Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we have many others, including labor. We have the National Association of Counties, United Farm Workers, Service Employees International Union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Conference of Catholic Bishops. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of organizations supporting H.R. 1603. [From the House Committee on the Judiciary] More Than 100 Organizations, Representing Labor Unions, Immigrants' Rights, and Business Interests Have Expressed Their Support for H.R. 1603 Labor Unions and Immigrant Rights Advocates United Farm Workers (UFW); UFW Foundation; Farmworker Justice; African Communities Together; America's Voice; American Immigration Lawyers Association; Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; Bipartisan Policy Center Action; Bridges Faith Initiative; Carbondale Branch NAACP; CASA; Center for American Progress; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Central American Resource Center of Northern CA--CARECEN SF; Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc.; Child Labor Coalition; Children's Defense Fund; Church World Service; El Colectivo NC; Faith in Public Life; Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project--FLAP--FWD.us; Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition; Health Outreach Partners; Hispanic Federation; Immigrant Worker Project--Centro San Jose; Immigration Hub. Justice for Migrant Women; Justice in Motion; La Union del Pueblo Entero; Latino Service Center; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Family Services; LIUNA; LULAC; MI Familia Vota; Migrant Legal Aid (Michigan); MomsRising/MamasConPoder; NAACP; National Consumers League; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Immigration Forum; NC Justice Center; NETWORK Lobby For Catholic Social Justice; New American Economy; Ohio Immigrant Alliance; Oxfam America; PCUN; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); The Advocates for Human Rights; The Foundation for Farmworkers; The LIBRE Initiative; U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute; UndocuBlack Network; USHLI. Business, Community, and Other Organizations Americans for Prosperity; National Association of Counties (NACo); National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA); National Education Association (NEA); Maryland Pesticide Education Network; PhDTrekkers; Rochelle Township High School; South Central Idaho Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Union for Reform Judaism; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask that we come together and pass this bill. America will be stronger and better if we do.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. LOFGREN. No, I do not.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. There has been a lot of rhetoric today about the border, and I think it is important to address some of it. First, let's get the facts straight. The uptick in apprehensions at the southern border began in April 2020, last year, long before we knew President Biden was even going to become the Democratic nominee, much less the President. During the pandemic, the Trump administration did something that troubled me a great deal and that I objected to. They ignored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. That was a bipartisan bill. Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey was the lead on the Republican side. I worked on it on our side along with others. It had a very precise protocol for what to do when an unaccompanied child presented at the border, a potential trafficking victim. Instead of following that protocol, the prior administration would simply take that child, an 11- or 12-year-old little girl, and turn her back into Mexico, not knowing what would happen to her. Now, those children who have been in squalid camps for the last year are being addressed pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It is correct that we have had more children present than we were prepared to deal with, and there was a scramble to take care of those children properly. But it has nothing to do with the Farm Work Modernization Act. I listened with some interest to the suggestion that there needs to be a change in the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act provisions of this bill. Currently, H-2A employers must comply with the H-2A program requirements, which largely meet or exceed MSPA. The primary difference is that the DOL stands in the place of the foreign farmworker in bringing forward cases of alleged violation of the H-2A program. The Fair Labor Standards Act and a number of other Federal and State laws apply to the H-2A program, but it is worth noting that any H-2A employer that employs one or more domestic workers who perform seasonal or temporary agricultural work is already covered under MSPA, and that would be close to like all employers. This bill would formally place all employers of H-2A workers under MSPA, impacting only those who hire no domestic employees. The idea that there needs to be a right to cure has merit, except it is already addressed in this bill because it requires mandatory mediation. If there is a problem that can be fixed, it will be fixed in the mediation system. That is quite new. The other thing to point out is that there are no attorney's fees provided for in the bill or in MSPA, so the idea that somehow this is a windfall for the trial bar is simply incorrect. There is a great Q&A truth setting in a publication called Hoard's Dairyman, ``What the Farm Workforce Act could mean.'' I include the article in the Record. [From Hoard's Dairyman, Mar. 15, 2021] What the Farm Workforce Act Could Mean (By Bob Gray) The Farm Workforce Modernization Act, bipartisan bill H.R. 1603, was reintroduced this week by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Congressman Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.). It could be taken up by the full House this week. Here are some additional details about the bill. Most of this information came from the four Republican leads-- Representatives Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), Mike Simpson (R- ldaho), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), and Doug LaMalfa (R- Calif.). Before reading further, I want to reiterate, however, that this is a bipartisan bill with support from both sides of the aisle. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act (FWMA) expands the current H-2A seasonal worker program to include full-time, year-round workers for dairy and other agricultural businesses. The bill is not perfect, but it is a very good start in providing an extremely important piece of the legislative reform needed by dairy farmers. Right now, as you all know, we have no program. We have never had an immigration worker program in the past. When the bill goes before the House next week, you will hear various pros and cons about it in the press. Therefore, I thought it would be useful to include a ``Facts and Myths'' sheet about the legislation so you can fully understand its provisions and not be misled by information that is incorrect. This is what the Farm Workforce Modernization Act does Simplifies H-2A by reducing duplicative paperwork--only one filing needed instead of three. Bureaucracy is reduced even further for many farmers with staggered labor needs. Farmers can file one petition for the entire season, allowing for staggered entry of H-2A workers. Modernizes recruitment by allowing employers to post job openings on an online job registry. No classified ads are required. Reduces labor costs by freezing wages for one year and capping wage growth thereafter. The adverse effect wage rate is replaced in later years. Makes available 60,000 year-round H-2A visas over the first three years, growing annually by 12.5%. Dairy is guaranteed at least half of these visas, and any unused visas are available for other agriculture industries. Stabilizes the existing workforce by giving legitimate farmworkers a chance to get a five-year Certified Agriculture Worker (CAW) visa to work in U.S. agriculture. As long as the worker continues to meet minimum days in agriculture annually, the worker can continue to work in the U.S. with unlimited five-year renewals. CAWs can cross the border as they need without restriction. CAWs can earn the opportunity to apply for a green card by paying a penalty and continuing to work in agriculture for at least eight years. If a CAW can prove 10 years of prior work in agriculture, they can apply for a green card after four years. Myths and facts MYTH: This bill will codify wage surveys into law and result in multiple wage classes. Under this bill, wages will be much higher than the current Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR). FACT: This bill provides for greater certainty and granularity in wages. First, this bill applies a one-year freeze of wages across all categories at the current year's rate. After the one-year freeze, all wage rates are then limited in any increases year over year to 3.25% with the ability to decrease 1.5%. (Exception: If the resulting wage is less than 110% of the federal or state minimum wage, then the wage could increase an additional percentage point to 4.25%.) After year 10, the AEWR requirement ends, and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Labor must develop a new wage standard with input from stakeholders. If Congress fails to act to control and reform AEWR, some estimates have shown AEWR rates could rise 7% to 8% annually in the coming years. MYTH: Adjusted workers are treated immediately as U.S. workers, thus requiring employers to hire them. This displaces previous H-2A workers. FACT: This bill includes a provision that allows employers to prioritize their longtime H-2A workers over new Certified Agriculture Workers (CAWs). CAWs have a requirement to work in agriculture that no domestic worker has. Because of that requirement and proven experience in agriculture work, CAWs do receive preference over new foreign agriculture workers. There is no expansion of the current workforce; CAW workers are already here and working in agriculture. The bill eliminates the legal chaos farmers and workers face today. MYTH: This bill does not allow agricultural associations to file as agents on behalf of their members. FACT: This bill does not affect the ability of associations to file as agents. The bill allows associations to file as agents, or as a joint or sole employer of workers. MYTH: This bill provides no relief for dairies or year- round agriculture. FACT: This bill creates year-round access to the H-2A program for dairy and other agricultural sectors that desperately need workers but have previously been unable to utilize the program. Without this bill, year-round agriculture has no access to a legal foreign workforce. MYTH: This bill would create new funding for the Legal Services Corporation. FACT: There is no new funding in this bill for the Legal Services Corporation. MYTH: This bill requires farmworker housing to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. FACT: Farmworker housing is already required to meet OSHA standards, and DOL requires annual approved inspections before approving a certification. The bill makes no changes to that requirement, and in fact, reduces the inspection to every two years. The bill provides $11 billion in additional funds to offset costs for grower-provided and other farmworker housing. MYTH: This bill establishes a new bureaucratic complaint/ investigation process that allows anyone to file a complaint. FACT: There is no new process established in this bill. It simply codifies existing regulations. MYTH: The bill requires more reporting on employer recruitment efforts. FACT: There are no additional reporting requirements in this bill, and requirements for recruitment efforts have been simplified and modernized. MYTH: This bill creates a new private right of action for H-2A workers under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). FACT: Currently, H-2A employers must comply with the H-2A program requirements, which largely meet or exceed MSPA. The primary difference is that DOL stands in the place of the foreign farmworker in bringing forward cases of alleged violations of the H-2A program, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and a number of other federal and state laws. In addition, any H-2A employer that employs one or more domestic worker who performs seasonal or temporary agricultural work is also currently covered under MSPA. The bill would formally place all employers of H-2A workers under MSPA (impacting only those who currently hire no domestic employees for seasonal or temporary work) while creating a new mandatory mediation requirement for any claim not just filed under MSPA but extended it to claims under the H-2A program and FLSA. Mandatory mediation could help reduce litigation costs and attorney fees for growers, in part by resolving frivolous claims before reaching the court room. MYTH: This bill gives workers up to two years to file a legal claim against an employer, even after the worker has returned to their home country. FACT: Under current statue, H-2A workers already get this. There is nothing new in this bill. Many state-based claims have longer statute of limitations. MYTH: This bill gives the Department of Labor (DOL) a new ability to sue on behalf of employees. FACT: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), DOL already has this ability. There is nothing new in this bill. MYTH: To overcome a denial of labor certification, this legislation places the burden of proof on employers to show that domestic workers were turned away for lawful reasons. FACT: Nothing new is in this bill. This provision already exists under current law. MYTH: This bill permits very limited appeals and does not grant de novo appeals of denials or Notice of Disagreement (NOD). FACT: This bill allows employers to quickly fix application deficiencies, as with current law. The bill, however, improves this process by creating a new emergency procedure for farmers so issues are fixed faster and workers are not delayed. It also allows for post-certification modifications. MYTH: This bill establishes a new requirement for employers to provide housing for domestic workers outside of a 50-mile distance. FACT: The bill does not change any current housing requirements. As with current law, the requirement to provide housing applies only to U.S. workers who live outside of the normal commuting distance for the area. MYTH: The bill makes no meaningful reform to the high housing costs in the H-2A program. FACT: The bill makes historic investments in farmworker housing while reducing employer costs in providing such housing, including to H-2A workers. The bill provides $1 billion to rehabilitate existing housing, triples federal funding for USDA Section 514/516 rural housing and grant programs, and doubles funding for the Section 521 rental assistance program. The bill also reduces the cost of providing housing to H-2A workers by making operating assistance subsidies available to 514/516 property owners who house H-2A workers. MYTH: Mandatory E-Verify just for agriculture means thousands of year-round employers will have no access to labor whatsoever. FACT: This bill provides a way for the current workforce to get right with the law, which means they would be compliant with E-Verify. As noted above, the bill provides employers with two avenues for hiring new year-round workers. The E- Verify requirement would only apply to new hires and is phased in, beginning three years after enactment. MYTH: Illegal farmworkers, their spouses, and all their dependents are provided a special, expedited path to legal, permanent residence and will move out of agriculture and into other jobs in the economy. FACT: This bill does not create an immediate path to permanent residence. First, it creates a temporary legal status that can only be renewed with significant agricultural work. Second, the bill provides the option of earning permanent residence through continued agricultural work, but it would take at a minimum five to 10 years to earn such status, depending on the amount of past agricultural work the worker could demonstrate. These significant past and future work commitments would ensure the stability of American agriculture for years to come. Spouses and dependents receive the same protections that currently exist in the H-2A program. MYTH: The bill puts AEWR into law after 2029 with no increase or decrease in caps. Keeping the AEWR for another 10 years and preserving it in statute means employers will see no relief. FACT: After year 10, the AEWR requirement ends, and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Labor must develop a new wage standard with input from stakeholders. MYTH: The bill provides new authority for the DOL to award back wages, penalties, and damages and/or to debar employers from the program for five years or permanently. FACT: The DOL already has authority to temporarily debar bad actors. This bill would give the DOL new authority to permanently debar individuals who have previously been debarred and are habitual violators of the program's requirements.

Ms. LOFGREN. We have labored long and hard, those of us in our bipartisan group that worked to solve a problem that our country has, which is we need a stable workforce in the agricultural sector. I thank last year's chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, for the work that he did on this bill; this year's chair who also supports this bill, Mr. Scott; as well as the ranking member who said that he would vote for it even though there are some things he would like to change. It is a compromise, and it was worked on for almost over a year to get to this point. We believe that having a legal workforce in agriculture that will give stability is not only good for those workers, but it is good for their employers, and it is good for America. We believe that making sure that there is a future flow of a legal workforce not only into farms but now into dairy is good for America because we think immigration ought to be legal. It ought to be regularized. It ought to be orderly. That is what this bill would accomplish. Finally, there has been a lot of talk about enforcement. This bill has enforcement in it. When the bill is implemented, we will have a strategy in a legal way to meet the needs of agriculture in America. If we have that as law, we ought to enforce that law. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, we agreed that E-Verify ought to be applied to this whole sector. This is a package that will make America stronger. It is fair to farmworkers. It is fair to farmers. And it is good for America. I hope that people will vote for it on both sides of the aisle. So many of us worked together to bring it to this point. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, imagine this: You are 17 years old. You have worked hard, and you are the valedictorian of your high school class, the quarterback on the football team. You go down to apply for your driver's license, and you find out for the first time that you were actually not born in the United States and that you are undocumented. There is no possibility for you to get right with the law, but you did nothing wrong. You don't even remember the place that you were born. That is the circumstance that tens of thousands of young people find themselves in, and this bill allows those young people to get right with the law--they have done nothing wrong--and go on to become the full Americans that they are except for their paperwork. It does something else that is important, which is it recognizes that there is a group of people who are here under visas, but because the Senate messed up--that is a term of art--the per country cap bill that this House passed by 365 votes in the last Congress, there is a huge backlog from large countries so long that the dependents of lawful temporary visa holders age out. They have no remedy, just as the other Dreamers. They can't go back to the country they were born in because their parents are legally here. They have no capacity to become the full Americans that they are. This also resolves that problem. It is distressing to hear the rhetoric about the border. In fact, the uptick at the southern border began last April, and it relates to hurricanes and disorder in three Central American countries. We need to pay attention to what is going on in those three countries, and that is something the Biden administration is taking steps to do to solve that problem where it starts. I will just note that nobody is escaping from Costa Rica. It is the disorder in three countries that needs to be resolved. Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise to include in the Record the following letters of support from religious organizations for H.R. 1, as amended. Faithful Democracy, December 4, 2020. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles E. ``Chuck'' Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer and Leader McCarthy: The Faithful Democracy interfaith coalition writes in support of the For the People Act, the transformational democracy reform bill that would help return power to everyday Americans. While we represent a diversity of beliefs and traditions, we unite around the common goal of creating a healthier, thriving democracy. The thirty national faith-based organizations and congregations below urge Congress to prioritize passage of this pro-voter, anti- corruption legislation in the 117th Congress to advance the nation towards that goal. We recognize that, on a practical level, only a healthy, well-functioning democracy has the capacity to attend to the pressing needs that our faith calls us to address: the COVID pandemic, systemic racism, climate change, hunger, violence, poverty, healthcare and more. The challenges that face our nation are serious and deeply concerning--and include partisan gridlock among policy-makers. Faithful Democracy partners are committed to structural democracy reforms that lay a solid foundation for rebuilding our nation. Democratic governance is the best existing system to peacefully hold a diversity of ideas, to enable healthy compromise among competing interests and to instill a sense of belonging among all its members. However, ours falls short since our democratic systems are open to manipulation by those seeking to amass power or undercut the common good for special interests. 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 by special interests. The comprehensive For the People Act addresses many of these problems, opening the door for legislative solutions. The bill has three overarching goals: protect and strengthen the sacred right to vote, end the dominance of big money in politics, and implement anti-corruption, pro-ethics measures to clean up government. This historic legislation passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin in March 2019 and was cosponsored by 46 members of the Senate. President-elect Joe Biden has stated that a ``first priority'' of his administration will be to lead on a comprehensive set of democracy solutions like those reflected in the For the People Act. House and Senate Democratic leaders have similarly said they will prioritize this once-in-a-generation legislation. The undersigned organizations with the Faithful Democracy coalition urge Congress to take bipartisan action on the election reform, anti-corruption and voting rights provisions encompassed in the For The People Act as a first priority in the new Congressional session. Alliance of Baptists; American Friends Service Committee; Church World Service; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes; Creation Justice Ministries; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Faith in Public Life; Faithful America; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); Hindus for Human Rights; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Mormon Women for Ethical Government. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches; National Council of Jewish Women; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Pax Christi USA; Poligon Education Fund; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Office of Public Witness; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team; Society of the Sacred Heart United States Canada Province; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, as Chairperson of the Committee on House Administration and pursuant to section 3 of Committee Resolution 117- 10, a Resolution to Establish Procedures in Contested Election Cases Properly Filed Under the Federal Contested Election Act, I am hereby including in the Record a copy of the Committee Resolution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I rise to offer amendments en bloc.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bloc of amendments provides important additions to H.R. 1 that strengthen the bill and enhance voter access. Among the amendments in the bloc is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Virginia that would require foreign agent disclaimers to be included on social media content. This increases transparency by requiring disclaimers to be embedded on the face of a social media post itself, and those disclaimers must remain whenever the post is subsequently shared. There are four amendments from the gentlewoman from California, including one that addresses longstanding privacy concerns of survivors of domestic and sexual abuse who want to register to vote but do not want their personal information to be publicly accessible; and a second that requires all in-person voting locations to have a sufficient number of accessible voting machines for their voters. There is an amendment from the gentleman from California that clarifies prohibitions on polling places or ballot drop boxes that falsely purport to be an official location established for an election. I would note that, in California, the Republican Party in southern California established drop boxes that purported to be from the registrar of voters. That was deceptive. An agreement was reached with the secretary of state that they could have the boxes, but they couldn't hold themselves out to be the registrar of voters. H.R. 1 calls for all States to provide same-day voter registration. The gentlewoman from Michigan's amendment makes an important addition that will help ensure the successful carrying out of this requirement: States must ensure that they have adequate copies of registration forms and other relevant voter registration at polling places. There is an amendment from the gentleman from New York that requires the GAO to conduct a study on voter turnout rates, broken down by age in States and localities that permit voters to participate in elections before the age of 18. This is an issue that merits examination, and this amendment will ensure that Congress is fully equipped to debate the issue. There is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Illinois that would require the GAO to review small-donor campaign financing to study the extent to which the program increases opportunities for candidates of diverse racial, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds. There is an amendment from the gentlewoman from Georgia that would require the Director of the CFPB to work with the EAC to develop a statement providing certain individuals with information regarding voter registration and their voting rights. This commonsense reform ensures that tenants and homeowners will have easy access to voter registration and other voter-related information. Finally, there is an amendment from the gentlewoman from California that would ensure that the bill's prohibitions against election disinformation cover false claims that voters will face civil and other legal penalties for voting. I support these amendments, and I urge their adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this amendment. It would strike section 4208 of H.R. 1 which requires online platforms to retain records of certain online political advertisements. According to Forbes magazine, political advertisers spent $1.6 billion online in the 2020 election--almost 10 times what they spent in 2012. At a time when Americans are increasingly bombarded with political ads online, striking this provision is not useful and would harm the efforts of this bill to provide increased transparency in political advertising. Fundamentally, Americans deserve to know who is paying for online political ads to ensure that they are informed voters. Digital advertising can also have a far greater reach than broadcast advertising. Online political ads are relatively inexpensive to produce and can be disseminated instantly to vast audiences across great distances without regard to geographic boundaries. It is time for our disclosure and disclaimer laws and regulations to be updated to reflect how campaigns are run in the 21st century and how to keep pace with changing technology. The online platform records requirements in this section are key to the Honest Ads Act, which is a part of H.R. 1, designed to improve transparency in political advertising. By requiring online platforms to retain copies of political ads, everyday Americans at home will be able to see who is paying for what. These requirements are narrowly drawn and only apply to online platforms with over 50 million monthly unique visitors and to advertisers who run over $500 a year in political advertisements. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the measure and protect this important reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the late Justice Scalia, who was not exactly one of our liberal beacons on the Court, said this: ``Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to work with the gentlewoman as this bill advances towards enactment. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Lesko amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams), who serves in the seat of our late, beloved John Lewis.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is ready to yield back or use the rest of his time. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the secretary of state of Colorado, with a number of other secretary of states, urging support for this bill; and a letter from former leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and concerned first amendment scholars urging support. Jena Griswold, Colorado Secretary of State, March 2, 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: It's no accident that the 2020 elections were the most secure in American history. A monumental effort by election administrators--from board of elections officials, to county clerks, to poll workers--ensured our country's democratic process was stronger than ever, even with the unique challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the 2020 elections proved that our democracy is resilient, the elections also showed us that they cannot be taken for granted. Our elections were safe, secure, and successful because countless patriotic Americans took action to protect them. The policies that gave voters better options to safely register to vote and cast a ballot in the face of the pandemic were a resounding success and must now be made permanent. Modernizing elections meant that eligible voters did not have to choose between casting a ballot and risking their health. It also resulted in record turnout for both parties. Policies like vote-by mail for all and early voting saw resounding success in states and municipalities across the country. Now, only Congress can ensure that every eligible voter across America has access to these voting options in the future. That's why we need to immediately enact the For The People Act (H.R. 1) into law. The For The People Act offers a comprehensive path to securing and modernizing American democracy for generations to come. The bill provides clear guidance for all 50 states and the District of Columbia to implement election processes that work for administrators and voters alike, and its adoption into law is critical to the future of American elections. Proven policies such as automatic and same-day voter registration will remove administrative obstacles for eligible voters while maintaining up-to-date and accurate voter rolls. Voter-verified paper ballots will ensure every vote is accurately recorded and allow administrators to run key audits to verify election results. Other provisions, such as independent redistricting commissions to combat gerrymandering and shining light on dark money, will further strengthen the integrity of our elections. As the chief elections officials in our respective states, and as the administrators who will be tasked with executing many of the policies proposed in H.R. 1, we can confidently state that this bill is designed to make our democracy stronger and safer than ever. We proudly and firmly support the For The People Act, and we strongly recommend its passage in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Sincerely, Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State; Shirley Weber, California Secretary of State; Jena Griswold, Colorado Secretary of State; Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of State; Kimberly Bassett, Secretary of the District of Columbia; Shenna Bellows, Maine Secretary of State; Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State; Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State; Maggie Toulouse Oliver, New Mexico Secretary of State; Shemia Fagan, Oregon Secretary of State; Nellie Gorbea, Rhode Island Secretary of State; Jim Condos, Vermont Secretary of State.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate that the ranking member has shown us this chart because he has proven that all of the Republican Members claiming that there was tax money funding the pilot project for the small matching donors were wrong. This is a pilot project that is funded by an additional fine on corporate wrongdoing. It doesn't take money away from anything else. It is an additional fine that, if H.R. 1 doesn't pass, will not be imposed. I was interested to hear our colleague from New Jersey say it is your money that will be used. Well, it is only your money if you are a corporate malfeasance individual, a corporate wrongdoer that gets fined; and I don't think very many of us have sympathy for that crew. I would like to just give some perspective here because all over the United States, because of the pandemic, efforts were made to allow for people to vote and not have to endanger their health. So absentee voting became more of the norm. There were more early voting efforts, a lot of things of that nature, because of the pandemic. And what happened? There was a huge increase in turnout, both among Republicans and Democrats. It was a safe and secure election, the most safe and secure election in modern history. There wasn't a bunch of fraud. Some of my colleagues said that people don't trust our system. Why is that? Because there are politicians in this country that are misleading the American public about that election. And I would say the former President is first among them, telling things that are not true and convincing people of that. So now that we have had this huge turnout because of the pandemic, we are seeing States--Republicans, I must say, unfortunately, all over the United States trying to cut off access to the ballot. In Georgia, they just passed a whole slew of voter restriction measures to try and tamp down turnout, and we see hundreds of bills being introduced to do that. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this en bloc and on the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.