Presidential Election Reform Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. 8873 into the Record.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source