Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), who has an amendment here.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This package of 17 important amendments was made in order by the rule. The substance of these amendments ranges from commonsense information-gathering to protecting our Nation from foreign influence. For instance, one amendment expands an existing ban to protect against a greater universe of threats. It provides that the Federal Election Campaign Act, which already bans foreign nationals from contributing to American elections, ought also to ban them from contributing to State or local ballot initiatives or referenda, where their undue influence might allow outside control of State and local matters. Our colleagues have also joined with us in efforts to understand and appreciate the different experiences of American voters and to ensure that voters of all kinds are included at the ballot box by supporting information-sharing between States and the Election Assistance Commission. One amendment focuses on greater reporting of demographic information, shining a light on who is voting so that we can better grasp who is participating or perhaps feels left out of our diverse electorate. In States where information about age, gender, race, and ethnicity is already available to the State, this amendment will simply require States to include that demographic information about voters in their annual report to the Election Assistance Commission on voter registration statistics. Our colleagues also support efforts by the Government Accountability Office to study the extent to which membership diversity requirements have been met in State redistricting commissions, ensuring that justice and fairness in representing the people is the priority, not partisan advantage to either party. In a similar vein of being welcome to diverse voters, an amendment requires that the poll worker training manual provided by the Election Assistance Commission ensures that services are delivered in a culturally competent manner to voters who need these services, including voters with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, and voters of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, all regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the prospective voter. This amendment seeks to give each voter full and equal access to the poll worker services that are critical to inclusive and efficient election administration and engagement with our sacred duties in this election. This amendment also contains several component parts that focus on transparency and accessibility of information to everyday citizens so they can feel confident about the integrity, prudence, and independence of this government. One amendment would stop campaign contributions providing an endless piggybank to candidates long after they have left office, or their campaign. Another amendment gives citizens an important and accessible window into lobbying information. It would require the Attorney General to establish within the Department of Justice a single lobbying information disclosure portal through which members of the public could obtain hard copies and electronic copies of registration statements filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. The effect of this amendment would be to combine and make easily accessible information that is currently available from disparate sources, including the House, the Senate, and the Department of Justice. Efforts like these increase information flow, transparency, and confidence in our government. Madam Chair, I think these amendments are worthy of our support. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I would like to commend the gentleman for this amendment. When you make a phone call in to complain about harassment or intimidation, that information may or may not ever become known, so this is really a pro-transparency measure. The amendment says: ``together with a description of actions taken in response to such instances of voter intimidation or suppression.'' The State legislatures may not know, we may not know how many efforts are being made. We should know that to see whether what we have done here is sufficient, whether the Voting Rights Act that will be following along this bill later in the spring needs to address this. Madam Chair, this is an excellent amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment clarifies that the election administration improvement grants that are in the bill may be used by localities or the States to implement and model best practices for ballot design, ballot instructions, and, I will say, testing of ballots, which is very important. Most of the grants are really oriented towards computer systems, which is also very important, but I have seen some of these ballots where you could see why you could get confused; and, really, if you look at our friends in the tech world, you can design something so you vote yes or no just by the way the design is done. Now, I think most of the ballot mistakes--there is no evidence it is by intention; it was just error. But you can create something so that people make a mistake. The last thing we want for the most precious right that we have is for people to make inadvertent errors. We want people to cast their votes for whom they choose and then to have their vote counted for whomever it is they choose. It is that simple. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for the amendment. I think it is a good one.

Ms. LOFGREN. This is a splendid amendment. It will do a lot to allow young people to channel their excitement and to understand they are important and they are going to be participating as voters when they turn 18. It works well with the amendment that will be offered by Mr. Neguse later that allows for preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds so that when they turn 18 they will automatically be registered to vote. I know that there is some concern on both sides of the aisle about the idea of a 16-year-old preregistering, that change in the voting eligibility. We don't know how that amendment will turn out, but certainly these amendments would do much to make sure that young people are thoroughly connected to our government and understand that the government belongs to them and their families. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, reluctantly, because it is only the last paragraph in the amendment that causes concern. The amendment expresses a sense of Congress that free speech should be protected. Who can disagree with that? Our Founding Fathers envisioned a robust and open discourse. They did not fathom speech that was unaccountable to anonymous corporations that would drown out the voices of individual Americans. The concern we have on this amendment is the last paragraph, really, is an attempt to protect the Citizens United decision and the flow of unlimited dark money into our politics and elections. It is important to note that, under the guise of free speech, some are suggesting that we need to protect anonymous special interests. Nothing stops people or entities from donating to political campaigns or politicians, but they must be transparent about it. Justice Brandeis indicated, and I think he is very wise, that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the American people cannot fully exercise their First Amendment rights if they do not have all of the information necessary to react in an informed manner. We all have the right to know who is trying to influence elections, and it may well change our minds if we know who is saying what. Ultimately, this amendment is flawed because disclosure does not limit speech. In Citizens United, the Court affirmed holdings in other cases, that disclaimer and disclosure requirements impose no ceiling on campaign- related activities and do not prevent anyone from speaking. Indeed, the Court held the disclosure is ``a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations.'' Lauded conservatives have long espoused this principle, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed disclosure because it helps voters hold elected leaders accountable. In fact, eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices upheld disclosure in the Citizens United case as necessary for voters to hold leaders accountable. Perhaps no one said it better than Justice Antonin Scalia in Doe v. Reed. Justice Scalia said: ``Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.'' Much has been said about the ACLU, and I appreciate what the ACLU does on many scores, but they have a storied history of litigating constitutional issues that I support. However, we have differed on our approach to campaign finance laws. They have upheld and supported the Citizens United decision and they oppose McCain-Feingold. While I support so much of the good work they do, I think they are mistaken on this issue. I include in the Record a letter from Democracy 21, which is a very thoughtful rebuttal to the ACLU's position. Democracy 21, March 7, 2019. Re Response to ACLU Letter on H.R. 1. Dear Representative: Democracy 21 strongly supports H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2019,'' and urges you to vote for the legislation, which is the most comprehensive effort to repair our democracy since the post-Watergate reforms of the 1970's. In particular, the bill contains a series of important reforms to address serious problems with our campaign finance system. The legislation provides a small donor, matching funds system for House and presidential elections that will encourage small donations and remove candidate dependence on wealthy contributors and special interest money. It also contains important improvements to the disclosure laws to address the growing problem of undisclosed ``dark money'' that is being spent to influence federal elections. And it provides effective standards to ensure that supposedly ``independent'' spending is not done in cooperation or coordination with candidates or their agents, thus evading contribution limits. We want to address constitutional concerns about some of these measures that have been raised by the ACLU in a letter dated March 6, 2019. We note that the ACLU has participated as a plaintiff or amicus to seek invalidation of reform measures in key Supreme Court cases, including Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) and Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010). Many of the ACLU's challenges to campaign finance reform measures, including disclosure requirements, were rejected by the Court in these cases. ACLU concerns about disclosure provisions The provisions of the DISCLOSE Act incorporated into H.R. 1 are essential to closing gaping disclosure loopholes through which, in the last four elections, wealthy donors and special interests gave $1 billion in secret, unlimited contributions to nonprofit groups that spent the money to influence federal elections. Unlimited, secret contributions, also known as dark money, are the most dangerous contributions in American politics because there is no way to hold the donor and officeholder accountable for corrupt practices. In its March 6 letter, the ACLU particularly criticizes the DISCLOSE Act incorporated into H.R. 1. Those provisions require disclosure of the sources of funding used for ``campaign-related disbursements'' that are intended to influence federal elections. Dating back to the Buckley case, and as reaffirmed in Citizens United, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld disclosure requirements because they serve the important governmental interests of ``providing the electorate with information about the sources of election- related spending'' in order to help citizens ``make informed choices in the political marketplace.'' Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914. As Justice Kennedy wrote for an 8-1 majority in Citizens United, disclosure provisions ``impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities'' and ``do not prevent anyone from speaking.'' Id. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court upheld disclosure provisions applicable to section 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups. The ACLU's principal objection is that H.R. 1 requires disclosure of spending that ``reaches beyond the bounds'' of express advocacy. ACLU Ltr. at 12. Yet the Court in Citizens United addressed precisely this issue and upheld a disclosure requirement for a broadcast ad that referred to a candidate in the pre-election period, but that did not contain express advocacy. The Court explicitly stated that ``we reject Citizens United's contention that the disclosure requirement must be limited to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy.'' Id. at 916. Thus, the principal constitutional argument raised by the ACLU with regard to the DISCLOSE Act--that disclosure requirements cannot extend beyond express advocacy--has already been squarely and overwhelmingly rejected by an 8 to 1 vote in the Supreme Court. While the ACLU states that it particularly objects to disclosure requirements for ``electioneering communications,'' i.e., non-express advocacy ads that refer to a candidate in the pre-election period, ACLU Ltr. at 13, this is the very issue that the Court addressed in upholding such disclosure requirements in Citizens United. The ACLU also objects to disclosure requirements for money spent on ads that promote, support, attack or oppose (PASO) the election of a candidate, complaining about ``applying vague and subjective standards to regulation of political speech.'' ACLU Ltr. at 14. Yet again, the Supreme Court directly addressed this issue, and rejected an identical criticism of the same test in the McConnell case. In McConnell, the Court stated that the words used in the PASO test--promote, attack, support, oppose--are not unconstitutionally vague because they `` `provide explicit standards for those who apply them' and `give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.' '' 540 U.S. at 170 n. 64 (internal citations omitted). The Court further stated that ``any public communication that promotes or attacks a clearly identified federal candidate directly affects the election in which he is participating. The record on this score could scarcely be more abundant.'' Id. at 170. These rulings should put to rest the objections raised by the ACLU about the PASO test. The ACLU also raises privacy and associational concerns with the disclosure requirements in the legislation. It invokes the Court's decision in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 459 (1958), which protected the associational interests of a civil rights group against disclosure of the group's membership lists when the group was under attack from government officials in the 1950s South. We note that the NAACP today is itself a supporter of H.R. 1, and that the disclosure provisions in H.R. 1 could not be more different from the disclosure requirements addressed by the Court in the 1958 NAACP decision. The DISCLOSE Act provisions in H.R. 1 require disclosure only of donors who give $10,000 or more in a two-year election cycle to a group which engages in campaign-related spending. That high dollar threshold alone will exclude disclosure of the vast majority of donors to, and members of, most membership organizations, and instead will require disclosure only of very large donors to such groups. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in both Buckley and McConnell has already rejected the analogy between campaign finance disclosure requirements and the disclosure of membership lists that was struck down in the NAACP case. The Court said in McConnell, ``In Buckley, unlike NAACP, we found no evidence that any party had been exposed to economic reprisals or physical threats as a result of the compelled disclosure.'' Id. at 198. Indeed, H.R. 1 has an explicit safe harbor from disclosure for any donor who may be subject to ``serious threats, harassment or reprisals.'' Sec. 4111(a) adding Sec. 324(a)(3)(C). This again aligns with the Supreme Court's requirements on this issue. The Court has made clear that disclosure requirements are not invalid because of a generalized or theoretical concern about ``public harassment,'' but instead are invalid only in specific cases where a group can show a ``reasonable probability'' that disclosing the names of its contributors would ``subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.'' Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 916. Absent such a showing, campaign finance disclosure requirements are constitutional. And even if there is such a specific showing of a specific threat, the disclosure requirements would be held unconstitutional only for the specific group involved based on the specific showing of harm to that group. The disclosure laws would otherwise remain constitutional. The ACLU states a concern that the bill would ``require disclosure of an overbroad number of donors,'' ACLU Ltr. at 15, but it fails to acknowledge or to give proper weight to other protections for privacy interests that are contained in the bill. A group can set up a separate bank account for its spending on campaign-related disbursements and then is required to disclose only those donors of $10,000 or more to this separate account. All other donors to the organization would not be disclosed. In addition, any donor can restrict his or her donation to the organization from being used for campaign-related disbursements. If the group agrees to the restriction and segregates the money, the identity of the donor is not disclosed. By these measures, groups and donors can ensure that donors whose funds are not used for campaign-related expenditures are not subject to any disclosure, thereby respecting any donor's particularized privacy interests. ACLU concerns about coordination provisions A second area of concern with H.R. 1 raised by the ACLU is the provisions related to strengthening the coordination rules in the campaign finance laws. These rules play a major role in protecting the integrity and efficacy of contribution limits which are, in turn, the major bulwark against corruption. While independent spending is not subject to contribution limits, any spending that is coordinated with a candidate or his agents is treated as a contribution and therefore is subject to limits. Because of weak rules and even weaker enforcement by the Federal Election Commission, the existing coordination rules do not effectively restrain campaign- related spending by Super PACs, nonprofit groups and other outside spenders from being functionally coordinated with the candidates supported by the spending. In this fashion, the rise of individual-candidate Super PACs has played an especially pernicious role. These Super PACs are typically set up with the involvement of the candidate or his or her close associates, and the candidate is often involved in helping to raise unlimited huge contributions for the Super PAC. This money is then spent, purportedly independently of the candidate, to promote the candidate's election. But because there are not effective rules against coordination, these individual-candidate Super PACs have operated in de facto coordination with the candidates they are set up to support. In practice, they have become dedicated soft money campaign accounts for candidates, thus eviscerating the contribution limits which should apply to money raised and spent by federal candidates. While the use of individual-candidate Super PACs began after Citizens United with presidential candidates in 2012, they rapidly have spread to congressional races. By the 2018 election cycle, 259 individual-candidate Super PACs supporting federal officeholders and other candidates had raised $176 million in unlimited contributions. The coordination provisions in H.R. 1 strengthen existing coordination rules to conform to Supreme Court decisions which require independent spending to be ``totally'' independent of a candidate. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47. The ACLU tempers its objections to these provisions of the bill, noting that it ``strongly supports stricter enforcement of rules restricting coordination between campaigns and outside groups'' and acknowledging that ``H.R. 1 would make strides in the right direction by clarifying the definition of coordinated expenditures treated as contributions to a campaign.'' ACLU Ltr. at 17. Yet it objects that the definition of coordination could encompass ``communications with the candidate about the public policy issues of the day without a sufficient nexus to the potential corrupting influence of very large expenditures.'' Id. at 18. In stating this objection, the ACLU fails to give proper weight to an explicit provision in the bill which protects such communications by creating a safe harbor from application of the coordination rules for any person's ``discussions with the candidate or committee, or with any agent of the candidate or committee, regarding that person's position on a legislative or policy matter (including urging the candidate or committee to adopt that person's position) . . .'' Sec. 6102 adding sec. 326(b)(2). The ACLU acknowledges this safe harbor, Ltr. at 19, but misinterprets it. As set forth in the text of the bill, the safe harbor applies to legislative or policy discussion ``so long as there is no communication between the person and the candidate or committee . . . regarding the candidate's or committee's campaign advertising, message, strategy or policy,'' id. (emphasis added). The ACLU's concern that ``[d]iscussion of `message' or `policy' is integral to discussion of legislative and policy positions,'' id., is already adequately addressed by the safe harbor provision, which permits all legislative message and policy discussion so long as it is not about campaign policy, or the campaign's message. Raising additional concerns, the ACLU objects to treatment as a coordinated expenditure of a payment by an outside spender for republication of a candidate's own campaign material, although it correctly notes that this same republication provision has long been part of existing law. ACLU Ltr. at 18. It notes that there are regulations issued by the FEC which have interpreted this provision of existing law, and claims those regulations are necessary to the constitutionality of the law. Even if true, there is nothing in H.R. 1 which would prevent the FEC from similarly construing the bill's re-promulgation of the same republication language, which is all that the bill does on this matter. Finally, the ACLU notes that the coordination provisions of H.R. 1 create a new category of ``coordinated spenders,'' based on certain specified relationships, activities or status between candidates and outside spenders. The bill then provides that certain specified categories of campaign- related spending by such ``coordinated spenders'' will be treated as coordinated. The ACLU questions whether such treatment can be ``based solely upon a speaker's identity.'' ACLU Ltr. at 19. This is, at best, a half-hearted objection because the ACLU also then ``agrees that a speaker's identity coupled with the contents of the communications can be factors in determining whether a particular communication was coordinated with a candidate such that it should be considered a campaign contribution.'' Id. The ACLU nonetheless questions whether spending can be treated as coordinated ``absent any additional information indicating the speaker acted pursuant to a common plan.'' Id. But the Court has never limited the definition of coordinated spending only to spending pursuant to an explicit discussion about, or a ``common plan'' for, a particular expenditure. The Court has instead cast a wide net in demanding that independent spending be ``totally independent,'' Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29, and ``not pursuant to any general or particular understanding with a candidate,'' Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 614 (1996), and ``truly independent'' or ``without any candidate's approval (or wink or nod).'' FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431, 442 (2001). The standards set forth in H.R. 1 look both to certain relationships between the outside spender and the candidate, and certain activities between the outside spender and the candidate, to determine whether the spending meets the standard set by the Court of being ``totally'' and ``truly'' independent. If the relationship between the candidate and spender, or the activities of the candidate on behalf of the spender (such as helping to fundraise for the spender), indicate that they do not meet this high standard for true independence, then the proposed rule would appropriately deem spending by that person to be coordinated. Conclusion The reforms contained in H.R. 1 will make essential improvements in the transparency of the money spent to influence federal elections and in shutting down avenues that are currently being exploited to evade and eviscerate candidate contribution limits. The bill is carefully drafted to conform to the Supreme Court's campaign finance rulings, and to appropriately balance constitutionally protected privacy and speech interests with the government's compelling interests in deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption through disclosure and the restoration of effective contribution limits. Democracy 21 urges you to vote for H.R. 1. Sincerely, Fred Wertheimer, President. Donald J. Simon, Counsel.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I appreciate the spirit with which this amendment is offered, but I disagree. This is about Federal elections. The Constitution says that the Congress has the ability to promulgate laws about Federal elections. The reason why we are looking at it is there have been States who have gone into AVR, they are grandfathered into the bill, but the problematic States are those States that are trying to suppress the vote, trying to keep people from voting, and we need to do something about that. Madam Chair, while we are here, I do want to say something about, not the gentleman's comments, but the prior comments of the ranking member about the costs of the bill. We have a score from CBO, and almost all the money that CBO has scored goes to grants to the States to upgrade their computer systems: $1.5 billion from 2019 to 2024; 750 for other computer assistance; and the other big amount is for making polling places accessible to disabled voters. So it is not about the other provisions in the bill. I would also like to note, and I put this into the Record yesterday, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the fine and forfeiture fund that will go into the Freedom From Influence Fund is estimated to raise $1.948 billion between 2019 and 2029. They also estimate that it will reduce the deficit by $83 million, which is interesting, because it will deter people from cheating on their taxes. So the comments made about the money were simply incorrect. I know that the Joint Committee on Taxation material is in the Record under general leave. I will make sure that the CBO report is also included. Madam Chair, I would just end with this: I appreciate the tone of the gentleman's arguments and the intent of his amendment, but I do think it severely undercuts the advances that H.R. 1 would make. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 172, I offer amendments en bloc.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I think there has been a lot of talk about transparency today. We have had a transparent process in the committees, 15 hours of hearings, but this repeals a rider that was privately put on an appropriations bill by Republicans to prevent the SEC from doing something that they want to do. Let's get real. I mean, this actually just undoes a secret rider on an appropriations bill. This is the way bad law gets made. We are here in the middle of the day, in public, debating amendments, not secretly putting little riders on appropriations bills that hamstrung the SEC for making sure that there is sunlight on what corporations are doing. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a valued Member of the House Administration Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to note that the last speaker failed to read the entire section. Article I, section 4 says: ``The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof;'' as was mentioned. And it then goes on to say, ``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. . . . `' And that is what we are doing here. Why? Because we have seen in States throughout the country efforts to prevent people from voting in Federal elections. And so a voter in one State is treated differently than in another State, and that is what we are going to change with H.R. 1. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would just note that the ballot harvesting issue, I think, has very little to do with the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings and that the remedy that has been suggested by my friend, Mr. Davis, was to use the system that was in place in North Carolina. Obviously, that didn't work. The remedy to fraud is prosecution, which is what is happening in North Carolina. I would note that, as we mentioned at the Rules Committee last night, in California, you can give your ballot that is sealed not only to your son, but to your next-door neighbor. You might be an elderly person who doesn't have family around. There has been no credible allegation of fraud, and we had monitors from both the Republican and Democratic parties, people from House Administration. There was no credible allegation of a problem. Mr. Chair, let's not compare apples and oranges. Let's support Mr. Hastings' amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic leader.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The gentleman's amendment to H.R. 1 would keep in place a provision of law that was inserted into must-pass pieces of legislation over the past few years. It makes it harder for voters to follow the money when it comes to government contractors and political spending. The amendment is anathema to the purposes of H.R. 1, which is to bolster confidence and trust in the American Government and shine a light on secret spending in elections. The gentlemen's amendment would further the status quo of dark money in our elections, and it would protect a culture of pay-to-play politics that Americans reject. Republicans in Congress, as Mr. Cole has mentioned, first included this language in the 2012 appropriations bill, then the 2014 appropriations bill, and finally in the 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act. H.R. 1, in title IV, subtitle G, repeals the restriction on requiring disclosure of campaign-related spending by those submitting an offer for a Federal contract. Repealing this restriction will curb the appearance of corruption that can go along with campaign-related money in government contracts. It will shine a light on dark money in politics. Americans have a right to know who is trying to influence them with political advertisements and campaign spending and what big campaign spenders want from the government in return. The Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on Federal contracts. Campaign-related spending should have nothing to do with influencing a contract, and disclosure will protect the integrity of the process and curb any appearance of corruption. After the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in 2010, undisclosed sources have spent more than $950 million in dark money to influence Federal elections, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The money flows through a complex web of corporations, dark money, nonprofit organizations, super-PACs, and other groups. When money from government contractors enters this web, it poses the exact type of threat to the integrity of our democratic system that our campaign finance laws are intended to protect against. While Federal law prohibits contracting entities from contributing to political candidates and parties, their directors, officers, and other affiliates could still give unlimited sums of dark money to groups that do not disclose their campaign-related donors, and that is why H.R. 1 would repeal the restriction on disclosure. The court held 8 to 1 in Citizens United that ``The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' The public has a right to follow the money, including money from government contractors to dark-money groups that did not disclose their spending. H.R. 1 ensures disclosure and transparency, both of which are critical to open and responsive democracy that protects the public interest. And this amendment, although I am sure well-intentioned, takes us in the wrong direction. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has served so faithfully on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that when a rider is added to the appropriations bill, you have to vote for the whole package to keep the government open. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I just want to make a couple of observations and perhaps corrections. It has been alleged that somehow the assessment on tax crimes and corporate malfeasance has been transformed into taxpayer money--I think that is clearly incorrect--but that if the money is insufficient, then the taxpayers would be on the hook. When we marked up the bill in the House Administration Committee, we outlined how the money would be reduced if there were not enough money in the fund; and in section 5101(f)(3), it talks about mandatory reductions of payments in the voucher program. In 541(d)(2), it talks about mandatory reductions in the congressional program and Presidential and so on, if there were insufficient funds. So there is no way under the terms of this bill that the taxpayers could ever be on the hook for these funds, and I think it is important to know that. I want to talk a little bit about the concern about free speech. I am an advocate of free speech. I think we all are and honor our Constitution here in the House of Representatives. But the ACLU has a storied history of litigating constitutional issues. They have done good work, but we have differed on our approach to campaign finance law, particularly on how to shine a light on secret, dark money in elections. The ACLU has opposed applying disclosure laws to organizations spending money on electioneering communications, which are paid ads that mention candidates in the days leading up to the election. As we have mentioned earlier, the Court, in Citizens United, said the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate before an election and pointed out that disclosure does not prevent speech. I think that is one of the reasons why we have gotten a marvelous letter from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, which I include in the Record. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Washington, DC, March 4, 2019. Re NAACP strong support for H.R. 1, legislation to greatly improve and expand the democratic voting process Hon. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil rights organization, I would like to urge you, in the strongest terms possible to support through passage H.R. 1 and to oppose any weakening amendments. This legislation will expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the discriminatory influence of big money in politics, prevent voter fraud, and strengthen ethics rules and accountability for public servants. H.R. 1 is supported and celebrated by the NAACP: since our founding in 1909, free and unfettered access to the ballot for all eligible Americans, and the assurance that our vote has been counted, has been a critical driver behind all that we do. H.R. 1 represents a coordinated effort to protect and promote the voting rights of all Americans. This vital legislation includes many of the tools the NAACP has identified throughout our nation as improving voter turn-out and successful voter participation: it includes provisions to establish on-line and automatic voter registration. H.R. 1 would require early voting in all states; voting would have to start at least 15 days before an election, including weekends. H.R. 1 would require same-day voter registration on election-day and during early voting. Under a provision in H.R. 1, states would be prohibited from restricting an individuals' ability to vote by mail. H.R. 1 would require that ``provisional ballots'' be counted and provides assistance to states and localities in improving the provisional ballot process. The measure would prohibit voter caging, voter deception and voter intimidation. H.R. 1 also promotes voter registration via the internet and establishes a strict code of ethics for all federally elected and appointed officials, including the President, the Vice President, his cabinet, and every Member of Congress, so we are not constantly distracted by the ``scandal of the day.'' H.R. 1 would also re-enfranchise ex-felony offenders who have served their sentence and have been released from prison. Because voting is such an integral part of being a productive member of American society, the NAACP has advocated strongly to allow felons who are no longer incarcerated to reintegrate themselves into society and vote in federal elections. H.R. 1 also begins to fix the damage done to the crucial 1965 Voting Rights Act by the US Supreme Court decision in Shelby v. Holder. The legislation specifically states that Congress is committed to reversing the effects of the 2013 Supreme Court decision which effectively invalidated a requirement that certain states and jurisdictions receive federal preclearance on changes to voting procedures. Prior to the Shelby decision preclearance was required for states and local jurisdictions that had a history of voter discrimination. The measure would state that Congress should respond by modernizing the electoral system to improve access to the ballot, enhance voting integrity and security, ensure greater accountability, and restore protections for voters. Finally, but no less importantly, H.R. 1 contains strong provisions to bring about genuine campaign finance reform measures which will withstand the scrutiny of the Courts. The NAACP strongly supports H.R. 1. This is not a partisan issue: the right to vote should be supported by all Americans who believe in democracy. We should be making voting and involvement in the democratic process easier, not throwing up barriers which may seem insurmountable to whole groups of eligible voters. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Policy and Advocacy.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 will begin the process of returning the government to the people. Many provisions of H.R. 1 have been pending and ignored for years in this House. No more. H.R. 1 has been the subject of hearings in five committees and 15 hours of testimony from witnesses. Throughout these hearings, we have heard our Republican friends bemoan a rushed process when, in fact, they had 8 years to consider these proposals but failed to do so. Today, we deliver on our promise to the American people. H.R. 1 is critically important at this point in our history. Trust in government and in many institutions has eroded because of years of putting profit before the people and letting politicians pick their voters. Dark money has been allowed to poison our system, drowning out the voices of the very people who we were sent here to represent. Access to the ballot box has been impeded by arbitrary obstacles that have made voting a privilege, not a right. Without trust, our representative system suffers. Too many Americans view themselves as shut out from our democracy. Others cannot participate because of election administration procedures that fail to account for how Americans live and work in the 21st century. Some of these barriers make it harder for certain populations, including communities of color and other underrepresented groups, to vote. This is especially the case after the Supreme Court gutted core provisions of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision has further empowered wealthy special interests and ushered in nearly a billion dollars in money from undisclosed sources, even though the Court affirmed the importance of disclosure by a vote of 8 to 1. H.R. 1 reverses course and strengthens our democracy and makes it easier and more convenient for all eligible Americans to vote. It offers solutions to the dominance of big money in politics, and it ensures public officials will work in the public interest. One of the things that has been discussed is the proposal for a freedom from influence fund that will allow for small donors to reclaim control of candidates through $200 or less donations. I want to make it clear that no taxpayer funds are permitted to flow into this freedom from influence fund. Instead, as was approved in our last vote, a modest additional assessment of 2.75 percent on Federal fines, penalties, and settlements for certain tax crimes and corporate malfeasance will be the sole source of funding for this freedom from influence fund. In fact, the bad guys will be funding the clean system. This bill will lower barriers to voting for all eligible Americans. It will save costs, bolster the integrity of election administration, and, for example, it will modernize voter registration systems by enabling automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration, taking advantage of technology to ensure all Americans can register and update their voter registration status online. Automatic voter registration, alone, may bring up to 50 million new American citizens onto the rolls and, therefore, able to vote. It makes improvements to ensure ballot access for voters with disabilities as well as our overseas and military voters. It ensures early voting for at least 15 days and will require States to use voter-verified paper ballots. This is a commonsense safeguard to cybersecurity threats, especially after the 2016 election showed vulnerabilities in our system. H.R. 1 will reform redistricting to ensure fairness in the process to guard against partisanship and respect communities of interest. This legislation will shine a light on dark secret money that influences campaigns and will protect everyone's right to know who is influencing their votes and their views. As I mentioned earlier, it provides an alternative voluntary system for candidates to finance their campaigns by empowering small dollar contributors all without taxpayer money. This will reduce candidates' reliance on wealthy special interests and open the political process to more people. This will create a government for the people. H.R. 1 will also implement high ethical standards and boost confidence in self-government. It has been said that we should not take these steps, but Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress may, by law, regulate votes in Federal elections. It is time that we take this step. Democracy is resilient, but it requires our continual work to ensure that it lives up to its promise. H.R. 1 is a major, comprehensive step forward, a step that we must take if we are to be true to our promise of our representative government. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I will not read the entire letter, but it does say this: ``Dear Representative, ``On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest, largest, and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil rights organization, I would like to urge you, in the strongest terms possible, to support through passage H.R. 1 and to oppose any weakening amendments.'' It goes on to say: ``This legislation will expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the discriminatory influence of big money in politics, prevent voter fraud, and strengthen ethics rules and accountability for public servants. H.R. 1 is supported and celebrated by the NAACP.'' I would urge us to support this bill and listen to the advice that we have received from the NAACP on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.