Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying measure. The majority has brought up a misnamed bill that instead serves only to preserve its own power. H.R. 1 will create a taxpayer- funded ATM to waste Federal dollars on political campaigns. Let me say that again: to waste Federal dollars on campaigns. My friends are worried about the power of money, but they are injecting billions of new taxpayer dollars into this. And not only that, the taxpayer has no say in where those dollars go. They don't get to pick a candidate or whatever. We are just going to willy-nilly have their dollars support candidates whom they may or may not agree with. This does not only apply to Democrats and Republicans. There are fringe candidates who will get funding under this, too, candidates, quite frankly, who will probably embarrass my friends and ourselves. So I think this is an enormously misguided idea. It will take over elections and voter registration from States and transfer power to Washington. Let me say that again. My friends are voting to literally turn over the State election operations of 50 separate States and federalize them. They haven't talked to very many secretaries of state. I think there was only one who actually was allowed to testify in opposition to this bill. Instead, we are going to foist off billions of dollars in unpaid mandates on every State in the country so my friends can continue this misguided effort to alter the political landscape of the greatest Republic and democracy in the world. This bill will weaken voting systems and weaken the enforcement mechanism that guards against fraud, and it will undermine Americans' fundamental First Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my friends on the other side to reconsider their course of action. This bill is not going to be heard by the Senate; it will never be signed by the President of the United States; and instead of building a bipartisan coalition for election and campaign reform, it will partisanize this process further. There was and still is an opportunity to have this bill considered in markups across every committee of jurisdiction. Instead, the majority is simply ramming it through, using a committee where they hold a 2-to- 1 majority and limiting, frankly, the ability of Members to participate in the process of writing the bill. We can do better than this, Mr. Speaker, and we should strive to do better than this now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend and distinguished Republican ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, fellow member of the Rules Committee, and classmate.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my friend and the ranking Republican Member on the House Administration Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that, in the case of redistricting, if the State cannot reach a resolution, H.R. 1 hands over the redistricting function to an unelected Federal court here in Washington, D.C. Everywhere you look, this bill represents an erosion of traditional State authority and a power grab for Democrats here in Washington. Perhaps even more egregiously, the bill places limits on freedom of speech, criminalizing actions that we would currently describe as mere advocacy for candidates. Not since the Sedition Act of 1798 has the Federal Government tried to pass something that tramples so heavily on freedom of speech as H.R. 1. The bill is so bad in this regard that even the American Civil Liberties Union is opposing it, which is a perfect illustration of just how bad H.R. 1 really is. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Everywhere you look, H.R. 1 fails to do what the majority has promised. They have promised it is to be about returning power to the people. Instead, this bill only gives power and money to Democratic politicians. It takes away authority from States and gives it to the Federal Government, wastes taxpayer dollars on political campaigns, weakens the voting system, and limits freedom of speech. In sum, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how any Member can stand up with a straight face and support this bill. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we had quite the debate on this bill in the Rules Committee last night, and I expect the debate on the floor today will be along similar lines. Today's bill is H.R. 1, which my friends on the other side of the aisle are calling by the misnomer ``For the People Act.'' Unfortunately, this bill is completely misnamed. It is not for the people. It is, instead, for the Democratic majority, by the Democratic majority, in hopes of maintaining the Democratic majority for many years to come. Every provision in this bill reflects that goal. That began with the process the majority used to put this bill together. H.R. 1 was referred to 10 different committees, yet only one, House Administration, held a markup. My friends hold a 2-to-1 advantage on that committee. There are only three Republicans who can participate. Later, we will be hearing from some of the Republican ranking members of these committees, each of whom will talk about provisions that they had hoped to address, had their respective committees marked up the bill. This failure to allow other committees with jurisdiction to mark up the bill reinforces the desire of the majority to push this bill through as quickly as possible without any additional consideration. Without further hearings and markups, it is all too easy for the majority to sweep the bill's flaws under the rug and pass it quickly without allowing the American people to see what they are up to. This bill would be more aptly named the ``For the Politicians Act'' or ``Welfare for Politicians Act.'' It reinforces the idea that the majority cares only about passing a bill that will lead to more Democrats in the House of Representatives. We do not have time today to go over every provision in this bill, but for now, I will take a moment to point out some of the bigger flaws in this product. First, H.R. 1 takes taxpayer dollars and uses them to create a special piggy bank for campaigns. That is right, Democrats want to use taxpayer dollars of the American people to finance their political campaigns. H.R. 1 creates a matching program for small-dollar campaign contributions, thereby shifting taxpayer dollars to politicians to run their campaigns. In essence, Democrats are demanding that your tax dollars be used to subsidize and fund political candidates. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, since 2000, total spending on Federal elections has exploded, going from $2.7 billion that cycle to $6.4 billion in 2016. With so much money being raised from private sources, one wonders why the majority wants to waste taxpayer dollars adding even more money into campaigns. Second, H.R. 1 completely takes over elections, removing authority from States and local election boards and giving it to Washington, D.C. Currently, States have the authority to determine how they want to structure their own elections, including voter registration, timing, and even redistricting. But all that goes away under H.R. 1. States would no longer be able to set voter registration requirements, nor hold elections where and how often they want, nor reapportion voters into appropriate districts. Instead, under H.R. 1, Washington, D.C., takes over all these functions. I doubt any secretary of state or supervisor of elections in America supports this federalization of the election process. In fact, last night in the Rules Committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, I entered into the record a letter from the Oklahoma State Election Board opposing H.R. 1 on precisely these grounds. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that letter again today. Oklahoma State Election Board, Oklahoma City, OK, March 4, 2019. Re Election Administration Provisions of H.R. 1. Hon. Tom Cole, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cole: As Oklahoma's chief state election official, I am very proud of Oklahoma's election system. Our state has one of the most effective and efficient election systems in the world. It is uniform, it is fair, it is secure, it is accurate and it is fast. As the House of Representatives prepares to consider H.R. 1, I want to take a moment to express some concerns about several of its provisions related to election administration. While I believe H.R. 1 to be well-intentioned by its sponsors, its ``one-size-fits-all'' requirements for state election systems would require Oklahoma to make extensive changes to the way we run elections. I am concerned that some of H.R. 1's mandates could negatively impact the very things Oklahoma's election system does so well. Based on my review of H.R. 1, here is a list of my top concerns. ``Voting by Mail'': To combat Oklahoma's past history of absentee ballot fraud, several decades ago the Oklahoma Legislature enacted legislation requiring most voters to have their identity confirmed by a notary public when voting by absentee ballot. Oklahoma law also requires absentee ballots to be received by the county election board no later than 7:00 p.m. on Election Day. These procedures help prevent fraud and enable county election boards to have 100% of absentee ballots counted on election night. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 seems to do away with these safeguards and efficiencies, instead requiring county election boards to (1) accept signed affidavits in lieu of notarized ones and (2) to accept an absentee ballot postmarked on Election Day. H.R. 1's mandates would prevent Oklahoma from counting all absentee ballots by Election Day, would require the counting of absentee ballots to continue for days or weeks after an election, and would take away a critical security feature of our election system. ``Early voting'': In Oklahoma, county election boards typically have a very small staff. (Many have only the secretary and one assistant.) For federal and state elections, Oklahoma currently allows ``early voting'' on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday prior to Election Day. Most counties have a single early voting site, but several have two sites. Even with the assistance of absentee voting boards paid for by the State Election Board, most counties barely have enough budget and staff to successfully conduct early voting on the three days currently required. H.R. 1's requirement for FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS of early voting is simply not feasible given the small budgets and staffing levels of the 77 county election boards. This would make it virtually impossible for county election board staff to perform their other critical duties (e.g., processing mail absentee ballots, processing voter registration applications, and preparing supplies for precinct workers) if they are instead conducting early voting during this time. ``Same Day Voter Registration'': Oklahoma has a very reasonable deadline for voter registration (applications must be submitted by the 24th day prior to an election). H.R. 1 requires county election boards to conduct voter registration during ``early'' voting periods and on Election Day. This mandate is not currently feasible with the current funding and staffing levels of county election boards. The logistics of predicting how many ballots to print and how many precinct officials to assign to polling places, with the number of potential voters unknown, would be extremely difficult and inefficient. Same day voter registration increases the risk that due to error or fraud an ineligible person is allowed to register and vote. ``Provisional ballots'': Oklahoma has a county-based election system. While Oklahoma uses the same voting system statewide, for security reasons each county's system is siloed and does not directly interact with other counties' systems. (For example, one county cannot print or count another county's ballot.) Oklahoma law requires a voter to vote in the assigned polling place in the county where the voter is registered. Provisional ballots are issued for a variety of reasons, and, if eligible, are counted after 2:00 p.m. on the Friday following Election Day. However, H.R. 1 requires a provisional ballot to be counted even if it is cast in the wrong county, which creates a security risk and is not currently possible given Oklahoma's election security features. ``Online Voter Registration'': Oklahoma will implement online voter registration in the near future. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 sets different requirements for its federally-mandated online voter registration system than is required by Oklahoma law. (For example, H.R. 1 does everything from defining acceptable signature requirements, to mandating a telephone version of an online voter registration system, to micromanaging the features required for a state's customer support system.) Further, Oklahoma's future online voter registration system will require that a registrant's identity be conformed by matching the person's information with an existing driver license or state I.D., but H.R. 1 sets different (and less secure) standards for confirming a registrant's identity. ``Federalism'': While I believe H.R. 1's sponsors are well- intentioned, a great many of its election provisions--even those that are not concerns--relate to policy decisions that are best left to the states under our federal system. I am concerned that, in its current form, H.R. 1 could lead to costly and lengthy litigation. While these are not my only concerns, they are the most serious. I appreciate your representation of our state in Congress, and I feel it is my duty as Oklahoma's chief election official to make you aware of some of the potential negative impacts H.R. 1 could have on our state's election system. If you ever have any questions about elections in Oklahoma, please feel free to contact me or Assistant Secretary Pam Slater. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Ziriax, Secretary, Oklahoma State Election Board.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the distinguished Republican ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to add a provision that bars candidates from receiving matching funds under this bill unless that candidate certifies that no tax lien exists on any property owned by that candidate by reason of a failure of the candidate to pay any Federal, State, or local tax. Mr. Speaker, the logic of this is simple. If the majority is going to insist that millions--really, billions--of Federal tax dollars should be spent subsidizing campaigns, then the candidates should also certify that they have paid all the taxes due from them. If a candidate has a tax lien against them, then they should not receive taxpayer dollars to subsidize their campaign. This is common sense and simple fairness. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up the text of this important piece of legislation to defend life. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am mystified as to why the majority is loath to actually make this vote. Indeed, they have been doing backflips to avoid allowing the House to actually go on record on this important issue. This bill is a commonsense approach to protecting our Nation's most vulnerable. It amends the Federal Criminal Code simply to require that any doctor present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion must provide the child with the same degree of care as he or she would provide any other child. The bill also requires that any such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in recent weeks, many people in elected positions do not appear to appreciate the need to provide for protections for our most vulnerable Americans newly born, but it is clear that current law fails to provide adequate protections for newborns who survive an abortion attempt. This bill draws a sorely needed bright line of protection around abortion survivors and requires that they be given the same level of care as any other premature infant. As stewards of the law of this country, Mr. Speaker, protecting the most vulnerable, including the unborn, should be one of Congress' basic responsibilities. Since entering Congress, I have made the protection of life one of my highest priorities. I believe that all Members should have that same priority. Today, we can take a step toward making this a reality by defeating the previous question and bringing up the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the previous question.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, we have had a bill that has been tied up in Judiciary for a long time. It is about defending life. It is about making sure that we do not take away life from people that are unborn. I just ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House so we can defend life.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask for immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee, to discuss her bill and this previous question.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, frankly, for his response on the VAWA issue. And I don't pretend to speak for all Republicans. I will point out to my friend, actually the last time we did a reauthorization, I voted against the Republican bill to bring the Senate Democratic bill to the floor because I thought it was a better bill. It was a stronger bill. It had Tribal provisions and it had areas we had not addressed previously. I thought those were good changes. It is pretty unusual for me to break with my own team and bring down the Republican bill and pass the Democratic bill, but I was proud to do it because it was a better bill. I don't think simply having money in place is the same as having the authorizations in place. This is an opportunity, in my view, to just have continuity while we do exactly what my friend suggests. Let's find a way, and come together. I think we will. That has traditionally been a bipartisan bill. I hope we do it. But I don't see a reason why we should have a lapse in authority. This is something we tried to put, actually, in conference in the base bill, and it would not have prevented my friends from going on and offering a new authorization. It was just simply, let's keep this going. So to me, the previous question that we will offer should the rule be defeated, will have that opportunity, and I hope my friends avail themselves of that. In addition to that, I want to thank my friends genuinely for the cooperation in this process on the appropriations bills themselves. As I said, six of these bills were essentially agreed to in December in a bipartisan way between both the House and the Senate. So we will hear the argument or could hear the argument tonight. All of this is new, and there is a 1,000-plus page bill, and what have you. The reality is, there are probably about 75 pages, I am told from the conferees, of new text here. Most of this is actually something that this House has voted on and passed in December. Not reopening old issues and settling them where we could and then moving forward is something my friends ought to be proud of. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. It let us get on to the important business of fiscal year 2020 more quickly and more expeditiously. And my friends are in the majority, and if they want to make changes there, additions or subtractions, they will be in a position to do that. But I think closing the book here is a good one. I hope all of us, honestly, as Republicans and Democrats--I have been around here long enough to be in the minority, in the majority, and in the minority again. It tends to move back and forth. But as my friends have pointed out, these are important funding bills that provide for the continuity of government. And in these negotiations nobody ever gets everything they want. It is not possible, even when one side or the other controls both Chambers and the White House. I have been here when that has happened on our side and on my friend's side. You still never get everything you want in appropriations. But I think there is going to be a premium placed on cooperation and negotiations going forward. There is no question. We have a Democratic House, we have a Republican Senate, and we have a Republican President. Everything that we are going to accomplish in the next 18 months for the American people will have to be a compromise where we work together. I actually think this is a good first step in starting that process. I think my friends are to be commended in doing that. We won't get every vote for this underlying legislation on our side. I doubt my friends will get every vote on their side, but we will have a pretty substantial bipartisan majority in favor of moving forward, fully funding the government and, hopefully, that sets the example for what we do in fiscal year 2020. Again, I look forward to working with my friends going forward. I look forward to beginning that process here tonight by working together to pass a bill the Senate has already passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and that the President has said he will sign, and I assume that he certainly will. As difficult as this road has been, Madam Speaker, I think this is actually a hopeful moment for this Chamber and maybe the beginning of good habits of negotiation, compromise, and cooperation, because we are certainly going to need those habits going forward. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 1239, the Protecting Women Act of 2019. This bill provides a straight extension of the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, as is it commonly known, through the end of the fiscal year. Beginning in 1994, VAWA has provided grants to State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute violent crimes against women, including domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Unfortunately, VAWA is scheduled to expire, literally, tomorrow, and my friends on the other side, frankly, are just standing by and watching it happen, even though they control this Chamber. Republicans fought to include an extension of VAWA in the underlying conference report as we had done in previous continuing resolutions, but we were rebuffed by our other friends on the other side of the aisle, and they have not made any move to schedule a separate vote on this floor to avoid a lapse in this critical program, so Republicans will. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to vote on the previous question.