[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8032-H8048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION REFORM ACT
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1372, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 8873
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Presidential Election Reform
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Article II and the Twelfth Amendment to the
Constitution govern how our Republic selects the President
and Vice President of the United States. Article II provides
that ``each state shall appoint, in such manner as the
legislature may direct, a number of electors, equal to the
whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the
State may be entitled in the Congress.'' (Constitution,
article II, section 1, clause 2). Article II provides that
Congress has the authority to regulate the timing of such
elections by setting the ``time'' of the Presidential
election and the ``day'' on which presidential electors cast
their votes (Constitution, article II, section 1, clause 4).
The Twelfth Amendment identifies Congress' responsibility for
counting electoral votes: ``The President of the Senate
shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes
shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number
of votes for President, shall be the President, if such
number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed.''. Congress' authorities in these respects are
further bolstered by the Necessary and Proper Clause of the
Constitution (article I, section 8, clause 18).
(2) ``On January 6, 2021, a mob professing support for
then-President Trump violently attacked the United States
Capitol in an effort to prevent a Joint Session of Congress
from certifying the electoral college votes designating
Joseph R. Biden the 46th President of the United States.''
Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert.
denied, 142 S. Ct. 1350 (2022). This constituted ``the single
most deadly attack on the Capitol by domestic forces in the
history of the United States.'' Trump, 20 F.4th at 35.
``Then-Vice President Pence, Senators and Representatives
were all forced to halt their constitutional duties and flee
. . . for safety.'' Id. at 16. ``The events of January 6,
2021 marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since
the War of 1812.'' Id. at 18-19.
(3) The Electoral Count Act of 1887 should be amended to
prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn
Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful
transfers of Presidential power.
(4) The reforms contained in this Act are fully consistent
with States' constitutional authority vested by Article II to
appoint electors; the reforms herein do not restrict the mode
in which States lawfully appoint their respective electors or
resolve related contests or controversies, but instead ensure
that those appointments, and the votes cast by those
electors, are duly transmitted to Congress.
SEC. 3. TIMING OF APPOINTING ELECTORS.
Section 1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, in
accordance with State laws duly enacted prior to such day.'';
and
(2) by striking ``in every fourth year succeeding every
election of a President and Vice President'' and inserting
``in each year that is evenly divisible by four''.
SEC. 4. PERMITTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION IN EVENT OF CATASTROPHIC EVENT
POTENTIALLY AFFECTING OUTCOME.
(a) Extension of Time for Election.--Section 2 of title 3,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2. Limited extension of time for appointing electors
``(a) Criteria for Extending Time for Voting in
Presidential Elections.--If a State provides for the State's
electors to be appointed by popular election pursuant to
[[Page H8033]]
State laws duly enacted prior to the day fixed by section 1
of this title, the time for voting in such election shall, in
accordance with the procedures described in subsection (b),
be extended beyond the day fixed by section 1 of this title
if a candidate for President who appears on the ballot in the
State demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in an
action filed under subsection (b) that--
``(1) a catastrophic event has occurred in the State;
``(2) the catastrophic event has prevented a substantial
portion of the State's electorate from casting a ballot on
such day, or caused a substantial portion of ballots already
cast to be destroyed or rendered unreadable by such event
without sufficient notice to affected voters by such day; and
``(3) the number of voters prevented from casting a ballot
by such event, the number of ballots destroyed or rendered
unreadable by such event, or the total of both such numbers,
is sufficient in number to potentially affect the ability of
that candidate to win the election with respect to one or
more presidential electors.
``(b) Procedures.--
``(1) Authorizing filing of action by candidate.--A
candidate for President who appears on the ballot of the
State, and no other person, may file an action against the
chief State election official of the State in the district
court of the United States for the judicial district in which
the capital of the State is located to seek an extension of
the time for voting in the election under this section. Such
district court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
of any such action.
``(2) Determination by three-judge court.--
``(A) In general.--Any action under this subsection shall
be heard and determined by a court of 3 judges convened
pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code,
except that subsection (b)(2) of such section shall not apply
to any such action, and any determination with respect to
such an action shall be reviewable only by appeal directly to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
``(B) Expedited consideration.--It shall be the duty of the
district court described in paragraph (1) and the Supreme
Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to
expedite to the greatest extent possible the disposition of
any action or appeal under this subsection.
``(3) Criteria for decision.--The court shall require the
time for voting in the election to be extended under this
section only if the court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the criteria of subsection (a) are met.
``(4) Scope of extended voting period.--
``(A) Period of extension.--If the court finds that the
criteria of subsection (a) are met, the court shall, except
as provided in subparagraph (C), order an extended voting
period that shall be for the shortest duration necessary in
light of the catastrophic event justifying the extension, so
long as such extended voting period concludes not later than
5 days after the day fixed by section 1 of this title.
``(B) Implementation of extension.-- The time for voting in
an election which is extended under this section shall only
be extended in the area in the State specifically and
directly affected by the catastrophic event, and, to the
extent practicable, all ballots cast on or prior to the day
fixed by section 1 of this title that are otherwise valid
under State law duly enacted prior to such day shall be
counted, and voters who cast such ballots shall not be
required to take further action to take into account the
extension of time for the election under this section.
``(C) Impossibility of implementation.--If the court finds
that the criteria of subsection (a) are met, but that it is
impossible for the State to administer an extended voting
period as a result of the catastrophic event, the court shall
issue a declaratory judgment to that effect and, to the
extent practicable, all ballots cast on or prior to the day
fixed by section 1 of this title that are otherwise valid
under State law duly enacted prior to such day shall be
counted.
``(5) Right to intervene.--Only a candidate for President
who appears on the ballot of the State may intervene in an
action filed with respect to the State under this subsection.
``(6) Sanctions.--If, on the court's own initiative or the
motion of a party, the court finds that the candidate filing
an action under this subsection did not have a good-faith
basis for the factual or legal contentions asserted in the
action, the candidate's attorneys of record and their law
firms shall be jointly and severally liable for an amount
equal to 3 times the full attorney's fees and other expenses
incurred by each other party to the action.
``(7) Deadline.--
``(A) In general.--An action under this subsection must be
filed not later than the day after the day fixed for the
election by section 1 of this title.
``(B) Exception.--If the catastrophic event prevents the
appropriate court from accepting the filing of an action
under this subsection, the action must be filed in another
district court of the United States capable of accepting the
filing most proximate to the judicial district in which the
capital of the State is located.
``(8) Chief state election official defined.--In this
subsection, the term `chief State election official' has the
meaning given such term in section 253(e) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21003(e)).
``(c) Catastrophic Event Defined.--
``(1) Definition.--In this section, the term `catastrophic
event' means a major natural disaster, an act of terrorism,
or a widespread power outage, so long as such event is on a
scale sufficient to prevent a substantial portion of a
State's electorate from casting a ballot on the day fixed by
section 1 of this title, or such event causes a substantial
number of ballots already cast in a State to be destroyed or
rendered unreadable.
``(2) Other definitions.--In paragraph (1)--
``(A) the term `act of terrorism' means an activity that
involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of
the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and
that appear to be intended--
``(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
``(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
``(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
``(B) the term `major natural disaster' means any natural
catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, historically
significant widespread snowstorm, historically significant
widespread flooding, historically significant destructive
fire, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, or volcanic eruption
that causes great damage or loss of life).
``(d) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section may
be construed--
``(1) to limit the application of any State or Federal
protection of the right to vote in an election during the
period during which the time for voting is extended under
this section;
``(2) to preclude a court in an action filed under
subsection (b) from ordering sanctions otherwise authorized
by law; or
``(3) to affect the manner in which, or circumstances under
which, other elections under other provisions of law may be
postponed or extended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating to the Mayor of the
District of Columbia.--Section 21 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) `Governor' includes the Mayor of the District of
Columbia.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 1
of such title is amended by amending the item relating to
section 2 to read as follows:
``2. Limited extension of time for appointing electors.''.
SEC. 5. TIMING OF ENACTMENT OF LAWS PROVIDING FOR VACANCIES
IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Section 4 of title 3, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``by law'' and inserting ``by laws duly
enacted prior to the day fixed by section 1 of this title for
the appointment of electors''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Vacancies occurring after the day fixed by section 1 of
this title for the appointment of electors shall be filled
only by alternative electors appointed under State law
pursuant to this section.''.
SEC. 6. REPEAL OF ``SAFE HARBOR'' RULES FOR DETERMINATION OF
CONTROVERSY REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORS.
(a) Repeal.--Title 3, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 5.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such
title is amended by striking the item relating to section 5.
SEC. 7. CERTIFICATES OF APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORS.
(a) In General.--Section 6 of title 3, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist
of the United States and to Congress; enforcement; public
inspection
``(a) Duties of Governor With Respect to Certification of
Electors.--
``(1) Obligation to certify.--Not later than December 14,
the Governor of each State shall certify the appointment of
the electors for the State in compliance with section 1 or,
if applicable, section 2 of this title.
``(2) Transmission to archivist of the united states.--The
Governor of a State shall, immediately after certifying the
appointment of electors for the State under paragraph (1)--
``(A) transmit under the seal of such State the certificate
of the appointment of electors under paragraph (1) to the
Archivist of the United States by the most expeditious method
available and by secure electronic transmission; and
``(B) make such certificate publicly available on the date
of such transmission to the Archivist.
``(3) Transmission of duplicate-originals to electors.--The
Governor of a State shall deliver to the electors of such
State 6 duplicate-originals of the certificate described in
paragraph (2) under the seal of the State not later than the
date specified in section 7 of this title.
``(b) Preservation and Transmission of Certificate.--The
Archivist of the United States shall--
``(1) preserve any certificate received under subsection
(a) for 1 year as part of the public records of the office of
the Archivist open to public inspection; and
``(2) immediately transmit to the two Houses of Congress
copies in full of each such certificate received by the most
expeditious
[[Page H8034]]
method available and by secure electronic transmission.
``(c) Enforcement.--
``(1) Actions against governor.--
``(A) Actions authorized.--Any candidate for President or
Vice President who appears on the ballot in a State who is
aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) with respect to
such State, including by failing to certify the appointment
of electors or because the certification does not accurately
reflect the final election results of the State as modified
by any recount or judicial or administrative proceeding
conducted pursuant to State or Federal laws duly enacted
prior to the day fixed by section 1 of this title, may file
an action against the Governor for such declaratory,
injunctive, or other appropriate relief in the district court
of the United States for the judicial district in which the
capital of the State is located to ensure the issuance and
transmission of the certificate of appointment in compliance
with the requirements of subsection (a), the Constitution of
the United States, and any other Federal law.
``(B) Relief.--Such district court shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction of any such action and shall issue any
appropriate relief, including, in appropriate cases,
injunctive relief ordering the Governor of the State to
issue, transmit, or revise the certificate of appointment of
electors under subsection (a)(1), or other appropriate relief
sufficient to ensure the transmission of the lawful
certificate of appointment. If the Governor refuses to issue,
transmit, or revise such certificate in compliance with the
district court's order, the court shall direct another
official of the State to issue, transmit, or revise the
certificate of appointment of electors under such subsection.
``(2) Actions against archivist.--Any candidate for
President or Vice President who appears on the ballot in a
State who is aggrieved by a violation of subsection (b) with
respect to the failure of the Archivist to transmit a
certificate of appointment may file an action for such
declaratory, injunctive, or other appropriate relief in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
and such district court shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction of any such action, and shall issue any relief
necessary to ensure the transmission of the certificate of
appointment in compliance with the requirements of subsection
(b).
``(3) Determination by three-judge court.--
``(A) In general.--Any action described in this subsection
shall be heard and determined by a court of 3 judges convened
pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code,
except that subsection (b)(2) of such section shall not apply
to any such action, and any determination with respect to
such an action shall be reviewable only by appeal directly to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
``(B) Expedited consideration.--The court described in
subparagraph (A) shall issue any relief under this subsection
as promptly as possible but in no case later than December 19
such that a final order of the court on remand of the Supreme
Court of the United States may occur not later than December
22.
``(d) Conclusive Effect of Certificates.--
``(1) In general.--In the joint session of Congress to
count electoral votes pursuant to section 15 of this title,
the certificate of appointment transmitted by the Governor of
a State under subsection (a)(2), subject to any modification
pursuant to a court order under subsection (c)(1), shall be
accepted as conclusive with respect to the appointment of
electors for such State, except that, in the case no such
certificate is transmitted by the Governor of a State, or the
certificate transmitted by the Governor does not comply with
revisions ordered by the court pursuant to subsection (c)(1),
the certificate of appointment for the State transmitted by
another official of the State pursuant to a court order under
subsection (c)(1) shall be accepted as conclusive with
respect to the appointment of electors for such State.
``(2) Special rule with respect to final determination of
judicial proceeding.--In the case that a certificate of
appointment is subject to a final determination by a Federal
and a State judicial proceeding, the certificate as modified
by the final determination of the Federal judicial proceeding
shall be accepted as conclusive with respect to the
appointment of electors for such State to the extent that
there is any inconsistency between such determinations.
``(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to preempt any action conducted pursuant to State
law duly enacted prior to the day fixed by section 1 of this
title or affect the right of any person to bring an action
under any other Federal law.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 1
of such title is amended by amending the item relating to
section 6 to read as follows:
``6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United
States and to Congress; enforcement; public
inspection.''.
SEC. 8. DATE OF MEETING AND VOTE OF ELECTORS.
Section 7 of title 3, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``the first Monday after the second
Wednesday in December'' and inserting ``the twenty third of
December''; and
(2) by inserting ``, except that if the twenty third of
December falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the electors shall
meet and give their votes, in the case of a Saturday, on the
preceding day, and, in the case of a Sunday, on the following
day'' after ``State shall direct''.
SEC. 9. DISPOSITION OF CERTIFICATES AND LISTS.
(a) Electronic Transmission of Certificates of Electors.--
Section 11 of title 3, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the undesignated paragraph beginning with
``First.'', by striking ``registered mail'' and all that
follows and inserting ``the most expeditious method available
to the President of the Senate at the seat of government and
shall, on the same day, transmit a facsimile of the same in a
secure, electronic manner.''; and
(2) in the undesignated paragraph beginning with
``Third.''--
(A) by striking ``registered mail'' and inserting ``the
most expeditious method available''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``They shall, on
the same day, transmit facsimiles of the same to the
Archivist of the United States in a secure, electronic
manner.''.
(b) Failure of Certificates To Be Delivered.--
(1) Demand on state.--Section 12 of such title is amended--
(A) by striking ``the fourth Wednesday in December'' and
inserting ``December 30''; and
(B) by striking ``registered mail'' and all that follows
and inserting the following: ``the most expeditious method
available to the President of the Senate at the seat of
government and to immediately transmit a facsimile of the
same in a secure, electronic manner.''.
(2) Demand on judge.--Section 13 of such title is amended--
(A) by striking ``votes'' each place it appears and
inserting ``votes and list'';
(B) by striking ``the fourth Wednesday in December'' and
inserting ``December 30''; and
(C) by striking ``list by the hand'' and all that follows
and inserting the following: ``certificate and list by the
hand of such messenger to the seat of government and shall
immediately transmit a facsimile of the same in a secure,
electronic manner.''.
(c) Increase in Penalty for Neglect of Duty.--Section 14 of
such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``electors'' and inserting ``electors and
list''; and
(2) by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$25,000''.
SEC. 10. COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES IN CONGRESS.
(a) Procedures at Joint Session.--Section 15 of title 3,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
``(a) Procedures at Joint Session.--
``(1) In general.--Congress shall be in session on the
sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the
electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet
in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1
o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of
the Senate (or, in the absence of the President, the
President pro tempore) shall be their presiding officer. Such
joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives
shall not be dissolved until the count of electoral votes
shall be completed and the result of such count declared.
``(2) Authority of presiding officer at joint session.--
``(A) Power to preserve order.--The presiding officer shall
have power to preserve order, and no debate shall be allowed
and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except
as provided by this section.
``(B) No discretionary power.--The role of the presiding
officer is ministerial. Except with respect to the procedures
described in this section, the presiding officer shall not
have any power to determine or otherwise resolve disputes
concerning the proper list of electors for a State, the
validity of electors for a State, or the votes of electors of
a State. Except as provided for in this section, the
presiding officer shall not order any delay in counting or
preside over any period of delay in counting electoral votes.
``(3) Reading of certificates.--
``(A) In general.--The presiding officer shall, in the
alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter
A, open the sealed certificate in which is contained the
signed certificates of votes and the annexed list of electors
appointed for each State, and shall read aloud the names of
the list of electors appointed for each State according to
the certificate received. The presiding officer shall present
the certificate of electoral votes cast by the State's
appointed electors to the tellers for the purpose of reading
such certificates pursuant to subparagraph (B).
``(B) Reading of certificates by tellers.--Two tellers
shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and
two on the part of the House of Representatives. Upon the
reading by the tellers of any such certificate of electoral
votes, the presiding officer shall call for objections to
such certificate pursuant to the rules described in
subsection (c), if any.
``(C) Result of electoral vote count.--After having read
the certificates of each State in the presence and hearing of
the two Houses, the tellers shall make a list of the votes as
they shall appear from the certificates, and the votes having
been ascertained and counted according to the requirements of
this section, the result shall be delivered
[[Page H8035]]
to the presiding officer, who shall thereupon announce the
state of the vote. Such announcement shall be deemed a
sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected
President and Vice President of the United States, and shall,
together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals
of the two Houses.
``(4) Motions in order at joint session.--No motion shall
be received in the joint session except--
``(A) a motion pursuant to subsection (b) of this section
in relation to the appointment of electors from a State; or
``(B) a motion to recess.
``(5) Requirements for actions in order at joint session.--
``(A) In general.--An objection, appeal, or motion shall
not be received by the presiding officer unless such action--
``(i) is submitted in writing and states clearly and
concisely, and without argument, the ground for such action;
``(ii) is signed by at least one third of each House of
Congress; and
``(iii) in the case of a motion to recess, states a time
certain, in accordance with paragraph (6), at which the joint
session will resume proceedings.
``(B) Restriction on motion to recess.--A Senator or
Representative may sign only one motion to recess received by
the presiding officer during joint session proceedings with
respect to a single State.
``(C) Appeals.--
``(i) In general.--If an appeal is submitted in accordance
with subparagraph (A)(i), the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall maintain the written appeal at the desk
and the presiding officer shall provide Senators and
Representatives with a sufficient opportunity to sign it
before proceeding which shall not exceed 15 minutes.
``(ii) Prohibition against withdrawal of appeal.--An appeal
submitted in accordance with subparagraph (A)(i) may not be
withdrawn following submission, and only one such appeal may
be submitted with respect to a ruling of the presiding
officer.
``(iii) Form.--The presiding officer shall put the question
on any appeal as follows: `Shall the decision of the
presiding officer be overturned?'.
``(D) Threshold to adopt.--A majority vote of both Houses
shall be required for the adoption of any question received
during the joint session, except that a majority vote of
either House shall be required for the adoption of a motion
to recess.
``(6) Recess.--A motion to recess must state the time
certain for the resumption of proceedings in the joint
session, the Senate, or the House, and may not state a time
beyond the next calendar day at the hour of 10 o'clock in the
forenoon. If the proceedings of the joint session have not
been completed in three calendar days, no further recess may
be taken.
``(7) Debate.--
``(A) Debate of certain actions.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), any
question received by the presiding officer pursuant to
paragraph (5) shall be reported in the joint session, and
such question shall be submitted to each House, which shall
each withdraw for a period of debate described in
subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Exception for motion to recess.--A motion to recess
shall not be subject to debate.
``(B) Length of debate.--The time for debate of any
question shall be limited to--
``(i) in the case of any motion that is made under
subsection (b), two hours equally divided and controlled by
the majority leader and minority leader of each House or
their respective designees;
``(ii) in the case of any objection that is made under
subsection (c), two hours equally divided and controlled by
the majority leader and minority leader of each House or
their respective designees; and
``(iii) in the case of any appeal of a decision of the
presiding officer, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the majority leader and minority leader of each House or
their respective designees.
``(C) Single debate for multiple motions in relation to
appointment of electors.--If more than one motion in relation
to the appointment of electors from a State is made under
subsection (b) that satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(5), such motions shall be debatable for a single period of
two hours as provided in subparagraph (B)(i).
``(D) Single debate for multiple objections.--If more than
one objection with respect to any vote from a State is made
under subsection (c) that satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (5), such objections shall be debatable for a
single period of two hours as provided in subparagraph
(B)(ii).
``(E) Special rule regarding length of debate.--If the
proceedings of the joint session have not been completed in
five calendar days, the presiding officer may reduce the
length of debate for any question to not less than 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and
minority leader of each House or their respective designees.
``(b) Rules for Identifying the Duly Appointed Electors of
a State.--
``(1) In general.--The presiding officer shall announce the
electors whose appointments are reflected in a certificate
that is received under section 6 of this title. Pursuant to
section 6 of this title, such electors shall be the
conclusive appointed electors for the State, and in no case
shall the presiding officer or the joint session consider any
other person to be an appointed elector for a State.
``(2) Motions in relation to the appointment of electors.--
After the declaration of the presiding officer under
paragraph (1) with respect to a State, the following motions
may be submitted:
``(A) A motion to reject the declaration of the appointment
of electors for the State by the presiding officer under
paragraph (1) on the grounds that the certificate of
appointment presented by the presiding officer is not
conclusive under section 6 of this title and to receive a
certificate of appointment from the State that is conclusive
under section 6 of this title.
``(B) In the absence of any presentation of a certificate
from a State by the presiding officer, a motion to receive a
certificate of appointment from the State that is conclusive
under section 6 of this title.
``(3) Voting by the houses.--
``(A) In general.--When all motions offered pursuant to
paragraph (2) with respect to a State have been received and
read in the joint session, the Senate shall thereupon
withdraw, and such motions shall be submitted to the Senate
for its decision, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall submit such motions to the House of
Representatives for its decision.
``(B) Announcement of decision.--When the two Houses have
voted, they shall immediately resume proceedings in the joint
session, and the presiding officer shall announce the
decision on any such motions.
``(4) Announcement of appointment of electors.--If a motion
under paragraph (2) is adopted, the presiding officer shall
declare the list of electors that was received under such
motion to be the appointed electors for the State.
``(c) Objections to Certificate of Electoral Votes.--
``(1) In general.--Once the joint session has identified
the duly appointed electors of a State pursuant to the
procedures described in subsection (a) and the rules
described in subsection (b), the presiding officer shall call
for objections, if any, to one or more electoral votes cast
by the electors of the State on the grounds specified in
paragraph (2). No votes from a State shall be acted upon
until any objections made to the votes from a State under
this subsection have been decided.
``(2) Grounds for objections.--To raise an objection under
this subsection, a Member must submit such objection pursuant
to the requirements of subsection (a)(5) and specify in
writing the number of electoral votes objected to and one of
the following grounds for the objection:
``(A) The State in question was not validly a State at the
time its electors cast their electoral votes and is thus not
entitled to such votes, except that such objection may not be
raised with respect to the District of Columbia.
``(B) The State in question submitted more votes than it is
constitutionally entitled to, and thus a corresponding number
of its purported votes should be rejected.
``(C) One or more of the State's electors are
constitutionally ineligible for the office of elector under
article II, section I, clause 2 or section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States, except if a State has replaced the ineligible elector
with an eligible elector pursuant to the authority described
in section 4 of this title prior to the casting of electoral
votes by its electors, then it shall not be in order to cite
the initial appointment of the ineligible elector as grounds
for raising an objection under this subparagraph.
``(D) One or more of the State's electoral votes were cast
for a candidate who is ineligible for the office of President
or Vice President pursuant to--
``(i) article I, section 3, clause 7 of the Constitution of
the United States;
``(ii) article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution
of the United States;
``(iii) section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States; or
``(iv) section 1 of the Twenty-second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
``(E) One or more of the State's electoral votes were cast
in violation of the requirements enumerated by article II,
section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States
by failing to vote on the date specified in section 7 of this
title, or one or more of the State's electoral votes were
cast in violation of the Twelfth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States by failing to be cast--
``(i) by ballot; or
``(ii) distinctly for the offices of President and Vice
President, one of whom is not an inhabitant of the elector's
State.
``(3) Voting by the houses.--
``(A) In general.--When all objections offered pursuant to
paragraph (1) with respect to a State have been received and
read in the joint session, the Senate shall thereupon
withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the
Senate for its decision, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall submit such objections to the House of
Representatives for its decision.
``(B) Announcement of decision.--When the two Houses have
voted, they shall immediately resume proceedings in the joint
session, and the presiding officer shall announce the
decision on any such objections.
``(d) Effect of Rejection of Electoral Votes.--
[[Page H8036]]
``(1) Effect of rejection of electoral votes.--If a State's
electoral votes are rejected under subsection (c)(2)--
``(A) in the case a State's electoral votes are rejected
pursuant to an objection under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)
of such subsection, the whole number of electors appointed
for purposes of the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States shall be reduced by the number of rejected
electoral appointments; and
``(B) in the case a State's electoral votes are rejected
pursuant to an objection under subparagraph (D) or (E) of
such subsection, the whole number of electors appointed for
purposes of the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States shall be unaffected.
``(2) Constitutional ineligibility.--For the purposes of
section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States, in the case an objection is sustained
under subsection (c)(2)(D)--
``(A) the electoral votes cast for such candidate shall be
counted for the purposes of determining whether the candidate
has been elected under such amendment;
``(B) such candidate shall be deemed to have failed to
qualify under such amendment; and
``(C) subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply with respect to
any electoral votes cast for such candidate from any other
State that are otherwise valid under this section, except
that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit
a Member from objecting to any such electoral votes on other
grounds described in subsection (c)(2).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Title 3, United States Code, is
amended by striking sections 16 through 18.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such
title is amended by striking the items relating to sections
16 through 18.
SEC. 11. PROTECTION OF TABULATION AND CERTIFICATION.
(a) Prohibition.--With respect to an election for the
office of President, Vice President, or presidential elector,
no person acting under color of law shall willfully fail or
refuse to--
(1) tabulate, count, or report any vote that is timely cast
and is otherwise valid under applicable State and Federal
law; or
(2) certify the aggregate tabulations of such votes or
certify the election of the candidates receiving sufficient
such votes to be elected to office.
(b) Enforcement.--
(1) Authorizing filing of action by candidate.--Any
candidate for President, Vice President, or presidential
elector who appears on the ballot in a State who is aggrieved
by a violation of subsection (a) may file an action for such
declaratory and injunctive relief as may be appropriate in
the district court of the United States for the judicial
district in which the capital of the State is located.
(2) Determination by three-judge court.--
(A) In general.--An action described under this subsection
shall be heard and determined by a court of 3 judges convened
pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code,
except that subsection (b)(2) of such section shall not apply
to any such action, and any determination with respect to
such an action shall be reviewable only by appeal directly to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
(B) Expedited consideration.--It shall be the duty of the
district court described in this subsection and the Supreme
Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to
expedite to the greatest extent possible the disposition of
any action or appeal under this subsection.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to preempt any action conducted pursuant to State
law duly enacted prior to the day fixed by section 1 of title
3, United States Code, or affect the right of any person to
bring an action under any other Federal law.
SEC. 12. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of any provision of this Act or an
amendment made by this Act to any person or circumstance, is
held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, and
the application of such provision or amendment to any other
person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I think it is important today to begin by taking a step back, provide
some important context about the bill we are considering today, and
reestablish some important facts.
Election administration and the way elections work is a complicated
process. For most of us, this experience typically consists of showing
up, casting a ballot, and then digesting news coverage of results. Very
few people realize everything that goes on behind the scenes.
But recently, as election administration has come into the forefront,
there are a lot of people who all of a sudden seem to think that they
are an expert on the subject. This includes many of the people in these
buildings and in the press.
Many of those folks have never been on the ground in election offices
across the country and couldn't tell the difference between an e-
pollbook and a high-speed ballot scanner, yet they know they are right.
This has led to all sorts of rumors, narratives, and misinformation
across the political spectrum to percolate within our society, and that
has caused people to lose faith in our elections. This is a huge
problem.
I have spent the past few years traveling the country to learn about
different State election processes and have met with countless
Republican and Democrat election administrators.
[[Page H8037]]
I have learned about the checks and balances in place.
Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our democracy, and we must
ensure people can have faith in elections and election processes and
outcomes in order for our democracy to continue to thrive.
Unfortunately, one false narrative that has been pushed by my
colleagues on the other side is that Republican Members of Congress are
election subverters or deniers, trying to overthrow elections because
of an objection to a State's electoral slate on January 6. This has
been fueled by members of the media who don't understand the subject.
They are claiming that this particular action was unprecedented and
an affront to democracy. However, so many of them, including powerful
committee chairs that are in power today, have objected in the past. In
fact, Democrats have objected to every single Republican Presidential
win in the 21st century.
Another false narrative is that somehow the legal actions taken by
the Trump campaign, the rhetoric of former President Trump, Republican
Members of Congress voting to object to a State's electors, and the
illegal actions of many people who attacked the Capitol on January 6
were all connected in some kind of mass conspiracy by Republicans to
stage a coup.
These two narratives are now presented on a daily basis as though
they are fact, but that is quite simply not true. The fact of the
matter is, there are longstanding legal frameworks in place to
adjudicate disputes in election outcomes that have been utilized
regularly, regardless of party.
There is not enough time today to go through all of them, but the
point is these processes have existed for a long time, and they are
used frequently and often by candidates of all political stripes.
There are checks, balances, and safeguards woven in throughout the
system. The goal of every election framework is to ensure the person
who takes the oath of office is the one who actually won. That is true
in the States, in the courts, and here in Congress.
The best news of all is these systems have worked. At the end of the
day, the outcomes were exactly as they should have been. It is why
people can and should have faith in our election system.
This isn't to say that our system is perfect. There is always room
for improvement, but unfortunately, that is not what is happening here
today.
The Electoral Count Act has been in place for over a century and
directly implements constitutional provisions. Members of all political
parties have exercised their rights under the provisions of that law to
raise constitutional objections to State electoral slates if they
determine something may be improper. This is not an affront to
democracy. Frankly, it is democracy in action.
In fact, Democrats have quite an extensive history of objecting to
the electoral count. I include in the Record a list of over 80
Democrats denying election results, including many chairs, people like
Chairperson Maxine Waters, Chairman Bennie Thompson, Representative
Jamie Raskin, and many others here today.
Committee on Republicans House Administration,
Ranking Member, Rodney Davis,
Democrat Objectors Since 2000
2000 (Jan. 2001)
Rep. Alcee Hastings,
Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr.
Rep. Maxine Waters
Rep. Ted Deutch
Rep. Carrie Meek
Rep. Corrine Brown
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Rep. Elijah Cummings
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Rep. Patsy T. Mink
Rep. Eva Clayton
Rep. Bob Filner
2004 (Jan. 2005)
Sen. Barbara Boxer
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones
2016 (Jan. 2017)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
Rep. Pramila Jayapal
Rep. Jim McGovern
Rep. Jamie Raskin
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. Maxine Waters
____
1. Hillary Clinton denied the results of the 2000 and 2016
presidential elections, believed there were legitimate
questions regarding the integrity of the 2004 presidential
election, and said that Stacey Abrams would have won the 2018
Georgia gubernatorial election against Gov. Brian Kemp if it
had been fair.
2. President Joe Biden has previously claimed that Gore won
the 2000 presidential election and agreed that Trump was an
``illegitimate president.''
3. Vice President Kamala Harris has previously agreed that
Trump was an ``illegitimate president'' and claimed that
without voter suppression, Abrams would have won the 2018
Georgia gubernatorial election and Andrew Gillum would have
won the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election.
4. Former President Bill Clinton claimed that Gore actually
won the 2000 presidential election.
5. Former President Jimmy Carter claimed that Gore was the
real winner of the 2000 presidential election and that Trump
lost the 2016 presidential election.
6. Former President Barack Obama, when he was an Illinois
senator, said that not every vote was counted in the 2000
presidential election.
7. John Kerry, President Biden's special presidential envoy
for climate, claimed voters were ``denied their right to
vote'' in the 2004 presidential election and reportedly told
New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller that he
believed the election was stolen.
8. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, also said the 2004
presidential election could have been stolen.
9. Stacey Abrams, the current Georgia Democratic
gubernatorial nominee, has claimed that she won the 2018
election for governor of her state.
10. Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who was the DNC
chairman 2001-2005, claimed that Gore won the 2000
presidential election.
11. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised then-Sen.
Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) objection to the certification of
Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election.
12. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of both the
Homeland Security and Jan. 6 committees, objected to the
electoral votes from the state of Ohio for the 2004
presidential election.
13. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) questioned
the integrity of the 2000 presidential election when he was
chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004
presidential election.
14. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), when he was a congressman,
voted to reject the electoral votes from the state of Ohio
for the 2004 presidential election.
15. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), when he was a congressman
during the certification of the 2004 presidential election,
said he was ``worried'' that there wasn't a paper trail for
electronic voting machines in case of recounts. After the
2016 presidential election, Sanders said he was ``concerned''
about ``the role Russian hacking played in getting [Trump]
elected.''
16. Then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was the only senator
to join 31 House Democrats in rejecting the electoral votes
from the state of Ohio for the 2004 presidential election.
17. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Financial Services
Committee chair, objected to the certification of Florida's
electoral votes in the 2000 presidential election and the
certification of Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004
presidential election. She also tried to get a senator to
join her in a letter of objection after the electoral votes
for Wyoming were announced during the certification of the
2016 presidential election.
18. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is a member of the
January 6th Committee and was a House impeachment manager
during Trump's second impeachment, said Bush was a ``court-
appointed president'' following 2000 election, and objected
to certifying the electoral votes for Florida in the 2016
presidential election.
19. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, claimed there were irregularities in the 2004
presidential election and called Trump ``an illegitimate
president.''
20. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a senior member of
the Judiciary, Homeland Security and Budget committees,
objected to ``Florida's inaccurate vote count'' in the 2000
presidential election, objected to the certification of
Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election, and
objected to several states' electoral votes in the 2016
presidential election.
21. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) objected to the
certification of Florida's electoral votes in the 2000
presidential election, objected to the certification of
Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election, and
objected to the certification of Michigan's electoral votes
in the 2016 presidential election.
22. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Natural Resources
Committee chairman, objected to Ohio's electoral votes in the
2004 presidential election and objected to North Carolina's
electoral votes for the 2016 presidential election.
23. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when she was
chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said there was
``overwhelming evidence'' that Bush did not win the 2000
presidential election and objected to the certification of
Florida's electoral votes in the 2000 presidential election.
She also objected to the certification of Ohio's electoral
college votes in the 2004 presidential election.
[[Page H8038]]
24. Then-Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) didn't believe Trump was
legitimately elected in 2016 and voted to not certify Ohio's
electoral vote in the 2004 presidential election.
25. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Energy and Commerce
Committee chairman, objected to the certification of Ohio's
electoral vote in the 2004 presidential election.
26. Then-Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) objected to the
certification of Florida's electoral votes in the 2000
presidential election.
27. Then-Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D-111.) asked if it was
too late for a Democratic senator to sign an objection to the
electoral votes for Florida in the 2000 presidential
election. He also objected to the certification of Ohio's
electoral college votes in the 2004 presidential election.
28. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., said that the 2000 election
was ``essentially taken and stolen'' from Gore and suggested
that the 2004 presidential election was won through fraud.
29. Then-Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii) objected to the
certification of Florida's electoral votes in the 2000
presidential election.
30. Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), chairman of a Ways and
Means subcommittee, objected to the certification of Ohio's
electoral vote in the 2004 presidential election.
31. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the current senior chief
deputy whip, objected to the certification of Ohio's
electoral vote in the 2004 presidential election and said the
2016 presidential election was ``tainted by foreign
interference and voter suppression.''
32. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) believed the 2016
presidential election outcome was altered by Russian
interference.
33. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), former DNC
chairwoman, said that Gore won the 2000 election and that the
2016 election outcome was affected by Russian interference
for Trump.
34. Then-Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) didn't believe Bush
was elected in the 2000 presidential election and objected to
the certification of Florida's electoral votes in the 2000
presidential election. She also objected to the certification
of Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election.
35. Then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) approved of Democrats'
efforts to contest the 2004 presidential election.
36. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., claimed the 2004 presidential
election was stolen.
37. Then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (R-Ohio) objected to
the certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the
2004 presidential election.
38. Then-DNC Chairman and former Vermont governor Howard
Dean claimed there was voter suppression by Republicans in
the 2004 presidential election, that the electronic voting
machines weren't reliable, and said there wouldn't ``be any
more election stealings.'' Following the 2018 Georgia
gubernatorial election, he said that Abrams shouldn't concede
and that it was ``almost certainly stolen.''
39. Then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was
concerned about the integrity of electronic voting machines
in the 2004 presidential election.
40. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised Boxer for objecting
to the certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the
2004 presidential election.
41. Then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) praised Tubbs Jones for
objecting to the certification of Ohio's electoral college
votes in the 2004 presidential election and raised concerns
about Republicans suppressing the vote and possible fraud
with electronic voting machines.
42. Then-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) claimed there was
``systematic voter disenfranchisement'' and issues with
voting machines.
43. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) raised concerns about
voting machines used in the 2004 presidential election.
44. Sen-Rep. Sherrod Brown, (D-Ohio) when he was a
congressman, said there were voters ``who lost their right to
vote'' in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election. He also
said that if Abrams wasn't the winner of the 2018 Georgia
gubernatorial election, then the election was stolen.
45. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) objected to the certification
of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004 presidential
election.
46. Then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
47. Then-Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
48. Then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Calif.) objected to the
certification of Florida's electoral votes in the 2000
presidential election and objected to the certification of
Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004 presidential
election.
49. Then-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) praised Boxer and
Tubbs Jones on their efforts to object to the certification
of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004 presidential
election.
50. Then-Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who was the chair of
the Congressional Black Caucus and later served in the Biden
administration as director of the White House Office of
Public Engagement, said Lewis' remarks that Trump wasn't
legitimately elected were ``reasonable.''
51. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said there was ``a cloud of
illegitimacy'' over Trump's presidency.
52. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he believed the 2018
Georgia gubernatorial election was stolen from Abrams.
53. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said evidence appeared
to suggest that the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was
stolen from Abrams.
54. Former attorney general for the Obama administration,
Eric Holder, said he believed Abrams won the 2018 Georgia
gubernatorial election.
55. Andrew Gillum withdrew his concession in the 2018
Florida gubernatorial election, questioning how the vote was
handled in some counties.
56. Then-Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.) wanted authorities
to investigate voter irregularities and voter
disenfranchisement after he lost his House race in 2020. He
said it was is ``one disappointment'' that a court didn't
grant him a recount.
57. Then-state Sen. Rita Hart (D-Iowa) initially challenged
her election loss in the 2020 House race, claiming that
ballots were rejected improperly.
58. Biden's Chief of Staff Ron Klain said that Gore won the
2000 presidential election.
59. Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre tweeted that
the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was stolen by Kemp
from Abrams and implied that the 2016 presidential election
was stolen.
60. Harris' Communications Director Jamal Simmons tweeted
that the 2000 presidential election was stolen by Bush.
61. Then-Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), who is now Biden's
secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
questioned the legitimacy of Trump's presidency.
62. Then-Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) objected to the
certification of Florida's electoral votes for the 2000
presidential election and objected to the certification of
Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004 presidential
election.
63. Then-Rep. Julia Carson (D-Ind.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
64. Then-Rep. John Conyers, Jr., (D-Mich.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
65. Then-Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
66. Then-Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
67. Then-Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), who later became mayor
of San Diego, objected to the certification of Florida's
electoral votes in the 2000 presidential election and
objected to the certification of Ohio's electoral college
votes in the 2004 presidential election.
68. Then-Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
69. Then-Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) objected
to the certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the
2004 presidential election.
70. Then-Rep. John Olver (D-Mass.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
71. Then-Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
72. Then-Rep. Donald M. Payne, Sr., (D-N.J.) objected to
the certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the
2004 presidential election.
73. Then-Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
74. Then-Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) objected to the
certification of Ohio's electoral college votes in the 2004
presidential election.
75. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to the
certification of Alabama's electoral votes in the 2016
presidential election.
76. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to the
certification of Georgia's electoral votes in the 2016
presidential election.
77. Christine Pelosi, who is Pelosi's daughter and was an
elector in 2016, was one of the 80 Hamilton Electors who led
an effort to receive a briefing on the Trump-Russia collusion
investigation prior to the Electoral College vote.
78. Then-Rep. Carrie Meek (D-Fla.) objected to the
certification of Florida's electoral votes in the 2000
presidential election.
79. Then-Rep. Eva Clayton (D-N.C.) objected to the
certification of Florida's electoral votes in the 2000
presidential election.
80. Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias argued in court
that voting machines ``misread'' votes in Brindisi's election
challenge for his 2020 House race. He also got Al Franken's
apparent loss in a Minnesota Senate election overturned in
court.
81. Former state Sen. Hank Sanders (D-Ala.) said the 2016
presidential election was stolen from Clinton.
82. Sen. Patty Murray's (D-Wash.) supported fellow
Democrats for their ``questions about voting irregularities''
in the 2004 presidential election.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Again, the result in all of these cases
was that our system worked. The House and Senate did what they were
supposed to do, heard the objections, disposed of them properly, and
ultimately certified the election as originally presented.
[[Page H8039]]
Objecting does not make you an election subverter or denier. Each
Member of Congress has a constitutional duty to do what they think is
best for their constituents.
At the same time Democrats were accusing Republicans of undermining
democracy, they themselves were attempting to overturn the results of a
duly-certified election in Iowa's Second Congressional District. The
challenger, Democrat Rita Hart, even said that she brought the contest
to a partisan committee in D.C. instead of Iowa courts in order to
``get the result we need.''
This was after the State of Iowa followed their normal and lawful
process throughout the election for Iowa-02. The votes were counted,
recounted by multiple bipartisan recount boards, and duly certified.
Yet, this majority orchestrated having their candidate bypass State
courts and instead attempted to utilize the House itself to steal a
congressional seat to boost their slim majority. This was the single
biggest act of election subversion that occurred in the 2020 election
cycle, and it was carried out by the same people here today claiming
that Republicans are a threat to democracy.
Fast forward to today. Democrats are once again attempting to move a
major piece of legislation that overhauls a key piece of our election
system in a partisan manner behind closed doors. They didn't hold a
hearing or a markup on this bill. They didn't release legislative text
until 24 hours before it was considered in the Rules Committee. They
didn't consult Republicans on the committee of jurisdiction, despite
repeated overtures to work together on discussions of this important
issue--all rebuffed.
Why rush such a significant piece of legislation when the next
Presidential certification won't happen for over 2 years? It is pretty
simple, Madam Speaker: The midterm elections are just weeks away, and
the Democrats are desperately trying to talk about their favorite
topic, former President Trump.
As someone who voted to certify Joe Biden as President and who
recently lost a primary race to a candidate endorsed by the former
President, I believe what House Democrats and the January 6th Committee
are doing is irresponsible and wrong.
They have allowed their dislike for one man, President Trump, to
cloud their judgment and guide their actions, no matter the
consequences to this institution or the Constitution that they claim
they want to uphold.
{time} 1500
It is time that we started being honest with ourselves and with the
American people. The facts are:
The President and his campaign filing legal challenges in State and
Federal courts around the country was not improper nor unprecedented.
Everyone is entitled to their day in court. Those suits were considered
by judges and ultimately rejected. The process worked.
The rhetoric of former President Trump following the 2020 election
was highly inappropriate.
Republican Members of Congress objecting to a State's slate of
electors is not election subversion or unprecedented.
The actions of the individuals who attacked the Capitol on January 6
were wrong. Those individuals should be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law.
Democrats have just as long of a history as Republicans of
challenging and questioning elections, including attempting to overturn
a duly certified congressional election in Iowa. This is not a partisan
issue, and the processes in place have worked.
Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate that people's faith in our
elections is critical to the long-term success of our democracy. It is
time for House Democrats to quit playing partisan political games and
pushing false narratives just to preserve their own power.
It is incumbent upon all of us to be honest and work in good faith to
serve the American people, restore faith in our elections, and protect
our democracy.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the
gentlewoman from California, Chairwoman Lofgren, for her work on this
bill. The chairwoman and I certainly have our disagreements on issues,
but there is no one I respect more in this body for their diligence,
for their commitment, for their expertise, for their commitment to our
Constitution, to her constituents, and to this country. It has been a
real pleasure working with her, as well as the staff of the House
Administration Committee. I particularly thank my counsel on the
January 6th Select Committee, Joe Maher, for his tremendous work on
this bill.
This bill has benefited from a wide range of input from
constitutional experts, including many conservative constitutional
experts, jurists, and scholars who worked with us on this bill. Their
input has been invaluable.
I also want to praise those in the Senate who have been working hard
on their version of Electoral Count Act reform. Our bill builds on what
they have already put forth.
Commentary from conservatives on our bill has been exceptionally
positive. Here are a few examples.
Judge Luttig, a widely respected conservative legal expert, wrote
that our bill was ``masterfully drafted'' to ensure we never have
another day anything like January 6 and to avert other future efforts
to overturn our Nation's democratic elections.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board offered a range of positive
comments, including explaining that the House bill would make it harder
for ``partisans in Congress who want to get C-Span-famous to lodge
phony electoral college objections'' or for them to raise objections on
the House floor because ``somebody had a funny feeling about the vote
totals in west southeastern Pennsylvania.''
The conservative Cato Institute said this: ``In some respects,'' this
bill is ``more conservative and originalist'' than the existing Senate
bill.
Conservative commentator Quin Hillyer said in the Washington Examiner
that the House bill adds to the work already done by the Senate and
``fills in almost all gaps with admirable and sensible specificity.''
There are many other examples from conservative commentators, as
well. Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to read those
articles and editorials in full.
If your aim is to prevent future efforts to steal elections, I would
respectfully suggest that conservatives should support this bill. If
instead your aim is to leave open the door for elections to be stolen
in the future, you might decide not to support this or any other bill
to address the Electoral Count Act.
January 6, contrary to what my colleague from Illinois just said, was
not ``democracy in action.'' Our oath of office is to support and
defend the Constitution, which provides the method by which we elect
our President. Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump's
refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was.
In our system of government, elections in the States determine who is
the President. Our bill does not change that. This bill will prevent
Congress from illegally choosing the President itself.
As we detailed in our January 6 hearings, a Federal judge has
reviewed evidence submitted by the January 6th Select Committee and
concluded that former President Trump likely violated two criminal
statutes when he pressured Vice President Pence to reject legitimate
State electoral votes in our joint session. That is what Vice President
Pence called ``un-American.''
In our hearings, we have demonstrated that President Trump knew
specifically that what he was doing was illegal, but he did it anyway.
President Trump's conduct was illegal under the existing Electoral
Count Act, and it would be illegal under this new bill, as well.
Our bill reaffirms what the Constitution and existing law make plain:
The
[[Page H8040]]
Vice President has no authority or discretion to reject official State
electoral slates. It also makes clear that if Members of Congress have
any right to object to electoral slates, those grounds are limited to
the explicit constitutional requirements for candidate and elector
eligibility and the 12th Amendment's explicit requirements for elector
balloting.
Under our system of elections, Governors must transmit lawful
election results to Congress. If they fail to fulfill that duty, our
bill provides that candidates for the Presidency should be able to sue
in Federal court to ensure that Congress receives a State's lawful
certification.
Finally, our bill makes clear that the rules governing an election
cannot be changed retroactively. The Constitution assigns an important
duty to State legislatures to determine the manner in which the States
appoint their electors. This must not be read to allow State
legislators to change the rules retroactively to alter the outcome.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, this bill will preserve the rule of law
for all future Presidential elections by ensuring that self-interested
politicians cannot steal from the people the guarantee that our
government derives its power from the consent of the governed.
Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Ranking Member
Davis, for yielding me the time.
I will address something that I heard just a few moments ago from my
colleague from Wyoming listing off a number of conservative
commentators about how great this bill is, and that is why we should
vote on it. Well, see, that is the problem of why we are here right
now. None of those conservative commentators are responsible for
casting a vote for something that will affect the future of this
country.
You see, we are here now making a decision on this issue when we
should have been included in this process all along. I am not calling
into question whether this bill is good or whether this bill is bad.
What I am saying is we have not been involved in this process, and we
are being told to just take the word of someone because they call
themselves a conservative commentator.
It is those of us here who have been elected by the people of this
Nation that are given the responsibility to analyze these things, to
work together in a bipartisan manner to come up with what is the best
solution for this Nation. That is not where we are.
A partisan-run committee is the one who has rushed this bill to the
floor, and we are being told that we need to work on it and that it is
imperative we pass it now.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that we ought to take a closer look at
the Electoral College Act. I agree that we should clarify some of the
mechanisms of the act, and I certainly agree that we should be working
to prevent another breach of security of this Capitol as we saw on
January 6.
With all that said, we can't afford a one-sided, no-compromises
discussion crafted by a partisan select committee, which is what we are
being presented with in this bill, at least from the perception that we
have at this moment.
So, my question is: Why now? Why has the January 6th Committee chosen
this moment to pursue this legislation instead of working together in a
true bipartisan manner, engaging Republicans and Democrats together in
a broader perspective?
You see, the American people are smart enough, and they know the
answer to this question. The January 6th Committee has really wasted
more than a year. Instead of looking into how the security of this
building was breached, they have been looking for a year for evidence
of some vast conspiracy on January 6, 2021, with nothing to show for
it. They have spent days falsely accusing me and some of my other
colleagues of wrongdoing in the days prior to the January 6 incidents
without producing any substantial evidence to back up their claims.
Why? Because it doesn't exist.
Now, with midterm elections looming and the prospect of a new
majority in the House and the Senate, they feel they need to justify
the time they have wasted by inserting themselves into what was once a
bipartisan, bicameral discussion of the Electoral Count Reform Act.
In the meantime, House Republicans have taken concrete steps to
promote confidence in elections at every level of government. We have
introduced legislation that would reaffirm States' constitutional
sovereignty over elections rather than trampling it. We have done this
because the American people are tired of hearing about January 6.
The American people care about the growing cost of living, the
declining economy, and the uncontrolled spending, which has caused mass
inflation.
The American people want to be confident that their vote counts in
every election, that they can trust the ballot box, and their concerns
won't be ignored by lawmakers in Washington.
I will close with this. The American people don't need the January
6th Committee to tell them what is broken in this country. They look at
their declining paycheck and the rising cost of groceries, and they see
this body focused on the past instead of correcting their future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, they see that this body and its
reckless spending is why we have record inflation in this moment.
For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
Presidential Election Reform Act, and then let's work together on
something that will work for the American people.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, Congress has a sacred duty to uphold our elections and
to safeguard our democratic process. I rise in strong support of that
mission.
I am not surprised that we hear on this floor the rationalization of
insurrection, the rationalization of what I believe was treason.
I rise with extraordinary respect for the gentlewoman from Wyoming,
as Republican as any Member of that side of the aisle, save a
willingness to stand and speak truth to power, to honor facts, to honor
the Constitution.
{time} 1515
I applaud her for it and have deep respect for her willingness to
stand up today and for history.
The gentleman from Georgia called January 6 an incident. The
Republican National Committee passed a resolution, almost
overwhelmingly, that referred to January 6 as legitimate political
discourse: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.
I hear my friend, Mr. Davis, speaking about this being a partisan
issue. This is an American issue. This is a democracy issue. This is a
values issue.
To those who come to this well or speak from the floor to try to
rationalize the invitation given by President Trump--the incitement
stated by President Trump--and the deployment of a mob to fight like
hell and stop the steal--I advise my colleagues and I urge my
colleagues to look at Vice President Gore's comments when he lost the
election 5-4. He honored the Court's decision, not because he agreed
[[Page H8041]]
with it, but because he said it was good for America and our democracy.
I call attention to the remarks of Hillary Clinton when she lost to
President Trump. That night, knowing that she had gotten 3 million more
votes, she conceded because the law is the electoral college makes that
decision.
In 1864, despite the turmoil of Civil War, President Lincoln--
President Lincoln would be standing with Liz Cheney if he were on this
floor. President Lincoln went to great lengths to ensure that Americans
had the opportunity to make their voices heard in a national election.
He argued that ``We cannot have free government without elections,''
and that ``if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a
national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and
ruined us.''
Liz Cheney has said that, not exactly in those words, but it is
exactly the same substance of what Abraham Lincoln said over a century
and a half ago.
We came face to face with a similar danger on January 6 last year. It
was rationalized then, and, sadly, it is being rationalized now.
History will judge.
The insurrection revealed a willful and false refusal to accept the
certified and judicially confirmed election results. The gentleman from
Illinois said that the Trump administration went to the courts. They
lost time after time after time after time, and to this day, they do
not accept what Al Gore accepted, that we are a nation of laws and not
of one man.
There are ambiguities in our electoral system, and they can
jeopardize our democracy. That is what this bill is about: upholding
our democracy.
Questions surrounding the Vice President's role in counting electoral
votes served as a pretext for the insurrectionists' assault on the
Capitol. Fortunately, their conspiracy and their plot failed. In that
incident that the gentleman from Georgia talked about, police officers
died, civilians died, and hundreds were injured severely in that
incident.
What a polite word for treason and insurrection.
That tragic and dangerous episode, however, underscored the
importance of clarifying any uncertainties that future malevolent
actors could exploit to undermine the will of the American people as
expressed through their votes.
I went to the Charles County Fair last weekend. I went to the
Democratic booth. As I always do, I went to the Republican booth, and
the biggest sign was: Trump won.
We are a nation of laws. Try to respect a nation of laws. The
bipartisan legislation the Presidential Election Reform Act provides
the clarity necessary.
It reaffirms, as former Vice President Mike Pence correctly
concluded--which is why those incidents were calling for the death of
the Vice President with a noose hanging out in front of the Capitol and
why they were calling for the life of the Speaker of the House in that
incident--that he did not have, and he does not have the authority to
delay or reject the counting of electoral votes.
Why?
Because we are a nation of laws and a nation of the Constitution.
That principle was established in both the Constitution and the
Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Not only would this legislation raise the threshold required to
object to a State's slate of electors from the ridiculously low one
House Member and one Senator to one-third of the membership--at least
152 million people ought to be given that respect who voted in that
election--at least one-third of us would have to rise to overturn their
judgment.
This bill also restricts the grounds on which objections can be made,
limiting the ability of Members to lodge frivolous and partisan
objections.
The bill also contains important provisions to restrict the ability
of State and local elected and election officials to undermine or
overturn the process of tabulating and certifying results in their
jurisdictions. People elect the President, not State legislators, and
not this Congress. The American people elect the President.
Not only do these measures align with the overwhelming consensus--not
just conservative commentators, but commentators of all stripes whether
ideological or not, believe this is a good piece of legislation. I
share their view.
No individual or group of conspirators ought to have the power to
subvert the will of the American people.
I thank the Committee on House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren, and
I share the remarks of the gentlewoman from Wyoming about her
integrity, her intellect, and her conscientious carrying out of her
duties as a Member of the Congress. Indeed, Vice-Chair Cheney's work on
this bill and the January 6 Committee will go down as one of this
institution's greatest examples of political courage and integrity.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her work.
Similarly, I thank Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney and her colleagues on
the House Oversight and Reform Committee for their work investigating
vulnerabilities in our democratic process.
We must now come together not as Republicans, not as Democrats, and
not as partisans, but as protectors. We raised our hands and said that
we would protect the Constitution and laws of this Nation. This is one
of those days that we get to meet that oath.
Let me conclude because not only did Lincoln argue that elections
were essential to free government, but he also made clear his belief
that ``elections belong to the people. It is their choice.''
That is what this legislation is about. Stand up for your country.
Stand up for the people. Vote for this bill.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much
time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 17 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, it is always good to
follow my good friend, Leader Hoyer. I appreciate his friendship, and I
appreciate his time here in this institution. He has seen a lot of
things happen in the governing of this country. I respect him and his
viewpoint.
It is frustrating when we also hear comments from my colleague,
Leader Hoyer. Back on January 25 of this year he was quoted in a
Politico story where he said that President Biden is correct that the
midterm elections will be illegitimate if Congress doesn't pass the
Democrats' election takeover bills.
This is part of the rhetoric that we have got to stop. We have got to
make sure that we remind everybody, as Leader Hoyer did, my good
friend, that this is an American issue. It is not a partisan issue. The
processes have worked.
I want to know, if it is an American issue and not a partisan issue,
Madam Speaker, why, then, were we not even consulted as the committee
of jurisdiction minority members?
I would have loved to have been able to sit down and come up with a
bipartisan solution. No Republican--no Republican--that I know or that
I respect thinks that the violence on January 6, which we all
witnessed, is okay.
I think it was a terrible day. I think, again, anyone who committed
those acts and those crimes should be held accountable to the fullest
extent of the law. Let's be clear: They broke the law. It doesn't
matter what you are protesting, Madam Speaker, if you break the law.
Madam Speaker, if you are rioting in the streets, looting stores and
businesses, and committing the crimes across this country that we have
seen exacerbated because of the Biden administration's lack of effort
in enforcing these activities to be adjudicated, then do you know what?
They should be held accountable. Arrest them, prosecute them, and put
them in jail.
Leader Hoyer also said this bill and this process should not be about
one man. I agree. I agree. But, unfortunately, this bill is nothing
short of being only about that one man. This is too important of an
issue to make this about an individual that you may or may not like or
that you may or may not want to run for President ever again. This bill
and this process is too important for the future of America.
Madam Speaker, my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, brought up Hillary Clinton.
She actually denied the results of the 2016 Presidential elections and
believes
[[Page H8042]]
there were legitimate questions regarding the integrity of the 2004
Presidential election. She said that Stacey Abrams would have won the
2018 gubernatorial election against Governor Brian Kemp if it had been
fair.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Steil).
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, when I saw that there was going to be a bill rushed to
the House floor with 5 days remaining in a legislative calendar without
a committee hearing, I thought maybe the Democratic majority would be
rushing to the floor a bill to address inflation that is clobbering the
American people.
No.
I thought maybe they would be rushing to the floor a bill to address
the crime crisis that is plaguing cities across the United States.
But no.
I thought maybe there would be a bill rushed to the House floor
without a committee hearing 51 hours after the text was introduced to
address the crisis taking place at our border and the millions of
immigrants coming into the United States illegally and the fentanyl
that is coming across our U.S.-Mexico border and killing thousands of
Americans.
But no.
So what is so important that a bill needs to be rushed to the House
floor without any committee hearing to review and analyze the bill?
And it is the Presidential Election Reform Act.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Elections of the House
Administration Committee, I have to admit I am disappointed we didn't
have the opportunity to thoughtfully review the legislation before us.
{time} 1530
In fact, we haven't had a hearing in the Subcommittee on Elections
since July. So I think now is our moment, unfortunately, with only 30
minutes on the minority's side, to actually dive in and analyze the
legislation before us.
With any important piece of legislation, in particular, one like this
that impacts our national elections and the elections of our President,
the first question I ask myself is: Will the bill before us boost
people's confidence in our election process? The bill fails the test.
I would highlight, in particular, section 4 of this bill that gives
candidates a loophole to define what a catastrophic event is, which
might include a natural disaster or national health emergency like
COVID. Why is this so important?
The candidate for President could--up to a full day following the
election--request an extension for the election by up to 5 days if they
feel there is a ``catastrophic event'' that was sufficient to prevent a
substantial portion of a State's electorate from casting a ballot on
election day.
The bill doesn't properly define catastrophic event. Often in this
body, we take the time in committee in regular order to understand what
the terms of the bill mean, to give an opportunity to improve the text
to provide certainty and clarity to the American people going forward.
We are let down by the fact that we are not following regular process
in this case.
Instead of continuing to undermine faith in the elections process, we
should instead pursue commonsense legislation that supports election
integrity and respects the Constitution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, pursue legislation that respects the
Constitution and Federalism, such as legislation like the American
Confidence in Elections Act that Ranking Member Davis introduced back
in July to enhance the integrity in our elections.
We heard earlier the majority leader mention that there is ambiguity
in our election system and that is what this is about. If that is what
this is about--if we are actually trying to remove the ambiguity in our
election system, which is a very worthy cause, why not have a hearing
on this bill?
I haven't yet heard one person from the majority's side explain why
this bill is being rushed to the floor 51 hours after the text was
introduced without using the consideration of the Senate bill as the
basis of this legislative text. I think that question needs to be
answered today.
We need to actually dive into what this bill does to actually allow
the American people to have confidence in our election system. I remain
disappointed the House did not take the thoughtful approach that the
Senate takes, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
Mr. AGUILAR. Madam Speaker, I thank Chair Lofgren and the vice chair
of the January 6 Select Committee, my colleague from Wyoming, Liz
Cheney, for their leadership in bringing this bill to us.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8873, the bipartisan
Presidential Election Reform Act. This bill makes important changes to
the laws that govern the cornerstone of our democracy, a peaceful
transfer of power.
These changes benefit no political party, and they do not give
political advantage to any particular candidate. This bill simply
protects the rule of law from those who would seek to upend it.
Our Republican colleagues who are opposed to this legislation, once
again find themselves on the side of violent extremists. Madam Speaker,
after what we saw on January 6 and what the Select Committee has
demonstrated, that those seeking to overturn the election were
exploiting the vulnerabilities in the law this bill remedies, I am not
sure how anyone could oppose this piece of legislation.
The choice before this body is clear: Protect the rule of law,
strengthen the Constitution, and vote against insurrection.
Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I thought the esteemed Member from California was
going to speak a little longer. It caught me a little off guard. I
apologize. I am not used to him being that succinct in anything he does
but thank you.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock), my good friend, another esteemed Member of this
institution.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, the Electoral Count Act of 1887
asserts that Congress may vote to disqualify electoral votes. It was
misused by the Democrats in 2016 and by Republicans in 2020, attempting
to interfere with the constitutionally required tally of electoral
votes. I believe both sides were wrong.
Congress has no such power, period. Think about it. Under our
Constitution, if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes,
the election immediately passes to the House and Senate. If Congress
had the power to pass judgment on the validity of electoral votes, it
could simply invalidate enough to place the election in its own hands,
an obvious conflict of interest.
That is why the Constitution clearly mandates that the vote shall be
counted in the presence of the Congress. Disputes arising from the
conduct of elections are the sole province of the courts. Does anyone
seriously believe that a Congress of 535 intensely partisan politicians
is a safe repository for
[[Page H8043]]
the power to adjudicate the integrity of the vote? Well, neither did
the Founders.
This measure does narrow the grounds upon which the count can be
interfered with by the Congress, but it still allows Congress to
invalidate electoral votes. So it does not solve the problem, and it
creates new problems by allowing a State to delay its election for up
to 5 days after the rest of the Nation's vote is already known.
Can you imagine the chaos and suspicions that that would create? How
sad that such an important issue as the electoral count should be
handled in so clumsy and partisan a bill as this.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, January 6 is one of the
darkest days in American history. We now know in great detail how the
former President and his cronies were attempting to use the electoral
certification process to undermine our democracy to take away the
people's vote.
They tried to delegitimize a free and fair election with their lies,
subvert the results certified and sent by the States, and pressure a
Vice President into rejecting his constitutional responsibilities, all
of which erupted in violence, hate, and bloodshed right here in our
Capitol.
We walked through the blood and broken glass right outside of this
Chamber to cast our votes to uphold our democracy. Today, we must vote
for the Electoral Count Act to ensure that the rule of law and the will
of the people will always prevail in this Chamber and in this country.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
thank the chair for her patriotic leadership on the House
Administration Committee and her invaluable service and leadership as a
member of the Select Committee on January 6.
Madam Speaker, I thank her for yielding, but I more importantly thank
her for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I salute her
leadership and that of Congresswoman Liz Cheney, vice chair of the
January 6 Select Committee, a principled and courageous voice for
freedom in our country.
This legislation is a manifestation of their courage, their
patriotism, and their determination in our mission to save American
democracy. I thank Chairwoman Lofgren and Vice Chair Cheney.
Madam Speaker, we are really the beneficiaries of such greatness in
our country's history. One of our Founders, Thomas Paine, said that the
times have found them to declare independence; to fight a war for
independence against the greatest naval power that existed at the time;
to win that war under leadership of our great patriarch, George
Washington, and then to write our founding documents. Thank God they
made them amendable so that we could have expanding freedom in our
country.
One of their early documents, the Declaration of Independence, has
been called by some the greatest document of the millennium, of a
thousand years.
Some years later the Union was under threat. Abraham Lincoln--this is
long before he was President--Abraham Lincoln delivered a stark warning
about the state of our Union. Speaking in Springfield in 1837, more
than two decades before the Civil War, he diagnosed a dangerous erosion
of our democracy. ``They were pillars of the temple of liberty,''
Lincoln said, referring to the generation of Americas who fought for
independence and served as living proof of the importance of democracy.
He continued: `` . . . now that they have crumbled away, that temple
must fall unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other
pillars . . .''
His words ring just as true today as we confront a dire threat to our
democracy and a duty to supply new pillars to preserve it.
On January 6, 2021, an insurrection erupted at the Capitol, seeking
to nullify the results of a free and fair election. This was a direct
assault not only on the Capitol, but on our Constitution, on the rule
of law, and on democracy itself; a direct assault on the Constitution
because the Constitution said that day that the Congress would, again,
certify the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris per the
Constitution by presenting the electoral college vote. So that was an
assault on the Constitution. That was that day. It wasn't just any day;
it was the day that the Constitution was supposed to be honored.
Now, we have a solemn duty to ensure that future efforts to undermine
elections cannot succeed. That is why the House established the Select
Committee on January 6, to find the truth of the attack and ensure that
it could never happen again. Since then, there have been attempts
across the country to nullify future elections.
{time} 1545
That is why, today, we are taking historic and bipartisan legislative
action to safeguard the integrity of future Presidential elections.
The Presidential Election Reform Act takes four necessary steps.
First, the bill reaffirms that under the Constitution, the Vice
President has no authority to reject a slate of electors or delay the
count in any way. This was the heart of the former President's illegal,
false electoral scheme.
Second, the bill directly limits the types of objections to only
those outlined in the Constitution, which can be raised during
certification. You just can't raise any and all, but those that are
allowed in the Constitution. All objections would require one-third of
each Chamber to be entertained and a majority to be sustained.
Third, our bill requires Governors to transmit lawful election
results to Congress or be compelled to by a Federal court. Under this
proposal, no rogue Governor can unlawfully subvert the will of the
people, the heart of a democracy expressed in the democratic electoral
process.
Fourth, our bill makes crystal clear that States cannot change the
rules governing an election after the election has occurred--did you
hear that? ``Cannot change the rules governing an election after the
election has occurred''--preventing radical State legislators from
attempting to nullify the election. I keep using that word,
``nullify.''
These changes are imperative right now. Emboldened by January 6,
politicians are waging a sinister campaign across America, the country,
to subvert our future elections, peddling the big lie that the 2022
election was stolen; assembling an army of operatives to intimidate
voters at the polls and poll workers, as well; and even threatening to
reverse results for which they disagree.
Wait a minute. We are talking about a democracy. ``Threatening to
reverse results for which they disagree.''
Let me be clear: This is a kitchen table issue for families. We must
ensure that this antidemocratic plot cannot succeed.
It is a kitchen table issue because denying the American people their
fundamental freedom to choose their own leaders denies them their voice
in the policies we pursue. Those policies can make an immense
difference in their everyday lives, on top of which we have a
responsibility. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States.
This legislation is in furtherance of honoring that oath of office so
that our children, our grandchildren, future generations, know that
they live in a great democracy that cannot be undermined for political
reasons.
Madam Speaker, every Member knows that January 6 was an attempt to
subvert democracy, but many across the aisle refuse to admit the truth.
They refused to admit the truth that very night with blood on the
floor, glass on the floor, and all the rest when we came in to honor
our constitutional responsibility.
Overwhelmingly, others on the other side of the aisle voted not to
accept the results of the people in the election.
Now, House Republican leaders are whipping against this necessary
measure. To all those who oppose this legislation, I ask you: How could
anyone vote against free and fair elections, a cornerstone of our
Constitution? How could anyone vote against our Founders' vision,
placing power in the hands
[[Page H8044]]
of the people? How could anyone vote against their own constituents,
allowing radical politicians to rip away their say in our democracy?
Decades after Lincoln's stark warning, the future he foretold, a
crumbling of the pillars of democracy, came to pass with a Civil War.
One year into the horror and devastation, President Lincoln called on
the Congress to come together to save the Union.
In his message, he wrote--this is when he is President--``We shall
nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth.'' We ``hold
the power and bear the responsibility.''
Today, American democracy, ``the last best hope of Earth,'' is again
in grave danger, and its fate is in our hands.
So, I implore every Member to heed Lincoln's words, to stand up for
the rule of law and our Constitution. In doing so, we pass on a vibrant
democracy for generations to come--America, the beacon of hope in the
world; this building, a symbol, a temple of democracy, synonymous with
freedom and democracy throughout the world, which was assaulted, but we
must correct it.
Madam Speaker, I urge a resounding bipartisan ``aye'' vote on the
Presidential Election Reform Act.
In gratitude to Madam Chair Zoe Lofgren, chair of the House
Administration Committee and a member of the January 6th Committee, and
our very distinguished vice chair of the January 6th Committee, thank
you for your patriotism. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for
your courage.
Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how
much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record
a tweet from Speaker Pelosi on May 16, 2017, that says: ``Our election
was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to
#ProtectOurDemocracy and #FollowTheFacts.''
I couldn't agree more. We need to follow the facts.
The Speaker asked: How can one vote against this bill? Well, I would
say: How can we vote for a bill that was completely done without any
consultation?
Here is what I hope, Madam Speaker. I was actually comforted somewhat
during the Rules testimony yesterday when my colleague, Chairperson
Lofgren, mentioned that the goal of the majority is to watch this bill
pass--I have many concerns with it; I laid those out yesterday, and I
will lay them out again--but hope the Senate passes the version that we
could have used as the basis and the starting point here in the House,
and then we could go to conference committee.
Okay, I hope it happens. I am not going to hold my breath, but I
certainly hope it happens. I reiterate my desire for that to be a
process where we can finally come together in a bipartisan way. Again,
I am cautiously optimistic.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lofgren and Vice
Chair Cheney for their distinguished leadership on this incredibly
important issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Presidential
Election Reform Act.
Our democracy is fragile. Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Democracy is not a self-executing proposition. Democracy does not
simply run on autopilot.
It requires all of us to remain engaged, particularly because we are
confronting a diabolical adversary who is determined to undermine the
principle of free and fair elections, undermine the rule of law, and
undermine the peaceful transfer of power.
Certainly, our democracy is not perfect, but it is worth saving. That
is why it is so critically important that we act with the fierce
urgency of now to defend the Republic against tyranny, protect the
principle of free and fair elections, and continue America's long,
necessary, and majestic march toward a more perfect Union.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Chair Lofgren for the
hard work that she and her cosponsor, Representative Cheney, have done
on this bill.
I rise today to safeguard a simple yet sacred pillar of our
democracy: The candidate who wins the election takes office. Only the
voters' votes count. It will not be overturned by our Vice President or
any State officer or any threats of political violence, threats,
intimidation, and lies. We cannot let violence undermine over 200 years
of a peaceful transfer of power in this country.
I rise today to safeguard the rights of every American to have their
will reflected in those public servants lucky enough to serve them.
We must not forget January 6. Our Republican colleagues fighting this
bill seem to forget that January 6 was a violent day of action. We must
pass this bill so that we do not have a repetition of that.
Today, I will vote for the Presidential Election Reform Act to
fulfill a hopeful future for our country. American democracy is the
best answer to fulfilling our Constitution's promise of inclusion for
everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, or economic
circumstance.
A truly inclusive democracy that helps everyone thrive is a
constitutional promise we can and must make a reality.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Presidential Election Reform Act.
January 6, 2021, will forever be known as one of the darkest days in
our Nation's history, which threatened the very survival of our
democracy. Incited by a former President, a violent mob stormed the
Capitol, intent on preventing the peaceful transfer of power upon which
our democracy depends.
Thankfully, they failed, and Vice President Mike Pence fulfilled his
constitutional duty to oversee the counting of the electoral votes. No
matter what President Trump and his cronies claim, the Vice President
of the United States has no legal authority to reject, delay, or
otherwise obstruct the counting of the electoral votes.
Yet, there are those who continue to spew the big lie and undermine
the legitimacy of future elections. So, today, we must reject these
dangerous voices and pass the Presidential Election Reform Act so that
we can safeguard our democracy from any attempt to overturn the will of
the people.
We came perilously close to losing our democracy on January 6, 2021.
Let us come together to protect the rule of law and prevent any similar
assault on our democracy from ever happening again.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I am struck listening to my colleagues
today on both sides of the aisle. The concept that I think we have to
make sure we never lose sight of is that some things have to matter,
and we, as individuals, determine whether or not our institutions
survive.
We have heard consistently since January 6--actually, in the weeks
just after January 6, we were in agreement. But shortly after that, we
began to
[[Page H8045]]
hear excuses about what had happened. We began to hear people defending
the indefensible.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize that when you defend
the indefensible, slowly but surely, you chip away at the great
foundations of this Republic. You chip away at those very things that
we are sworn to protect.
This bill is an excellent bill. This bill is a bill that will help to
protect the rule of law. This bill is a bill that will help to ensure
that future elections cannot be stolen. This bill will ensure that, in
the future, the United States Congress is very clear that we have a
very limited number of objections that can be made, if any can be made
at all, and those are strictly limited to those outlined in the
Constitution.
{time} 1600
This bill is a very important and crucial bill to ensure that what
happened on January 6 never happens again.
It saddens me, Madam Speaker, that my colleagues on this side of the
aisle continue to play politics. I can tell you that is not what we are
doing on the January 6th Committee. My colleagues ought to watch the
hearings on the January 6th Committee. We have been very clear in terms
of putting forward what happened and in terms of putting forth former-
President Trump's responsibility and role in every aspect of the attack
that happened that day.
Contrary, again, to the assertions my friend and colleague from
Illinois made previously, what happened on January 6 was not the normal
functioning of our democracy. President Trump had every right to bring
those cases in court, but he did not have the right, and it was a
fundamental violation of his oath of office, to refuse to abide by the
rulings of the court.
Madam Speaker, we are a Nation of laws, not of men. I urge my
colleagues to pass this bill. It is a very good bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to testify yesterday before the
Committee on Rules about how this process has been highly partisan, and
that I would have welcomed an opportunity to work on the Electoral
Count Act reforms in a bipartisan way--just like the Senate did.
There is one quote from my friend, Ranking Member Tom Cole, that I
want to share. As he said, ``Given all the majority's righteous and
high-minded talk over the last 2 years about how democracy itself is in
peril, don't you think it would be better served to have operated
through regular order with real Member buy-in on a topic that is as
important to the American people as this one?''
That is how the Senate handled this task--in a bipartisan matter
driven toward finding consensus. Why shouldn't the House operate in the
same way? Instead here in the House, every outreach made by Republicans
to work on this issue was rebuffed.
This bill tramples on State sovereignty. While the Constitution gives
States the authority to make and interpret their own State laws, this
bill would grant Congress unprecedented authority to determine what
State law is.
Second, there is a provision of this bill that gives candidates the
ability to broadly define catastrophic events--which could include
major natural disasters or acts of terrorism--and then use that event
to extend the balloting after the polls close for up to 5 days.
Think about it. A candidate could pull a Pelosi and request a change
in the rules supposedly because of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the
fact that the majority of the country has moved on--including President
Biden who declared the pandemic is over, just to extend voting for 5
more days for their political benefit.
Or remember just last year, when President Biden's FBI labeled
concerned parents attending their children's school PTA meetings
domestic terrorists?
With many polling at schools, a candidate could try to claim that
parents meeting is a catastrophic event. We also can't forget that many
Democrats have claimed that Republican-led States with newly enacted
election integrity laws like Florida are suppressing voters.
Could a candidate then try to claim voter suppression because they
don't like their State's laws and then request the polls stay open once
they see election results that aren't going their way?
This bill would create a new private right of action for all
Presidential candidates or their electors and specifically expand the
scope of the right to tabulate.
This creates a big question as to how and if Congress has the
authority to require candidates to go to Federal court to force them to
follow State law.
I mean, I can just picture the field day election lawyers like
sanctioned Democrat Marc Elias would have with these provisions all
while creating mass confusion for voters who will question if their
vote was even counted. Voters don't need Congress to come in and
overcomplicate the ECA process that has worked for the last 135 years.
As a reminder, we came back the night of January 6, after the tragic
events that we all witnessed here in this Capitol, and we certified Joe
Biden as President and Kamala Harris as Vice President.
What voters want is to show up on election day, easily cast their
ballot, know that their ballot is counted in accordance with the law,
and for election results to come in later that night. But this bill
doesn't do that. Instead, it could very well do the opposite.
This bill does nothing to prevent another mob from attacking the
Capitol. Neither Mike Pence doing what every Vice President in history
has done nor lawful constitutional objections being filed caused a mob
to attack--and clarifying those responsibilities won't prevent another
mob.
That is why this bill won't even see the light of day over in the
Senate and why we should have used the bipartisan Senate version as a
starting point. Maybe then we could actually enact some necessary
updates to improve and clarify the certification process and focus on
the big unanswered problem--the security of the Capitol. Bad actors by
definition don't follow the law so any changes made to the Electoral
Count Act aren't a silver bullet.
As I have been saying this entire Congress, we need to be focused on
why the Capitol was left so unprotected on that day in January. Why was
a mob able to breach one of the most significant buildings on our
planet?
Again, I invite all of my Democrat colleagues to work with me to
improve the security of this Capitol and the people it holds. That is
how we prevent another attack.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because it is
both bad process and bad policy. The American people deserve better.
They deserve to have full confidence in the election process and the
outcomes.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). The gentlewoman has 9\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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
[[Page H8046]]
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.
____
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 20, 2022]
Opinion a New and Improved Version of Electoral Count Act Reform
(By Jennifer Rubin)
The compromise proposal that Senate negotiators cobbled
together earlier this year to reform the 1887 Electoral Count
Act was a good start to prevent a repeat of the 2020 coup
attempt. But the bill was far from perfect, as testimony
before the Senate Rules Committee highlighted.
Fortunately, two members of the House select committee
investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-
Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) put forth their own improved
version on Monday, as described in an opinion piece for the
Wall Street Journal.
Their proposal makes a number of key changes to the law,
which stipulates the certification of electoral votes. For
example:
It confirms that the vice president has only a ceremonial
role.
It specifies that members of Congress can only object to
electoral votes if they concern ``the explicit constitutional
requirements for candidate and elector eligibility and the
12th Amendment's explicit requirements for elector
balloting.'' Interestingly, the proposal makes clear that one
objection might be that the candidate is ineligible under
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from federal
office anyone who ``engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof.'' In other words, it would serve as a trip wire for
challenging former president Donald Trump on the basis that
he instigated an ``insurrection.''
It raises the threshold for Congress to vote on an
objection from one lawmaker in each chamber to one-third of
each chamber.
[[Page H8047]]
The proposal also avoids some of the confusing language
included in the Senate proposal regarding state
certification. The House version is a helpful and precise
description of the correct process:
Governors must transmit lawful election results to
Congress; if they fail to fulfill that duty, or another
official prevents the lawful results from being transmitted,
candidates for the presidency should be able to sue in
federal court to ensure that Congress receives the state's
lawful certificate. These suits would occur before Congress
counts electoral votes, and should ensure, in all cases where
one candidate has the majority of electoral votes, that
Congress's proceeding on Jan. 6 is purely ministerial.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1372, the
previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 203, not voting 1, as follows:
[Roll No. 449]
YEAS--229
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--203
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
[[Page H8048]]
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--1
Vargas
{time} 1656
Mr. McNERNEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Baird (Bucshon)
Bass (Correa)
Brown (MD)
(Ruppersberger)
Bush (Bowman)
Chu (Beyer)
Conway (Valadao)
DeFazio (Pallone)
Garcia (IL) (Correa)
Gomez (Evans)
Granger (Ellzey)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kinzinger (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lamb (Pallone)
Loudermilk (Fleischmann)
McEachin (Beyer)
Meng (Escobar)
Napolitano (Correa)
Newman (Beyer)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Payne (Pallone)
Ryan (OH) (Correa)
Sanchez (Pallone)
Swalwell (Correa)
____________________