Presidential Election Reform Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1372 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1372, providing for consideration of H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, as well as one motion to recommit.

This bipartisan legislation, brought forward by Ms. Lofgren and Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, is the product of more than 2 years of work by the Committee on House Administration and more than a year and a half of deliberations and investigation by the January 6th Select Committee.

The electoral college, of course, has been with us from the beginning of the Republic. In a sense, this is legislation America has been working on since 1887, for the last 135 years, because that was the last time that Congress legislated to try to lend statutory coherence and legislative direction to the provisions of the Constitution governing the electoral college.

The electoral college, as you know, Madam Speaker, is a Byzantine, complex, and multifaceted institution, but it is clear, in the wake of the debacle of January 6, 2021, that we must modernize it, update it, and make it work as well as possible for as long as we have it.

That is why both supporters of the electoral college system and those who would replace it with a national popular vote for President, and that is a camp I am in, a camp that represents around two-thirds of the American people, are strongly supporting this legislation and should be supporting this legislation in order to clarify the mechanisms of our Presidential election process.

First of all, this legislation reaffirms that the Vice President's role at the count of the electoral college electors on January 6 is a ministerial role and does not include any substantive authority to count or reject or dismiss or nullify or vaporize electoral college votes sent in by the States, nor does the Vice President have any independent, substantive power to halt or delay the joint session or to return electoral college votes to the States.

We believe there was never any ambiguity about that. Former President Trump was told there was no ambiguity about it by his own Vice President, by his White House counsel, by the Attorney General of the United States, yet insisted that there was some kind of ambiguity and wiggle room for the Vice President to step outside of his assigned constitutional role and simply declare the electoral college votes of certain States, including Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, null and void and return them to the legislatures of those States for some undefined further action.

All of that is clearly outside the history of the electoral college and what is contemplated constitutionally. We clarify that in this legislation.

Moreover, the current provisions in the Electoral Count Act governing objections brought forward to the receipt of electoral college votes from particular States would be changed in this legislation.

Under the current rules, all it takes is a Member of the House and a Member of the Senate to bring an objection

to the receipt of electoral college votes from a State. That would be changed to a requirement, under this act, of one-third of the House and one-third of the Senate together raising an objection, obviously meaning that this could not be done for purely fanciful purposes. There would have to be a substantial body of Members in both Chambers who agree that there is a serious objection being made.

By the way, the Senate proposal differs slightly in that they are suggesting a one-fifth requirement on both sides as opposed to the one- third requirement that is being advanced in this legislation.

Furthermore, the rules in this statute define explicitly the constitutional grounds upon which an objection to electoral college votes can be made. These objections are limited to a very narrow set of discrete issues that are grounded in the constitutional text of the 12th Amendment or other parts of the Constitution, such as whether an elector has voted for two candidates from the elector's own State, which is clearly in violation of the 12th Amendment.

The rules also clarify the denominator, or the method of calculating the whole number of electors that have been cast for the purpose of winning a Presidential election.

Our counting rules would also clarify the applicable parliamentary procedure at the count, ensuring that strategic bad faith actors are unable to exploit procedural loopholes in an effort to delay or subvert the count.

Confusion has plagued electoral counts in Congress at different points in our history, almost since the beginning of the Republic. We are confident that under this bill, future counts will be far more orderly and ministerial in nature, even during controversial elections, and will act simply to certify the choice of the American people as expressed through the State elections, which is the full extent of Congress' counting role under the Constitution.

We want to make sure that Congress does not pretend to arrogate to itself the power to decide who is going to be the President. The role of Congress is simply to count the electoral college votes that have come in. Maybe if I get a moment later, I can get into a little more specificity about the grounds for objection.

There is also clarification of when a State's Presidential election can be extended in case of a truly catastrophic event. Today's Federal law allows a State legislature to appoint electors by itself if a State has had a failure to elect at its November election. That very vague provision is dangerous, dangerously unclear, and it was targeted by former President Trump's supporters in 2020.

Our legislation provides, instead, that voting in a State's Presidential election can only be extended if a State experiences a genuinely catastrophic event, which we define specifically with respect to natural disasters and terrorist attacks and like calamities. The event must also be widespread enough to potentially affect the outcome of the State's election. All of this is mediated judicially by appearance before a Federal court. Any extension may only cover the area that was directly affected by the event, and any extension cannot last longer than 5 days after election day.

We know that a provision like this is, unfortunately, necessary. The September 11 terror attacks on America occurred on primary election day in New York City, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012 very nearly derailed New York and New Jersey's Presidential elections that year. We are confident that our bill ensures that Federal law will account for unforeseen emergencies in future Presidential elections.

There are other provisions that I hope to get into in a little more detail, but I close, Madam Speaker, just by saying that this is an absolutely necessary and urgent update of the Electoral Count Act, which hasn't been touched since 1887.

We saw in January 2021 how some of the imperfections in the current process can be exploited by actors who are determined to derail the electoral college counting process or, indeed, overthrow the whole election. We want to do whatever we can, within the confines of the electoral college system, in this legislation to improve the situation and to prepare for the next Presidential election.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear my friend offer those comments. I am afraid I don't really understand his objection to this legislation. He says we are trying to ram this through. After 135 years of doing nothing about the Electoral Count Act, I guess you have to be a true conservative to see 135 years as moving too quickly in reforming the provisions of this very opaque, and in places, vague and inscrutable language.

But in any event, the gentleman from Pennsylvania argues there have been times that Members of both parties have raised objections in the past. That is absolutely right. Both Republicans and Democrats have made objections on the floor in the past. Obviously, none of the objections attributed to those on our side had anything to do with a violent assault on the institutions of the country or an attempt to get the Vice President to step outside of his constitutional role, or other efforts to conduct what has been called a political coup in the country.

In any event, the gentleman is correct that there have been a lot of objections raised. If that is your problem, then you should be absolutely supporting this legislation because we are proposing to go from a situation where any single Member can raise an objection if he or she can get a Senator to join them, to a situation where you need a third of the entire House of Representatives and a third of the entire U.S. Senate before an objection can be raised. The objections can be raised only according to very specific constitutional criteria. They have to be grounded in the text of the Constitution.

For example, if a State has not been admitted yet, and yet is purporting to offer electors, that would be grounds for rejecting it and for adjusting the denominator. If there are attempts by electors to vote for two people from the same State, which is clearly in violation of the 12th Amendment, then that would be rejected.

Right now, anybody can object for any reason he or she wants. There were people in 2021 who were running around talking about precinct problems in particular States or claims of votes appearing in the middle of the night.

Now, there was nothing to any of those. More than 60 Federal and State courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption. But in any event, that is not the job of the House of Representatives to be out trying to police the counting of ballots in Pennsylvania or Arizona or Georgia, or any other State.

All we are supposed to do is take the certificate of ascertainment that is provided by the Governor based on the State legislature's determination of what the vote is in the casting of the electors from the State. So once that certificate of ascertainment comes in, our job is to accept it.

Now, if someone tries to not comply with what the will of the State really was--say, if a Governor says I disagree with how the people voted, I am not going to turn it in--then that person can be taken to court by one of the Presidential candidates, or both, or all of the Presidential candidates, and can be ordered to comply with the political will of the people of the State. If the Governor still refuses to do it, then the Court is empowered to give it to another appropriate official like the Secretary of State, who would then have the authority to file the certificate of ascertainment with the Congress of the United States and with the archivist.

So what we are trying to do is take, shall we say, an antique kind of instrument, the electoral college, and we are trying to bring it up to date, so it works for us in America in the 21st century. If your objection is it is too easy for people of any party to object, I think you totally should be supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who I should say was very much with us on January 6. He was there that night. He was the last person at the dais before we were forced to evacuate from the Chamber.

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

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

Madam Speaker, we are here to fortify the integrity of American Presidential elections, the process by which the people choose their own President. One can only regard with amazement the gentleman from Pennsylvania's casual assurance that the American people don't care about this. The American people don't care about solidifying the process by which we elect our own President? The American people don't care about whether or not a Presidential election is going to be stolen by a lot of backroom games and manipulation of the rules? I beg to differ. Even the Wall Street Journal today endorsed the legislation that we are bringing forward.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly point out the false equivalency just invoked by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

On the one hand, you have people of both political parties pointing out the 100 percent documented interference of Vladimir Putin in our 2016 Presidential election, with millions and millions of dollars spent on his so-called Internet Research Agency to engage in cyber surveillance, cyber espionage, and cyber sabotage of our election. On the other side, we have a violent insurrection incited by the President of the United States, where 150 of our officers were wounded and injured, ending up with broken arms, legs, jaws, and necks; concussions; contusions; and traumatic brain injury.

Those are two very different things. One is an exercise of people's First Amendment right to speak. The other is a violent effort to overthrow the electoral process and the constitutional order of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Madam Speaker, to my dear friend from Pennsylvania, if you think that this legislation is an attack on President Trump, you simply haven't read the legislation because there is nothing in there attacking President Trump. This is about reforming the Electoral Count Act so it works for the American people.

As long as we are going to have the electoral college, we must update it and modernize it to make it work and to make sure that the will of the people is vindicated at every level--at the State level, with the Governor who has to provide the certificate of ascertainment; and then, when it comes here, we have to be able to receive it and not have the Presidential electoral process consumed by a bunch of ideological antics and tantrums.

My friend mobilizes a number of episodes of Democrats raising objections in the past. Of course, I could equal each one of those with Republicans raising objections in the past because this has become a fine bipartisan tradition in the history of the electoral college. But if you think it is too easy for people to get up and object, support our legislation because we are saying you can't make an objection until you get one-third of the House of Representatives to sign the objection to attest to its validity and its substance.

Then in order for it to be validated, you need not just a third of the House, you need a third of the Senate. You need bicameral adoption of the objection by a third of each body before it is even heard and then debated. So if you think that too much frivolous stuff is going on, well, then you should be supporting our legislation.

The rest of what you are saying is just complaint about political rhetoric, and I happen to like the political rhetoric pointing out that Vladimir Putin is an enemy of democracy not just in Ukraine but in the United States and all over the world. Maybe we disagree about that. I know that there are some cheerleaders for Vladimir Putin over on that side of the aisle.

In any event, remember this: Today, you can object for any reason at all, and one person can get up and do it if they can find one other person in the other Chamber, but under this legislation, under the Presidential Election Reform Act there will be a neatly cabined set of approved constitutional objections, all of them grounded in the text of the Constitution:

For example, if a State purports to submit more electoral college votes than they actually have.

For example, an elector in the Presidential election process constitutionally cannot hold another Federal office, so if they hold another Federal office that will be grounds for an objection.

For example, a President must be a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age. So it would be a valid objection to claim that the candidate that a State is purporting to cast electors for is only 26 years old.

Also, under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Federal office holders must not be guilty of insurrection or rebellion against the Union; something that was insisted upon by the radical Republicans after the Civil War. Therefore, that would be a legitimate ground for objection.

Presidents are limited to two terms in office, so that would be a legitimate ground for objection if a State purports to cast electors for someone who has already served two terms in office. Under Article II, section 1, clause 4, and the 12th Amendment, electors must vote on the same day throughout the Nation distinctly by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom must not be an inhabitant of the elector's State.

In other words, we finally have provided real precision and definiteness as to what is a valid objection. That doesn't mean the objection is necessarily ratified bicamerally by concurrent majorities, which is what you need in order to uphold it, but it is not a free-for- all. You can't just start finger painting on it.

To the extent that the gentleman's only substantive objection I have heard is that in the past it has been too easy for Members of both parties to raise objections, then you should absolutely be supporting this legislation.

This is a thorough legislative project that reflects the common sense and the wisdom of people who are the real experts in this field.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1372

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 6592) to require the Secretary of Homeland

Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to

notify the relevant Federal, State, and local officials of a

jurisdiction before placing a covered alien in such

jurisdiction, and for other purposes. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. All points of order against provisions

in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 6592.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1372, I call up the bill (H.R. 8873) to amend title 3, United States Code, to reform the process for the counting of electoral votes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8873 into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act.

This bipartisan bill is a product of over 2 years of work, first on the Committee on House Administration and subsequently on the January 6th Select Committee.

Working in partnership with Representative Liz Cheney, we have had extensive consultation with bipartisan law professors, former judges, and other experts. We have engaged in a fulsome, thoughtful, nonpartisan process, and where Ms. Cheney and I didn't always agree, we compromised, in the great tradition of the legislative process.

I thank my friend, colleague, and the vice chair of the January 6th Committee, Liz Cheney. Her partnership, leadership, intelligence, and, frankly, her courage have been invaluable to the select committee's work and to the development of this bill.

I want to be very clear: In revising the Electoral Count Act and related laws, that in no way condones the actions of the ex-President and his allies. Indeed, Dr. John Eastman openly admitted that his plan violated the Electoral Count Act. President Trump was told the same.

But this bill will make it harder to convince people that they have the right to overthrow the election. Here are a few things the bill does.

First, this bill reaffirms that the Vice President's authority at the electoral count is ministerial. The Vice President's authority has always been ministerial and always will be ministerial, but as we saw in 2020, former President Trump and his allies sought to unlawfully exploit the ECA to suggest otherwise.

The bill will also enact new electoral counting rules for Congress. Previously, just a few Members of each House were able to derail the proceedings with frivolous objections. That will no longer be the case.

Under this bill, no objection will be heard unless one-third of each House supports it, and the only objections that will be permitted are those that are rooted in the Constitution itself, a narrow set of issues.

The bill also prevents State and local election subversion. For example, Governors will be required to submit their State's lawful certificate of appointment, and Federal courts will be empowered to force them to do so if they refuse.

Ultimately, this bill is about protecting the will of the American voters, which is a principle that is beyond partisanship. The bottom line is this: If you want to object to the vote, you better have your colleagues and the Constitution on your side. Don't try to overturn our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on January 6, the President had whipped up a mob, told them that the Vice President could overturn the election, and a majority of the Republicans in this House voted to reject the decision made by American voters as reflected in the electoral college for no reason whatsoever, other than sham fraud claims.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the vice chair of the January 6th Select Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, the January 6th Committee has as its obligation to recommend legislative changes that would make the country safer. We have done that.

I will say that the partisan split in the House Administration Committee has always been six majority, three minority. On the select committee, it is not that far off, seven majority, two minority.

We have worked together, and I hear Mr. Davis' concern that he didn't participate. It wasn't me. It was Leader McCarthy that withdrew his name. Had his name been left in, he would have been a member of the committee, and he would have been able to participate in the obligation our committee has undertaken.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.

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

Madam Speaker, just a quick correction. Right now and in the 2020 election, we had States that said, gosh, there is fraud. It was completely bogus, but they tried to monkey with the system. This bill prevents that.

It defines a major natural disaster as any natural catastrophe, including hurricane, tornado, historically significant widespread snowstorm, historically significant widespread flooding, historically significant destructive fire, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, or volcanic eruption that prevents a large sector of a State from voting enough that it could impact the election.

Then it limits how long you could accommodate that disaster. The decision isn't made by partisans. It is Federal judges who would make that determination.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), an esteemed member of the January 6 Select Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

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

Madam Speaker, just a correction. What I actually said in the Rules Committee is I hope we pass this bill. The Senate will pass a bill. They are doing a markup in the Rules Committee next week. If they are different, there is generally a conference committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the vice chair of the January 6th Select Committee.

Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

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

I think it is important to talk about the January 6th Select Committee. Since its creation more than a year ago, the select committee has given substantial attention to the issues related to the Electoral Count Act and its need for reform.

Let's recall that in addition to finding out all the facts of the events leading up to January 6, the select committee is tasked with recommending changes in the law or in procedures that will prevent such an occurrence in the future.

The select committee has devoted multiple public hearings, over more than 4\1/2\ hours, to issues related to the Electoral Count Act and the former President's efforts to overturn the election on January 6.

During these hearings, the committee heard from at least four witnesses regarding the electoral college votes and other issues related to the act.

Importantly, conservative judge, Michael Luttig, who is a legal expert and served in the Reagan administration and was appointed by President H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, testified

before the select committee that the Electoral Count Act, `` . . . is not only a work in progress for the country, but at this moment in history an important work in progress that needs to take place.''

He testified with reference to the Electoral Count Act that, `` . . . Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.''

Now, why is that?

Because even though the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President, has never had more than a ministerial role to play in the counting of the votes, the former President told people that he could change the outcome. He said so in his speech. He said so in tweets. He threatened the Vice President. And we saw that that armed mob that came here to attack us believed what the former President said.

In fact, they read allowed the tweets as he delivered them, and how Mike Pence had disappointed him.

Madam Speaker, Judge Luttig said this about the bill that Ms. Cheney and I have introduced: ``Had this bill, the Presidential Election Reform Act, been the law during the 2020 Presidential election, there never would have been the fateful January 6 that the country witnessed and experienced that day.''

He also went on to say this bill is masterfully drafted. Now, why would he say that?

Well, it is. But we also sought his considered judgment and expertise as we crafted this bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record his remarks on this:

This week, Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Congresswoman Zoe

Lofgren introduced a bipartisan bill in the House to reform

the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This bill represents a

comprehensive and compelling Rule of Law overhaul of the

anachronistic ECA.

Had this bill, the Presidential Election Reform Act, been

the law during the 2020 Presidential election, there never

would have been the fateful January 6 that the country

witnessed and experienced that day.

Indeed, had this bill been the law before the 1876

presidential election, which was the impetus for the current

Electoral Count Act, the country never would have experienced

the election upheaval of that quadrennial presidential

election.

The Cheney-Lofgren bill is masterfully drafted so as to

require the state governors to transmit to Congress only what

are defined by the bill as the `conclusive' electoral votes

for the presidency representing the popular vote of the

states, a transmittal that will only occur after any and all

disputes over those votes have been resolved by the state and

federal courts.

Then, during the Joint Session, Congress will be allowed

only a few, very narrow grounds to object to these

`conclusive' votes, all of which grounds are related to the

technical constitutional qualifications of the electors or

their electoral votes.

Thirty percent of each, the Senate and the House, must

concur in an objection in order for it to be put before the

two Chambers of Congress for resolution and decision. An

objection must be agreed upon by fifty percent of both

chambers in order for it to be sustained.

With the Cheney-Lofgren bipartisan bill scheduled to be

voted on in the House tomorrow, it now appears that there is

not only bipartisan, but also bicameral, support for the

desperately-needed reform of the ECA.

I urge the Senate and the House to quickly conference and

resolve their differences in a law that will ensure there

will never again be another January 6 in America.

Madam Speaker, this is a bill that has been well received across the political spectrum.

Now, we have got a Wall Street Journal report saying: ``The good news is that the House now has a bill to update the 1887 Electoral Count Act. . . . '' They go on to say, ``There's no excuse for Congress's delay in fixing this invitation to political trouble.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal and an article from the Washington Post.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 2022]

Liz Cheney's Electoral Count Act Bill to Stop a Jan. 6 Repeat

(By the Editorial Board)

The good news is that the House now has a bill to update

the 1887 Electoral Count Act, the antiquated law implicated

in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Even better, the legislation

unveiled this week by Republican Liz Cheney and Democrat Zoe

Lofgren reads like it's an improvement, in some respects, of

the Senate version.

The House plan says the Vice President's role when Congress

tallies the Electoral College ``is ministerial.'' The VP

can't on his own ``order any delay in counting.'' This

responds to President Trump's claim in 2020 that Mike Pence

could seize control of the joint session. Mr. Trump's legal

argument relied on a lack of clarity in the 12th Amendment,

which can't be fixed by statute. Still, it would be helpful

to have Mr. Trump's theory contradicted by the law and

Congress's explicit procedure.

The House bill says Electoral College certificates ``shall

be accepted as conclusive'' if submitted by a state's

Governor, unless a court orders otherwise. If a rogue

Governor refuses to certify the real winner, federal courts

could ``direct another official of the State'' to complete

the job. A three-judge panel would preside, with appeal to

the Supreme Court. The date for electors to vote would be

pushed to Dec. 23, providing more room for challenges to play

out.

Where the House bill might be an improvement is in making

it harder for partisans in Congress who want to get C-Span-

famous to lodge phony Electoral College objections. Only a

specified set of complaints would be heard, such as if a

state sends too many electors; if electors vote on the wrong

day or are ineligible; or if the presidential or vice

presidential candidate is ineligible. No whining on the House

floor that somebody had a funny feeling about the vote totals

in west southeastern Pennsylvania.

The Senate bill offers similar finality to the Governor's

certificate. Yet it would continue to permit Congress to

object vaguely that an elector's vote wasn't ``regularly

given.'' That's the same phrase Congress has abused for

years, and in 2020 an alarming 147 House and Senate

Republicans objected. An ideal reform would stop this

grandstanding. Hence, the House bill's idea to enumerate

specific grounds for legitimate objections.

Ms. Cheney and Ms. Lofgren also propose to lift the

threshold for objections. Under the current Electoral Count

Act, a single Senator working with a single Representative

can force Congress to debate their wild claims. The Senate

bill would require signatures from a fifth of each chamber.

The House bill raises that to a third. How about they keep

going and compromise at two fifths? More is better, but

requiring 33 Senators is better than needing only Sen. Josh

Hawley or Rep. Jim Clyburn.

The best approach remains for lawmakers to get out of this

objection business and leave such disputes to the courts. The

House bill retains a purported authority to reject Electoral

College votes if Congress decides that the incoming President

is constitutionally ineligible. But isn't 14 days before

Inauguration Day a little late for that, folks? Imagine if

President Trump wins a landslide in 2024 and then Democrats

move to invalidate his electors, saying that Mr. Trump led an

``insurrection'' as defined under the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect lawmakers to give up the

power they arrogated in 1887, but the madness of Jan. 6,

2021, should have made a convincing case. It's asking for

trouble to enshrine any political process for overturning the

will of the voters two weeks before the transfer of power is

scheduled to take place. Last time it was voting machines in

Michigan, and before that it was Russian interference, and

before that it was voting machines in Ohio . . . but it's

always something for Congress's partisans.

Nevertheless, a bill to make that prospect less likely goes

in the right direction, especially if it cuts off the

microphone for the sour grapes and conspiracy theories that

marred the counting after 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2020.

This reform should have been the top priority for Congress

and the Jan. 6 committee from the beginning, but their

priority has been replaying the riot rather than trying to

prevent the next one. Let's hope it isn't too late in this

Congress to get this done at last.

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to get that support from the organization, from The Wall Street Journal, but we also got kudos from Cato, that well-known conservative institution, that they say this bill is actually more conservative and originalist as compared to other measures.

It is not every day that the Center for American Progress and the Cato Institute see it the same way. But they do in this case. Both organizations, right to left, agree that this is an appropriate step to take and that it will help make our country safer.

Madam Speaker, I would address a couple other issues before closing.

First, it is unfortunate that my friend, Mr. Davis, has said something that is clearly inaccurate. In the bill itself it defines what is a disaster. It is not somebody saying, gosh, there's COVID. It is a tightly defined set of catastrophes that will be decided by a Federal three-judge panel and will be limited just in time and scope so that people could have their votes cast and counted.

I also want to address something I think is very unfortunate, the suggestion that somehow I had a role in trying to overturn the election in Iowa. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Federal Contested Election Act says this:

A candidate challenging an election, is required within 30

days after the result of their election, to file with the

clerk and serve upon the contestee written notice of the

intention to contest an election.

Once that is done, it is assigned to the House administration committee. It wasn't my idea. That is what our rule says. And there is a process that has to be undertaken.

Now, we didn't finish that process because the contestee withdrew, which was her right, and frankly, I was glad that the matter was terminated. But that is just what the law requires.

Madam Speaker, I would make a final comment about the objections under this proposed law. It is true that Members of both sides of the aisle have randomly objected to certification of the electoral college. I think, honestly, that is unfortunate. But we never saw a majority of one party vote to overturn the election as we did on January 6 of 2020.

What this bill would do would be to make sure you could never have those kinds of objections in the future. We did some research. We believe that under our bill, not a single objection in the last 100 years would have been allowed under this bill. The last example was a disagreement in 1873 about whether a candidate who passed away after the election still qualified as a person for Article II purposes. That would be covered under the limited set.

But this would put an end to using frivolous challenges to the electoral count. And that is another good reason why we should pass this bill today.

Madam Speaker, 234 years ago, the authors of The Federalist Papers asked this: ``Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity. . . . The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.''

That is the message that resonates to this day. This bill will ensure that the voice of the American people is the final word on the future of our Republic.

All told, the reforms in this bill confine Congress to its true narrow role in Presidential elections under the 12th Amendment.

I hope and trust that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would join us in this critical effort to protect American democracy and to ensure, in President Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, ``that government of the people, by the people,'' and ``for the people'' long endures.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I think it is important today to begin by taking a step back, provide some important context about the bill we are considering today, and reestablish some important facts.

Election administration and the way elections work is a complicated process. For most of us, this experience typically consists of showing up, casting a ballot, and then digesting news coverage of results. Very few people realize everything that goes on behind the scenes.

But recently, as election administration has come into the forefront, there are a lot of people who all of a sudden seem to think that they are an expert on the subject. This includes many of the people in these buildings and in the press.

Many of those folks have never been on the ground in election offices across the country and couldn't tell the difference between an e- pollbook and a high-speed ballot scanner, yet they know they are right.

This has led to all sorts of rumors, narratives, and misinformation across the political spectrum to percolate within our society, and that has caused people to lose faith in our elections. This is a huge problem.

I have spent the past few years traveling the country to learn about different State election processes and have met with countless Republican and Democrat election administrators.

I have learned about the checks and balances in place.

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our democracy, and we must ensure people can have faith in elections and election processes and outcomes in order for our democracy to continue to thrive.

Unfortunately, one false narrative that has been pushed by my colleagues on the other side is that Republican Members of Congress are election subverters or deniers, trying to overthrow elections because of an objection to a State's electoral slate on January 6. This has been fueled by members of the media who don't understand the subject.

They are claiming that this particular action was unprecedented and an affront to democracy. However, so many of them, including powerful committee chairs that are in power today, have objected in the past. In fact, Democrats have objected to every single Republican Presidential win in the 21st century.

Another false narrative is that somehow the legal actions taken by the Trump campaign, the rhetoric of former President Trump, Republican Members of Congress voting to object to a State's electors, and the illegal actions of many people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 were all connected in some kind of mass conspiracy by Republicans to stage a coup.

These two narratives are now presented on a daily basis as though they are fact, but that is quite simply not true. The fact of the matter is, there are longstanding legal frameworks in place to adjudicate disputes in election outcomes that have been utilized regularly, regardless of party.

There is not enough time today to go through all of them, but the point is these processes have existed for a long time, and they are used frequently and often by candidates of all political stripes.

There are checks, balances, and safeguards woven in throughout the system. The goal of every election framework is to ensure the person who takes the oath of office is the one who actually won. That is true in the States, in the courts, and here in Congress.

The best news of all is these systems have worked. At the end of the day, the outcomes were exactly as they should have been. It is why people can and should have faith in our election system.

This isn't to say that our system is perfect. There is always room for improvement, but unfortunately, that is not what is happening here today.

The Electoral Count Act has been in place for over a century and directly implements constitutional provisions. Members of all political parties have exercised their rights under the provisions of that law to raise constitutional objections to State electoral slates if they determine something may be improper. This is not an affront to democracy. Frankly, it is democracy in action.

In fact, Democrats have quite an extensive history of objecting to the electoral count. I include in the Record a list of over 80 Democrats denying election results, including many chairs, people like Chairperson Maxine Waters, Chairman Bennie Thompson, Representative Jamie Raskin, and many others here today.

Committee on Republicans House Administration,

Ranking Member, Rodney Davis,

Democrat Objectors Since 2000

2000 (Jan. 2001)

Rep. Alcee Hastings,

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr.

Rep. Maxine Waters

Rep. Ted Deutch

Rep. Carrie Meek

Rep. Corrine Brown

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson

Rep. Elijah Cummings

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Cynthia McKinney

Rep. Patsy T. Mink

Rep. Eva Clayton

Rep. Bob Filner

2004 (Jan. 2005)

Sen. Barbara Boxer

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones

2016 (Jan. 2017)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Rep. Pramila Jayapal

Rep. Jim McGovern

Rep. Jamie Raskin

Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Raul Grijalva

Rep. Maxine Waters

Again, the result in all of these cases was that our system worked. The House and Senate did what they were supposed to do, heard the objections, disposed of them properly, and ultimately certified the election as originally presented.

Objecting does not make you an election subverter or denier. Each Member of Congress has a constitutional duty to do what they think is best for their constituents.

At the same time Democrats were accusing Republicans of undermining democracy, they themselves were attempting to overturn the results of a duly-certified election in Iowa's Second Congressional District. The challenger, Democrat Rita Hart, even said that she brought the contest to a partisan committee in D.C. instead of Iowa courts in order to ``get the result we need.''

This was after the State of Iowa followed their normal and lawful process throughout the election for Iowa-02. The votes were counted, recounted by multiple bipartisan recount boards, and duly certified.

Yet, this majority orchestrated having their candidate bypass State courts and instead attempted to utilize the House itself to steal a congressional seat to boost their slim majority. This was the single biggest act of election subversion that occurred in the 2020 election cycle, and it was carried out by the same people here today claiming that Republicans are a threat to democracy.

Fast forward to today. Democrats are once again attempting to move a major piece of legislation that overhauls a key piece of our election system in a partisan manner behind closed doors. They didn't hold a hearing or a markup on this bill. They didn't release legislative text until 24 hours before it was considered in the Rules Committee. They didn't consult Republicans on the committee of jurisdiction, despite repeated overtures to work together on discussions of this important issue--all rebuffed.

Why rush such a significant piece of legislation when the next Presidential certification won't happen for over 2 years? It is pretty simple, Madam Speaker: The midterm elections are just weeks away, and the Democrats are desperately trying to talk about their favorite topic, former President Trump.

As someone who voted to certify Joe Biden as President and who recently lost a primary race to a candidate endorsed by the former President, I believe what House Democrats and the January 6th Committee are doing is irresponsible and wrong.

They have allowed their dislike for one man, President Trump, to cloud their judgment and guide their actions, no matter the consequences to this institution or the Constitution that they claim they want to uphold.

It is time that we started being honest with ourselves and with the American people. The facts are:

The President and his campaign filing legal challenges in State and Federal courts around the country was not improper nor unprecedented. Everyone is entitled to their day in court. Those suits were considered by judges and ultimately rejected. The process worked.

The rhetoric of former President Trump following the 2020 election was highly inappropriate.

Republican Members of Congress objecting to a State's slate of electors is not election subversion or unprecedented.

The actions of the individuals who attacked the Capitol on January 6 were wrong. Those individuals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Democrats have just as long of a history as Republicans of challenging and questioning elections, including attempting to overturn a duly certified congressional election in Iowa. This is not a partisan issue, and the processes in place have worked.

Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate that people's faith in our elections is critical to the long-term success of our democracy. It is time for House Democrats to quit playing partisan political games and pushing false narratives just to preserve their own power.

It is incumbent upon all of us to be honest and work in good faith to serve the American people, restore faith in our elections, and protect our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is always good to follow my good friend, Leader Hoyer. I appreciate his friendship, and I appreciate his time here in this institution. He has seen a lot of things happen in the governing of this country. I respect him and his viewpoint.

It is frustrating when we also hear comments from my colleague, Leader Hoyer. Back on January 25 of this year he was quoted in a Politico story where he said that President Biden is correct that the midterm elections will be illegitimate if Congress doesn't pass the Democrats' election takeover bills.

This is part of the rhetoric that we have got to stop. We have got to make sure that we remind everybody, as Leader Hoyer did, my good friend, that this is an American issue. It is not a partisan issue. The processes have worked.

I want to know, if it is an American issue and not a partisan issue, Madam Speaker, why, then, were we not even consulted as the committee of jurisdiction minority members?

I would have loved to have been able to sit down and come up with a bipartisan solution. No Republican--no Republican--that I know or that I respect thinks that the violence on January 6, which we all witnessed, is okay.

I think it was a terrible day. I think, again, anyone who committed those acts and those crimes should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Let's be clear: They broke the law. It doesn't matter what you are protesting, Madam Speaker, if you break the law.

Madam Speaker, if you are rioting in the streets, looting stores and businesses, and committing the crimes across this country that we have seen exacerbated because of the Biden administration's lack of effort in enforcing these activities to be adjudicated, then do you know what? They should be held accountable. Arrest them, prosecute them, and put them in jail.

Leader Hoyer also said this bill and this process should not be about one man. I agree. I agree. But, unfortunately, this bill is nothing short of being only about that one man. This is too important of an issue to make this about an individual that you may or may not like or that you may or may not want to run for President ever again. This bill and this process is too important for the future of America.

Madam Speaker, my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, brought up Hillary Clinton. She actually denied the results of the 2016 Presidential elections and believes

there were legitimate questions regarding the integrity of the 2004 Presidential election. She said that Stacey Abrams would have won the 2018 gubernatorial election against Governor Brian Kemp if it had been fair.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Madam Speaker, I thought the esteemed Member from California was going to speak a little longer. It caught me a little off guard. I apologize. I am not used to him being that succinct in anything he does but thank you.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend, another esteemed Member of this institution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a tweet from Speaker Pelosi on May 16, 2017, that says: ``Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy and #FollowTheFacts.''

I couldn't agree more. We need to follow the facts.

The Speaker asked: How can one vote against this bill? Well, I would say: How can we vote for a bill that was completely done without any consultation?

Here is what I hope, Madam Speaker. I was actually comforted somewhat during the Rules testimony yesterday when my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren, mentioned that the goal of the majority is to watch this bill pass--I have many concerns with it; I laid those out yesterday, and I will lay them out again--but hope the Senate passes the version that we could have used as the basis and the starting point here in the House, and then we could go to conference committee.

Okay, I hope it happens. I am not going to hold my breath, but I certainly hope it happens. I reiterate my desire for that to be a process where we can finally come together in a bipartisan way. Again, I am cautiously optimistic.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to testify yesterday before the Committee on Rules about how this process has been highly partisan, and that I would have welcomed an opportunity to work on the Electoral Count Act reforms in a bipartisan way--just like the Senate did.

There is one quote from my friend, Ranking Member Tom Cole, that I want to share. As he said, ``Given all the majority's righteous and high-minded talk over the last 2 years about how democracy itself is in peril, don't you think it would be better served to have operated through regular order with real Member buy-in on a topic that is as important to the American people as this one?''

That is how the Senate handled this task--in a bipartisan matter driven toward finding consensus. Why shouldn't the House operate in the same way? Instead here in the House, every outreach made by Republicans to work on this issue was rebuffed.

This bill tramples on State sovereignty. While the Constitution gives States the authority to make and interpret their own State laws, this bill would grant Congress unprecedented authority to determine what State law is.

Second, there is a provision of this bill that gives candidates the ability to broadly define catastrophic events--which could include major natural disasters or acts of terrorism--and then use that event to extend the balloting after the polls close for up to 5 days.

Think about it. A candidate could pull a Pelosi and request a change in the rules supposedly because of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the fact that the majority of the country has moved on--including President Biden who declared the pandemic is over, just to extend voting for 5 more days for their political benefit.

Or remember just last year, when President Biden's FBI labeled concerned parents attending their children's school PTA meetings domestic terrorists?

With many polling at schools, a candidate could try to claim that parents meeting is a catastrophic event. We also can't forget that many Democrats have claimed that Republican-led States with newly enacted election integrity laws like Florida are suppressing voters.

Could a candidate then try to claim voter suppression because they don't like their State's laws and then request the polls stay open once they see election results that aren't going their way?

This bill would create a new private right of action for all Presidential candidates or their electors and specifically expand the scope of the right to tabulate.

This creates a big question as to how and if Congress has the authority to require candidates to go to Federal court to force them to follow State law.

I mean, I can just picture the field day election lawyers like sanctioned Democrat Marc Elias would have with these provisions all while creating mass confusion for voters who will question if their vote was even counted. Voters don't need Congress to come in and overcomplicate the ECA process that has worked for the last 135 years.

As a reminder, we came back the night of January 6, after the tragic events that we all witnessed here in this Capitol, and we certified Joe Biden as President and Kamala Harris as Vice President.

What voters want is to show up on election day, easily cast their ballot, know that their ballot is counted in accordance with the law, and for election results to come in later that night. But this bill doesn't do that. Instead, it could very well do the opposite.

This bill does nothing to prevent another mob from attacking the Capitol. Neither Mike Pence doing what every Vice President in history has done nor lawful constitutional objections being filed caused a mob to attack--and clarifying those responsibilities won't prevent another mob.

That is why this bill won't even see the light of day over in the Senate and why we should have used the bipartisan Senate version as a starting point. Maybe then we could actually enact some necessary updates to improve and clarify the certification process and focus on the big unanswered problem--the security of the Capitol. Bad actors by definition don't follow the law so any changes made to the Electoral Count Act aren't a silver bullet.

As I have been saying this entire Congress, we need to be focused on why the Capitol was left so unprotected on that day in January. Why was a mob able to breach one of the most significant buildings on our planet?

Again, I invite all of my Democrat colleagues to work with me to improve the security of this Capitol and the people it holds. That is how we prevent another attack.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because it is both bad process and bad policy. The American people deserve better. They deserve to have full confidence in the election process and the outcomes.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 8873, which--let's just call it what it is--this is a partisan messaging bill from my friends across the aisle.

My colleagues want to ram this bill through Congress to change the way Presidential elections are conducted. H.R. 8873 is attempting to reform the Electoral Count Act for the first time since 1887. This is the first time in 135 years we are taking a look at this. Yet, despite that, no hearings were held on this bill, and the text was introduced just a mere 24 hours before it was presented in the Rules Committee yesterday.

During testimony before the Rules Committee, the sponsor of the bill, Chair Lofgren, mentioned repeatedly the lengthy process they undertook to draft this bill, including consulting the country's leading so- called experts. Yet, she did not bother to bring this legislation before her own committee for consideration.

Given the majority's constant claims of democracy itself being under attack, one would think that the Democratic Party and my colleagues across the aisle would bring bills through the appropriate channels and mechanisms. But my colleagues across the aisle will also try to tell you that this bill is a reform, it is a reaction to the objections to certifying the 2020 election. However, both sides of the aisle have long used their legal authority to object to Presidential elections.

Notable individuals that have exercised this authority include no other than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi--and that is just to name a few.

Again, they have all used this authority to object to Presidential elections. Even our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, and someone I consider a good friend, objected to the 2016 elections. My other Rules Committee colleague and good friend from Maryland also objected.

In fact, following the 2016 election, Democrats objected to certifying the electoral votes of more States than Republicans did in 2021.

Following her loss to President Trump, Hillary Clinton continued to attack the integrity of our democratic process by insisting ad nauseam that President Trump was, ``an illegitimate President.''

Stacey Abrams--another great example--the current Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nominee, has built a national brand on denying election results and making baseless accusations of suppression and voter fraud. She claimed that she won the 2018 election for Governor and has yet to concede the 2018 race.

But we can go all the way back to 2005. Democrats objected in that year to certifying Ohio's electoral votes with Senator Barbara Boxer joining Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones to require a vote.

Madam Speaker, 31 Members of the House voted against certifying these results; 12 of whom are still in Congress today, and I presume those 12 are now supporting this legislation, hypocritically. But this precedent goes back even further than 2005 and 2001.

We can take this back to 1961 with President John F. Kennedy. JFK-- this is a great history lesson--drafted his own secret slate of electors declaring himself the winner of Hawaii's electoral votes when the State was originally called for Richard Nixon.

Let's just talk about today. Despite the history, today, the actual purpose of this bill is nothing more than an attempt to federalize our elections. This is a way to backdoor H.R. 1 into legislation.

This is nothing more than an attack on President Trump and the 2020 election, an attack on a man who has not been in office for nearly 2 years. This is about giving Congress unprecedented authority on how to interpret State law, how to restrict State discretion, and how to impose control on State election officials.

Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague and good friend from Massachusetts that he objected to Alabama in 2017, just like my good friend from Maryland objected in 2017 to Florida.

Now, as far as this bill being rammed through, I would take a minute to rebut the accusation that it hasn't been rammed through. It absolutely was.

We were given almost exactly 24 hours to look at this bill before it came to the Committee on Rules. When we had the hearing in the Committee on Rules, to my knowledge, that was the only hearing that we have had in the House because Chair Lofgren didn't even have the foresight or the willingness to take this through her own committee process, her own committee that she chairs.

So I am just saying let's follow the process. And let's be frank about something. If this bill were just about increasing the number of necessary objectors to one-third in this Chamber and one-third in the other Chamber, it might have a chance of passing with bipartisan support. But that is not what this bill does. This bill is a backdoor for H.R. 1.

Let me just give you a few examples of extra material in this bill that makes it unpalatable.

This bill allows for Presidential candidates to sue to extend the voting period, even after polls have closed, due to a broadly defined catastrophic event. Then a panel of Federal judges, not State election officials, are then responsible for deciding whether States must allow for up to 5 additional days of voting. The real kicker here is that this suit must be filed no more than 1 day after the election. So you can see how a ``catastrophic event'' would probably be any Democrat that is losing on the night of the election.

Rather than working with Republicans in a bipartisan manner on a skinny form of an actual reform bill, House Democrats and the January 6 committee are desperately trying to score cheap political points on a bill that does nothing to improve the Electoral Count Act and does everything to take away constitutional and State sovereignty over elections.

Let's be blunt about something else. The American people don't care about this, especially when they are dealing with catastrophe after catastrophe and failed policy after failed policy of this administration. So while House Democrats are focusing on a partisan messaging bill that has zero chance of actually becoming law, our southern border just hit a record 2 million border crossings this fiscal year. That is the highest amount ever recorded in a single year.

Meanwhile, for the past year-and-a-half, the Biden administration has been transporting illegal immigrants from the southern border to places all over the country, often in the dead of night, and with zero notification to elected officials.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule immediately to consider H.R. 6592, the Immigration Transparency and Transit Notification Act of 2022.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend, who is here to explain more on this amendment.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I can tell you that in my area of Pennsylvania, nobody is talking about this. What they are talking about is failed economic policy, failure to support law enforcement, which is leading to both inflation, economic hardship, and some of the highest crime rates we have ever seen on record.

I would implore my colleagues across the aisle to actually talk to real Americans, not just the woke yuppies that comprise their voting base, to see what Americans care about. But something tells me that the American people will say loud and clear what they care about come November.

It is also rich hearing about all of these ``assaults on democracy.'' Let's just go back to 2019. In 2019, Hillary Clinton said: ``No, it doesn't kill me, because he knows''--meaning Trump--``that he is an illegitimate President.'' So you have the former Presidential candidate calling the former President an illegitimate President. That is clearly echoing some of the sentiments that my friends across the aisle are now accusing us of doing.

Adam Schiff, for example, my colleague from California, in his opening statement for the Senate's January 2020 impeachment trial said: ``The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.'' How about that for criticizing and questioning the democratic process?

Representative John Lewis, in 2017, said: ``I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate President. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.'' That was a baseless claim based on the Steele dossier that was discredited.

Representative Jerry McNerney of California, in 2017: ``The election of Mr. Trump lacks legitimacy.''

Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, just this month--this isn't even the last Presidential election cycle. This was this month, regarding a special election. This month, when discussing Mayra Flores' upset victory in his upcoming election against her, said: ``They stole that last election.'' So it is quite rich hearing all of these accusations now coming from my friends across the aisle.

When we call into question election results, it is somehow a threat to democracy. When they do it, they are magically upholding democracy.

But it just doesn't stop with my friends across the aisle here in this Chamber. Let's talk about Kamala Harris. She agreed with the radio show host that she should be concerned over Trump's legitimacy. She said: ``We should believe exactly what the intelligence community has told us, which is Russia did interfere in the election of the President in 2017.'' That is the now Vice President saying that.

Also, it is absolutely rich that she cites the intelligence community, when they knew the Steele dossier was a product of the Hillary Clinton campaign; the same intelligence community that wasn't able to discern that the Russian interference story was a hoax; the same intelligence community that told us that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, despite knowing that the FBI had that laptop in their possession at the time they made that baseless accusation; the same intel community, by the way, that told us that Kabul would stand strong for months on end and Ukraine would fall within hours. So that is the intel community that my friends across the aisle are citing.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), my good friend, to speak more on the issue of immigration and transparency.

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect and admiration for my good friend from California, and he knows that. But if you want to talk about sequels, let's just talk about all the times the Democrats objected to election results. We can go all the way back for decades.

Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Sheila Jackson Lee, have cast doubt on every single Republican Presidential victory in the last two decades. In fact, every single Democrat President since 1977 has cast doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. elections.

I will just go through some of that because my good friend from California said this looks like a sequel to a bad movie. Let's just look at the current administration. In both 2013 and 2016, Biden claimed that Gore won the 2000 Presidential election. In May 2019, Biden said that he ``absolutely'' agrees that Trump is an ``illegitimate President.'' That is the current Democratic President casting doubt on elections.

It doesn't stop with him, though. Let's again go to his Vice President, Kamala Harris. In 2019, the Vice President agreed that Trump was an illegitimate President.

It is just not those that were elected to office. Let's look at key senior staffers.

For nearly two decades, Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 election.

President Biden's press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, tweeted that the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race was stolen. Jean-Pierre also cast doubt just not on that election but also on the 2016 election by tweeting: ``Stolen election, welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump.''

Jamal Simmons, the communications director for Kamala Harris, for years tweeted that Bush had stolen the 2000 election.

Then-Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio, now the HUD Secretary, said that Trump ``may not be a legitimate President.''

If you are talking about sequels to bad movies, this goes all the way back to the 1970s, when my friends across the aisle undermined faith in our elections by loose talk and baseless claims that elections were stolen.

I will end the list of quotes with this because it is my good friend from Maryland. In 2002, my friend from Maryland wrote that the Supreme Court had ``[frozen] the election results'' in an ``outrageous assault on democracy,'' saying that the Court had determined the outcome of a Presidential election.

In 2003, my good friend also called Bush America's first ``court- appointed President.''

I have a litany of other quotes from my friends across the aisle, not only current Members serving in this Chamber but also well-known Democrats from across the United States that have questioned results of elections.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, inflation is at the highest rate in over 40 years, literally the highest rate since I have been alive. The majority of American workers confirmed their income has fallen behind the rising cost of things like buying groceries, paying utility bills, and just filling up their gas tanks.

We have set a record for the highest illegal border crossings in 1 year, including 78 individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

So far in 2022, homicide rates have increased roughly 50 percent compared to this time in 2019.

The Federal Government is also set to run out of funding in 9 days, yet here we are, focused for the second week in a row on trying to attack President Trump, a President that hasn't been in office for nearly 2 years. That is how we are spending our time.

House Democrats have chosen once again to put on yet another partisan, political show while the American people are at home suffering the consequences of their failed agenda, suffering the consequences of inflation that is out of control, wages that are dropping, energy costs that are skyrocketing, and crime rates that are making them less safe in their communities.

H.R. 8873 tramples on States' rights and would do serious harm to the integrity of our elections.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank the chair for her patriotic leadership on the House Administration Committee and her invaluable service and leadership as a member of the Select Committee on January 6.

Madam Speaker, I thank her for yielding, but I more importantly thank her for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I salute her leadership and that of Congresswoman Liz Cheney, vice chair of the January 6 Select Committee, a principled and courageous voice for freedom in our country.

This legislation is a manifestation of their courage, their patriotism, and their determination in our mission to save American democracy. I thank Chairwoman Lofgren and Vice Chair Cheney.

Madam Speaker, we are really the beneficiaries of such greatness in our country's history. One of our Founders, Thomas Paine, said that the times have found them to declare independence; to fight a war for independence against the greatest naval power that existed at the time; to win that war under leadership of our great patriarch, George Washington, and then to write our founding documents. Thank God they made them amendable so that we could have expanding freedom in our country.

One of their early documents, the Declaration of Independence, has been called by some the greatest document of the millennium, of a thousand years.

Some years later the Union was under threat. Abraham Lincoln--this is long before he was President--Abraham Lincoln delivered a stark warning about the state of our Union. Speaking in Springfield in 1837, more than two decades before the Civil War, he diagnosed a dangerous erosion of our democracy. ``They were pillars of the temple of liberty,'' Lincoln said, referring to the generation of Americas who fought for independence and served as living proof of the importance of democracy. He continued: `` . . . now that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars . . .''

His words ring just as true today as we confront a dire threat to our democracy and a duty to supply new pillars to preserve it.

On January 6, 2021, an insurrection erupted at the Capitol, seeking to nullify the results of a free and fair election. This was a direct assault not only on the Capitol, but on our Constitution, on the rule of law, and on democracy itself; a direct assault on the Constitution because the Constitution said that day that the Congress would, again, certify the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris per the Constitution by presenting the electoral college vote. So that was an assault on the Constitution. That was that day. It wasn't just any day; it was the day that the Constitution was supposed to be honored.

Now, we have a solemn duty to ensure that future efforts to undermine elections cannot succeed. That is why the House established the Select Committee on January 6, to find the truth of the attack and ensure that it could never happen again. Since then, there have been attempts across the country to nullify future elections.

That is why, today, we are taking historic and bipartisan legislative action to safeguard the integrity of future Presidential elections.

The Presidential Election Reform Act takes four necessary steps.

First, the bill reaffirms that under the Constitution, the Vice President has no authority to reject a slate of electors or delay the count in any way. This was the heart of the former President's illegal, false electoral scheme.

Second, the bill directly limits the types of objections to only those outlined in the Constitution, which can be raised during certification. You just can't raise any and all, but those that are allowed in the Constitution. All objections would require one-third of each Chamber to be entertained and a majority to be sustained.

Third, our bill requires Governors to transmit lawful election results to Congress or be compelled to by a Federal court. Under this proposal, no rogue Governor can unlawfully subvert the will of the people, the heart of a democracy expressed in the democratic electoral process.

Fourth, our bill makes crystal clear that States cannot change the rules governing an election after the election has occurred--did you hear that? ``Cannot change the rules governing an election after the election has occurred''--preventing radical State legislators from attempting to nullify the election. I keep using that word, ``nullify.''

These changes are imperative right now. Emboldened by January 6, politicians are waging a sinister campaign across America, the country, to subvert our future elections, peddling the big lie that the 2022 election was stolen; assembling an army of operatives to intimidate voters at the polls and poll workers, as well; and even threatening to reverse results for which they disagree.

Wait a minute. We are talking about a democracy. ``Threatening to reverse results for which they disagree.''

Let me be clear: This is a kitchen table issue for families. We must ensure that this antidemocratic plot cannot succeed.

It is a kitchen table issue because denying the American people their fundamental freedom to choose their own leaders denies them their voice in the policies we pursue. Those policies can make an immense difference in their everyday lives, on top of which we have a responsibility. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This legislation is in furtherance of honoring that oath of office so that our children, our grandchildren, future generations, know that they live in a great democracy that cannot be undermined for political reasons.

Madam Speaker, every Member knows that January 6 was an attempt to subvert democracy, but many across the aisle refuse to admit the truth. They refused to admit the truth that very night with blood on the floor, glass on the floor, and all the rest when we came in to honor our constitutional responsibility.

Overwhelmingly, others on the other side of the aisle voted not to accept the results of the people in the election.

Now, House Republican leaders are whipping against this necessary measure. To all those who oppose this legislation, I ask you: How could anyone vote against free and fair elections, a cornerstone of our Constitution? How could anyone vote against our Founders' vision, placing power in the hands

of the people? How could anyone vote against their own constituents, allowing radical politicians to rip away their say in our democracy?

Decades after Lincoln's stark warning, the future he foretold, a crumbling of the pillars of democracy, came to pass with a Civil War. One year into the horror and devastation, President Lincoln called on the Congress to come together to save the Union.

In his message, he wrote--this is when he is President--``We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth.'' We ``hold the power and bear the responsibility.''

Today, American democracy, ``the last best hope of Earth,'' is again in grave danger, and its fate is in our hands.

So, I implore every Member to heed Lincoln's words, to stand up for the rule of law and our Constitution. In doing so, we pass on a vibrant democracy for generations to come--America, the beacon of hope in the world; this building, a symbol, a temple of democracy, synonymous with freedom and democracy throughout the world, which was assaulted, but we must correct it.

Madam Speaker, I urge a resounding bipartisan ``aye'' vote on the Presidential Election Reform Act.

In gratitude to Madam Chair Zoe Lofgren, chair of the House Administration Committee and a member of the January 6th Committee, and our very distinguished vice chair of the January 6th Committee, thank you for your patriotism. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your courage.

Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.