Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1396, I call up the bill (S. 3969) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to explicitly authorize distribution of grant funds to the voting accessibility protection and advocacy system of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the system serving the American Indian consortium, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3969 in the Record.

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

I rise in strong support of S. 3969, the PAVA Program Inclusion Act.

The bill before us today is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that makes an important technical correction in the Help America Vote Act's Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access, or PAVA, program to explicitly include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the

system serving the American Indian consortium as eligible recipients of PAVA funding.

When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, it made significant changes to the country's voting process, addressing needed improvements to voting systems and voter access identified in the wake of the 2000 election. Since its enactment, Congress has provided billions of dollars under HAVA to help States improve voters' access to the ballot, including hundreds of millions of dollars in election security funds over fiscal years 2018, 2020, and 2022 and $400 million under the CARES Act to help voters access the ballot during the COVID- 19 pandemic.

Amongst the numerous changes made, HAVA recognized the unique obstacles persons with disabilities face at the polls, authorizing funding for the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access program, otherwise known as PAVA. The PAVA program funds activities aimed at increasing access to the polls and the ballot for voters with disabilities, ensuring they have access to all aspects of the voting process, and awarding funding to eligible protection and advocacy systems across the country.

Since HAVA's enactment, the millions of dollars in funding allocated under the PAVA program allows protection and advocacy systems across the country to conduct activities such as disability training for poll workers, maintaining voting hotlines, examining polling places for accessibility, and even more.

There are 57 protection and advocacy systems across the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the American Indian consortium. The P&A affiliated with the American Indian consortium serves Native Americans with disabilities in the Four Corners region of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah.

P&As are federally mandated and protect the rights of persons with disabilities through legally based advocacy. Unfortunately, HAVA's definition excluded the protection and advocacy systems serving the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium serving the Four Corners region. I don't think we intended that, and this bill fixes that.

Reintroduced this Congress by our colleague, Representative Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and our former House colleague, Senator Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, S. 3969 puts the P&As serving the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium on equal footing with all 55 other P&As. It does so without changing the program's overall authorization level or other elements of the program.

Fixing this oversight will help ensure all voters with disabilities, regardless of where they live, can fully participate in the electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by all 57 protection and advocacy systems expressing support for the bill, as well as a letter of support from the National Disability Rights Network and a letter from the designated protection and advocacy systems in California and Illinois, all supporting this bill's package.

January 28, 2020.

Representative Zoe Lofgren,

Chairwoman, House Administration Committee, Washington, DC.

Representative Rodney Davis,

Ranking Member, House Administration Committee, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, language making this correction has passed the House twice this Congress in other legislation, and it should be enacted into law.

The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in March, and passing it in the House today will ensure that it will go to the President's desk to become law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the proponent of this legislation.

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

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

We have agreement on this bill from the Senate, and that is a good thing. I should note that we have had discussions, primarily at a staff level, on the election observer measure mentioned by the ranking member and Mr. Steil. We continue to evaluate the proposal, but we found a few concerns. I will mention them now. It is not arbitrary.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Reclaiming my time. My staff indicates that there have been discussions. Obviously, that was at a staff level. But I have outlined what the concerns are, and I would at this point like to close so that we can let the House get to its other business.

To go on suspension, both sides of the aisle need to agree, and I think that is a very important provision of our procedures that will continue, whichever party is in the majority, and that was how this ended up. Because that bill really is not necessarily connected with this PAVA bill. I will talk about another bill that is not connected with the PAVA bill, and that is the venue bill I mentioned earlier this morning.

I forgot to mention, and I put it into the Record last night, that the Progressive Policy Institute, as well as the chamber of commerce, opposes that venue provision. I do think the fact that Senator Cruz, Senator Cotton, Senator Hawley, Mr. Buck and Mr. Gaetz are for it doesn't persuade me that it is a safe measure to move forward to, even though I very much support the Neguse bill. If this does not pass today, I am sure the Neguse bill will come back because we do need resources to enforce our antitrust laws. I am totally on board with that.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will pass this bill from the Senate that will protect disabled voters in the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium, that they will have the same access to funding as all the others, and I urge support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I do so reluctantly, because title I, raising the

fees for enforcement, I am for that. As a matter of fact, I am a cosponsor of that bill. And title II, the foreign measure, I am for that.

But title III is going to create a problem. This has been advanced as if it is noncontroversial. That is not the case. It is complicated. Let me try and be very simple.

In 1968, Congress enacted a provision where if there was a multiplicity of antitrust lawsuits filed by State AGs who have concurrent jurisdiction, a senior panel could consolidate the cases so you wouldn't have inconsistent discovery, inconsistent decisions outside of the various regions.

You don't need that with the Department of Justice because they do the consolidation internally when they bring the case. That is why it worked for the AGs, and it has worked very well for a long time.

Contrary to what some have said, this is not a tech change. This is a venue change for all businesses, which is why I think the Chamber of Commerce said they would score the vote.

I think we need to listen to the main proponent, Mr. Buck, on this. Last night, during the rule debate, he said Big Tech is crushing competition and crushing conservative speech, and that is what his venue bill is about, to prevent moderation of speech.

Content moderation is important. We have seen, in the January 6th Committee, a lot of material that has spread lies, that has incited violence, and that content should be moderated. It should not be subject to a bogus effort by State AGs to prevent content moderation through the antitrust provision.

To claim that that would not happen, I mean, AGs can bring cases right now without this provision--in fact, California just did against Amazon. Fine. Go at it if you have a case. But if you don't think that the attorney general of Texas, who is currently hiding from a process server and facing other legal complications, wouldn't try to use this to undermine content moderation, I think you are sadly mistaken.

That would be, I am sure, for my Democratic colleagues, not their intent, but that would be a very sad result that would not be good for our country.

Now, if we turn this bill down, I am sure what will happen is that the Committee on Rules will put the first two provisions that have broad support in our party back up, and I will happily vote for them, to give the resources for enforcement and the like.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this measure, with great sadness that we have been put in this spot.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Somos Mayfair, a community organization located in East San Jose.

Mayfair is a vibrant neighborhood with a deep legacy of social services, community organizing, and social justice movements. Renowned labor leader Cesar Chavez did early work here and it is recognized as the birthplace of the Chicano Civil Rights Movement.

Somos Mayfair builds community power in East San Jose through leadership development and by organizing resident-led solutions, Somos has built an inclusive vision of a thriving, healthy, and safe community.

Recent accomplishments include:

Building a network of resident leaders trained to be community organizers, leaders, and advocates;

Providing over 1,600 parents and young children the resources and community they need through their Family Resource Centers;

Collaborating with partners to win the development of Quetzal Gardens--a new project making affordable apartments available to residents;

Securing $1.2 million for translation services within San Jose public schools; and

Championing a local preference policy to protect residents from displacement.

As we move forward in challenging, yet hopeful times, we salute Somas Mayfair and its families. We look forward to working together to create opportunities and advancement for all working families.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Billy DeFrank Center. The Center has been an incubator and catalyst for emerging groups and organizations working to meet the needs of the LGBTQ+ community.

The Billy DeFrank Center opened its doors on March 1, 1981, in a two- room storefront. They turned opposition into opportunity by using funds from a failed campaign to repeal ordinances extending housing and employment protections to the gay community to finance their Center.

The Center named itself after William Price, a popular African American drag queen, Billy DeFrank. A mural on the outside of the building honors his commitment to the community and his inclusive spirit.

The Billy DeFrank Center housed several important groups, including High Tech Gays, a major force for change in the 80's and 90's. They successfully sued the Federal Government's Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) for discriminatory practices in issuing High Security Clearances to the LGBTQ+ community.

Sister Spirit Bookstore, a cultural hub for queer women, moved to Billy DeFrank Center's new and larger site in 1986.

Currently, the Center collaborates with various service providers and Silicon Valley Pride to build, unify, and strengthen the LGBTQ+ community in the South Bay.

Throughout the past 40 years, the Billy DeFrank Center has been a beacon of hope, a place to be who you are within your chosen family, to share information to address the diversity of needs in the LGBTQ+ community. Please join me in celebrating this significant milestone.

Mr. Speaker, today, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this rule and will vote ``no.''

I am a supporter of all three bills covered by this rule as they were originally introduced. I am even the cosponsor of Representative Neguse's bill to increase filing fees. However, very unfortunately, this rule advances a modified version of that bill. It tacks on provisions from Representative Buck's antitrust enforcement venue bill, and these antitrust venue provisions are unwise public policy.

I vocally opposed them during the Committee on the Judiciary markup and have dutifully kept my leadership apprised of my opposition to them since that time.

Despite proponents trying to sell these venue provisions as noncontroversial, I am far from the only Member with concerns.

Furthermore, in a highly unusual move, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts wrote to Congress outlining their serious concerns with these venue policy provisions. Opposition also comes in letters from the Progressive Policy Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Proponents argue that State attorneys general are in favor. Well, I understand it was sold to them as a noncontroversial provision. Of course, they would be in favor. It makes life easier for them. It doesn't address the very serious issues outlined by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and it doesn't make this good, wise policy.

So, very reluctantly, I will vote ``no.'' I would gladly support today's rule if these venue provisions were not tacked onto the other good bills.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Administrative Office of

The United States Courts,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2021.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Leader: I write regarding H.R. 3460, the ``State

Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021,'' which was ordered

reported as amended by the Committee on the Judiciary on June

24, 2021. Neither the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation (``Panel'') nor any of the relevant committees of

the Judicial Conference of the United States (``Conference'')

have had the opportunity to analyze this bill thoroughly.

Considering its potential impact on the federal Judiciary and

the efficient administration of justice, I offer for your

consideration the following initial observations. These

comments are neither expressions of support for, nor

opposition to the bill. Nevertheless, I hope they are helpful

and note that pending a more in-depth analysis, by both the

Panel and the relevant Conference committees, additional

comments may be submitted.

Background

Section 1407 was enacted in 1968, in the wake of a large

multidistrict antitrust litigation involving alleged

conspiracies to divide businesses and fix prices in multiple

product lines of electrical equipment. That litigation

encompassed more than a thousand actions in numerous federal

judicial districts brought, in large part, by public

utilities against virtually every manufacturer of electrical

equipment. The sudden influx of civil antitrust actions led

to the creation of ad hoc procedures to coordinate the

litigation before a smaller number of judges to eliminate

duplicative discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Section 1407 was intended to serve as a permanent solution

to the problem that large multidistrict litigations pose to

the federal Judiciary's ability to administer its civil

docket efficiently and justly. The statute created a panel of

seven circuit and district judges, no two of whom shall be

from the same circuit, which is authorized to transfer civil

actions involving one or more common questions of fact and

pending in different districts to a single district for

coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See 28

U.S.C. Sec. 1407(a). To distinguish from other forms of

transfer and consolidation, transfer for coordinated or

consolidated pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 is

referred to as ``centralization.'' The Panel may transfer

actions for centralized pretrial proceedings only if it

determines that transfer will be for the convenience of the

parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient

conduct of such actions. Id. Civil actions transferred to

multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings are remanded by

the Panel at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings to their

transferor districts (i.e., trial is conducted in the

district of original filing), unless the actions were

terminated during the course of pretrial proceedings. Id.

Over the past fifty years, MDLs have encompassed a wide

variety of civil litigation in the federal courts, but

antitrust litigations have always constituted a core category

of cases subject to centralization. Section 1407 contains one

exception with respect to antitrust MDLs--enforcement actions

by the United States arising under the federal antitrust laws

are not subject to transfer under Section 1407. See 28 U.S.C.

Sec. 1407(g). Congress has amended Section 1407 only once. As

part of the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of

1976, Congress added subsection (h), which authorizes the

Panel to consolidate and transfer any action brought under 15

U.S.C. Sec. 15c (i.e., State parens patriae actions) for both

pretrial purposes and trial. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(h).

Concerns

H.R. 3460 would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to limit the

Panel's ability to centralize civil actions brought by States

under the antitrust laws of the United States and delete the

subsection added by the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust

Improvements Act of 1976. Congress to date has never amended

Section 1407 to restrict the Panel's ability to centralize

civil actions. Doing so in this instance raises several

concerns that merit Congress's consideration.

H.R. 3460 May Negatively Impact the Efficiency and Conduct of

Antitrust MDLs

Restricting the Panel's ability to centralize State

antitrust actions could negatively impact the efficiency and

conduct of

antitrust MDLs. When the Panel centralizes actions under

Section 1407, it considers whether centralization will

enhance convenience and efficiency with respect to the

parties, witnesses, and the federal Judiciary as a whole--the

Panel does not limit its consideration to the impact on any

one party in isolation. In general, MDL litigation is most

efficient when all related actions are centralized before a

single judge. Doing so minimizes the potential for

duplicative discovery and motion practice, eliminates the

potential for inconsistent pretrial schedules or rulings, and

conserves the resources of the parties, counsel, and the

Judiciary. To the extent there are actions with different

legal issues or concerns, the MDL judge can formulate a

pretrial program that allows pretrial proceedings with

respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with

pretrial proceedings on common issues (for example, by

creating a separate discovery or motion track for certain

actions). This ensures that pretrial proceedings will be

conducted in a streamlined manner leading to a just and

expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit

of the parties.

Excepting State antitrust actions from centralization can

only increase the number of actions (and, hence, the number

of independent parties and courts) outside the ambit of the

MDL. Related actions that cannot be centralized can introduce

case management difficulties into the MDL. Parties and courts

in actions pending outside the MDL may (either actively or

inadvertently) undermine attempts to coordinate and

streamline discovery and pretrial practice in the litigation.

For instance, such actions may be subject to different

pretrial schedules, parties and witnesses might by subject to

duplicative discovery, and the courts might issue

inconsistent pretrial rulings pertaining to the same parties.

It also is possible that substantively inconsistent rulings

could issue--such as with respect to market definition or

which standard of review (per se or rule of reason) applies

to a given case. Given the nationwide scope of these

antitrust litigations, such inconsistent rulings may

complicate proceedings and sow confusion not only among the

courts and parties, but also in the marketplace.

H.R. 3460 May Result in Inefficient Judicial Administration

of Antitrust Litigation

Apart from the general impact on efficiency caused by

increasing the number of actions that cannot be centralized,

there could be particular inefficiencies created by excepting

State antitrust actions from centralization. States are, in

many ways, similar to private antitrust plaintiffs. For

instance, States may sue because they have suffered a direct

antitrust injury (e.g., if the State directly purchased a

product subject to an alleged price fixing conspiracy). Along

with their claims under the federal antitrust laws, States

may also include claims brought under state antitrust law for

``indirect'' antitrust damages not permitted under federal

antitrust law. Both types of claims are substantially similar

to those presented by private plaintiffs asserting antitrust

injury as direct or indirect purchasers. As such, these type

of State antitrust claims will present factual and legal

issues that are similar or identical to those presented by

the claims of the private plaintiffs. These common claims

generally will be most efficiently litigated in a centralized

proceeding. Notably, similar claims by the United States for

civil damages due to injury to the government itself are not

excluded from centralization under Section 1407. See 28

U.S.C. Sec. 1407(g) (stating that the exemption for claims

brought by the United States as a complainant under the

antitrust laws ``shall not include section 4A of the Act of

October 15, 1914, as added July 7, 1955 (69 Stat. 282; 15

U.S.C. 15a)'').

In addition, States may bring federal antitrust claims on

behalf of their citizens who have suffered harm due to the

alleged anticompetitive conduct (parens patriae actions).

Those citizens may be class members in private antitrust

actions. Indeed, Section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.

Sec. 15c, imposes on State parens patriae actions notice and

opt out requirements akin to those for private class actions

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Courts also are

statutorily obligated to exclude from any award in a parens

patriae action any amounts that duplicate awards in private

actions. See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c(a)(1). A single MDL judge

usually will be best positioned to coordinate state and

private litigations.

H.R. 3460 Could Adversely Affect the Interest of States

Excluding State antitrust actions from MDL proceedings

could adversely affect the interests of the States. While

States might gain greater autonomy with respect to their

individual actions, they would lose much of their ability to

participate in and influence the centralized proceedings.

Collaboration between private plaintiffs and State Attorneys

General also may be reduced, particularly if the States

retain outside counsel to prosecute their antitrust claims.

Such counsel may have attorneys' fees or other incentives

inconsistent with close coordination with the MDL. This could

result (absent coordination between the different courts) in

competing pretrial schedules and inconsistent orders that

complicate the management and adjudication of both the State

antitrust action and the MDL.

H.R. 3460 Could Undermine the Panel's Efforts to Enhance

Coordination with Federal Antitrust Litigation

Excluding State antitrust actions from centralization could

undermine the Panel's efforts to facilitate coordination and

cooperation between private antitrust litigation and

antitrust actions brought by the United States. Where there

is a federal enforcement action or investigation that cannot

be included in a given antitrust MDL, the Panel often will

centralize the MDL in the court where the federal antitrust

action or grand jury proceedings are pending to facilitate

any appropriate and necessary coordination with the private

actions. By multiplying the number of actions excluded from

centralization under Section 1407, the proposed legislation

might eliminate this alternative means of facilitating

coordination with respect to litigations involving both

federal and state antitrust actions.

Conclusion

Thank you for considering these comments. We request that

the Committees of the Judicial Conference and the Panel have

the opportunity to conduct more in-depth analysis of the

legislation before any further consideration by Congress.

Sincerely,

Roslynn R. Mauskopf,

Director.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 44) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present the statue of Harry S. Truman from the people of Missouri, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 82, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 rise today in memory and in honor of Jenny Do, who passed away on Thursday, August 4, 2022, at the age of 56. She was a talented artist, attorney, and activist who was beloved and deeply respected in my district.

Jenny fled Vietnam as a child refugee. She came to this country to begin a new life and pursue her education. She earned a legal degree and became very involved in issues affecting the Vietnamese American community. She served in numerous organizations, including the notable Friends of Hue Foundation, to provide services to improve and implement sustainable solutions in impoverished communities. She sat on the City of San Jose's Art Commission and was committed to raising

awareness about Vietnamese arts, culture, and social issues. As the founder of Ao Dai Festival and Green Rice Gallery, she curated many well-received exhibitions around the Bay Area.

With almost 20 years of legal experience, Jenny was an attorney specializing in worker's compensation cases. She was a fearless advocate for everything she believed in and was willing to help anyone that needed support.

Jenny battled cancer for 15 years and established a support network for Vietnamese American cancer patients. She shared her experience living with cancer over the years and her resiliency was an inspiration to many.

In 2017, Jenny led the efforts to combat the devastating flood of Coyote Creek and made sure the impacted community received assistance from all levels of government. She established a training program to increase disaster preparedness amongst Vietnamese Americans. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Jenny was at the forefront of the community mobilizing efforts to distribute more than 40,000 sets of PPE equipment to healthcare workers. She also led efforts to distribute food to the homeless and elderly throughout the Santa Clara County.

Jenny Do touched people from all around the world and was an extraordinary human being. She was a beacon of light and a role model for many. I was honored to see her work firsthand throughout San Jose and am thankful for her tireless commitment and service to the community. Jenny will be greatly missed. Please join me in honoring her and sharing my deep condolences with her family and our community that mourns her loss.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership on this issue.

Climate change has brought the most severe drought to the West in hundreds and hundreds of years, and it has created an environment where wildfires are roaring through the West.

In fact, seven of the worst wildfires in California history have occurred in the last 4 years. They are destroying homes, farms, infrastructure. They cause injury. That is why this bill is so important.

I am proud that four of my bills are incorporated in the legislation that will allow firefighters to get overtime they have earned and allow for FEMA to predeploy assets and, yes, to use science in the fight against wildfires.

I am proud of the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Science who have turned their attention to the things that can be done to advance funding for the critical research that is happening at places like San Jose State University in their Wildfire Interdisciplinary Research Center.

We can't prevent all disasters, Madam Chair, but we can use our power and use our science to better prepare, to better counter these disasters, and, yes, to make sure that those who are victimized by the disasters are treated fairly. They are our neighbors. We need to help them in their time of loss.

Madam Chair, I thank the Speaker for making this a priority.

Mr. Speaker, America doesn't have to be the only country where mass shootings occur, sometimes daily.

Sometimes I hear people say, ``Well, it is a mental health problem.'' I will tell you what, people have mental health problems in countries all over the world, but only one country has mass shootings the way America does. We need to have an answer to this.

The killer that killed my constituents at the Gilroy Garlic Festival couldn't buy the assault weapon in California, so he just went over to Nevada and bought it there.

We need a national answer. We know it works. When the last ban expired, the number of mass shooting deaths increased by 483 percent.

Americans deserve to be safe and to be free, free of fear that when their kids go to school, they will be obliterated. We need to put the American people ahead of politics. We need to put American children ahead of politics. We need to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

My State of California has several provisions in law that are included in this bill, but it doesn't work as a patchwork because individuals can cross State lines and endanger people.

Everything in this bill is consistent with the Second Amendment. That is why it got such bipartisan support in the Senate.

In the last 3 years alone, my district has had two cities added to the long list of communities that have experienced mass shootings.

America doesn't have to be the only country in the world where mass shootings are a near-daily occurrence. There is broad support in the country for reform that will prevent this epidemic of gun violence.

This bill doesn't do everything that I think should happen, but it does something. It will make people safer. I strongly urge its support.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Connie Conway, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my California colleagues and the House of Representatives, I welcome Representative Connie Conway to Congress.

A lifelong San Joaquin Valley resident, Representative Conway has served as a businesswoman, healthcare worker, Tulare County supervisor, president of the California State Association of Counties, and director of the National Association of Counties.

From 2008 to 2014, she served in the California State Assembly. During her tenure she also served as the Assembly minority leader.

In 2019, Representative Conway was appointed to the USDA Farm Service Agency as the California executive director.

In that role, she administered more than $100 million in safety net and disaster relief programs serving California farmers, ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers.

Representative Conway previously operated her own consulting business and comes with experience in the healthcare sector--previously working for the Women's Health Department at Tulare District Hospital and coordinating a wellness program for Visalia's Kaweah Health Medical Center.

We look forward to working with Representative Conway.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to now welcome our newest Representative to the podium.

Madam Speaker, I yield to Representative Conway.