Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, last week, this House voted on a bill that was sold as pandemic relief, yet less than 9 percent of that bill was for public health funding to combat COVID-19, and $140 million of that bill is going to a failed rail project in Speaker Pelosi's district.

This week, the Democrats have put forth a bill titled ``For the People,'' but the bill has nearly 800 pages of provisions that take election decisions away from State and local officials and put them in the hands of the Federal Government. It attacks Americans' First Amendment right to free speech, and it publicly funds Members of Congress' campaigns using corporate dollars.

There is a pattern emerging. The Democrats are bringing bills to the floor under the guise of being for the people, but their bill actually benefits the politicians.

As I said, I have many issues with H.R. 1, including the mandates this bill puts on States and provisions that attack our First Amendment rights. But I want to focus on one particular provision in this bill right now, and that is how the Democrats' number one priority is a bill that funds their own campaigns.

H.R. 1 would launder corporate dollars through the U.S. Treasury and use those dollars to publicly fund congressional campaigns. Based on 2020 fundraising numbers, that creates access to more than $7 million in laundered corporate dollar public funds to bolster my colleagues' campaign coffers. This is the 6-to-1 match program that my colleague talked about for small-dollar donations.

I know when I speak with my constituents back home, establishing a program that helps me acquire more money for my campaign is not what they think the Federal Government should be working on.

At the Rules Committee, because this bill did not go through regular order and did not receive a markup in the House Administration Committee, we submitted amendments to not only strike this program altogether and prevent sitting Members of Congress from financially benefiting from this bill, but also requiring any increase in corporate fines to be used to help the pandemic relief.

I can think of a lot better ways to spend the $7 million that would be just for my district, like pandemic relief. We could maybe reopen our schools or rebuild a fund to help women's shelters and rape crisis centers. Amazingly, Democrats wouldn't even allow these amendments for a vote on the floor today.

It is disappointing because I had hoped that we could all agree that helping our country through this pandemic or just simply focusing on the American people is more important than lining our own campaign coffers. Clearly, this bill is not for the benefit of the people, but it is for the politicians' campaign coffers.

I also want to note that this bill is opposed by 16 secretaries of state, nine former FEC Commissioners, the National Disability Rights Network, the Institute for Free Speech, and more than 130 other nonprofit organizations, but supported by Indivisible, a group whose sole purpose is to elect Democrats. I think this speaks volumes as to why my friends on the other side of the aisle are rushing this bill through with little debate and next to no input from Republicans.

Despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tell Americans, this bill is not for the people. This bill is for the politicians. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a great member of the House Administration Committee, and my good friend.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), the newest member of this Congress.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a refreshing sight to see back on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, just for the viewers on C-Span who wondered why time stopped here in the House for that minute the majority leader spoke, I want to remind them all that is what we call the majority leader's magic minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my good friend and one of the newest Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, in spite of my hesitance to trust this timing, can I get a time check to see how much we have left?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), another member of the Committee on House Administration.

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

Madam Speaker, no matter how many times Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats continue to say that there is not a publicly funded program to put money directly into her Members' congressional campaigns, it doesn't make her statement true.

In this bill, it is the first-ever corporate money since 1907 that is laundered through the Federal Government, through the Department of Treasury, and goes right into our own congressional campaigns, up to $7 million, using 2020 numbers.

Madam Speaker, I am angry that the Speaker continues to talk about States, like Georgia, following the law to make sure that their voter rolls are complete and accurate when, in her own home State of California, the corrupt secretary of state would not even commit to removing over 400,000 deceased or moved voters from the voter rolls, and many of them, if not all of them, got live ballots.

This bill would place the corruption that we see in California and export it nationwide. Let me tell you, that corrupt secretary of state, huh, what a deal, we now call him a U.S. Senator.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Madam Speaker, I do also have a stack of letters in opposition. I will include them in the Record. I won't go through each of them.

Frank LaRose,

Ohio Secretary of State,

Columbus OH,

For Immediate Release:

Thursday, February 25, 2021.

LaRose Calls on Congress to Reject Federal Takeover of Elections

House Resolution 1 Would Bring Sweeping, Unworkable and Unfunded Change

Across the Nation's 50 Unique Election Systems, Causing Chaos and

Damaging Voter Confidence

Columbus.--Today, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose

called on the United States Congress to vote against House

Resolution 1, a bill that would effectively take over control

of how states conduct elections. HR 1 imposes significant

changes that ignore both the United States Constitution and

the unique election systems across the 50 states in an effort

to standardize how states vote.

``Ohio's November 2020 election was the most successful on

record, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Chuck

Schumer want to wipe it all away with a massive power-grab,''

said LaRose. ``Remember, each state election system is

unique--shaped by time and trusted by their respective

voters. Forcing uniform standards, procedures, and

expectations into state election systems, some far different

than others and not built for those requirements, is like

forcing a square peg into a round hole. It won't work.''

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states that

``[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for

Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each

State by the Legislature thereof,'' but that ``the Congress

may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except

as to the Places of chusing Senators.'' In Federalist Paper

No. 59, Alexander Hamilton contended that such regulation was

only necessary ``whenever extraordinary circumstances might

render that interposition necessary to its safety''. Moreso,

state-level elections and the election of the president have

remained outside of the purview of congress.

However, the question of whether it's even within the power

of congress to take over how states run elections isn't even

the most important question. Instead, the better question is

``should they?'' In the 59 presidential elections since 1789,

each has resulted in the successful election of a President.

Voting laws have evolved across the 50 states, providing more

and more access, security, and accuracy. Over time, each of

those same 50 states have created their own unique election

systems. From who administers the elections, to how votes are

cast, to how a vote is protected--each system was born of

federalism.

Like human beings, no voting system is perfect.

Improvements and changes happen as the people, working

through their respective state legislatures, see fit. In

Ohio, a state whose elections have long been under the

national spotlight, we've developed a system which has

ensured voters have confidence in the outcome of elections.

As a result, voter turnout is at an all-time high, voter

fraud and voter suppression are exceedingly rare, and our

efforts to strengthen the security of our elections have

become a national model. Even as we faced enormous

challenges, last year we in Ohio ran the most successful

election in our state's history. It's no surprise that other

states are now coming to us to learn our best election

practices so they can mirror them back home.

That's how it's supposed to work. One of the great

motivations of federalism is the state role as a laboratory

for democracy, with each state innovating to become a better

version of itself, and sharing those lessons with other

states. That experiment has allowed our nation to become the

best in the world. We need to keep that experiment going and

encourage Ohio's congressional delegation to vote against

House Resolution 1.

Secretary LaRose will soon be sending a letter to

congressional leadership and Ohio's congressional delegation

requesting a no vote on HR 1.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy). Hopefully, he will soon be the majority leader or actually the Speaker of the House. He is not part of that California corruption I mentioned earlier.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), the chair of the Republican Policy Committee and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, you can tell we have got some dedicated Members of Congress here to debate this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), my great friend and one of the newest Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), my good friend and another freshman Member of our historic freshman class.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

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

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

Madam Speaker, vote ``no'' on this disastrous piece of legislation. Obviously, the timekeeper didn't keep the time right; I should have more.

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

Madam Speaker, we have so much opposition on our side to this bill. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend, since we ran out of debate time on general debate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez), my good friend, who, in spite of once being an Ohio State Buckeye and an Indianapolis Colt, it took him coming to Congress to finally win a football championship.

The gentleman is right. We really did enjoy having him on that bipartisan congressional football championship team.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), another star member of this freshman class.

It is interesting that during this same debate 2 years ago, we had many in the majority come talk about this bill. I would say they must feel a little bit different this time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), another mediocre--I mean, a star freshman of our historic class and my good friend.

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

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

Madam Speaker, here we are again with more Federal election mandates that the majority would impose on our States and localities. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives States the primary authority to set the ``times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.''

Congress' role in this space is purely secondary and reserved only for correcting highly significant and substantial deficiencies. We saw nothing in 2020 that would rise to the level of a complete and total nationalization of our election system.

To give you some sense of the level of control the majority feels it should exert over our elections, amendments in this en bloc would mandate even the positioning of ballot drop boxes and polling locations. It would also mandate voters' requests for absentee ballots and the methods used for recruiting poll workers.

The underlying bill would require States to provide 15 days of early voting at 10 hours a day, even in States that conduct their elections completely by mail.

The underlying bill would regulate the amount of time a voter could wait in line to vote. Here is the deal: No one wants any voter to wait in a long line to vote, but setting aside the constitutional issues for a second, do we really think this body can make a one-size-fits-all decision that works for the unique people who live in each of our diverse 50 States?

This provision, coupled with the bill's private right of action, would simply set up a stopwatch stakeout at polling locations for ambulance-chasing trial attorneys.

States run elections in this country. I urge each of my colleagues to speak with their State's secretary of state or chief election officials and local election officials. Learn from the people who actually administer elections. State and local election administrators know best the needs of their voting population.

I speak with secretaries of state from across the country regularly to keep up to date on election issues. Just last week, at the only hearing held in this Congress on the underlying bill, the minority called the only witness who had even ever administered an election. So I know many of my colleagues could benefit from learning more about their State's election processes.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on these amendments and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I see we have a new clock watcher. How much time do we have remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, we can't say much more about how bad this bill is. Just the distortions, the mistruths, and just obvious malicious errors coming from the majority about what this bill does is frustrating.

Last Congress, when this bill was introduced, this bill started funding Members of Congress' campaigns with taxpayer dollars. And back then, under the 2018 calculations, every Member of Congress was only eligible to get about $4 million added to their campaign accounts.

Now, if you look at the top 20, 11 Democrats make up the top 20, and 9 Republicans, in disbursements over the 2020 cycle. Every single Member of this body is eligible through the 6-to-1 matching program to get $7.2 million.

No matter what Speaker Pelosi says, no matter what the majority says--they can tell you it is not true--read the bill. It is in the bill.

They are going to say, well, it is not taxpayer dollars. Let me go through the process. It is corporate money, corporate dollars that we cannot get in our campaigns right now that is then taken from corporations who, in their name, are bad actors.

Remember, Congress sets the level of fines. And a lot of these fines already go to good causes, like crime victim funds, rape crisis centers. They are going to get shortchanged because that

money is taken from corporate fines that are corporate dollars laundered through the Federal Government.

This money comes out as public money, taxpayer dollars, and then it is given directly to Members of Congress' campaigns.

Madam Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote for you, yourself, $7.2 million in your own campaign.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, the need for this amendment is another example of this bill not being updated from last year.

We have made huge efforts on cyber issues and successfully had an election year this year with no foreign interference. This is in large part due to the efforts of DHS and the Election Assistance Commission. I even took part this summer in a tabletop exercise to prepare for cyberattacks.

Mr. Speaker, if we had considered this bill in committee, we could have talked about our success in this area during the last election. This is another example of the Democrats not knowing what is in their legislation and rolling out their standard bill without a thoughtful review.

Absolutely no one wants foreign interference in our elections.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely no one wants foreign interference in our elections, but the last thing we need to do is create a commission with another layer of bureaucracy when we have programs in place that have been successful for our local election officials. It is because of some great work by CISA that we should be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, finally, this amendment would violate separation of powers and attempt to control the judicial branch, threatening our independent courts. It is disappointing that this is the only amendment of mine and the other Republican members of the committee that the majority Democrats allowed through.

We submitted 25 amendments to restore the ability to run our elections to the States and localities that this bill takes away; eliminate the fund to publicly finance campaigns using corporate dollars and instead use that money for pandemic relief for the American people; prevent sitting Members of Congress' campaigns from benefiting from this bill; protect Americans' First Amendment right, without fear of retaliation from the Federal Government; and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority did not allow these amendments to come to the floor. While I urge passage of this amendment, for those reasons and many more, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

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

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the big problems that I see in this election arena is a bill that 2 years ago was written with the assistance of special interests before we were even sworn in to the 116th Congress. It was announced and put forward with every member of the majority signing on as cosponsors the day we were all sworn in.

That is not the process that the Democratic majority promised the American people when they gave my colleagues the privilege to serve in this majority.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is like Groundhog Day. Instead of introducing the same bill, they made some changes, which is great. Still, this is a problem of the nationalization of our elections. Also, it limits free speech.

There was no negotiation with us, no markup in our committee, no ability for us to have a voice.

Mr. Speaker, to top it off, none of us in the minority want any campaign dollars coming from corporations that are then laundered and then made into public funds through the Federal Government and then put in their own campaigns. We don't want one dollar, let alone the limit now of $7.2 million that each and every person in this institution would be eligible to get into our own campaigns. That is not campaign finance reform. That is not what my constituents want. That is the furthest thing from what the minority wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment that is going to protect the bipartisan work that our officials have done to protect Americans' elections and address cybersecurity issues and foreign interference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), another star of the historic diverse class of new freshmen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), the subcommittee chair that has oversight of elections on the Oversight Committee.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again how much time is remaining? We have a lot of folks who want to talk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), a member of this historic freshman class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), I may live to regret it, but I will do it anyway, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), who was my fellow classmate in the 113th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I keep bringing up our historic freshman class. I have got another member of that historic freshman class who, frankly, has made history, too, in her short time here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

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

Two minutes to solve the problems of this bill clearly are not enough.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments in this bloc continue the Democrats' efforts to attack our constitutional system by nationalizing our elections and attacking the First Amendment. Even the Speaker herself said earlier on the floor that this body should consider altering the First Amendment. That is unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, as my friend, Mr. Loudermilk, highlighted earlier, any action by Congress in this space must be limited to correcting highly significant and substantial deficiencies.

I had teams out in the field working under our constitutional authority, as the House of Representatives, as official election observers from October through February, to investigate and observe the last election. We saw that there were certainly many bumps in the road and policy changes that many States should consider to run better elections. That is without a doubt. But there was nothing in 2020 that rose to the level of nationalizing our election system. These are State issues, and Congress--this body--must not act unconstitutionally in this space.

Further, these amendments would also threaten free speech and punish those who work to comply with the law with even larger amounts of paperwork simply to provide information already required by law. I see absolutely no reason for duplication in the Federal Government. It is big enough as it is.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge rejection of these amendments, which would continue the majority's push to nationalize our elections and centralize their administration in Washington, D.C., and they will continue to be allowed to forward their full frontal attack on the First Amendment, just as the Speaker offered earlier today on this floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Cole and the Committee on Rules. It was a fun day up there for a few hours.

This nearly 800-page bill that, if signed into law, would impact millions of Americans' right to vote and to participate in the political process, was introduced on January 4 of this year. And the first and only hearing on H.R. 1 was held just 4 days ago, in the smallest committee in Congress.

Democrats on the Committee on House Administration also decided a markup of this bill wasn't needed, despite the fact that both the bill itself and the membership of our committee have changed since last Congress. This is especially concerning since Democrats changed House floor rules this Congress to weaken the MTR, making committees the only real opportunity for the minority to provide an alternative. But now, they are not even doing that. They are not even holding a markup on this major elections bill.

This bill was rushed. And I guarantee most of my colleagues supporting this bill have no idea how this bill would really impact elections or political speech. But I bet they do know that if this bill were to become law, they would get a lot more funds for their own campaigns through the public financing provision.

H.R. 1, the for the politicians act, includes hundreds of pages of mandates on States and local election administrators. At the only hearing Congress has held on this massive bill, the minority's witness was the only person on the panel with experience in actually running elections. And he told this committee that it would be unworkable in States like his.

Mr. Speaker, we should be reviewing the issues that we saw during the 2020 election cycle and helping States develop a better process. Simply mandating how States run their elections is not only unconstitutional, but it will lead to chaos and confusion for voters.

The for the politicians act creates a first-ever fund to publicly finance our own congressional campaigns by providing corporate money, the first corporate dollars allowed into individual Members of Congress' campaigns since 1907, laundered through the Federal Government and into Members of Congress' own campaigns.

Provisions in this bill also attack free speech protections under the First Amendment. We did not have any hearings on the impact of changing the current bipartisan balance of the Federal Election Commission to a partisan makeup or the effect that a ``speech czar'' will have on people's ability to participate in the political process.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is terrible. This bill doesn't address the important issues that deserve hearings. Any bill to fundamentally change our elections or restrict our freedom of speech needs--at the very least--to go through regular order. The American people deserve to know what is in this bill and the real-life impact it will have on them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bill, and I figure my time has expired since you have the gavel.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 45.

Madam Speaker, coming from Illinois, it is often a question I get here in this Chamber, why do you have a pin of the State of Louisiana on your lapel?

I have the pin on my lapel because there is a void, a void in this institution because one of our colleagues wasn't able to get sworn in. Luke Letlow would have made a tremendous Member of this institution. And I want to thank my colleague, Mike Johnson, and the entire Louisiana delegation, and what would have been his freshman class, for honoring him tonight in a Special Order.

Like Luke, I was a district staffer for years, trying to make this House be a better place for every single American. I was looking forward to serving with him. Unfortunately, tragedy took his life, and we are without his service.

My heart goes out to his wife, Julia, and their two kids, and the entire State of Louisiana, and this institution, for not having the opportunity to see the true leadership of Congressman Luke Letlow.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important and irreplaceable work done by our court reporters and the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) during the 9th annual national court reporting and captioning week of February 6-13.

As guardians of the record, court reporters have a large impact on capturing history for posterity. During our nearly 250 years of American history, court reporters have been the cornerstone of our American justice system. From George Washington's Farewell Address to Lincoln's divided house speech, these noble servants have transcribed some of the most important pieces of American history.

Today, the NCRA provides a free course to introduce realtime writing to all Americans. This course allows high schoolers, career changers, college redirects, and military veterans to see if a profession in realtime writing is a good fit for them.

Additionally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it's important we focus on providing flexibility to our court reporters and ensuring captions are adhering to the FCC' s Caption Quality Best Practices--as opposed to Automatic Speech Recognition, which oftentimes creates erroneous captions.

I want to thank realtime writers everywhere and the NCRA for all the hard work they do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the bicentennial celebration of the founding of Montgomery County, Illinois.

Montgomery County was formed February 12, 1821, and named in honor of Revolutionary War General Richard Montgomery. Montgomery County has a rich history, including being a friend to Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, and providing a stretch of historic Route 66.

Montgomery County continues to be a vibrant community that supports family, sports, fine arts, churches, and numerous organizations for more than 30,000 residents that make up 20 municipalities. I am proud to represent Montgomery County and the many people who make it a wonderful place to live.

Congratulations to everyone in the county on celebrating their bicentennial.

Thank You to David A. Northern, Sr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize David A. Northern, Sr., for his leadership and service to the people of Champaign County, Illinois.

I have had the privilege to work with David through his role as the chief executive officer of the Housing Authority of Champaign County, an organization which provides housing and related services to the most vulnerable populations in our community. He oversaw various programs that provided housing opportunities and assistance to over 13,000 citizens.

Under David's leadership, the agency launched numerous projects to develop affordable housing, update existing properties, and bolster support programs. David believes that the Housing Authority's mission is just as much about transforming futures and putting families on a path to economic self-sufficiency as it is to just providing homes. That vision and drive has served him well.

David's distinguished career and experience in Federal housing assistance has been a blessing to Champaign County. While we will certainly miss him in Illinois, we wish him the very best as he begins a new journey as the president and CEO of the Housing Authority of Birmingham District in Alabama, the largest in the State.

Mr. Speaker, I, again, wish to thank my friend David Northern for his service to Champaign County and congratulate him and wish him the best in his new home in Alabama.

Remembering David Pickett

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of David Pickett, my friend from Taylorville, Illinois, who sadly passed away right before Christmas.

David graduated from Taylorville High School in 1977, and then graduated from Western Illinois University in 1981, with degrees in accounting and computer science.

He will be remembered in our community for his entrepreneurial spirit, his photography skills, and for his love of sharing with others in the community. His most memorable feat in Taylorville will be taking the hobby of photography and turning it into a business called Fun Photo. It was his own sports photography business. I saw David at sports events, and I still have pictures of my young kids in youth football and youth baseball that line my household because David was there. He was part of our community and he was part of our kids.

David was an avid fisherman, a diehard Cardinals fan. He had a talent for cooking and loved to entertain his friends and family. His vibrant personality and remarkable smile will be missed.

I really wish the best for his family right now. It is a sorrowful loss for them, but also everybody in our hometown of Taylorville. Shannon and my kids send our thoughts and prayers to his wife, Debbie; his children, Mark and J.D.; his grandchildren, Libbey, Bennet, Jamison, Charlotte, and Connor; his parents, James and Mary; and his siblings, Linda and Tom.

David, may you rest in peace, my friend.

Remembering Rosemarie Long

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day today. Last night, not just my good friend, but a great friend to our community and Sangamon County, Illinois, passed away.

Rosemarie Long was somebody who I came to know as the head of our local Republican Party in Springfield, Illinois. I can tell you that Rose Long gave such good advice and great mentorship to many people like me and others who have walked this institution. Rose Long was somebody who cared about her community and cared about making her country better.

My heart goes out to her family at this trying time, and I certainly want them to know that I know without Rose's guidance, without Rose's friendship, without Rose's support, I would not be blessed to serve as a Member of Congress.

One thing about Rose, she was not shy, at all, of letting me know her concerns about what we may or may not be doing right for her in this institution. I cannot believe that Rose is gone. I cannot believe that the world is going to be a better place without her. But I know one place that will be better with her, and that is Heaven.

Good luck, my friend. May you rest in peace, and may God continue to bless you and your family at this very sorrowful time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 22.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the U.S. Police and the Sergeant at Arms employees who were here on the front lines protecting this Capitol last week during the unprecedented attack. It is imperative that we focus on ensuring a safe Inauguration Day, protecting Members and staff during this time of increased threats, and making sure that our Capitol Police officers have the support that they need. We need to ensure that what we saw happen a week ago today never happens again.

Yesterday, I introduced, along with Representatives Katko and Comer, a bill that would create a national commission on the domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol. The bipartisan commission would consist of 10 Members--5 Republicans, 5 Democrats-- appointed by the next President and by House and Senate leadership. This commission would be tasked with investigating the domestic terrorist attack that occurred in this building just a week ago, and it will provide us recommendations to prevent similar attacks from happening in the future.

What we saw last week scared all of us who were here. But it also showed adversaries what it takes to take out a branch of government.

When this commission is done with its investigation, it will submit a report to the President and the Congress detailing its findings and recommendations to ensure that no foreign or domestic adversary could accomplish what was done on January 6. We need to ensure that we fully understand what took place last week and any and all issues that occurred during our response.

Republicans and Democrats need to work together. We must unite to prevent any attacks like this from happening in the future, and we must protect this institution, not just for us but for the American people. That is why we should defeat the previous question so that we can establish this bipartisan commission to equip us with the information that we need to support our Capitol Police and the men and women who work in these buildings.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Arkansas seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 6 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 6 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Delaware seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 3 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 3 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Hawaii seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 4 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 4 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Illinois seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 20 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 20 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Maine seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 3 votes for President, and Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 1 vote for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 3 votes for Vice President, and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 1 vote for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Mississippi seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 6 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 6 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Nevada seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 4 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 6 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of New York seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 29 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 29 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Oklahoma seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 7 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 7 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of South Carolina seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 9 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 9 votes for Vice President.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to refer at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, Mr. Cole, yielding.

It is disappointing that House Democrats have completely dismissed the first opportunity to work together in this new Congress to instill voter confidence and protect the integrity of our election process.

The purpose of H. Res. 5 is to address many of the election administration problems that occurred in 2020, something I have encouraged the Committee on House Administration and this House to address long before the 2020 general election.

The resolution would have required the Committee on House Administration to report out a bill that contains five main provisions:

First, a provision to ensure this House's commitment to upholding the U.S. Constitution by maintaining that it is States that have the primary authority to conduct elections, not the Federal Government.

Second, it ensures ballot integrity for votes cast by mail.

Third, this provides a Federal baseline for signature verification.

Fourth, it includes measures to improve voter confidence and certainty in our election results by counting ballots in a timely manner.

And lastly, a provision to ensure proper oversight of Federal dollars provided to States to help them administer elections through the Help America Vote Act.

These issues are nonpartisan. They are problems both sides struggled with in the 2020 election. As the committee with jurisdiction over Federal elections, it is our responsibility to address them.

Arguably, the time to address these issues was before the 2020 election, but it is never too late to do the right thing.

In 2020, more than 65 million people voted by mail, more than ever before. Just as we have baseline standards for administering in-person elections, we should have them for mail-in voting. Baseline standards for these ballots would help ensure every legal vote is counted.

There were many last-minute changes made during the 2020 cycle, in the name of COVID-19, that chipped away at the integrity of our election system, and it is important that we do not maintain this pandemic-style voting in the long term.

The worst thing that can happen to our government is for the American people to lose all confidence in our elections. There are bipartisan steps we can take to help restore public confidence in our elections and protect our Republic.

While it is disappointing that House Democrats have dismissed the first opportunity in this new Congress to work together to protect the integrity of our elections, I am hopeful that, working with Chairman McGovern, Ranking Member Cole, and Chairperson Lofgren and others in this arena, we can set politics aside to achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Edwardsville High School's baseball team on their Class 4A State championship.

Edwardsville played Saint Charles North for the title last week, going into extra innings before the Tigers won it all 3-2, claiming their third State championship in school history and their first since 1998.

With a 37 win and 5 loss season record, Edwardsville came to the championship game ready to win. At the bottom of the seventh inning, Saint Charles had a 2-1 lead with the bases loaded and no outs.

Thanks to a double play, the Tigers tied the game 2-2 and sent the game into extra innings. In the top of the eighth inning, the Tigers stole second base and later laid down a bunt, which led to a close play at the plate, allowing the Tigers to score the winning run.

When the Tigers took the field that morning, Coach Tim Funkhouser had 699 career wins. After the game, he came home with number 700 and a State championship.

What a way to hit 700 wins in your career. I congratulate Coach Funkhouser and the entire Edwardsville Tiger baseball team on a fantastic season and a well-deserved win.

Recognizing Adoption Lawyer Ellyn Bullock

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ellyn Bullock, a lawyer from Champaign, Illinois, who specializes in adoption. She has been nominated to be an Angels in Adoption honoree by the 2019 Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute.

Since 1999, Ellyn has finalized the adoptions of more than 1,800 children. More than half were in the Illinois foster care system and ultimately found permanent homes.

She has won the Catholic Charities Friend of Adoption award and has been recognized multiple times by associations for her advocacy of family values and adoptions outside the office.

Ellyn and her husband, David, are proud parents of three children: Kyle, Imy, and Charlie. They adopted Kyle

and Imy and have acted as guardians of another child.

A stable and permanent family is perhaps the most important thing in a child's developing life. Every day, we rely on people like Ellyn to unite families and improve lives. I applaud Ellyn for all of her hard work and for her fighting for families in the 13th District of Illinois.

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

Madam Speaker, in the 2016 election, we saw a very real threat to our Nation when Russia interfered in our elections by using a misinformation campaign through social media and attacking voter registration databases. While this interference from Russia is unacceptable, I feel it is necessary to point out that there is no evidence that any voting machines were hacked in the 2016 or even in the 2018 elections.

However, this does not mean that there isn't a need for election and cybersecurity improvements for State election systems. On this point, I know my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the distinguished chairperson of our Committee on House Administration, we all agree that no one--and I mean, no one--should interfere with our elections. Every Americans' vote should be counted and protected.

Last Congress $380 million were appropriated to States to upgrade their election security. Also, election infrastructure was designated as critical infrastructure in response to the U.S. Intelligence Community's reports that the Russian Government attacked.

This allowed the Department of Homeland Security to begin providing additional cybersecurity assistance to State and local election officials.

Work has been done to help States improve their election security, and more work must be done. This is why our committee Republicans, all of us on the House Administration Committee, introduced H.R. 3412, the Election Security Assistance Act, to assist States in their election security strengthening efforts.

This realistic legislation provides $380 million in Federal grants to States to update their aging and at-risk election infrastructure, while also requiring State and local officials to have some skin in the game. We require a 25 percent match to ensure that they understand they are getting the best equipment that is going to protect their voters' rights to have their votes counted and protected.

In addition, our bill is the only bill that creates the first ever Election Cyber Assistance Unit, aimed at connecting our State and local election officials with leading election administration and cybersecurity experts from across the country.

Our bill also empowers State officials by providing security clearances to our election officials to better facilitate the sharing of information and requiring the Department of Homeland Security to notify State election officials of cyberattacks and any foreign threats within the State.

It is common sense that if there is an attempt to hack a State election, the State election official should be notified, but they are currently not able to let a State know if it has been attacked. If DHS is the one that sees this attack from a foreign country, they can't notify State election officials because, in many cases, they don't have security clearance.

Our bill clears this up. Those State officials deserve the right to know who is trying to attack their elections in each State in this great Nation.

My good friend, Congresswoman Torres, stated at the Rules Committee hearing on Monday night that she doesn't trust her State election officials in California to have security clearances. Personally, I don't feel that way, and I think other Members of Congress may agree with me.

State officials should know if there is a threat to their election system, and DHS should be the one telling them.

To sum up the Election Security Assistance Act, our solution provides much-needed election security improvements and reinforcements for local election officials, without overstepping the States' authority to determine and maintain their own elections.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the bill we are voting on today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to

the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

Madam Speaker, I certainly hope my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) changes his mind and wants more Republican governments, but I don't think that is going to happen, even today, on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), another good friend of mine from the great State of Florida.

Madam Speaker, look, I respect and agree with my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Casten), my colleague. We want to protect our home State. We saw intrusion into our Illinois State Board of Elections voter registration system. It is something that had to be addressed.

I am happy to report, after talking with the State Board of Election officials, they have been given resources already appropriated by a Republican majority Congress, Republicans in the Senate, and President Trump last year to effectively ensure that that information is not vulnerable again.

What we are debating here today is a bill that will put more unfunded and underfunded mandates on States like Illinois. That is not what our local election officials in my district asked for.

The reason Illinois was able to protect itself and ensure that it didn't happen again in the extremely high, historic turnout of the 2018 midterm election was because they were given the flexibility to spend the HAVA funds that Republicans in Congress ensured that the State of Illinois had, leading to a Democratic majority in the midterm elections.

No one is questioning the safety and security of our midterm elections. No one has told me that any foreign entity hacked into any institution, voter registration system, or machines. Maybe DHS hasn't called me, even though I think I have a security clearance, so they could.

But they can't call our local election officials, under this bill, if it happens again because they don't have security clearance. That is why our bill is a better choice.

The one that is on the floor today does not address the concerns of States like mine, and it certainly does not address the concerns of States like California.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my fellow House Administration Committee Republican and one of my good friends here in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), our Republican Policy Committee chair.

I yield the gentleman from Alabama an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my good friend from Maryland. We as Republicans and Democrats need to do the patriotic thing and make sure that our elections are protected.

And I do agree that the Russians tried to interfere in our election process with misinformation campaigns. But I also want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if their concentration on election security happened the day after the 2016 election, why in the world didn't the administration who was in the White House at the time when the intelligence analysts were talking about how other foreign entities, including Russia, were wanting to interfere in our elections, why didn't they do something about it?

Why are we here today?

Why didn't it happen before the 2016 election, when our intelligence analysts said nefarious activity was moving against the United States of America?

They did nothing. The Obama administration did nothing. They let it go.

Now we are here watching the new Democrat majority that was elected in 2018, after explosive turnout in our midterm elections, their first bill, H.R. 1, that every member of the Democratic majority cosponsored and supported, that is the solution?

The solution is to add millions of taxpayer dollars and then the first ever corporate dollars into their own congressional campaign accounts?

No one has ever said that is the solution to too much money in politics or

to election security. Not one time have I had a constituent say that to me.

Now, we have got to come together and do what is right.

We have yet to address any of the issues that were laid out in the Mueller report. This bill we are debating today does not address any of them. This is a discussion about what happened in 2016 without a discussion of what is needed in our States and local election authorities.

That is what is wrong with this bill, too. It is hypocrisy at its greatest.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my distinguished colleague from California that we do need to have the ability for the Department of Homeland Security

and our intelligence officials to notify our State and local election officials if they see nefarious activity, but right now under the bill we are debating today, that would not be the case, because in many cases, DHS won't talk to local election officials or State election officials because they don't have security clearances.

Our bill, pushed by the Republicans on the House Administration Committee, would allow the communication to take place.

You know, we hear a lot of talk about patriotism coming up on the Fourth of July. I believe we are all patriots in this institution, but I believe, also, we have to govern together.

We were working on a bipartisan solution to election security, and all of the sudden, we were told no more negotiations. That is not how I thought this institution worked. I thought we could work together.

Well, I do want to respond to a couple of comments that my colleague from California made. She may have mentioned H.R. 1. H.R. 1 was the Democrats' attempt to address not only too much money in politics, they said; they also wanted to address election security.

Clearly, what H.R. 1 did was do nothing to affect the money that is coming into politics, and it is not doing enough to ensure that our elections are not impacted by foreign entities with nefarious intentions.

Our bill today that we hoped could have been debated but was voted down on a party-line vote in the House Administration Committee earlier this week, just a few days ago, we hoped we could have come up with that, that is a bipartisan solution that would have worked. What works, our last speaker said, was this. Clearly, that is not what works.

What works isn't voting for a bill like H.R. 1 that votes to put the first ever corporate money directly into every Member of Congress' campaign accounts. What works, clearly, is not taxpayer money to fix that problem when there are not enough corporate malfeasance funds. That is not what the American people wanted.

And what would have worked would have been the last administration, the Obama administration, listening to their intelligence agencies and doing something about nefarious activities before the 2016 election, not the day after, when Democrats decided to take this issue on.

And then all I ever hear is they are going to blame Mitch McConnell. Well, I had no idea, before 2016, that the Obama administration ceded Presidential authority to the Senate majority leader. I had no idea that happened.

Everything is Mitch McConnell's fault, right? He is the one who told the intelligence agencies to stand down. Are you kidding me?

And now we hear we should have done something. You are darn right we should have done something. You are darn right the Obama administration should have done something. You are darn right they should have done it when they first heard about it before the 2016 election, and now here we are to fix it.

And today's bill is clearly not a fix.

We have got some issues, and it is really interesting to see my colleagues from California come up and not want to address a practice like ballot harvesting that is illegal in the State of North Carolina, where a Republican who did it is likely to go to jail for it, but the same process is legal in the State of California--disastrous.

You want to talk about trying to determine the outcome of elections? We have put forth amendment after amendment to address ballot harvesting, with complete party-line votes against making sure the process that is illegal in North Carolina that a Republican operative will likely go to jail for is completely legal in States like California.

And you want to talk about determining the outcome of an election? Come on.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, I really respect my colleague from North Carolina, and I do want to correct him a little bit.

I am from Illinois, not Ohio. I would never mistake the gentleman from North Carolina as being from someplace like South Carolina. But the gentleman from North Carolina is a good friend.

Look, we all have disagreements on this House floor, but that doesn't mean we are disagreeable when it comes to having good friendships, and I thank him for his courtesies and thank him for his friendship.

The State of North Carolina is a great example of why we need to do better, why we ought to go back to the drawing board.

Let's take this bill off the floor. Let's get back to bipartisan negotiations, because in States like North Carolina and States like Illinois where local election officials have bought machines, they bought machines, maybe they have current optical scan machines, but the requirement in this bill, as the Oklahoma secretary of state said, the requirement of this bill to have recycled paper through ballots, many of the already purchased optical scan machines that would be required for every local and State election official to purchase after the year 2022 may not be able to read the ballots on recycled paper. So you are going to have to reinvest hard-earned tax dollars where many local communities in our great States have already invested in updating their election security with the most secure election equipment that they felt was going to protect them.

Washington should not be telling our local officials what to buy, especially when there are provisions in this bill that make equipment that would fit

those guidelines illegal to use or are inoperable even if they have purchased it. We have got to do better.

We all want to protect this great Nation. We all want free and fair elections so that every vote is counted and protected. Let's do it together. Let's do it right.

Let's make sure we address some DHS concerns. Let's put a cybersecurity assistance unit together like we have tried to do.

Let's outlaw ballot harvesting, because I know we have got bipartisan support in working together on that issue, especially with my good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield. I look forward to working with him on this. I know he and I both have concerns about this process, and I thank him for his willingness to sit down and talk.

We can do better. The bill on the floor today is not better. Let's do it. Let's work together. Pull this bill off the floor. We have got a lot of other issues to debate today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

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

Madam Speaker, well, clearly the timekeeper is wrong. I obviously thought I had more, but I am not able to debate that today. I will go ahead and close.

I do want to thank my colleague from California and also the members of the House Administration Committee, where we have an opportunity to come together, but this bill is just simply another partisan bill by the majority aimed at federally mandating election standards, like mandating that States exclusively use paper ballots, effectively banning any type of digital recording device that would have even a verified paper backup.

The committee even had one hearing on this issue with Commissioners from the EAC--remember, that agency that one speaker earlier said was getting a pittance of dollars, small amounts of dollars over the last few years. Only in this institution is $380 million given by the Republican majority here in the House in the last Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States, only in this institution is $380 million a little bit. A lot of that money still hasn't even been spent by our local election officials.

So here we are today debating a bill that is going to basically commit 1.3 billion taxpayer dollars toward so-called election security. We still have not addressed the problem that if DHS, if our same intelligence officials who told the Obama administration that there was foreign interference in our 2016 elections and the Obama administration did nothing about it--because, why? Because of Mitch McConnell. It is Mitch McConnell's fault.

Seriously, come on. Get real here. We are legislators. We are an equal branch of government. There is absolutely no way any administration cedes authority to anybody in this legislative institution.

The Obama administration failed to address the problem of election interference in 2016, and here we are today trying to make sure that we fix it. This attempt to fix it is a partisan attempt at ensuring that our elections authorities and our States and our local election officials have a top-down, federally mandated approach that is going to potentially cost them millions of taxpayer dollars that they have already inserted into their own budgets over the last few years.

Our local officials have told us they want flexibility. Cybersecurity concerns are where they have invested much of the $380 million that we put forth in the last Congress.

Let's make sure we spend the money that we have already appropriated; let's make sure we take a commonsense approach; and let's give our election officials, Republicans and Democrats from throughout this great Nation, the ability to address the concerns they know are weakest in their own system. Let's not have some bureaucrat out here in a concrete building determining what is going to work best in the State of Texas, in the State of Illinois, in the State of California, or anywhere else.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk immediately for his signature.

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

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.

For months, we have heard about the interference in our elections and the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this report right here. But nothing in this bill that we are debating today and voting on today before this body now addresses the concerns that have been raised in this report.

Mr. Speaker, nothing in the bill we are debating today addresses the concerns of foreign interference raised in the special counsel's report that I am holding right now. What we know is that Russia attempted to interfere in our 2016 election through a misinformation campaign, email hacking, and by exploring vulnerabilities of registration databases. This is gravely concerning to every Republican and Democrat in this institution.

But what does the Federal Government telling States that they must replace their safe, new, and auditable machines have to do with addressing these concerns? What does a hand recount mandate have to do with these concerns? What does recycled paper have to do with these concerns?

The tremendous costs associated with these Federal mandates only serve to draw resources away from the real vulnerabilities our States face.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also represented that Republicans have done nothing to address foreign interference in our elections, and that, Mr. Speaker, is simply not true.

In 2017, this country's election infrastructure was designated as critical infrastructure, thereby allowing the Department of Homeland Security to immediately begin offering voluntary assistance to State and local election officials in the form of cybersecurity advisers, assessments, threat detection and prevention tools, information sharing, and incident response.

Additionally, the 115th Congress, last Congress, a Republican- controlled Congress, appropriated $380 million to States prior to the 2018 midterms to bolster election security and $26 million to DHS to add additional staff and carry out their assessment efforts, allowing for unprecedented cooperation between DHS and all 50 States and 1,400 localities in 2018.

Earlier this year, $33 million was appropriated to DHS to continue these assistance efforts, and earlier this week, the Republicans, my fellow Republicans, Mr. Walker and Mr. Loudermilk, on the House Administration Committee, introduced our own Election Security Assistance Act.

So don't tell me we are not taking this seriously.

While so much of the focus has been on foreign interference today, we must not forget that we had a Member not seated this Congress following evidence that political operatives illegally harvested unsealed and only partially filled-out ballots. This practice is legal in many States, but as we have seen, it is ripe for fraud and abuse.

Republicans have offered multiple amendments to prohibit this practice in H.R. 1 and, now, the SAFE Act, each failing on a party-line vote. If we can't agree that this fraudulent practice should be banned, let us at least agree that foreign nationals should not be harvesting the ballots of American citizens.

Right now, a Russian operative could walk freely around States like California, for example, collecting and turning in absentee ballots, completely altering the outcome of an election. But my colleagues have shown no interest in addressing this huge vulnerability simply because it serves their interest only in certain States.

This practice invites a constitutional crisis. America, Mr. Speaker, is watching this vote right now. My amendment today would require the chief election official of each State to disclose to the Election Assistance Commission the identity of any known foreign national who has physically handled ballots, machines, or has had unmonitored access to the storage facilities or tabulation centers used to support elections, or even unmonitored access to election-related information or communication technology. This takes an additional step in rooting out foreign interference and lets the process of legislating about election security finally begin.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to protect our elections from interference from foreign countries like Russia, China, and all others. Vote to preserve the integrity of our ballot, and vote to restore the American people's trust in our institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so the House may consider election security legislation that actually has a chance at becoming law.

As I explained last night during debate of H.R. 2722 at the Rules Committee, there is no place for partisanship when it comes to securing our elections.

H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act, is simply another partisan bill by the majority aimed at federally mandating election standards; like mandating that States exclusively use paper ballots, effectively banning any type of direct recording electronic voting machines which have been proven safe and efficient.

Madam Speaker, keep this in mind; that if this legislation passes, if one of our local election officials had just worked to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing new, digital electronic machines with a paper backup, those machines and that investment of their hard- earned tax dollars would be obsolete in the year 2022, 3 years from now. That is not right.

Mandating the exclusive use of paper ballots will create longer lines at polling places, and can be lost, destroyed, or manipulated far easier than electronic voting machines with a paper trail backup.

I want to highlight the fact that there is no evidence of voting machines being hacked in 2016, 2018, or ever. So why are we forcing States to get rid of what they have deemed as safe technology?

We should work together to safeguard technology. Safeguard technology not abandon it. We don't know in this institution what technology is going to look like when it comes to voting machines in the next five to 10 years. Why are we requiring a certain type of ballot process that is only going to be processed by five companies that maybe produce it today? That is not what we should be doing here in Washington.

Additionally, the SAFE Act federally mandates han recounts, which will result in drawn-out elections that will become unnecessarily expensive.

The majority's bill also contains irresponsible funding commitments. The funding of elections is the primary responsibility of our States. Democrats are committing $1.3 billion over 10 years, with zero funding match requirements from States.

Congress has a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Funds should be given based on need, not a guess of what might be needed a decade down the road.

I want the record to be clear. Many of the provisions in the SAFE Act are inconsistent with what we have heard from experts in election administration. But the majority is ignoring their requests.

As my colleagues across the aisle know, I believe there are areas on election security where Republicans and Democrats can find and have found common ground. There is a role for Congress in election security, which is why, me and my fellow members on the House Administration Committee, introduced H.R. 3412, the Election Security Assistance Act.

I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, Mark Walker and Barry Loudermilk, for joining me in this effort, and the others who have cosponsored it since its introduction. This realistic legislation provides $380 million in Federal grants to States to update their aging and at-risk election infrastructure, while requiring a 25 percent match from States.

If it is good for transportation projects; if it is good for DHS projects, DOJ projects, USDA projects, why don't we have locals and States have some skin in the game?

In addition, our bill creates the first-ever Election Cyber Assistance Unit. It is aimed at connecting State and local election officials with leading election administration and cybersecurity experts from across the Nation.

Our bill empowers State officials by providing security clearances to election officials to better facilitate the sharing of information and requiring the Department of Homeland Security to notify State election officials of cyberattacks and any foreign threats within the State. Keep in mind, the majority bill does not address this.

If DHS hacked a local election official's election system, if they saw a hack in, let's say, central Nevada, DHS would not be able to notify your local election official because he or she may not have security clearance. The majority bill doesn't address this. Our bill does.

To sum it up, our solution provides much-needed election security improvements and reinforcements for local election officials without overstepping the State's authority to maintain their elections. The Election Security Assistance Act, our bill, is the only proposal being discussed today that has a realistic chance of becoming law.

If the previous question is defeated, it will be the first step in putting forth election security legislation that has a chance of helping States improve their security ahead of the 2020 election.

I thank Ranking Member Cole for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important issue.

Madam Speaker, I am always glad to be here with my good friend from the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). And he was right in committee during the markup of this bill that was posted late last week, and we marked it up earlier this week after the rules notice was already posted. It just shows you how rushed this process is.

The gentleman erroneously, and I know, because I had made a quick joke about it afterwards, mentioned we ought to have a mandated republican government or something like that. I said, ``You know what? That is one mandate I can be for in our State and local authorities,'' but I knew what he was talking about.

He knows what he is talking about when it comes to what we all have the same interest in doing, and that is protecting our election security.

My colleague mentioned about standing together. Well, we were trying to stand together, Madam Speaker. We were working in a bipartisan way to put together a bipartisan election security bill, and the Democrat majority walked away. They forced this vote.

These are areas that we can come together and find common ground.

I have been asked, what did the Republicans do when we were in the majority? Well, we not only did $300 million in election security upgrades and cybersecurity protections, we did $380 million. And what was great was we were working over the last 2 years with DHS officials and our local election officials to ensure that 2018 did not suffer the same consequences as 2016. And it worked, even in an extensively high midterm turnout.

Then they said, well, what else did you do over the 2 years? Well, you know what we did? We waited for the $35-million Mueller report to come out and tell us what else we could do.

Now we are here today. We are here today to ensure that we put together an election security bill, not one that the Democrats want, not one that is going to be a top-down approach. It is not what our local secretaries of state want, it is not what our local election officials want, and they are on the ground. Let's listen to them, but let's make sure that we don't take away our ability to address cybersecurity concerns.

It has been mentioned that the Russians used social media to strike at our election process in this country. That is true. This bill does nothing to address that problem. The majority's bill does absolutely nothing to address this problem. That is something that we still need to take care of in Congress.

Let's not confuse the issue, and let's not listen to the 30,000-foot rhetoric that somehow one party over the other is more defensive or wants to be more offensive against nefarious actors. We are all Americans. We are all elected to serve this great country and this great institution.

None of us, Republicans or Democrats, want anyone to attack this country, let alone attack our election process, but the answer to making sure that our elections are safe are in our bill, the previous question.

We are the ones who ensure that DHS can talk to local election officials. Their bill does not do that.

We are the ones that make sure that we create a cybersecurity unit and the ability to address ongoing threats. Their bill does not do that.

That is why I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Let's come back to the table. Let's get something done.