[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H5030-H5035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REAFFIRMING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' COMMITMENT TO THE ORDERLY AND 
PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER CALLED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1155) reaffirming the House of 
Representatives' commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of 
power called for in the Constitution of the United States, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 1155

       Whereas the United States is founded on the principle that 
     our Government derives its power from the consent of the 
     governed and that the people have the right to change their 
     elected leaders through elections;
       Whereas our domestic tranquility, national security, 
     general welfare, and civil liberties depend upon the peaceful 
     and orderly transfer of power; and
       Whereas any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the 
     executive power could

[[Page H5031]]

     produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of 
     the United States and its people: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) reaffirms its commitment to the orderly and peaceful 
     transfer of power called for in the Constitution of the 
     United States; and
       (2) intends that there should be no disruptions by the 
     President or any person in power to overturn the will of the 
     people of the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my resolution, H. Res. 1155, 
reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to the 
peaceful transfer of power. This is identical to the resolution which 
passed the Senate last week by unanimous consent.
  The peaceful transition of power is not only a bedrock principle of 
America's founding; it is a living ideal that we must exercise and pass 
down to our children.
  In the United States of America, the Federal Government has always 
had a peaceful transition of power, and it is a collective 
responsibility of this body to ensure that continues. I doubt anyone 
here needs to be reminded of that.
  Everyone in America knows this is what makes us American. Everyone, 
that is, except President Trump. Last week, he was asked a simple 
question: Will you commit to making sure there is a peaceful transfer 
of power after the election? His answer: Well, we are going to have to 
see what happens.
  No, we are not going to have to see what happens.
  Then he was asked again: Do you commit to making sure there is a 
peaceful transfer of power?
  Here was his answer, in part: Get rid of the ballots, and you will 
have a very--we will have a very peaceful--there won't be a transfer, 
frankly. There will be a continuation.
  During his remarks, he also made bogus and unsupported claims of 
election fraud. Just in case people were not listening, he said the 
same thing the next day.
  President Trump, like any President, wields enormous power, with 
Federal law enforcement and the military at his disposal. It is beyond 
unsettling to hear him suggest that the only result he will accept is 
the one where he wins.
  That sentiment is one of dictators and despots. Sadly, the world is 
replete with examples of dictators and despots and their refusal to 
leave office and the chaos it causes.
  In late 2016, Gambia's President threatened to refuse to leave 
office, even though he had lost the election. Thousands fled the 
country fearing violence. Only when other countries' troops massed at 
the border was he forced to leave office in early 2017.
  Congo's President refused to leave office in 2016, even though his 
term had expired. He cracked down on dissent and killed people when 
they protested the election results. That election finally took place 
two years late.
  Last year in Bolivia, the President declared himself the winner 
before the vote counting was even finished. After days of civil unrest 
and protest, the President was forced to resign.
  Belarus remains in crisis even now as the longtime President holds 
onto power through an obviously rigged election. Mass protests have 
gone on with many injured, gassed, or killed.
  In America, however, it is not one person, but we, the people; we, 
the people, who rule. As this resolution says, the people have the 
right to change their elected leaders through elections. Fortunately, 
there is no shortage of leadership in America's past to show us the 
way.
  I was born in November of 1980, right after Jimmy Carter lost to 
Ronald Reagan. I was born the son of two Republican parents who were 
excited for the peaceful transfer of power to take place. One of my 
earliest memories of American politics, though, was when I was 11 years 
old and President George H. W. Bush lost to President Clinton. My 
parents were not as excited about the peaceful transfer of power.
  But I remember, as a boy, watching the results come in and seeing the 
statements from outgoing President George H. W. Bush and commentators 
and anchors saying, ``This is what makes our country so special'' and 
my own family moving on and accepting the results.
  In a poignant recognition of this, listen to part of what former 
President George Herbert Walker Bush wrote to President Bill Clinton, 
the man who had defeated him, in a note that he left for him in the 
Oval Office dated January 20, 1993. And it is just here to my left.
  ``You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. 
I wish your family well. Your success now is our country's success. I 
am rooting hard for you.''
  After the 1824 election was decided here, in this House, with Henry 
Clay throwing his support to John Quincy Adams, thus defeating Andrew 
Jackson who had won the popular vote, Jackson was understandably 
outraged and denounced the result as a corrupt bargain. That type of 
language sounds familiar. But he accepted the outcome and returned to 
Tennessee.
  On the evening of the day he lost the Presidency, Jackson encountered 
the new President-Elect at the White House. Jackson was gracious, and 
the city was filled with reports of his grace. ``You have, by your 
dignity and forbearance under all of these outrages, won the people to 
your love,'' a friend told Jackson, who would run again in 1828 and 
win.
  Historian Jon Meacham recently wrote in March of this year about 
President Lincoln in 1864, the country mired in a Civil War, running 
against George McClellan on the Democratic side. Lincoln had written 
privately he was ready to accept defeat, the election did not look like 
it was going to go his way, and even in a Civil War, there would be a 
peaceful transfer of power.

  This resolution states clearly to every American, not on our watch. 
Not on our watch are we going to let American greatness vanish and an 
authoritative state rise.
  The reason we are the beacon to the world is that here, with our 
elections, the people decide, not our leaders. We let the people 
decide.
  We shouldn't only be horrified by the President's remarks about 
possibly not having a peaceful transfer of power; we should also be 
concerned by who he looks up to. Unfortunately, America is ruled by 
someone who admires dictators. He said as much recently to Bob Woodward 
in a recording stating: ``The tougher and meaner they are, the better I 
get along with them,'' referring to dictators like Putin, Erdogan, and 
Kim.
  And what do dictators do?
  They don't let the people decide, and they certainly don't honor any 
peaceful transition of power.
  Why is it a problem for Americans to have a leader who admires Putin 
and often sides with Putin over America? Because we know that Vladimir 
Putin would love nothing better than to destroy our democracy.
  In fact, our intelligence community assessed that in 2016, Vladimir 
Putin had a preference for our President and interfered to help him and 
that he is doing the same today. Putin wants America to be weak, second 
to Russia, just another country with no moral standing in the world.
  But what makes us strong is our rule of law, our democracy, a country 
governed by the consent of the people. When that happens, we all do 
better, and Russia hates that. Why? Because Russians and other 
oppressed people then will want to look more like America.
  Just think about it. The idea now that Russia could bring down 
America without even firing a shot because we have one person who is 
threatening to upset the fabric of our democracy. We cannot let that 
happen. Too many have sacrificed too much to make sure it doesn't 
happen.

[[Page H5032]]

  Days after the election, we will each go back to our districts and 
honor those who have served our country in honor of Veterans Day. We 
will be reminded of so many heroes who have died and shed blood, just 
for the principle of a peaceful transition of power. We have lost so 
many for this concept.
  Now, I know there are some in this country who think that these 
heroes who fought for this country are suckers and losers for giving up 
their lives, but I don't think that. I don't believe my Republican 
colleagues think that. I know colleagues on both sides hold these folks 
up to be heroes. I know each of us wants to go to our hometowns right 
after election day to those Veterans Day parades, look at our hometown 
heroes, look them in the eyes and tell them when our democracy was 
threatened, we stood up and we spoke out.
  The way we honor their sacrifice is to fight for this. And when 
someone suggests that a peaceful transfer of power may not happen, we 
have to push back in every way we can.
  So I want to thank all of my colleagues, both Democrats and 
Republicans, who over the past few days have reaffirmed the 
understanding of how in America we handle transitions of power and 
reject the threats from our current leader that it may not happen.
  By voting for this resolution, you can go on record as supporting 
these principles. By its text, it ``reaffirms the House's commitment to 
the orderly and peaceful transfer of power called for in the 
Constitution of the United States; and intends that there should be no 
disruption by the President or any person in power to overturn the will 
of the people of the United States.''
  Even in this era of bitterly divided partisanship, these are basic, 
philosophical tenets, bedrocks and living principles that should 
receive unanimous support here in the House.
  I urge all Members to support my resolution, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are here to waste time on an unnecessary 
resolution to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
  To be clear, President Trump and House Republicans are committed to 
ensuring Americans receive a free and fair election. Republicans are 
also committed to peaceful transitions of power.
  Democrats have been the ones to contest Presidential elections. They 
contested the 2000 election, they contested the 2004 election, and 
Democrats still refuse to believe that President Trump won the 2016 
election fair and square. So ahead of November 3, 2020, the Democrats 
are using floor time for partisan smear tactics to undermine the 
President.
  The administration has been clear. On September 24, 2020, Press 
Secretary Kayleigh McEnany stated: ``The President will accept the 
results of a free and fair election. He will accept the will of the 
American people.''
  The real question today is: Will the Democrats accept the results of 
the election?
  They are already questioning the legitimacy of this election. Hillary 
Clinton, the Democrats' nominee in 2016, has advised: ``Joe Biden 
should not concede under any circumstances.''
  A senior House Democrat stated that President Trump is not going to 
win fairly.

                              {time}  1715

  Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden has said that his ``single 
greatest concern'' is that the President is ``going to try and steal 
this election.''
  This resolution is just another attempt by the Democrats to instill 
fear within the American people, just one more hoax for them to 
perpetrate upon the American people.
  Not only have Democrats prematurely questioned the results of the 
election; they have proactively sought to erode basic election security 
safeguards as States move toward all mail-in voting, universal mail-in 
ballots. This is the concern that President Trump has been warning 
about.
  In several States, Democrats are trying to eliminate absentee ballot 
witness and notary requirements, expanding ballot harvesting, and 
extending deadlines for States to receive mail-in ballots for up to a 
week after the election. If successful, Democrats will inevitably open 
the door to election crimes and administration errors.
  So while making baseless accusations about President Trump stealing 
the election, Democrats are also undermining the integrity of the 
electoral process by pushing for less accountability. On top of that, 
we are here today to consider a resolution to chastise the President 
for raising policy concerns about the process. This is ridiculous, and 
it needs to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this 
resolution.
  There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding partisanship from 
some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I would offer the 
following quote, which was uttered 39 years ago: ``To a few of us here 
today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet, in the 
history of our Nation, it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly 
transfer of authority, as called for in the Constitution, routinely 
takes place as it has almost for two centuries, and few of us stop to 
think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this 
every-4-year ceremony that we accept as normal is nothing less than a 
miracle.''
  Those words were uttered in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, and his 
words couldn't have been more prescient.
  It is a shame that we are here today, a shame that the current 
President has refused to affirm perhaps that most basic tenet of 
American democracy, the peaceful transfer of power after an election.
  I don't believe that this should be partisan. We may be on different 
sides of the aisle; we have different solutions to some of the most 
pressing challenges that our country faces; but we all should, we all 
must, believe in this grand American experiment.
  The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our Republic. For 
over 200 years, as President Reagan noted, every President has honored 
the orderly and peaceful transfer of power to his successor.
  So, in my view, the House of Representatives must speak loudly here. 
We must meet the unrelenting insistence on undermining our democracy 
with the full force of the United States Congress by joining together 
today, on a bipartisan basis, to reaffirm our commitment to the 
peaceful transition of power, as our colleagues in the United States 
Senate did just last week.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Swalwell for leading on this 
issue, and I would urge every one of my colleagues in this Chamber, 
Republican, Democrat, and independent, to support this important 
resolution.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues across the 
aisle. This should not be a partisan matter. We shouldn't have to be 
here today. But unfortunately, the Democrats decided to make this 
partisan.
  I begged to be allowed to make an amendment because this is one slap 
at a man who has already made clear, yes, he wants to stop fraudulent 
voting and make sure that hadn't occurred, but he is going to abide by 
the will of the people. Yet, they refused to allow any amendments.
  It says, it is resolved that the House of Representatives ``intends 
that there should be no disruptions by the President or any person in 
power to overturn. . . .'' They would not accept a friendly amendment, 
so it could be completely bipartisan, to say, ``or any candidate or 
anyone acting on a candidate's behalf,'' which would have included the 
President. Oh, no, we have to have a slap at the President.
  As my friend Mr. Steube pointed out, it is not Republicans who have 
divided this country in refusing to accept results of the elections. 
No, you go back to 1860. November 6, 1860, Republican Abraham Lincoln 
is elected President by a big margin, and then States start seceding. 
They are not going to accept the results.

[[Page H5033]]

  Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. Back then, it was March 4, 1861. 
States were already seceding. We are not accepting the results. And 
they were, every one a Democrat, saying that we are not going to accept 
that Republican's election to President.
  Then, what do we hear from Hillary Clinton? She has been quoted as 
saying that ``Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, 
because I think this is going to drag out.''
  Go back 100 years, after the Democrats refused to accept the results 
of the election of 1860. In 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected, and I 
have confirmed again today with someone who worked closely with Nixon 
that he had information submitted to him that established that there 
was much wrongdoing in Chicago, Illinois, fraudulent voting schemes.
  Despite what any others may think about Richard Nixon, he made the 
decision that the country could not stand that kind of divisiveness, so 
he refused to pursue the fraud of which he was told there was plenty of 
evidence in Chicago, Illinois. That is the way the Republicans have 
been.
  Then, we hear more sanctimonious talk about George W. Bush, and then 
who contested the election? Well, Al Gore. He calls and concedes, and 
then he later calls and backs it up. Thank goodness he wasn't President 
when we needed a decisive leader.
  But if you go through the chronology of Gore's defeat by President 
Bush--and a recount ultimately showed that he did lose. Gore did lose; 
Bush did win. But he was still contesting. He divided this Nation, 
refused to accept the results of the election, brought up some of the 
most ridiculous things from the butterfly ballot that kids in the fifth 
grade had no problem with. Oh, but it is unfair because they can't 
really understand it in that part of Florida. What an insult to those 
people in Florida.
  If you look now at what the Democratic Party is saying about this 
election in response to President Trump saying, I just want to make 
sure that it is not fraudulent voting; it is fair voting. And as long 
as everything is legal and fair, you betcha, he will have a smooth 
transition of power. He would agree to that.
  But if you look, as reported on August 2 of this year, buried near 
the end of Ben Smith's column is a report that ``Democrats have 
participated in a `war game' in which they considered several possible 
outcomes of the election. In one scenario, John Podesta, the former 
chair of Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign and a leading figure 
in party circles, played former Vice President Joe Biden and refused to 
concede the election.''
  Then later it was posted--much more recently, I guess, that is 
September 6: ``Democrats promise more violence if Joe Biden doesn't 
defeat Trump by a landslide in the 2020 election. Rosa Brooks, a 
leftist who writes for The Washington Post, penned a piece that stated 
her research showed that the only scenario in November that would stop 
the violence is if Biden wins in a landslide. That kind of attempt to 
manipulate the voters by intimidation will just make Americans vote for 
Trump.''
  It was posted September 6 in the American Thinker. ``Democrats openly 
say that if Trump is reelected, they are going to redouble their 4 
years of madness, with special emphasis on the last 3 months of open 
violence. Indeed, they are already planning to destabilize the election 
and to contest if Trump wins, in hopes of a violent coup.''
  And as if there is not a God in Heaven, today of all days, when this 
that should have been bipartisan is brought to the floor to slam Donald 
Trump, we have newly released information out today that has been 
declassified. This report, on September 7, 2016: ``U.S. intelligence 
officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James 
Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok 
regarding `U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a 
plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian 
hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public 
from her use of a private mail server.' ''
  Then further, it came out today: ``A former senior intelligence 
official told saraacarter.com that it would make sense that Clinton's 
plans would be usurped by the Russia's GRU, its military intelligence, 
as well as Russia's FSB, its equivalent of the CIA, when former British 
spy Christopher Steele began peddling the Russians for information.''
  ``The real people colluding and conspiring with Russia were the 
Democrats, Hillary Clinton, and Fusion GPS,'' stated the source. ``It 
is the weaponization of the agencies and those like Clinton who built 
their private Idaho in the U.S. bureaucracy. They gave the keys to the 
kingdom to Russia to wreak chaos in our Nation for the past 4 years.''
  Moreover, the information that came out today reveals that former CIA 
Director John Brennan allegedly knew of Clinton's plans and briefed 
President Obama on those plans in July 2016. It was the same month the 
FBI opened up the Crossfire Hurricane investigation against President 
Trump and his campaign--or candidate Trump and his campaign officials.
  So, what a day, the day that more evidence comes out that it was 
Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC, and they were refusing to go along 
with the legal and fair election. Then, afterward, that whole 
conspiracy, the dossier was used to try to prevent a President from 
staying in office after sworn in, and we are supposed to vote now to 
come after President Trump and demand he be legal and lawful in leaving 
office.
  He just wants fairness in the vote, and he will follow the will of 
the people. It is a real shame that my friends across the aisle 
wouldn't allow an amendment, so we could say to both sides: Follow the 
will of the people; have a proper transition of power.
  But, no, they wouldn't go there.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are, back to Secretary Clinton. It is clear that 
she has at least two homes, one in New York and one inside the heads of 
my colleagues. But this is actually about President Trump.
  While I appreciate my colleagues speaking for what President Trump 
may do after the election, citing what his press secretary has said, 
and my colleague from Texas said that he believes that the President 
will peacefully accept the transfer of power, the President has never 
said that.
  In fact, he was asked: ``Will you commit to making sure there is a 
peaceful transfer of power after the election?'' And he said: ``Well, 
we are going to have to see what happens.''
  He is not saying we are going to have to go to the courts, that we 
are going to contest this. He is suggesting that we may have something 
other than a peaceful transfer of power, which, of course, would be a 
violent transfer of power, a violent holding of power.
  Then, he was asked again: ``Will you commit to making sure that there 
is a peaceful transfer of power?'' And he said: ``Get rid of the 
ballots and we will have a very peaceful--there won't be a transfer, 
frankly. There will be a continuation.''
  Again, not himself saying there will be a peaceful transfer of power. 
So, we really can't rely on anyone else, other than what the President 
has said.

                              {time}  1730

  So we really can't rely on anyone else other than what the President 
has said. And I don't disagree with my colleagues that if there are 
issues in the election that both parties have a right to contest those 
issues, to go to the courts through the legal channels, but that is not 
what this is about.
  This resolution talks about a peaceful transfer of power. In fact, 
they were complaining that it is not a bipartisan resolution. Actually, 
it is identical to the bipartisan, unanimously passed resolution in the 
Senate.
  To my colleague from Florida who is controlling time on the other 
side, I understand he doesn't like that this resolution is on the 
floor, and I would yield to my colleague respecting his service as a 
veteran, in our country, he is voting for this resolution. I would be 
shocked if I heard that my colleague is not going to vote for something 
that passed unanimously in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, while I know the comments of the majority's

[[Page H5034]]

time manager were directed to my colleague from Florida, it will likely 
not surprise him that I will regularly vote against things that pass 
unanimously in the United States Senate. I don't hold that as a 
standard.
  We are here on a resolution regarding the peaceful transition of 
power. We barely had a peaceful transition of power in 2016. My 
colleague, the gentleman from California, was on television almost 
every night telling the American people that President Trump was an 
agent of the Russian Government. How fake it all turned out to be.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution even though I completely 
support the peaceful transfer of power. This resolution is a way for 
Democrats to attack the President and disguise the fact that they will 
refuse to accept the election results unless they win.
  Professional loser Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden that he should 
not concede ``under any circumstances.''
  The Transition Integrity Project has said that the aftermath of the 
November election will be a ``street fight, not a legal battle.'' The 
same report suggests that Biden could even try to convince States to 
secede from the Union before accepting a Trump victory.
  Are these the actions of a party willing to accept defeat? They 
weren't willing to accept defeat in the 2016 election. They had to go 
blame the Russians. I guess I am still waiting for the 13 Russians who 
were indicted to show up.
  No, this resolution is projecting and gaslighting.
  The media has begun gaslighting the public, too, saying that it may 
look like Trump won on election night, but that as ballots are counted, 
States will flip. How will this great switch be accomplished? Through 
the Democrats' usual methods: lawfare, fraud, and violence.
  Look at what we have already seen: Mike Bloomberg is trying to quite 
literally buy votes from felons in Florida; in Pennsylvania, absentee 
ballots for President Trump were found in a dumpster; and in Minnesota, 
Democrat operatives were caught on camera discussing forcible illegal 
ballot harvesting.
  Democrats ignore all this. They are not on the floor to condemn any 
of it. As a matter of fact, they have ignored it the same way they 
ignored the riots and arson and violence in America's cities, the same 
way they ignore the antifa goon squads and the gangs of fascists in 
brown shirts who threaten to harm anyone who does not want America to 
become their communist woketopia.
  Democrats ignore criminality when it helps them and because they not-
so-secretly believe that anyone who is punched or maimed or assaulted 
by antifa might deserve it, especially if they are a member of our 
brave law enforcement.
  Democrats ignore these heinous acts of violence when the victims are 
Republican or when they are pro-life or when they are Trump supporters. 
Those lives don't matter to Democrats. But they are more than happy to 
burn America to the ground when they think it will help them.
  This resolution is part of the Democrats' plan to lay the groundwork 
for a color revolution, the ousting of an elected leader and calling it 
democracy. But that is not democracy. It is nothing less than the 
destruction of our cherished Nation.
  I unequivocally support the peaceful transfer of power but will vote 
``no'' on this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to do the 
same. I will pray that America survives the Democrats' mad and 
destructive lust for power.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more 
speakers the minority floor manager has remaining.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr Speaker, let's be clear: The real threat to our democracy are the 
attempts to undermine the election process.
  Universal mail-in voting is not the same as absentee ballots like we 
do in Florida. When a voter requests an absentee ballot, she knows to 
expect it. Universal mail-in voting is when States mass mail ballots to 
voters, whether or not a voter has moved, has died, or is otherwise no 
longer eligible to vote or is even a citizen of our country. Universal 
mail-in voting increases the risk of election crime or administrative 
error because States are providing prepaid return envelopes for 
election ballots.
  The U.S. Postal Service does not typically postmark premarked mail, 
and although it has a policy to postmark election-related mail, its 
policy is not foolproof, as we have seen in some primary elections over 
the summer.
  All of these last-minute changes will harm the integrity of the 
election process and risk chaos in the general election. We are already 
seeing the disastrous results of the Democrats' last-minute process 
changes.
  Last week, the Justice Department found that several military ballots 
were discarded in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Seven of the nine 
ballots were cast for President Trump--not surprising.
  This month, the Georgia Secretary of State revealed that at least 
1,000 Georgians voted twice in the June 2020 primary, once via mail-in 
balloting and once in person.
  In New York, Governor Cuomo's last-minute shift to all-mail voting 
cost thousands of ballots in Chairwoman Maloney's primary to be 
discarded for lacking postmarks. Election officials took 6 weeks to 
certify the results of the primary.
  In a New Jersey municipal election, a last-minute shift to all-mail 
voting resulted in the Postal Service still delivering ballots to 
election officials weeks after the election.
  If these problems occurred in local primary elections, the risk to a 
national general election is even greater. The President is right to 
highlight these problems, and I fail to understand why Democrats won't.
  The best and surest guarantee of electoral integrity is for Americans 
to vote in person where safe and possible, with absentee ballots 
available for those who legitimately cannot make it to the polls or 
have voter ID safeguards in places like we have in Florida.
  This resolution is nothing but political messaging and creating a 
narrative without any facts to base it, just like the Russia collusion 
hoax.
  There is no question that every single American, including President 
Trump, wants a peaceful transfer of power after a free and fair 
election, but this rhetoric and fear-mongering by our friends across 
the aisle must end. The liberal mainstream media and Democrats should 
stop this nonsense and let the American people speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  This resolution simply calls for a commitment to the peaceful 
transfer of power. I know my colleagues on the other side have their 
own suspicions about what the motive is behind this and want to project 
onto it something that is not in the language, but this was passed by 
100 Senators last week. Every Republican and Democratic Senator voted 
for this because it reaffirms America's commitment to having a peaceful 
transfer of power.
  What my colleague on the other side just brought up are process 
issues in the election, but that does not relate or compare to the 
suggestion that there would be violent opposition to the outcome.
  Both sides have a right to use the courts and then accept the 
outcome. One of my colleagues referenced the 2000 election, litigated 
all the way to the top of the Supreme Court, and the loser accepted the 
outcome.
  This resolution is calling on us, and it is sad that we have to do 
this, to reaffirm that principle. It asks the question: Are we Gambia, 
where an outcome was not accepted and people died, or are we a country 
that, even in the thick of the Civil War, had a President who was 
willing to accept the outcome?
  Are we Congo where the outcome was not accepted and people died, or 
are we the country that fought the great war,

[[Page H5035]]

the Second World War, the Greatest Generation, who would build a new 
economy and afford new opportunities?
  Are we Bolivia, where the outcome was not accepted and there was 
violence in the streets, or are we the country that sent someone to the 
Moon, saw contested election after contested election, but losers left 
office graciously, just as President H.W. Bush did in the letter I read 
earlier.
  Who do we want to look like? We are imperfect, but the ideas that we 
are founded upon are perfect, that we are governed by consent, not by 
leaders or violence, consent of the people. That is what this 
resolution says.
  Thirty-five days to go to the election. I know it is going to be 
tense in this Chamber, it is going to be tense in this country, but 
unity in our country during our darkest times has always been an 
antidote against anything that would seek to divide us or take us away 
from who we want to be, who we can be, and who we should be--a more 
perfect Union.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1155.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________