[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)

                          ____________________