's infamous 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision--and the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would grant long overdue statehood status to the nation's capital.

Shortly before his death last year, Representative Lewis remarked: ``In our country, the right to vote is precious-- almost sacred. Countless people marched and protested for this right. Some gave a little blood, and far too many lost their lives. Around the globe, generations of U.S. officials boasted of this legacy and progress. Today, the world is horrified in watching Americans--especially people of color-- once again stand in immovable lines and experience undeniable, targeted, systematic barriers to democracy . . . . Time is of the essence to preserve the integrity and promises of our democracy.''

Congress and the Biden-Harris administration must heed this call. As the 2020 election cycle and the recent violent assault on the U.S. Capitol made abundantly clear, our democracy is vulnerable and is in dire need of protection. We must enact transformational change to build a democracy that works for everyone. The civil and human rights coalition is strongly committed to expanding the franchise and fixing our democracy, and we urge both chambers of Congress to pass the For the People Act as early as possible in the 117th Congress. Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, American Federation of State; County, and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Andrew Goodman Foundation, Appleseed Network, Arab American Institute, Association of People Supporting Employment First (APSE), Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Blue Future, BOLD ReThink, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Daily Kos, Declaration for American Democracy, DemCast USA, Democracy 21.

Demos, End Citizens United/Let America Vote Action Fund, Equal Justice Society, Equality California, Faith In Public Life, Family Equality, Feminist Majority Foundation, GLSEN, Government Accountability Project, Impact Fund, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, Iota Phi Lambda Sorority Inc., Psi Chapter, Iota Phi Lambda Sorority-Epsilon Phi, Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc., Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Japanese American Citizens League, Justice for Migrant Women, Justice in Aging, Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Lambda Legal, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

League of Women Voters of the US, Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, MomsRising, NAACP, National Action Network, National Association of Human Rights Workers, National Association of Social Workers, National CAPACD--National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, National Employment Law Project, National Equality Action Team (NEAT), National Homelessness Law Center, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women Of Achievement, Incorporated National Workrights Institute.

Oxfam America, Patriotic Millionaires, People For the American Way, People's Parity Project, PFLAG National, Prison Policy Initiative, Progressive Turnout Project, Public Citizen, Public Justice, Rock the Vote, SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), Silver State Equality-Nevada, Texas Progressive Action Network, The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society, True North Research, UnidosUS, URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, When We All Vote, Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice, Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc. ____ State of Maryland, Office of the Attorney General, February 24, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, and Leader McCarthy: We, the undersigned Attorneys General of Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington (collectively the ``States''), write to express our support for H.R. 1/S. 1, the For the People Act of 2021 (the ``Act''). The Act would strengthen our democracy by making it easier to vote, reducing the pernicious influence of dark money in elections, and codifying ethical standards for our public servants.

America faces a stark choice--whether to pursue the reforms necessary to make this country a functional multiracial democracy, or to accept the systemic and accelerating disenfranchisement of Black and other minority voters. According to a Brennan Center report, in 2021 legislative sessions to date, at least 165 bills in 33 states have been introduced to restrict voting access--four times the number of similar bills introduced last year. This new push for voter suppression follows the 2020 election, where a record number of Americans exercised their right to vote. Offering Americans new and convenient methods of voting, including expanded absentee and mail-in voting options, had the dual benefits of protecting the public health during the COVID-19 pandemic and enabling greater turnout.

Despite confirmation by former Attorney General Barr and others that there was no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularity in the 2020 election, state legislators have seized upon former President Trump's baseless voter-fraud allegations to curtail mail-in voting options, impose stringent voter ID requirements, limit voter registration opportunities, and allow even more aggressive purging of voter rolls. In the wake of a safe and secure election, which enabled greater levels of voter participation than in over a century, we should be building on this progress, not dismantling it.

The Act includes several measures that would neutralize these cynical efforts at voter suppression by improving access to the ballot. Voters in many states face the frustrations of antiquated, error-ridden voter registration systems; the Act would modernize voter registration by requiring states to implement online registration, establish automatic voter registration, and prohibit unnecessary purges of the voting rolls. The Act also addresses discriminatory voter identification laws by requiring states to permit voters in federal elections to submit a sworn statement to meet ID requirements. Early voting provisions contained in the Act would expand access to federal elections by providing for at least 15 days of early voting at accessible locations and making available the option to vote by mail to anyone eligible to cast a vote in an election for federal office. Although the States' election laws vary, we have broad collective experience with the implementation of similar voting-access reforms and do not anticipate that the Act's mandates would prove overly burdensome to implement.

Critically, the Act would also confront the problem of partisan gerrymandering by putting redistricting in the hands of independent commissions. The threat of severe gerrymandering in the post-2020 redistricting process is especially acute given the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively eliminated the preclearance protections contained in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (``VRA''). Without the preclearance restraints of the VRA and the corresponding oversight from the Department of Justice, there is a substantial risk that states with a history of racial discrimination will seek to minimize the political power of minority voters by drawing aggressive congressional district lines. By divesting redistricting power from politicians who manipulate the process to consolidate power, the Act will ensure that voters choose their representatives, not the other way around.

As the chief law enforcement officers of our respective states, we are well-acquainted with schemes to discourage, impede, and prevent our citizens from voting. In the lead up to November's election, disinformation designed to depress voter turnout was endemic, spread by bad actors through social media, robocalls, and texts. Thankfully, the fear of widespread, aimed intimidation at polling places did not materialize last year. That possibility, however, looms in future elections--especially once election day turnout is no longer diminished due to an ongoing pandemic. By prohibiting the knowing dissemination of materially false information about elections and stiffening penalties for voter intimidation, the Act will provide law enforcement officials with the tools needed to thwart and punish those who attempt to interfere with the exercise of the fundamental right to vote.

The Act also contains important changes to campaign finance law designed to address the concerning rise of dark money in federal elections. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, dark money has flooded political campaigns at unprecedented levels. As a result, billionaires, corporations, and special interest groups-- groups that already had outsized voices in our political process--now wield even more power, often exercising that power anonymously through opaque ``non-profits'' that are not required to disclose their donors. The Act would close dark-money loopholes by requiring disclosure when wealthy donors give $10,000 or more to a group that spends money on elections. As the Supreme Court has explained, ``transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' Bringing sunlight to political contributions is a crucial step to restoring faith in government.

Last but certainly not least, the Act seeks to close a number of legal loopholes--revealed in striking and disturbing ways during former President Trump's term in office--that allow the President to evade accountability for personally profiting from the Office. In particular, the Act heightens disclosure requirements applicable to the president, requires the holder of the Office of the President to divest from financial interests that pose a conflict of interest, and ensures accountability by providing the Office of Government Ethics with enhanced enforcement powers. Surprising gaps in the ethics laws affecting non-presidential public servants would also be closed. For instance, the Act would prohibit members of Congress from serving on the board of directors of for-profit entities during their terms in office and, for the first time, require the Judicial Conference to develop a code of ethics applicable to Supreme Court Justices. Collectively, the ethics reforms contained in the Act would ensure that our public servants are working on behalf of America's best interests, not just their own.

American democracy needs repairing. The problems we face-- outdated election infrastructure, unjustified barriers to voting, extreme gerrymandering, the polluting influence of dark money, and insufficient ethical constraints-urgently need addressing. We believe that the Act represents an important step toward addressing these problems and urge its swift passage. Sincerely,

Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General; Philip J. Weiser, Colorado Attorney General; Karl Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General; Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General; Gurbir Grewal, New Jersey Attorney General; Letitia James, New York Attorney General; Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General.

Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General; Aaron M. Frey, Maine Attorney General; Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General; Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General; Hector Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Peter Neronha, Rhode Island Attorney General; Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Vermont Attorney General; Bob Ferguson, Washington Attorney General; Mark P. Herring, Virginia Attorney General.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, there have been a number of statements made on the floor today that were hair-on-fire inaccurate, and 5 minutes would not be enough to actually correct the mistakes and the incorrect comments that have been made, but let me just address a couple of them.

I keep hearing ``speech czar.'' I must confess, when I first heard that, I thought, what the heck are they talking about? Then I looked at the rhetoric, and it appears that there is an objection to section 603 of the bill, which allows the chair of the FEC and other commissioners to take certain actions.

Now, it has nothing to do with being a speech czar. There is no connection with that. To suggest that the FEC doing its job is somehow becoming a speech czar is just not correct.

I have heard a lot of comments about the voucher program. People have objected to our tax dollars being spent. Well, here is the good news: There are no tax dollars being spent in this program. It is a pilot project that allows for a matching system to see whether small donors can actually empower more diversity and empower the voices of ordinary Americans as compared to the big interests.

It is not funded by taxpayer funds, and it is not funded from a source that could be used for anything else in the government. It is an additional penalty to corporations that have done wrong and are fined. There will be an additional fine to fund this pilot project.

I have heard that somehow H.R. 1 would allow the IRS to go after conservative groups. That is not true. Section 4501 simply repeals the prohibition that prevents the IRS from examining the meaning of social welfare in the context of 501(c)(4) organizations. That is about any group that misuses the Tax Code for politics, pretending to be a social welfare group, whatever their ideology. It never made sense to preclude the IRS from doing this job. That would be like prohibiting the FEC from administering the Federal elections code.

Voter ID: Members act as if that is just a piece of cake. Well, 11 percent of eligible voters in the United States don't have an ID, and they can't get it because they don't have the money to pay for the underlying documents that would be necessary to get that ID. And those 11 percent are disproportionately senior citizens, young people, people with disabilities, low-income voters. So what is the alternative? They sign under penalty of perjury. They can be prosecuted for a felony if they are lying.

Ballot harvesting: There is no such thing as harvesting ballots. It is about getting someone you trust to turn in your ballot for you if you can't do it yourself. We have had that in California for many years. I will note that Republican candidates used that extensively in California this year. There was no evidence of fraud when they did it, and there was no evidence of fraud when Democrats did it. You give your ballot to your neighbor, if you wish. The neighbor has to sign, and they turn it in for you. That is not fraud, and it is not a problem.

Finally, I just want to address the issue of so-called Federal overreach. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 4 says this: ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof,'' but here is the important next section, ``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.'' And that is what we are doing in H.R. 1.

I think it is interesting that earlier this year the Republican Study Committee endorsed the Save Democracy Act. That legislation would establish national standards for prohibiting automatic voter registration, to make it hard to cast a ballot, to impose restrictive rules on vote tabulation. So, I guess that overreach only matters to my colleagues if it empowers voters, not if it restricts voters.

For too long, this Chamber has been silent, and this silence has harmed the people. We need to stop that silence and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this bloc of amendments provides important additions to H.R. 1 that strengthen the bill and enhance voter access.

This bloc includes, for example, an amendment from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania that requires States to ensure that there are polling places during the early voting period on college campuses. This will help young people to engage in our elections and will likely help boost youth turnout.

It also includes an amendment from the gentlewoman from North Carolina that will help ensure the timely delivery of absentee ballots by the Postal Service. It calls for the Postal Service to perform same- day processing of ballots when they are received at a postal facility.

Also included is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Georgia that supports access to the franchise. It implements voter protections by ensuring that States cannot prohibit access to voting materials provided by third parties, such as get-out-the-vote organizations.

There is also an amendment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania that allows for voter education information at naturalization ceremonies for newly sworn-in citizens. That will help educate and inform new citizens about the opportunities to register to vote.

Finally, there is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Texas that exempts cybersecurity assistance, including assistance in responding to threats or harassment online, from limits on coordinated political party expenditures.

Madam Speaker, I support these amendments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a few points. As I am sure the gentleman from Illinois knows, we had a markup last year on H.R. 1, and one of the issues raised was the propriety of having taxpayer dollars fund the pilot program, the matching program.

And we agreed--we agreed with that observation. So we changed it. We made an amendment to address that concern.

It is not an additional--an existing fund. If a corporation does wrong and is assessed a fine, there is an additional fine hit on that bad-doing corporation that would fund the pilot project. And if there aren't enough bad-doers to actually fully fund the program, the program is scaled back. There is no taxpayer money in this program.

These amendments in this bill address things that are important. And let me just reference the letter from the attorneys general that I included in the Record earlier. We are talking about what is happening right now, and this is what they state:

``. . . State legislators have seized upon former President Trump's baseless voter fraud allegations to curtail mail-in voting options, impose stringent voter ID requirements, limit voter registration opportunities, and allow even more aggressive purging of voter rolls. In the wake of a safe and secure election, which enabled greater levels of voter participation than in over a century, we should be building on this progress, not dismantling it.''

And that is what this act would do. They go on to say:

``The act includes several measures that would neutralize these cynical efforts at voter suppression. . . .''

Madam Speaker, I think we should recognize that what is going on in State legislatures around the United States right now is, in fact, what the attorneys general have said, a cynical effort to suppress the vote, because we have the greatest voter turnout in American history with the new tools that the pandemic actually led us to: a broader opportunity to cast your vote by absentee, a broader opportunity to vote early.

We had great turnout. And I don't know in the end which party will benefit when more Americans vote.

Could it be the Republicans? Could it be the Democrats?

I don't know. But I do know this: Who will win is America. America wins when all Americans have a chance to cast their vote.

So, once again, I would like to thank the attorneys general of Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington for standing up for the rule of law, for pointing out that H.R. 1 will lead to clean elections, and that American democracy needs repairing, and this bill will repair it.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are the authors of all of the amendments included in this en bloc, and I think these amendments represent a number of thoughtful amendments that will improve the bill.

Included is an amendment that exempts any State that does not utilize voter registration on the enactment date of this act and continuously thereafter from complying with voter registration requirements in the act.

This is reasonable, as North Dakota does not have voter registration. As the State does not require voter registration, it is reasonable not to force them to begin doing so now.

There is also an amendment in this en bloc that requires a report to Congress on the impact of widespread mail-in voting on the suffrage of Active Duty military servicemembers, how quickly their votes are counted and whether the high volumes of mail-in votes makes it harder for those individuals to vote.

Republicans and Democrats alike, can agree that insights into how to better secure our election infrastructure are needed to protect our democracy.

Included in this en bloc is an amendment to require a report to Congress on the data collection practices; the required necessary security resources; and the impact of a potential data breach of local, State, or Federal online voter registration systems.

Additionally, there is an amendment directing the Election Assistance Commission to study the use of blockchain technology to enhance election security. I hope that study will include the use of electricity in the creation of blockchain technology.

Much of H.R. 1's provisions are aimed at restoring the American public's faith in the government by improving ethics standards imposed on public officials.

An amendment included in this en bloc would require ethics waivers granted by Congress to the executive branch officials to be disclosed, and require members of the Presidential transition team to disclose nongovernmental positions they have held in the year prior to starting their service on the transition team.

I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for putting forward these amendments, and I believe it will gather bipartisan support.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush) for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to note that the underlying bill provides that once individuals are re-enfranchised, they may vote. And H.R. 1 also ends the practice of so-called prison gerrymandering, where persons who are incarcerated are counted where they are incarcerated not in their home districts, even though they cannot vote there.

Now, I know different people have different viewpoints on this amendment. The committee Democrats have no official position, but speaking just personally, I feel there is merit to this amendment. If you are going to count the individuals for redistricting purposes in their prisons, then I think they have to be allowed to vote there, or else that entire scheme is completely wrong.

Madam Speaker, further, it occurs to me that those who oppose it think that denying a vote would somehow be a deterrent to criminal conduct. In fact, empowering people to be full citizens encourages rehabilitation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would strike subtitle C of title III, the election security title in H.R. 1, which requires the President to produce a national strategy for protecting U.S. democratic institutions. It also creates a national commission to protect United States democratic institutions to counter threats.

In light of the evidence of foreign interference in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 Federal elections, the Federal Government needs a coordinated approach to protect and secure our democracy. While our election infrastructure officials have said that the 2020 election was the most secure in history, we know it is not because our foreign adversaries are no longer attempting to interfere in our elections. They will continue their efforts, and we must take steps to ensure our elections continue to be secure.

This provision in H.R. 1 is important to that endeavor. The national strategy will provide guidance on how to protect against cyberattacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and other activities that could undermine the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.

The purpose of the national commission to protect the United States democratic institutions is to counter efforts to undermine democratic institutions within the United States. The national strategy and commission will be important to protecting the integrity of our elections and preventing foreign interference in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, we must stay vigilant. Our enemies are not resting, and neither are we. This provision is an important part of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment from the gentleman from Illinois.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, I rise to offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, this bloc of amendments provides important additions to the bill.

Among the amendments in the bloc is an amendment from the gentleman from Arizona that promotes language accessibility for voting and ensures that notices at polling locations take into consideration factors including the languages spoken in the jurisdiction.

An amendment from the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from New Mexico improves voting access for individuals with disabilities in the Four Corners region of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah by making technical fixes to the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access provisions.

An amendment from the gentlemen from Rhode Island and Wisconsin implements a recommendation of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission to ensure the security of our elections and resilience of our democracy by creating the position of a senior cyber policy adviser at the Election Assistance Commission.

An amendment from the gentlewomen from Virginia and Florida prohibits taxpayer funds from being added into the freedom from influence fund.

During the 2020 election, Postmaster General DeJoy implemented sudden operational changes that disrupted timely mail services and the delivery of absentee ballots. An amendment in this bloc from the gentlewoman from Michigan ensures that can never happen again by prohibiting operational changes at the Postal Service for 120 days before a Federal election.

This bloc of amendments also includes an amendment from the gentleman and gentlewoman from Minnesota that requires State election officials to undertake accessible public education campaigns to inform voters of any changes to election processes made in response to public emergencies.

Finally, it includes four amendments from the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands. One of these amendments applies Federal voter protection laws to the territories, including protection against voter intimidation, interference, and voting by aliens in Federal elections in the territory; that would be noncitizens.

Another of these amendments permits each of the territories to provide and furnish statues in Statuary Hall. That is an important amendment that allows each of the territories representation among the statues in the Halls of Congress. These amendments represent long, overdue recognition of important contributions of the territories.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition at this point in time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this amendment is worth supporting. It makes improvements to the underlying bill. I was really stunned to hear a comparison between Members of Congress going through metal detectors--because some Members have, in violation of the rules, carried weapons on to the House floor--and voters having to wait 8 hours to get to the polling booth, which actually happened last November.

It is important that American voters have access to the polls to cast their vote and to have that lawfully cast vote counted as cast. That is what this is about.

I listened to my colleague and my friend, Mr. Davis, complain about the constitutional basis for H.R. 1. But he has also introduced bills like H.R. 6882, H.R. 3412, and H.R. 7905, which would all require States to do certain things with respect to how they conduct elections.

I might disagree with the policies in those bills, but they all cite Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution as the basis for their legitimacy. So to say that we cannot improve the elections in America under Article I, Section 4 simply is not correct.

So we will have more debate as these proceedings on H.R. 1 conclude, but I will close with this: Please do support the en bloc amendments. It improves the bill, and we will, hopefully, be passing H.R. 1 to make America an even greater place in the near future.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source