Inspector General Protection Act

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding. The bill we are debating here today, the so-called Protecting Our Democracy Act, is another attempt by the outgoing majority to relitigate many of the Democrats' sham investigations. Many of the bill's provisions are unnecessary and recycled attempts to take away individual States' sovereignty. If we were really here to talk about protecting our democracy, then we would focus on the importance of voter rolls list maintenance to ensure only eligible citizens are able to vote in Federal elections.

Congress passed the bipartisan National Voter Registration Act in 1993. That is almost 30 years ago. This law requires States to conduct regular list maintenance to ensure their voter rolls are kept up to date. This simple, commonsense requirement is incredibly important for voter confidence in our entire election process and its outcomes.

However, the Biden DOJ refuses to enforce it. Instead, Progressives focus on defunding the police and embracing lawlessness, keeping our economy and Capitol shut down while ignoring the science, labeling concerned parents as extremist threats, and weaponizing the DOJ to go after them, and pursuing reckless, unnecessary spending that is driving the inflation every single American feels in their pocketbook.

If Democrats were really focused on protecting our democracy, the Biden Justice Department would investigate States like California where the number of registered voters far exceeds the number of adults in the State. Senator Alex Padilla, a newly appointed Senator from the State of California, knew about the problem and refused to address it when he was Secretary of State in California during the last election cycle.

Republicans care about election integrity because our constitutional republic means nothing if our citizens don't have faith in our elections.

When everyday Americans hear more and more reports of individuals on active voter rolls who have moved to another State, died, or are noncitizens, it frustrates them because it calls into question whether their valid vote actually counts. One eligible person, one whole non- diluted vote.

It is so frustrating because the fix is so simple, but Democrats refuse time and time again to address this problem. It is common sense and has been Federal law for decades that only eligible Americans should be on our voter rolls.

Republicans want every eligible voter who wants to vote to exercise that right. Democrats dilute your vote, but Republicans restore it.

I am here today to talk about protecting our democracy, and I think the only way to do that is to make sure Americans know our elections have integrity.

So today, I am calling on the radical Biden Justice Department to do the right thing and enforce Federal law across the board. Stop investigating parents that want to be involved in their children's education. Stop supporting efforts to defund our men and women in blue resulting in the lawlessness that we see ravaging our great country.

Focus on what really matters. Protect our democracy, protect our vote, and ensure States like California conduct voter roll list maintenance so that voters know only eligible American citizens are able to vote.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Department of Justice IG detailing the DOJ's official policy not to enforce Federal voter list maintenance requirements.

[From the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General,

March 2013]

A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights

Division

V. Enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)

In this section we review the Voting Section's history of

enforcing the National Voter Registration Act, the so-called

motor-voter law. Enacted in 1993, the NVRA has. two primary

purposes: to increase the number of eligible citizens who

register to vote in federal elections and to protect the

integrity of the electoral process. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg(b).

Critics have alleged that CRT leadership during the prior

administration favored enforcement of the list-maintenance

(electoral integrity) provisions because those provisions

purportedly are more strongly supported by Republicans and

remove more potential Democratic voters from the rolls.

Conversely, critics of the current CRT leadership allege that

it has neglected the electoral integrity provisions of the

NVRA in favor of enforcing the voter access provisions,

because these provisions purportedly are supported by

Democratic constituencies and lead to the registration of

more voters who are likely to support Democrats. Without

opining on the underlying political assumptions, we examine

both of these allegations in this section.

A. Data Regarding Enforcement Trends in NVRA Cases

Figure 3. 7 below displays the number of NVRA enforcement

actions initiated by the Voting Section on an annual basis

since January 1995, when the statute became effective in most

states. Figure 3. 7 is broken down by actions that enforced

the statute's list-maintenance provision (Section 8(a)(4)),

actions

that enforced the voter registration provisions (Sections 5,

6, 7, and the improper purging paragraphs of Section 8), and

actions that brought both types of claims.

The most noteworthy trend in the Department's enforcement

of the NVRA relates to the statute's voter list-maintenance

provision, Section 8(a)(4). In the 17 years since the statute

became effective, the Department has asserted list-

maintenance claims on 7 occasions, 6 of which occurred in a

3-year span between 2004 and 2007. According to Hans von

Spakovsky, CRT leadership initiated an effort to enforce

Section 8's list-maintenance provision in late 2004. Von

Spakovsky told the OIG that he recommended to Division

leadership exploring those cases because he believed that the

Department had never conducted a systematic review of states'

list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA

became effective. This effort ultimately resulted in the

filing of a complaint alleging list-maintenance claims in

2005 and 2006. According to witnesses involved in the four

other matters involving list-maintenance claims brought

between 2004 and 2007, those claims arose when the Section

obtained evidence suggesting a failure to comply with the

list-maintenance provision during the course of ongoing

investigations into other voting-related matters.

B. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2001-2008

We received allegations that the only NVRA cases that

Division leadership wanted to pursue during this period were

Section 8(a)(4) list-maintenance claims, at the expense of

cases to protect or increase voter registration under other

provisions of the NVRA. Critics further alleged that the

Division's leadership was particularly focused on bringing

such list-purging cases in political swing states and large

Democratic jurisdictions. The Division's leadership denied

any such focus and identified several cases approved by

Division leadership to controvert the suggestion that NVRA

enforcement decisions were driven by a partisan agenda. We

examined the entire range of NVRA cases pursued during

January 2001 to January 2009 in order to address this issue.

From January 2001 through January 2009, the Department was

involved in 12 NVRA enforcement matters, summarized in Table

3.2.

As reflected in Table 3.2, the Voting Section began filing

list-maintenance cases in 2004. As noted above, von Spakovsky

confirmed that Division leadership initiated an effort in

2004 to enforce Section 8's list-maintenance provision on a

systemic basis. Von Spakovsky told the OIG that he

recommended exploring those cases because he believed the

Department had never conducted a systematic review of states'

list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA's

enactment.

Division leadership directed the Voting Section to conduct

the research effort, to review the census data and voter

registration data for all 50 states to determine which states

had more people registered to vote than the voting-age

population, as reflected in the census data. Based on the

results of this research, the Section sent letters to 12

states, stating that the Section's review of relevant data

indicated that the state may not be complying with Section

8's list-maintenance provision and requesting information on

their efforts to remove ineligible voters from their

registration lists.

Von Spakovsky told the OIG that some of the targeted states

responded to the Department's letter, explained why there was

a discrepancy in the data, and established that they were

complying with the NVRA's list-maintenance requirements. He

also stated that a number of states failed to show that they

were in compliance with Section 8(a)(4) and that the Section

proceeded toward enforcement actions against those non-

compliant states.

Division leadership approved the filing of two complaints

as a result of this enforcement initiative. In November 2005,

the Section filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri

alleging both improper purging and failure-to-purge

violations. In June 2006, the Section filed a complaint

against Indiana alleging that the state failed to conduct

list purging as required by Section 8(a)(4). The Indiana case

was resolved by a settlement agreement, but the Missouri case

continued until early 2009, when the Division voluntarily

dismissed the case.

In 2006 and 2007, Division leadership approved three

additional complaints containing Section 8(a)(4) list-

maintenance claims, against the States of Maine and New

Jersey and the City of Philadelphia. According to the Voting

Section attorney supervising those efforts, these complaints

did not arise out of the enforcement initiative described

above. Instead, the complaints were brought as a result of

investigations under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that

uncovered evidence of both HAVA and NVRA violations. The

Section ultimately settled the lawsuits with Maine, New

Jersey, and Philadelphia. In each settlement agreement, the

jurisdiction agreed to implement specific steps to satisfy

its list-maintenance obligations.

In August 2007, Voting Section Chief John Tanner initiated

a program to enforce Section 7 of the NVRA, requiring states

to provide voter registration opportunities in public

assistance and disability offices. Section attorneys reviewed

federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) data to identify

states that were not meeting Section 7's requirements and

discovered 18 states that reported registering 0 voters in

offices providing public assistance over the previous 2-year

period. Following further investigation, the Section entered

into settlement agreements with Arizona and Illinois to

resolve Section 7 violations.

In 2007 and 2008, Voting Section teams reviewed EAC data

and census information to identify states that might not be

in compliance with the NVRA'sSection 8(a)(4) list-maintenance

requirements. The teams identified states in which a

significant percentage of the counties or electoral

jurisdictions had more registered voters than voting-age

population. The teams recommended to Division leadership that

the Voting Section initiate investigations into the states

that failed to meet the relevant criterion. The states that

were the subject of these recommendations included some

states that historically have consistently favored one party

in presidential elections as well as political ``swing

states.'' The 2007 recommendation was approved and the

Section later issued requests for information to the relevant

states. Ultimately, however, no further enforcement action

was taken arising out of this effort. The investigations that

were proposed in late November 2008 were never approved by

either the outgoing or the incoming administrations.

C. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2009-2012

1. Division Leadership Declines To Act on Voting Section

Proposal for Section 8 Investigation

In February 2009, shortly after the new administration took

office, the Voting Section submitted a memorandum to Division

leadership requesting approval to initiate investigations

into the list-maintenance procedures of a State (``State

E''). According to the State E memorandum, voter-registration

data indicated that roughly 22 percent of State E's counties

had more registered voters than either the voting-age

population or the citizen voting-age population. The

memorandum stated that the Section had been alerted to State

E's potential list-maintenance failures in connection with an

unrelated Section 5 investigation. We were told that the

Section never received a response from Division leadership to

the proposal memorandum.

2. Drafting of NVRA Guidance

In the spring of 2009, a few months after the inauguration

of the new administration, the Department commenced an effort

to draft public guidance concerning the requirements of NVRA

Section 7. Samuel Hirsch, who joined the Department in March

2009 as a Deputy Associate Attorney General and led the NVRA

guidance effort, described the project as rewriting the NVRA

in plain terms and posting it on the CRT website to assist

those running state governmental offices in complying with

the NVRA's requirements. Hirsch told the OIG the original

scope of the NVRA guidance project was limited to Section 7

because the administration believed that Section 7 had been

somewhat ignored by state government officials. According to

Hirsch, there was a sense in the administration that NVRA

Section 8 and other provisions were working fairly well,

but that Section 7 ``was slipping through the cracks.''

DAAG Julie Fernandes and AAG Thomas Perez became involved

in the NVRA guidance project after they joined the Department

in July and October 2009, respectively. According to

Fernandes, she expressed concern to Hirsch that the project

was limited to Section 7 and proposed broadening the guidance

to include other NVRA provisions, such as Sections 5 and 8.

Perez also told the OIG that in early 2010 he instructed that

the guidance include a discussion of all NVRA provisions,

including the list-maintenance provisions. Hirsch told the

OIG that he did not oppose expanding the guidance to include

Section 8, but stated that he may have been opposed to

holding up the release of the Section 7 guidance while

preparing the Section 8 segment. The Division ultimately

posted guidance concerning NVRA Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 on

its website in June 2010.

3. Comments by DAAG Julie Fernandes Regarding NVRA

Enforcement at a November 2009 Section Meeting

DAAG Julie Fernandes told the OIG that she urged Voting

Section Chief Christopher Coates to hold section-wide

meetings shortly after she joined the Department in July

2009. As a result, the Voting Section held several brown-bag

lunches. In addition to the September meeting at which

Section 2 enforcement was discussed as outlined above,

another session devoted to NVRA matters was held on November

10, 2009.

At some point during the November meeting, the discussion

turned to the enforcement of the NVRA's voter list-

maintenance provision in Section 8. Witnesses who recalled

Fernandes's statements uniformly remembered that she said

something to the effect that she was more interested in

pursuing cases under NVRA Section 7 than Section 8 because

Section 8 does not expand voter access. Witnesses'

recollections of the context of Fernandes's statements, her

precise wording, and the meaning of her comments, however,

varied widely.

Thirteen witnesses told the OIG that Fernandes stated that

she ``did not care about'' or ``was not interested'' in

pursuing Section 8 cases, or similar formulations. For

instance, Chris Herren, who was later promoted by current

Division leadership to Section Chief, told the OIG that

Fernandes made a controversial and ``very provocative''

statement at this brown bag lunch. In particular, Herren

stated that Fernandes stated

something to the effect of ``[Section 8] does nothing to help

voters. We have no interest in that.'' Herren told the OIG

that he winced when he heard Fernandes's response because he

believed it would raise a controversy. Two other Section

attorneys took handwritten notes at the meeting, both of

which quoted Fernandes saying that she did not ``care'' about

Section 8.

Ten attorneys who attended the meeting told the OIG that

they interpreted Fernandes's comments to be a clear directive

that Division leadership would not approve Section 8 list-

maintenance cases in the future. One Section attorney told

the OIG that he understood Fernandes's statements to mean

that proposing a Section 8 case would be futile and that he

believed proposing Section 8 could be detrimental for the

attorneys.

Seven Voting Section attorneys told the OIG, however, that

they did not believe Fernandes said that the Division would

not enforce Section 8 of the NVRA. Among these were three

Deputy Chiefs who told the OIG that they believed Fernandes

meant that Section 7 cases would be prioritized over Section

8 matters, but that they did not construe her statement to

mean that Section 8 cases would not be approved. Those

attorneys who were generally identified as being more

conservative tended to recall that Fernandes took the more

extreme position, while those generally identified as being

more liberal tended to recall her statements as being more

limited.

Fernandes told the OIG that she did not recall exactly what

she said at the November brown bag lunch regarding

enforcement of Section 8 of the NVRA. She said that she and

the Section staff discussed the NVRA and what their approach,

goals, and strategy should be. She said that she talked about

how Division leadership is interested in creating equal

opportunity for minority voters. Fernandes further told the

OIG that she talked about wanting the Section to focus on

voter access, which would involve NVRA Sections 5, 7, and 8,

all of which are in the vein of ensuring that jurisdictions

have a fair and accessible process for all voters. She stated

that she recalled being asked about Section 8 and that her

response included something to the effect that Division

leadership's focus is on the provisions of the NVRA

pertaining to voter access.

With respect to the comments attributed to her that she did

not care about enforcing Section 8, Fernandes told the OIG

that she did not think she said the words ``don't care''

about enforcing Section 8 because that is not her position.

Fernandes denied saying that she or Division leadership had

no interest in pursuing Section 8 cases. Fernandes said that

she believed her comment about not caring was in the context

of how to determine what jurisdictions they should target for

enforcement, given that she believed there is widespread

noncompliance with the NVRA.

Fernandes noted that the list-maintenance provision of

Section 8 requires jurisdictions to employ reasonable, non-

discriminatory measures to ensure that people who are

eligible can vote and those who are ineligible cannot.

Therefore, Fernandes stated, she does not care whether a

jurisdiction's voter list is big, but rather whether it has a

list-maintenance program that does not work. She explained

that the fact that a jurisdiction's voter list is too big

means that the Section may want to inquire about the

jurisdiction's list-maintenance program, but that alone would

not justify bringing a lawsuit.

Roughly one year later, in September 2010, allegations

concerning Fernandes's comments at the brown bag lunch

regarding NVRA enforcement surfaced in news media. Fernandes

and other Division leadership personnel assisted other

Department officials in preparing talking points to address

the allegations and Fernandes stated in one of the relevant

e-mails: ``If we are o.k. with having priorities, we should

say that we have a priority on the enforcement of the NVRA,

with a focus on the parts of the statute that require states

to provide voter registration opportunities in a variety of

settings.''

4. Approval of List-Maintenance Investigations

In September 2009, the Section submitted a memorandum to

DAAG Fernandes requesting authority to initiate formal

investigations into the list-maintenance procedures of eight

states. The recommendation was based on the Section's review

of an EAC report that contained voting-related data from each

of the 50 states covering the period from November 2006 to

November 2008. A Deputy Section Chief supervised a team of

Section attorneys that reviewed the EAC report for anomalous

entries, particularly states that reported that throughout

the 2-year period they did not remove any voters from their

rolls due to death or that they had not issued any voter-

removal notices related to citizens who were believed to have

moved out of the state. The team identified eight states that

met one of those criteria, four of which reported removing

zero ineligible voters from their rolls over the 2-year

period for any reason, including death, change of address,

disqualifying criminal conviction, or mental incapacity.

The team presented the relevant data in its memorandum to

DAAG Fernandes and stated that the information suggested that

the eight states in question were not fulfilling their list-

maintenance obligations under Section 8. As a result, the

team recommended initiating formal investigations of the

states in question and directing inquiries to relevant state

officials.

Fernandes told the OIG that, after receiving the proposal

for the Section 8 investigations, she told Section Chief

Coates that he needed to ``hold off' because she was not

ready to decide whether this was the proper approach for NVRA

enforcement. Fernandes told the OIG that she believed the

Section's NVRA work when she became DAAG in July 2009 was

disorganized and that its process for evaluating NVRA matters

was ``random, unstrategic, [and] not very well thought-out.''

She said that Division leadership and Voting Section

management were therefore engaged in a process of identifying

what their NVRA enforcement strategy should be by reviewing

where the Section had focused its enforcement efforts in the

past, determining which areas had been neglected, and

developing an analytical model to bring NVRA cases.

According to Fernandes, she and Division leadership

believed that the NVRA enforcement efforts from January 2001

through January 2009 had focused on Section 8's list-

maintenance cases, largely to the exclusion of the voter-

registration provisions in Section 7, which she believed had

been underenforced and neglected. While we found no evidence

that she examined any data to support this belief, it was

consistent with what we found to be the prevailing belief

about the prior administration's efforts in this area.

Fernandes stated further that she believed the way to

``rectify this imbalance was to determine what Section 7

efforts were in process, whether they were being performed

correctly, and whether the Section should expand its Section

7 enforcement further. Fernandes stated that her supervisors

were pressuring her to move forward on Section 7 enforcement

and that she received a clear message that they viewed

enforcing Section 7 as a higher priority than Section 8. She

told the OIG that she believed she had to ``scratch the

Section 7 itch before turning to Section 8 matters and that

her supervisors would have criticized her if she had approved

Section 8 efforts first. She also noted that there was

significant criticism of the Department from civil rights

groups that their Section 7 enforcement efforts had been

inadequate, saying they had gotten--and continued to get--

``beat up all the time by [their] lefty friends not doing

enough on Section 7.''

This is a report from the DOJ's IG. It takes this many pages to tell the American voter that they are not going to enforce Federal law in ensuring that States actually provide and exercise the required voter list maintenance. This is an affront to election integrity in our great country, and it needs to end today.

Let's protect our democracy, and let's work together to make that happen.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding.

Madam Speaker, our most basic duty of the Federal Government should be protecting the right for our citizens to vote, but we are not doing everything we can to protect that. A disturbing trend across the country is that more and more States and localities are allowing noncitizens to vote. Furthermore, many States are conducting elections that rely on wildly outdated voter lists, many of which include these noncitizens.

In some States, such as California, the voter rolls are so outdated that they have more registered voters than people who reside in the State. This creates a potential for our citizens' votes to be diluted. LA County had over 1.5 million ineligible people on their voter rolls. A suit filed by a nonpartisan watch dog alleged that LA County had 112 percent of its adult citizens registered to vote.

Under pressure, California and LA County finally agreed to clean up their voter rolls in 2019. Unfortunately, when then-California Secretary of State Alex Padilla appeared before my committee in 2020, he could not confirm that many of those ineligible people had actually been removed from California's unmaintained voter rolls. I do not have a lot of faith that California is doing everything it can to protect the integrity of our elections.

And then there is New York City, which just decided to allow nearly a million noncitizens to vote in city elections. New York can make its own bad decisions, but it is our job to ensure that we protect Federal elections. Common sense will tell you that combining noncitizens and eligible American voters on the same voter rolls is ripe for abuse.

I will also use a final example from my home State of Illinois. In Illinois, noncitizens cannot vote, and if they do, they face major legal consequences and could be deported. But in 2016, Illinois' automatic voter registration program mistakenly registered to vote more than 500 noncitizens who had done the right thing by checking the box stating that they are not citizens on their driver's license application. However, several of these noncitizens voted in the 2018 and 2019 elections.

This does nothing to bolster voter confidence in our elections; in fact, it does the opposite.

Not only does this undermine the integrity of our elections, the mistake by Illinois could have had dire consequences for these individuals, and it could be prevented if States were being forced to maintain accurate voter rolls. Whether intentional or not, we know this is happening. It is undermining the integrity of our elections.

This amendment would simply ensure those who are noncitizens who do not have the right to vote in Federal elections are removed from States' voter rolls. As someone who has attended many citizenship ceremonies as a Member of Congress, it is unthinkable that we have States undermining what it means to be a citizen of this great country.

My office has helped many immigrants go through the legal process to become American citizens, and there is nothing better than seeing them raise their right hand and swear to support and defend our Constitution; to swear to bear arms in defense of this Nation; to swear allegiance to this great country.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing better than to think that their vote, something they worked hard to get, the right to vote on something that they worked hard to get the right to do is being undermined. That is unthinkable.

Let's pass this amendment to ensure only citizens are voting in our elections and prevent States from putting noncitizens at risk of intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law and illegally voting in our elections.

We will offer this solution as a motion to recommit. If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Oversight and Reform to consider an amendment to ensure States remove noncitizens from their voter rolls as part of a regular comprehensive list maintenance program.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 838, I call up the bill

(H.R. 5314) to protect our democracy by preventing abuses of presidential power, restoring checks and balances and accountability and transparency in government, and defending elections against foreign interference, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act. This sweeping package of reforms would restore integrity, accountability, and transparency to our government.

The landmark reforms in this bill would protect against future abuses, no matter who is President. This includes preventing abuses of the President's pardon power and requiring the President and Vice President to disclose their tax returns.

This bill includes many provisions that have bipartisan support. For example, the bill includes a provision based on a bill previously introduced by Representative Darrell Issa to make it easier for Congress to enforce subpoenas.

The bill would strengthen protections for inspectors general by only allowing an IG to be removed for specific documented causes. This reform passed the House with a bipartisan vote in June as part of a bill I introduced to increase the independence of inspectors general, and it passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2007.

This bill also includes the bipartisan Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act, which I was proud to introduce. These provisions would strengthen protections for whistleblowers who are retaliated against for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.

These reforms would provide whistleblowers the long overdue right to challenge retaliation in court. It would also prohibit agencies from launching retaliatory investigations and disclosing a whistleblower's identity; and it would make clear that no Federal employee, including the President or Vice President of the United States, may interfere with or retaliate against a whistleblower for sharing information with Congress.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act would also protect the government from political interference by strengthening the Hatch Act.

Just last month, the independent Office of Special Counsel found that 13 senior Trump administration officials, including top White House aides and Cabinet members, broke the law by using their official government position to campaign for President Trump.

This legislation would also limit who can be named an acting official and for how long. I thank Representative Katie Porter for her leadership on these reforms which are included in her bill, the Accountability for Acting Officials Act.

The reforms in this bill have broad support from over 150 groups, including the Brennan Center For Justice and the Project On Government Oversight.

My colleagues from across the aisle continue to claim that this bill is about punishing former President Trump, but this is simply not true.

While this bill addresses issues that were highlighted by past abuses, it is not about the past. It is about the future of our democracy, and it will strengthen our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the Protecting Our Democracy Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great Commonwealth of Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

I include in the Record a letter of support for the Protecting Our Democracy Act listing over 150 organizations supporting this important legislation. We have widespread support across this Nation.

October 6, 2021.

Over 150 Organizations Send Joint Letter Urging Congress To Pass the

Protecting Our Democracy Act

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations, on

behalf of the millions of Americans our groups collectively

represent, write to urge you to support and pass the

Protecting Our Democracy Act.

For decades, congressional authority has been undermined by

the executive branch, diminishing the ability of Congress to

fulfill its constitutional duties, to protect the rule of

law, and to hold all presidents accountable for overreaches

and abuses of power. The last time Congress passed

significant reform to protect our democracy from abuses of

executive power was after the Watergate scandal. The time has

come for new guardrails to reassert Congress' role as a

coequal branch of government.

Today, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both

chambers have an interest in restoring the checks and

balances entrusted to them in our Constitution. The

Protecting Our Democracy Act would do just that by restoring

the powers the Founders vested in the legislative branch to

serve as a check on the executive without infringing upon the

president's constitutional powers.

Among other reforms, this historic bill would:

Strengthen Congress's ability to oversee the executive

branch by fortifying congressional subpoena power by

providing expedited consideration of subpoena enforcement by

courts, so the executive branch cannot run out the clock on

congressional oversight;

Ensure inspectors general are qualified and empowered to

hold federal agencies accountable without fear of reprisal by

requiring the

president to have ``good cause'' for removing an inspector

general and enhancing reporting requirements when there is a

vacancy;

Ensure whistleblowers can continue shining light on

corruption and abuses of power that betray the public trust

by enhancing protections against retaliation, providing legal

defenses for whistleblowers against civil and criminal

liability, and allowing whistleblowers to have their day in

court;

Reinforce Congress's constitutional powers over spending

and the power of the purse by requiring the Office of

Management and Budget to make public basic information about

the management of federal funds, and reporting to Congress to

ensure those funds are spent in accordance with the law;

Prevent political interference with the U.S. Department of

Justice by putting a permanent, statutory requirement in

place that will ensure transparency and accountability

related to their communications with the White House;

Strengthen the Hatch Act to protect federal agencies from

being used for political purposes and ensure senior political

appointees are held accountable under the law the same way

other federal employees are.

Prevent abuse of the president's pardon power by increasing

transparency of the pardon process, prohibiting self-pardons

by the president, and clarifying that pardons are ``official

acts'' for the purposes of federal bribery statute;

Provide for enforcement of the domestic and foreign

Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, to prevent a

president from profiting from payments by foreign or domestic

governments; and

Secure our elections from foreign interference, by ensuring

political campaigns are informed of the laws banning foreign

interference and are prepared to comply and report any

attempts of foreign interference.

In this perilous moment for our republic, we believe it

should be a top priority for this Congress to repair our

democracy, including ensuring that no future president is

permitted to abuse the power of their office.

If enacted, the Protecting Our Democracy Act would protect

against future presidential abuses of power, restore the

integrity of our democratic institutions, and ensure

transparency from the chief executive.

Given the urgency of this crisis and for these reasons, we

call on you to swiftly pass this critical legislation.

Sincerely,

20/20 Vision, Academics Stand Against Poverty,

Accountability Lab, Affiliation of Christian Engineers,

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Oversight,

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Animals

Are Sentient Beings, Inc., Arab American Institute (AAI),

Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor alliance,

AFL-CIO, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Beyond Pesticides,

Blacks in Law Enforcement of America, Blue Wave Postcard

Movement, Brave New Films, Brennan Center for Justice.

Campaign Legal Center, Center for American Progress, Center

for Common Ground, Center for International Environmental

Law, Center for International Policy, Center for Media and

Democracy, Center for Progressive Reform, Citizens for

Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Clean Elections

Texas, Coalition of Labor Union Women, AFL-CIO, Columbia

Legal Services, Common Cause, Communications Workers of

America, Community Research, Community Science Institute,

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Constitutional

Alliance, Consumer Action, Corruption kills, Council for a

Livable World, CovertAction Magazine.

Demand Progress, DemCast USA, Democracy 21, Democracy Fund

Voice, Democracy Matters, Demos, Disaster Accountability

Project, Eco-Justice Collaborative, End Citizens United//Let

America Vote Action Fund, Equal Justice Society, Equal Rights

Advocates, Essential Information, Faith in Public Life, Fix

Democracy First, Fix the Court, Food & Water Watch,

Franciscan Action Network, Free Speech Coalition, Inc., Free

Speech For People.

Geos Institute, Global Integrity, Government Accountability

Project, Government Information Watch, Green Delaware,

Greenpeace USA, Hanford Challenge, Heart of America NW, Hip

Hop Caucus, Human Environmental and Leadership Prevalent

Center (HELP Center), Indivisible, Information Trust,

Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection,

Georgetown Law, International Association of Whistleblowers,

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa Institute for

Public Accountability, Keep Our Republic, Kentucky

Environmental Foundation, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), League of

Women Voters of the United States, Mainers for Accountable

Leadership, Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections,

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, MoneyOutVA, Mormon Women for

Ethical Government, MoveOn, Muslim American Law Enforcement

Association (MALEA), National Center for Health Research,

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, National

Education Association, National Employment Law Project,

National Organization for Women, National Security

Counselors, National Voter Corps, National Whistleblower

Center/Whistleblower Network News, National Workrights

Institute, Network for Environmental & Economic

Responsibility of United Church of Christ, NETWORK Lobby for

Catholic Social Justice.

New American Leaders Action Fund, New Moral Majority,

Niskanen Center, No More Guantanamos, Northwest Immigrant

Rights Project, Open The Government, Our Bodies Ourselves,

Pax Christi USA, People For the American Way, People's Parity

Project, PRESS4WORD2020, Professional Managers Association,

Project Blueprint, Project On Government Oversight (POGO),

Protect All Children's Environment, Protect Democracy, Public

Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,

Public Justice Center.

Republicans for the Rule of Law, Rock the Vote,

RootsAction.org, S.T.O.P.--The Surveillance Technology

Oversight Project, Secure Elections Network, Senior

Executives Association, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change,

Sierra Club, SocioEnergetics Foundation, Sojourners, Stand Up

America, Stand Up Republic, Strategies for Justice, BWMP LLC,

Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, T'ruah: The Rabbinic

Call for Human Rights, The Digital Democracy Project, The

Ecotopian Society, The National Air Disaster Foundation, The

National Vote, The Press Freedom Defense Fund of First Look

Institute.

The Rutherford Institute, The Shalom Center, The Signals

Network, The Workers Circle, Transparency International--U.S.

Office, Truckers Justice Center, Tully Center for Free

Speech, Un-PAC, Union of Concerned Scientists, Unitarian

Universalists for Social Justice, UNITED SIKHS, Voices for

Progress, Vote Vets, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights and Urban Affairs, Washington Office on Latin America

(WOLA), WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Whistleblowers of America,

Win Without War, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND),

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom US,

Workplace Fairness, Worksafe, X-Lab.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chair of the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Natural Resources and Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), the distinguished vice chair of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. We came to Congress together, and I thank her for her outstanding leadership in this body and her beautiful statement today.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my very good friend and colleague, Mr. Comer, that President Trump is no longer President. This bill is not about President Trump. If anyone, it is about President Biden and our future Presidents and having more oversight, accountability, and transparency.

Now, addressed in this bill are past abuses that have occurred. This is not about the past; it is about the future. It is about the future of our democracy and the strength of our democracy.

Democrats are not standing alone. The reforms in this bill have broad support from over 150 outstanding groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice, the Project On Government Oversight, and many others. I have included that list in the Record.

Madam Speaker, the Protecting Our Democracy Act is a historic package of prodemocracy reforms to create or strengthen guardrails and prevent the abuse of executive power. Many of the provisions in our bill have broad bipartisan support and have literally been authored by Republicans.

You yourself at the Rules Committee said that the President should release his taxes. You said that.

These are issues that both sides of the aisle should be supporting. It is time for Congress to restore our authorities as a coequal branch of power.

Madam Speaker, this is about the future, the strengthening of our democracy, and I urge strong support from all of my colleagues. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in strengthening democracy and urge them to vote with Republicans for this very important reform bill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 838, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, several amendments offered would increase transparency of White House operations and personnel.

The amendment offered by Congressman Mike Quigley would require the President to publicly release White House visitor logs with certain exceptions.

The amendment offered by Congressman David Cicilline would require the White House to publicly release salary information and financial disclosure statements for White House employees.

The amendment offered by Congressman Bill Pascrell would further strengthen the Hatch Act by increasing penalties for employees who knowingly break the law and use their position for partisan political activity. This amendment would also allow the Office of Special Counsel to continue investigations into former political employees after they leave Federal office.

The amendment offered by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would direct the Office of Government Ethics to establish ethics requirements on the establishment or use of legal expense funds for the President, Vice President, or any political appointee.

The amendment offered by Congressman Gerry Connolly would protect the civil service by preventing any position in the Federal competitive service from being reclassified outside of merit system principles. Employment in the Federal workforce should be based on an individual's knowledge, skills, and abilities, not political connections.

This package of amendments will bring accountability and transparency to our government. These reforms are critical for preserving and strengthening our democratic institutions.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this package of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Correa), who is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, and Accountability.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who is the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of North Carolina (Ms. Adams). Dr. Alma Adams is the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), the distinguished vice chair of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished and effective Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments contained in this package will help ensure that the executive branch is accountable to the American people. This package includes amendments that were offered by both Democrats and Republicans.

These amendments bolster the many reforms in the Protecting Our Democracy Act that will protect against future abuses by the executive branch. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this package of amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 838, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to these amendments.

Together, these amendments would gut the bill and strike everything in this important package of reforms.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act would make the government more transparent and accountable to the American people.

Provisions in this bill have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. For example, my Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act in Title VII is a bipartisan bill. Many of the reforms in this bill stem from efforts by prior administrations of both parties to enhance executive power.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress should unite in reasserting congressional authority.

Representative Burgess' amendment would strike important reforms in the bill which would ensure that Presidents and Vice Presidents can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like every other American.

Representative Comer's amendment would strike every section of the bill, including reforms to strengthen whistleblower laws that encourage Federal employees to report government waste, fraud, and abuse.

The amendment would strike protections against Federal agencies' misuse of government funds. The amendment would strike the provision in the bill that would require the President and Vice President to disclose their tax returns.

The sponsor of this amendment, Representative Comer, said at the Rules Committee recently, just 2 days ago, that he supports that very reform. Yet, his amendment would remove it from the bill.

These amendments are not a serious attempt at addressing the protections in this bill. They are simply a messaging tool that will gut the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

My colleagues from across the aisle continue to claim that this bill is about punishing former President Trump. But Joe Biden is our President now, and these bold, good-government reforms will impact his administration as well as future Presidents of both parties.

It is not about the past. It is about the future and the strengthening of our democracy. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this package of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for closing.

The underlying bill is about the future, the future of our democracy. It is about strengthening our democracy. These amendments would gut the underlying bill, the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

I support the bill, because it includes reforms, such as curbing the abuse of the pardon power, increasing penalties for political appointees who violate the Hatch Act, strengthening whistleblower protections and IG protections, and it would require the President and Vice President to reveal their taxes, among other reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this package of amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment and thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio- Cortez) for her leadership in offering it. This amendment would clarify the Government Accountability Office's authority to investigate the intelligence community.

As Congress' watchdog, GAO helps to improve Federal Government performance and ensure accountability for the American people. GAO has the tools and expertise to ensure that classified information is treated with appropriate care and confidentiality. They have been doing that for decades.

For example, as part of its audit work, GAO is authorized to examine highly sensitive tax return information. Strict protocols are followed to protect that information while still enabling GAO to carry out its important legislative and oversight responsibilities.

This amendment includes important safeguards to balance the protection of sensitive information with the need for oversight of the intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill the majority has titled the Protecting Our Democracy Act does nothing to protect anything but the swamp.

Right now, the American people are trying to prepare for the holidays with the highest inflation rate in 30 years. They are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, put food on the table, and heat their homes. They are worried about rising crime in their communities. They are concerned their children have suffered while their classrooms were closed but the borders are wide open to illegal immigrants and deadly drugs.

Democrats are ignoring these real issues facing Americans today. Instead, Democrats want to talk about former President Trump, even though a Democrat has occupied the White House for nearly a year. This is not what the American people want for Christmas.

The Democrats' playbook is about as predictable as a Hallmark Christmas special. We have all seen this movie.

The bill before us today is based on political fiction, and it is the latest attempt to resurrect Democrats' sham investigations of the past.

This bill unconstitutionally disrupts the separation of powers among the branches of government by diminishing the executive branch and ignoring the judicial branch.

For example, the legislation interferes with the President's pardon power, a power completely vested with the President. But this bill gives Congress access to sensitive White House deliberations and communications about pardons. What legislative purpose does that serve?

Congress has no authority to evaluate the President's pardon power. This bill also overrides the judicial branch by attaching partisan definitions to constitutional language that the Supreme Court has already spoken to. It would change the definition of an emolument to fit failed Democrat legal theories and indulge certain Members' false conspiracy theories--Members like, I don't know, Madam Speaker, Adam Schiff.

Rewriting this technical constitutional term would keep any businessperson who has conducted business outside the U.S. from running for President. That would mean no Hunter Biden at the top of the ticket in 2024.

Democrats appear to think the skill set for running a business would not be helpful to the Federal Government. Maybe that is why Democrats' only solution to any problem is to throw American taxpayer dollars at it and not to engage in serious government reform efforts.

Democrats only want career politicians--or even better, career bureaucrats--to be able to serve as elected officials. Similarly, Democrats are determined to make the Federal Government run as inefficiently as possible by allowing incompetent or dishonest Federal employees to keep their jobs.

The so-called whistleblower protections in the bill are so expansive that if a Federal employee, even a bad or ineffective one, claims they are a whistleblower, they are almost immune from scrutiny.

The Committee on Oversight and Reform has great respect for whistleblowers. We need them to conduct true oversight. They serve an essential role in evaluating waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. But sometimes Federal employees attempt to claim they are whistleblowers to shield themselves from scrutiny for poor performance. We should not make it impossible to vet whistleblowers' claims and their work.

Further, the policy in the Democrats' bill to entrench inspectors general is another policy that reduces the efficiency of the Federal Government and another example of the legislative branch intruding on the operations of the executive branch.

Madam Speaker, it is Christmastime. Instead of fixing the many problems created by President Biden, like the supply chain, energy, border, and economic crises, Democrats have decided to take up a sham bill and deliver a lump of coal to the American people.

Instead of spending time on Democrats' favorite obsession, President Trump, we should instead take on the issues facing Americans today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I was hoping the chairman of the Intelligence Committee was going to present the evidence of Russian collusion during his time, but apparently not.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the ranking member of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

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

It is disappointing that my friend from Virginia would spew disinformation about what States are doing. Every State is making it easier to vote but harder to cheat, and he knows that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

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

Madam Speaker, wow, I heard Donald Trump's name mentioned at least a dozen times by my colleagues across the aisle. I am sincerely glad that the Democrats spent so much time investigating the President for wrongdoing. I am glad that they issued subpoenas investigating the President for wrongdoing. I am very happy that, in all the investigations conducted by the Intelligence Committee and Oversight and Reform Committee, they did not find one ounce of wrongdoing committed by President Trump.

I am also happy that they investigated President Trump's children. I think that is fair game. I can promise the American people that very soon there will be that type of oversight for the Biden administration and the President's son, Hunter, who is in the news almost on a daily basis for things that just don't add up. They just don't look good. That oversight is coming. The American people can count on that.

Madam Speaker, after nearly a year in power, it is time for Democrats to actually start governing and abandon their obsession with Donald Trump.

H.R. 5314 is full of bad policy that diminishes the power of the executive branch and entrenches Washington bureaucrats making law based on false conspiracy theories of the bill's sponsor.

The bill has not proceeded through regular order and is a Frankenstein's monster stitched together from various committees' jurisdictions, while other whole portions have never undergone committee review at all.

There has been no attempt to seriously vet these substantial changes,

minimal cooperation with the minority, and no apparent path for the bill in the Senate.

In other words, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5314 is a messaging bill to bolster the fundraising efforts of Democrat Members in preparation for the 2022 midterms. The Democratic Party should try governing instead.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and oppose this reckless legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendments en bloc.

This protecting the swamp act is full of bad policy and disregards regular order. H.R. 5314 is designed purely for Democrats to talk about all of their failed conspiracy theories about the former President. In fact, this bill looks more like a fundraising campaign than an effort to provide legislative solutions.

My Democratic colleagues should be working with Republicans to address and solve the problems President Biden and his administration have created for the American people, not pushing through hyperpartisan legislation.

While this en bloc package of amendments has several legitimate, good ideas, there are too many that make this bad bill worse. While commonsense proposals such as strengthening minority rights for Oversight and Reform Committee members, Freedom of Information Act reform, and an inspector general for the Office of Management and Budget are perfectly reasonable solutions for the House to consider, most of the amendments in this bloc make a very bad bill much worse.

Overall, these amendments entrench and slow down the Federal bureaucracy, intrude on the executive branch's powers, and strip a duly elected President of the ability to effectively manage the executive branch.

I am not sure if Democrats' distrust of the executive branch is because of their hatred for the former President or their lack of faith in the current President. Either way, Republicans should not support attempts to degrade the Office of the President.

The few good amendments in this bloc proposed by Republicans are simply drowned out by bad policy. If Democrats were serious about engaging with Republicans, then they should have worked with us through the normal legislative process during which we could have effectively vetted these measures in the committees of jurisdiction.

Americans are struggling with the highest inflation in 30 years, worried about the safety of their communities, and eager to get their children back to school. The majority is flatly ignoring the American people to instead talk about former President Trump. These amendments offered by Democrats in this package only move this bill further away from addressing the immediate concerns of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, they say this bill is not about President Trump, but every speaker mentioned President Trump multiple times.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. C. Scott Franklin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendments en bloc.

In this package is my amendment, the IG Stability Act, which clearly shows where we should be able to come together and pass bipartisan inspector general reforms.

Inspectors general play a critical role in rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Government. They help Congress, and especially the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in conducting oversight of executive branch offices and Federal agencies.

Yet, just like in every profession, occasionally there have been either poor performers or those who have acted outside their mandates. With respect to poor performers, we had, in my opinion, a very poor performing Election Assistance Commission IG, and she resigned after we started calling for her to do her job. In those situations, the President should have the flexibility to remove an inspector general.

The Democrats' proposal would dramatically limit the President's authority to remove an inspector general for dereliction of duty or undermining the policies of a duly elected President.

My amendment mirrors bipartisan language in the Senate which requires a detailed rationale to be provided to Congress prior to the removal of an IG. This ensures Congress has adequate oversight of the removal of an IG without preventing a President from removing an IG who is undermining them.

Further, my amendment would help remedy the ongoing concern about IG vacancies, which has been a recurring problem in Republican and Democrat administrations. My amendment requires the President to notify Congress if they fail to fill a vacancy and provide a written explanation with a target date for nomination.

This amendment ensures that the IG community is adequately staffed to conduct nonpartisan oversight over Federal agencies.

This provision has already passed the House this year as part of the bipartisan Inspector General Protection Act, H.R. 23. Yet, the Democrats are now putting this commonsense, bipartisan amendment in an en bloc designed to fail. Why? They are not interested in real reform; they are just interested in messaging, messaging campaigns for the 2022 midterm elections, which by all accounts aren't looking very bright for my friends across the aisle.

This amendment and Mr. Burgess' amendment should be accepted, not shoved aside. I encourage support of

this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, they say it is not about Donald Trump, but every speaker on that side of the aisle spent a significant percentage of their time talking about Donald Trump.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the GAO plays an important role in the legislative branch, but with matters of national security, we must ensure protocols are followed to prevent unauthorized disclosures of national security information. With this amendment, it is unclear whether those protocols are being met, creating a potential national security risk.

Further, the House Intelligence Committee already has the authority to task GAO, when necessary and appropriate, to conduct reviews of the intelligence community and to ensure GAO receives appropriate information from the intelligence community. The House Intelligence Committee has done this several times in the past, making this amendment moot.

Again, this is why we needed to go through regular order on the various bills stitched together in the underlying bill. The committees need to have an opportunity to vet bills, including amendments such as these, before they come to the floor of the House. That is how we ensure good bills are passed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, every time Chairman Schiff rises to speak on a bill about intelligence and security and holding the President accountable, I get excited, hoping that we are going to hear about that evidence of collusion and all the other investigations that were conducted in this House over the past year.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I think everyone is aware of every bit of information that you all have tried to peddle over the past 4 years.

I think we see every day. Facebook just announced that Russia was trying to do a Facebook campaign in Ukraine, if I remember reading that correctly.

Mr. Schiff, would you yield to a question from me?

Would you yield to a question?

I think it is great. Are you aware of President Biden's son Hunter's art dealings?

Are you aware of the President's son's dealings in Congo with the cobalt mine? Are you aware of the dealings in Ukraine?

I think that everyone has seen all the information, again, that you all have peddled. I am curious if you would like to take a wager on which President's child, which President's son, at the end of the day, once we have the gavel, will be the greatest security risk to our Nation, Hunter Biden or--

I reclaim my time. They spent a lot of time, a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of tax dollars on trying to peddle a lot of wrongdoing in the previous administration.

This bill is all about the previous administration. Every speaker on their side of the aisle has mentioned Donald Trump's name numerous times, every speaker. It is time for the majority party to focus on governing and get over their obsession with Donald Trump.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

Transparency and accountability are the bedrock of our democratic system. They are the essential guardrails that protect against unchecked executive power. Unfortunately, the Trump administration exposed certain vulnerabilities in the fabric of our democracy by engaging in conduct that was once unthinkable, and like the reforms enacted post-Watergate, we must now act to prevent similar abuses from a future President.

Although many of these provisions were informed by our experience with the prior administration, they are pointedly not anti-Trump measures. Rather, they are forward looking, and they protect against the abuses by future Presidents of any party. Importantly, many of them are also based on proposals that have bipartisan support.

I am especially proud of the provisions in this bill that fall within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction.

These include requiring an expedited, streamlined process for enforcing Congressional subpoenas in court. This would prevent an administration from stonewalling Congressional oversight and then evading accountability for years while the courts resolve the issue.

To address abuses of the clemency power, the bill requires additional transparency, and it reaffirms that abuses of the clemency power can form the basis of a bribery scheme and that self-pardons are prohibited.

It pauses the statute of limitations on Federal offenses during a President and Vice President's term in office to ensure that they can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like any other American.

And it addresses improper communications between the White House and the Department of Justice, an all too common occurrence under the last administration.

Madam Speaker, when the Nation's Founders wrote the Constitution, after having just fought a war against a tyrant, they stood fast to a key principle, that the executive must not be a king and must instead be accountable to Congress, to the people, and ultimately, to the rule of law. It is vital that we reassert this important principle.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act would restore these and other checks and balances that are so fundamental to our democracy.

I urge all Members to support this vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this en bloc amendment, and particularly to the Burgess amendment.

The Burgess amendment would strike one of the most important provisions in the bill, one that ensures that a sitting President or Vice President can be held accountable for their actions, just like every other American.

This provision is necessary in order to close a dangerous loophole in the law created by DOJ policy, most recently embodied in the legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, which holds that a President cannot be criminally prosecuted during his or her term in office.

Under current law, throughout the entire period that a President is presumed by some to be immune from prosecution, the statute of limitations continues to run on any offenses he or she may have committed. Since most Federal criminal offenses carry a 5-year statute of limitations, a President who is not prosecuted while in office for a crime he or she may have committed could end up evading justice altogether if the statute of limitations runs out before their term is over, particularly if they are elected to a second term.

Allowing complete immunity from criminal prosecution merely because of the office a person holds would make a mockery of the rule of law. It is a maxim of our system of justice that no man is immune from the law, that no man can be a judge in his own case.

Statutes of limitations are an important element of criminal law. As a general matter, they provide a necessary balance between protecting defendants from delay and allowing prosecutors adequate time to investigate and charge cases. But the law has also long recognized that certain limited exceptions to this general rule are necessary. The case of a sitting President, whose prosecution is barred under Justice Department policy, fits comfortably among such exceptions.

It is necessary, therefore, to simply pause the statute of limitations to ensure that the Presidency is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. We must not strike this essential provision, because every person, no matter his or her title or office, must be held accountable under our laws.

I urge strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention one other thing. We have heard our friends across the aisle talk about Donald Trump, and they say that former President Trump did nothing wrong. Democrats, by and large, say he did a lot of things wrong. But that is irrelevant to this debate.

This bill has nothing to do with President Trump any more than the post-Watergate reforms had to do with Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon's conduct taught us certain lessons, and Donald Trump's conduct taught us certain lessons. The legislation before us is the result of those lessons.

Mr. Speaker, those lessons are for us to use to protect the future. That is what this legislation is about, to protect the future from a President, of any party, who may violate the law, who may aggrandize power. That is what this is about: the future, not the past.

So when I hear our Republican friends talk about Donald Trump and talk about how he wasn't convicted, et cetera, it is irrelevant. We are talking about the future, not the past. For the future, it is necessary to pass this bill, and for the future, it is necessary to defeat this en bloc amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I congratulate her on her great leadership chairing an important committee of the House, and thank her for bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Adam Schiff for his leadership in putting this legislation together, and I will get to that in a moment.

But first, I just want to say how proud we are today. Every day that we serve in this House, a House of the people, is a privilege. No matter what honors others may bestow on us in this House, whether we are Speaker, or leader, or whip, or whatever, nothing, no honor is greater than to be able to step on the floor and say that we speak for the people of our district; that they have chosen us to come here, as was intended by our Founders.

Mr. Speaker, 245 years ago, in an act of daring that would redefine the world, our Founders--imagine the courage they had--declared their independence from an oppressive monarch. They said: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' The pursuit of happiness was written into the founding document.

And they continued:

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of

these ends, it is the people's duty to throw off such

government, to provide new guards for their future security.

They were speaking about England.

Our Founders would then forge those guards for our own government, the democratic institutions enshrined in the Constitution which, for nearly 2-1/2 centuries, have safeguarded the security and well-being of the American people.

But, disturbingly, the last administration saw our democracy in crisis, with a rogue President who trampled over the guardrails protecting our Republic.

Now, Congress has the solemn responsibility and opportunity to safeguard our democracy, ensuring that past abuses can never be perpetrated by any President, of any party.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act ensures the strength and survival of a democracy of, by, and for the people, defending the rule of law, revitalizing our system of checks and balances, and restoring our democratic institutions.

Thank you to Chairman Adam Schiff and the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction, Judiciary being one of those, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, another, and many cosponsors for their leadership on this transformative package of democracy reforms which will put in place essential safeguards to prevent any President from abusing the public trust, no matter what his or her party is.

This legislative package is sweeping and future-focused, looking to the future, designed to restate the rule of law now and for generations to come.

Our chairs have crafted a robust reforms package that can stand up to and prevent attempts to undermine our democracy including: The abuse of pardon power, abuse of office for personal enrichment, the solicitation of foreign assistance in our elections, retaliatory attacks on whistleblowers and inspectors general, politicization of the tools of justice, and contempt of Congress' oversight powers on behalf of the American people, including our lawful subpoena power and the power of the purse.

These steps ensure that no one, not even a President, is above the law.

During the Constitutional Convention, one of our Founders, George Mason, asked: ``Shall any man be above justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice?''

In his great wisdom, George Mason knew that the injustice committed by the President erodes the rule of law, the very notion, the idea of fair justice, which is the bedrock of our democracy. And if we allow a President to be above the law, we surely do so to the peril of our Republic.

Addressing Presidential abuse, therefore, goes to the very heart, the very survival of our democracy. We are a democracy; three coequal branches government, each a check and balance on the other that cannot be undermined. Otherwise, we are a monarchy, and that is what we chose not to be.

Let me close by recalling another scene from that Constitutional Convention. On its final day, as our Constitution was adopted, Benjamin Franklin was greeted by folks as he descended the steps from Independence Hall. People know this story. Children in school learn it.

The people asked, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy? Benjamin Franklin responded, ``A republic, if you can keep it.''

This was the vision of our Founders, and we are grateful to them for it. This is what our men and women in uniform defend, freedom, our democracy, and we are grateful to them for it.

This is what we owe our children as we go forward, to meet their aspirations to live in the United States of America, with liberty and justice for all. And we are responsible it.

May we be worthy of the vision of our Founders, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, and the aspirations of our children.

The Congress--as Article I, the first branch of government--will uphold our solemn duty to keep our Republic by passing the bill, for the people.

I say this with great appreciation to all who worked so hard to put this together. I support this bipartisan amendment that is on the floor right now, and I thank those who worked together in a bipartisan way to put that forward, and I hope that we can have a successful day for the people, again, honoring our Founders, our men and women in uniform, and for the children.