The publication is reproduced in full below:
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Byrd, one of its clerks, announced that the Secretary of the Senate shall inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed in joint session with the further counting of the electoral votes for President and Vice President.
At 11:35 p.m., the Sergeant at Arms, Paul D. Irving, announced the Vice President and the Senate of the United States.
The Senate entered the Hall of the House of Representatives, headed by the Vice President and the Secretary of the Senate, the Members and officers of the House rising to receive them.
The Vice President took his seat as the Presiding Officer of the joint convention of the two Houses, the Speaker of the House occupying the chair on his left. Senators took seats to the right of the rostrum as prescribed by law.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint session of Congress to count the electoral vote will resume. The tellers will take their chairs.
The two Houses retired to consider separately and decide upon the vote of the State of Arizona, to which an objection has been filed.
The Secretary of the Senate will report the action of the Senate.
The Secretary of the Senate read the order of the Senate, as follows:
Ordered, That the Senate by a vote of 6 ayes to 93 nays rejects the objection to the electoral votes cast in the State of Arizona for Joseph R. Biden, Jr., for President and Kamala D. Harris for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Clerk of the House will report the action of the House.
The Clerk of the House read the order of the House, as follows:
Ordered, That the House of Representatives rejects the objection to the electoral vote of the State of Arizona.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Pursuant to the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code, because the two Houses have not sustained the objection, the original certificate submitted by the State of Arizona will be counted as provided therein.
The tellers will now record and announce the vote of the State of Arkansas for President and Vice President in accordance with the action of the two Houses.
This certificate from Arkansas, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State, and purports to be a return from the State, and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of that State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Arkansas seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 6 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 6 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Arkansas that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from California, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of California seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 55 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 55 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of California that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Colorado, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State, and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Colorado seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 9 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 9 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Colorado that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Connecticut, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Connecticut seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 7 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 7 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Connecticut that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
{time} 2345
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Delaware, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Delaware seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 3 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 3 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Delaware that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from the District of Columbia, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from the District that purports to be a return from the District and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the District purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the District of Columbia seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 3 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 3 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the District of Columbia that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Florida, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Florida seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 29 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 29 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Florida that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Georgia, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Georgia seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 16 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 16 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Hice) rise?
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. President, myself, members of the Georgia delegation, and some 74 of my Republican colleagues and I object to the electoral vote from the State of Georgia on the grounds that the election conducted on November 3 was faulty and fraudulent due to unilateral actions by the secretary of state to unlawfully change the State's election process without approval from the General Assembly and thereby setting the stage for an unprecedented amount of fraud and irregularities. I have signed the objection myself.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Sections 15 and 17 of title 3, United States Code, require that any objection be presented in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator.
Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member and a Senator?
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. President, prior to the actions and events of today, we did, but following the events of today, it appears that some Senators have withdrawn their objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. In that case, the objection cannot be entertained.
This certificate from Hawaii, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Hawaii seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 4 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 4 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Hawaii that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Idaho, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Idaho seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 4 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 4 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Idaho that the teller has certified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Illinois, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Illinois seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 20 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 20 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Illinois that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Indiana, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Indiana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 11 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 11 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Indiana that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Iowa, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Iowa seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 6 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 6 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Iowa that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Kansas, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Kansas seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 6 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 6 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Kansas that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the Commonwealth of Kentucky seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 8 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 8 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Louisiana, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Louisiana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 8 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 8 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Louisiana that the teller has verified to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Maine, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Maine seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 3 votes for President, and Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 1 vote for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 3 votes for Vice President, and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 1 vote for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Maine that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Maryland, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Maryland seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 10 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 10 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Maryland that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Massachusetts, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of electoral vote of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 11 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 11 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Michigan, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Michigan seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 16 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 16 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. For what reason does the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Mrs. Greene) rise?
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. President, I, along with 70 of my Republican colleagues, object to the counting of the electoral votes for the State of Michigan on the grounds that the error rate exceeds the FEC rate allowed at 0.0008 percent, and that the people who signed affidavits at risk of perjury, their voices have not been heard in a court of law.
{time} 0000
The VICE PRESIDENT. Sections 15 and 17 of title 3 of the U.S. Code, require that any objection be presented in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator.
Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member and a Senator?
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. The objection is in writing, not signed by a Senator.
The VICE PRESIDENT. In that case, the objection cannot be entertained.
Are there any further objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of Michigan that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing no further objections, this certificate from Minnesota, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Minnesota seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 10 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 10 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of Minnesota that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Mississippi, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Mississippi seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 6 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 6 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of Mississippi that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Missouri, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Missouri seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 10 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 10 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of Missouri that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Montana, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Montana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump from the State of Florida received 3 votes for President and Michael R. Pence from the State of Indiana received 3 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of Montana that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Nebraska, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Nebraska seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 4 votes for President; and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 1 vote for President; and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 4 votes for Vice President; and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 1 vote for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote from the State of Nebraska that the teller has verified is regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Nevada, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from the State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority from the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Nevada seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 4 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 6 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama rise?
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. President, I and 55 other Members of the United States House of Representatives object to the electoral vote for the State of Nevada in order to protect the lawful votes of Nevada and all other American citizens.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Sections 15 and 17 of title 3 of the United States Code, require that any objection be presented in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator.
Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member and a Senator?
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. President, it is in writing, but, unfortunately, no United States Senator has joined in this effort.
The VICE PRESIDENT. In that case, the objection cannot be entertained.
Are there any further objections to counting the certificate of vote from the State of Nevada that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. This certificate from New Hampshire, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of electoral vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of New Hampshire seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 4 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 4 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of New Hampshire that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. This certificate from New Jersey, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from the State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority in the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of New Jersey seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 14 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 14 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of New Jersey that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. This certificate from New Mexico, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from the State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of New Mexico seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 5 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 5 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of New Mexico that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from New York, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from the State that purports to be a return from the State and has annexed to it a certificate of an authority from the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of New York seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 29 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 29 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of the vote from the State of New York that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from North Carolina, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
{time} 0010
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of North Carolina seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 15 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 15 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of North Carolina that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from North Dakota, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State, and purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of North Dakota seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 3 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 3 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of North Dakota that the teller has verified as regular and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, the certificate from Ohio, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State, and purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Ohio seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 18 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 18 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Ohio that the teller has verified is regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Oklahoma, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State, and purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate of an authority of the State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Oklahoma seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 7 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 7 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Oklahoma that the teller has verified to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Oregon, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has a certificate of authority from the State annexed to it to appoint and ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Oregon seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 7 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 7 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Oregon that the teller has verified as regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 20 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 20 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?
Mr. PERRY. Mr. President, sadly, but resolutely, I object to the electoral votes of my beloved Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on the grounds of multiple constitutional infractions that they were not under all of the known circumstances regularly given; and on this occasion, I have a written objection signed by a Senator and 80 Members of the House of Representatives.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Senator?
Mr. PERRY. Yes, Mr. Vice President, it is.
The VICE PRESIDENT. An objection presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code.
The Clerk will report the objection.
The Clerk read the objection as follows:
January 7, 2021.
We, a United States Senator and Members of the House of Representatives, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Pennsylvania on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given. Josh Hawley,
United States Senator. Scott Perry,
Member of Congress.
Members of Congress
Mo Brooks AL-5, Mike Kelly PA-16, John Joyce PA-13, Fred Keller PA-12, Scott Perry PA-10, Glenn Thompson PA-15, Jim Jordan OH-4, Dan Meuser PA-9, Clay Higgins LA-3, Tom Rice SC- 7, Yvette Herrell NM-2, Alexander Mooney WV-2, Andy Biggs AZ- 5, John W. Rose TN-6, W. Greg Steube FL-17, Madison Cawthorn NC-11, Bill Posey FL-8, Jeff Duncan SC-3, Brian Babin TX-36, Louie Gohmert TX-1.
Brian J. Mast FL-18, Warren Davidson OH-8, Andy Harris MD- 1, Doug Lamborn CO-5, Kat Cammack FL-3, Tracey Mann KS-1, Bob Good VA-5, Adrian Smith NE-3, Billy Long MO-7, Jack Bergman MI-1, Michael Cloud TX-27, Byron Donalds FL-19, Rick Crawford AR-1, Roger Williams TX-25, Bob Gibbs OH-7, Russ Fulcher ID-1, Richard Hudson NC-8, Ted Budd NC-13, Barry Moore AL- 2, Lee Zeldin NY-1.
Jake LaTurner KS-2, David Rouzer NC-7, Jason Smith MO-8, Lauren Boebert CO-3, Paul A. Gosar AZ-4, Chuck Fleischmann TN-3, Tim Burchett TN-2, Chris Jacobs NY-27, Bill Johnson OH- 6, Andrew S. Clyde GA-9, Lance Gooden TX-5, Randy Feenstra IA-4, Mary E. Miller IL-15, Diana Harshbarger TN-1, Mark E. Green TN-7, Ron Estes KS-4, Neal Dunn FL-2, Ronny Jackson TX- 13, Elise Stefanik NY-21, Ralph Norman SC-5.
Joe Wilson SC-2, Vicky Hartzler MO-4, Scott DesJarlais TN- 4, Marjorie Taylor Greene GA-14, Doug LaMalfa CA-1, Jeff Van Drew NJ-2, Ben Cline VA-6, Michael D. Rogers AL-3, Markwayne Mullin OK-2, Jeff Duncan SC-3, Pat Fallon TX-4, Brad R. Wenstrup OH-2, August Pfluger TX-11, Rob Wittman VA-1, Scott Franklin FL-15, David Kustoff TN-8, Sam Graves MO-6, Matt Gaetz FL-1, Randy K. Weber TX-14.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there further objections to the certificate from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair hears none.
The two Houses will withdraw from joint session. Each House will deliberate separately on the pending objection and report its decision back to the joint session.
The Senate will now retire to its Chamber.
The Senate retired to its Chamber.
{time} 0020
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 and section 17 of title 3, United States Code, when the two Houses withdraw from the joint session to count the electoral vote for separate consideration of objection, a Representative may speak to the objection for 5 minutes and not more than once. Debate shall not exceed 2 hours, after which the Chair shall put the question, Shall the objection be agreed to?
The Clerk will report the objection made in the joint session.
The Clerk read the objection as follows:
January 7, 2021.
We, a United States Senator and Members of the House of Representatives, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Pennsylvania on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given. Josh Hawley,
United States Senator. Scott Perry,
Member of Congress.
Members of Congress
Mo Brooks AL-5, Mike Kelly PA-16, John Joyce PA-13, Fred Keller PA-12, Scott Perry PA-10, Glenn Thompson PA-15, Jim Jordan OH-4, Dan Meuser PA- 9, Clay Higgins LA-3, Tom Rice SC-7, Yvette Herrell NM-2, Alexander Mooney WV-2, Andy Biggs AZ-5, John W. Rose TN-6, W. Greg Steube FL-17, Madison Cawthorn NC-11, Bill Posey FL-8, Jeff Duncan SC-3, Brian Babin TX-36, Louie Gohmert TX-1.
Brian J. Mast FL-18, Warren Davidson OH-8, Andy Harris MD- 1, Doug Lamborn CO-5, Kat Cammack FL-3, Tracey Mann KS-1, Bob Good VA-5, Adrian Smith NE-3, Billy Long MO-7, Jack Bergman MI-1, Michael Cloud TX-27. Byron Donalds FL-19, Rick Crawford AR-1, Roger Williams TX-25, Bob Gibbs OH-7, Russ Fulcher ID-1, Richard Hudson NC-8, Ted Budd NC-13, Barry Moore AL- 2, Lee Zeldin NY-1.
Jake LaTurner KS-2, David Rouzer NC-7, Jason Smith MO-8, Lauren Boebert CO-3, Paul A. Gosar AZ-4, Chuck Fleischmann TN-3, Tim Burchett TN-2, Chris Jacobs NY-27, Bill Johnson OH- 6, Andrew S. Clyde GA-9, Lance Gooden TX-5, Randy Feenstra IA-4, Mary E. Miller IL-15, Diana Harshbarger TN-1, Mark E. Green TN-7, Ron Estes KS-4, Neal Dunn FL-2, Ronny Jackson TX- 13, Elise Stefanik NY-21, Ralph Norman SC-5.
Joe Wilson SC-2, Vicky Hartzler MO-4, Scott DesJarlais TN- 4, Marjorie Taylor Greene GA-14, Doug LaMalfa CA-1, Jeff Van Drew NJ-2, Ben Cline VA-6, Michael D. Rogers AL-3, Markwayne Mullin OK-2, Pat Fallon TX-4, Brad R. Wenstrup OH-2, August Pfluger TX-11, Rob Wittman VA-1, Scott Franklin FL-15, David Kustoff TN-8, Sam Graves MO-6, Matt Gaetz FL-1, Randy K. Weber TX-14.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will endeavor to alternate recognition between Members speaking in support of the objection and Members speaking in opposition to the objection.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, this is a somber day for the defense of the Constitution. You see, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. It cannot defend itself. That is why our leaders swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that is what I am doing here this evening.
The Constitution states: ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections . . . shall be prescribed . . . by the legislature''--not the courts, not the Governor, not the secretary of state or other bureaucrats or elected officials, the legislature.
In Pennsylvania, the supreme court unilaterally extended the deadline for ballots to 3 days after the election. They actually wanted 10. The supreme court is not the legislature. The supreme court mandated un-
postmarked ballots to be received, destroying the validity of all the votes that were cast timely.
The supreme court action defied the law, the legislature, and the will of the people.
The supreme court authorized the use of drop boxes, where ballot harvesting could occur. The legislature never authorized that form of voting, and the court had absolutely no right to do so.
Responding to the secretary of state, Kathy Boockvar, the supreme court ruled that mail-in ballots need not authenticate signatures.
Once again, the court not only defied the Constitution and the will of the people, but by so doing, they created a separate class of voters, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause prescribed in the Constitution.
How can we have two legally separate classes of voters? Yet, the court made it so, not the legislature.
The Constitution doesn't mention the court when determining the time, place, and manner of elections because they are not authorized to make those decisions. Yet, they did it.
And the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, denying the evidence and denying the demands for justice from the people of Pennsylvania and America.
These aren't my opinions. These aren't partisan viewpoints. These are irrefutable facts.
Six days before the election, guidance emailed from the secretary of state required that the counties shall not pre-canvass or canvass any mail-in or civilian absentee ballots received between 8 o'clock Tuesday and 5 o'clock Friday and that they must be kept separately. That was 6 days before the election.
Madam Speaker, 2 days before the election, counties received new guidance from the secretary of state, informing counties that they shall canvass segregated absentee and mail-in ballots as soon as possible upon receipt.
The secretary of state is not elected by the people. She is not a member of the legislature. Yet, she, and she alone, determined the time and manner of elections. That was unconstitutional.
In defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court order that all ballots received after election day be segregated, the secretary of state knew, once they were canvassed, that is opened and commingled with all the other ballots, they would be counted with all the rest.
And what is the remedy for this defiance, for this lawbreaking? So far, the court has decided there is no remedy. There is no penalty for this lawlessness, this dilution of lawfully cast votes, this defiance of the Constitution--no remedy. When the State legislature requested the Governor to convene a special session to address the unanswered questions and try to provide a remedy, he refused.
When votes are accepted under unconstitutional means without fair and equal protection for all, the only result can be an illegitimate outcome--illegitimate.
The voters did not create this mess, but the will of the people is absolutely being subverted by the deliberate and willful actions of individuals defying their oath, the law, and the Constitution.
In Pennsylvania, we use the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, system as the basis of determining who can vote. Unfortunately, a recent attempted audit by the Democrat State auditor general concluded that he was unable to establish with any degree of reasonable assurance that the SURE system is secure and that Pennsylvania voter registration records are complete and accurate.
That is what we are relying on. That right there. This is the very same system used to certify the election in the contest for President of the United States. This is the very same system that the State used to certify the 2020 election, even though its figures do not match more than half of Pennsylvania's 67 counties.
To this day, right now, while we stand here, how can this election be certified using a system that after 2 months still displays that over 205,000 more votes were cast in Pennsylvania than people who voted in the November election? Let me say that again: 205,000 more votes than voters.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I will say this: I carry the same Constitution that you do. And the Constitution, sir, does not allow you, me, or any Member of this body to substitute our judgment for that of the American people. It does not allow us to disregard the will of the American people. Because under this Constitution, under our Constitution, Congress doesn't choose the President. The American people do. And they have chosen in resounding numbers, as every single Member of this body well understands.
Madam Speaker, I have been at a loss to explain what happened today, but there is a statement that I found that largely summarized my thoughts on the matter.
``The scenes of mayhem unfolding at the seat of our Nation's government'' are a ``sickening and heartbreaking sight. This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic, not our democratic Republic. I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election and by the lack of respect shown today for our institutions, our traditions, and our law enforcement. The violent assault on the Capitol, and the disruption of a constitutionally mandated meeting of Congress, was undertaken by people whose passions have been inflamed by falsehoods and false hopes. Insurrection could do grave damage to our Nation and our reputation.
``In the United States of America, it is the fundamental responsibility of every patriotic citizen to support the rule of law. To those who are disappointed in the results of the election: Our country is more important than the politics of the moment.''
{time} 0030
Those are not my words. Those are the words of former Republican President George W. Bush.
To my colleagues, it is after midnight tonight. It has been a long day for our country, a long day for our Republic.
Let us dispense with this. Let's do the right thing. Let's honor our oath. Let's certify the results, and let's get back to the work of the American people.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, our duty today is significant but straightforward. We must count the votes of the electors as cast in the electoral college and announce the results.
As discussed, our roles and responsibilities are established by the Constitution and Federal law, and they are clear. The facts before us are also clear. Pennsylvania submitted one slate of electors, as chosen by the voters of the State. The slate was certified according to State law. Now those lawful results must be counted and announced.
Despite disinformation and any number of false claims that you may have heard, including here today, as former Attorney General Barr said:
``We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.''
This is not simply a conclusory statement. The results of the election have been litigated. The record is clear: The lawsuits challenging the election results failed. They failed because there is simply no evidence to support these baseless claims.
Now, it is one thing to tweet a belief, quite another to provide actual evidence. These cases failed because there is no evidence. Judges ruled in the lawsuits that the 2020 election was sound.
It should come as no surprise that Republican officeholders have recognized the election results as legitimate and accurately determined in an election that was conducted safely, securely, and with integrity.
We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As we near the end of the task before us, let's remember the beginning of the Constitution. Before Article II and the 12th Amendment, which spell out the electoral college, and before Article I, which creates Congress, the Constitution begins with the preamble. The preamble is short and bold: ``We the people.''
The people spoke in historic numbers. Their votes have been counted. Their choice is clear. It is time, as the law requires, to announce the state of the people's vote.
The violence and disorder inflicted on our democracy by seditious rioters today is an indication of why adherence to our Constitution is so vital.
I urge all of us to stand up for law, for democracy, for our Constitution, and to stand up for America and reject this objection.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, a day that was intended to debate the importance of election integrity and the rule of law tragically became a day that will be a black mark in our Nation's history. Nevertheless, the work of this House must go on, as America will go on.
We must all sincerely thank the Capitol Police and Metro Police for their selfless actions today, putting their safety and lives on the line to protect this House. The lawlessness and violence of today must be condemned, just as all violent protests must be condemned.
Nevertheless, the fact remains, a large number of Pennsylvanians are enormously frustrated with actions taken by elected and appointed officials in Pennsylvania, which have led to a high level of distrust for this past election.
We have the United States Constitution, which is the reason we have been and will continue to be a great country and a country of laws.
The U.S. Constitution is unambiguous, Madam Speaker, in declaring that State legislatures are the entity with the authority to set election procedures and to enact any changes to election law. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states: ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections . . . shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.''
The authority of election procedures lies with the State legislature, period.
In Pennsylvania, this authority was indisputably usurped by the Pennsylvania Governor's office, by the Pennsylvania secretary of state, and by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
These unlawful actions include, but are not limited to, accepting ballots past 8 p.m. on election day; inconsistent application of verified signature requirements for in-person ballots versus mail-in ballots; authorizing the curing of mail-in ballots with less than 24 hours' notice, leading to inconsistent preparedness between counties; and authorizing the use of unsecured drop boxes, which is not permitted in statute.
If such unlawful actions are to be accepted, what do we have to look forward to next year? The Pennsylvania secretary of state allowing online voting because it may be raining in Philadelphia? It was a free-
for-all.
Madam Speaker, it was back in 2005 when then-Minority Leader Pelosi, while leading 31 Democrats as they objected to the Presidential elector certification, as they did in the last three Presidential elections when a Republican won, stated quite well, actually:
The Members of Congress have brought this challenge and are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom have been disenfranchised in this process. This is their only opportunity to have this debate while the country is listening, and it is appropriate to do so.
Thank you for those words, Madam Speaker. They were appropriate then, as they are now.
If there is an American ideal that all citizens, regardless of party affiliation, can agree upon, it is that we must have election integrity. We should not certify these electors, which were derived by unlawful actions and a result of inaccurate vote tallies.
Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
Tonight, my heart is heavy as we consider the dark acts that transpired in this Chamber today. But, Madam Speaker, the American people can be assured that violent and irrational attacks on this body cannot derail the constitutional responsibility that lies in front of us.
This has always been about upholding the law. It has always been about protecting government of, by, and for the people. Preserving the rule of law is more important than ever.
We must acknowledge that unconstitutional acts unduly impacted the Presidential election in Pennsylvania. Contrary to law, the supreme court extended the deadline for mail-in ballots for 3 days beyond the election day. Contrary to law, the secretary of the Commonwealth discarded mail-in ballot signature verification safeguards. These leaders took advantage of a deadly pandemic and seized the State legislature's rightful authority.
I took an oath to uphold the law and defend the Constitution. I pledged to protect free and fair elections. I cannot, in good faith, certify electors that were selected under an unlawful process.
I will object to the electoral college certification to protect the will of Pennsylvania voters, to uphold the law, to restore trust in our electoral system, and, ultimately, to save our Constitution.
At Gettysburg, which is in my district, President Abraham Lincoln spoke about the great task of ensuring government by, of, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, nearly 7 million Pennsylvanians showed up to vote in the 2020 elections. They cast their votes for Democrats and Republicans up and down the ballot, including the entire U.S. House delegation, the entire State house, half of the State senate, and other State and local races.
Since the election, there have been allegations of widespread election fraud in Pennsylvania; but, remarkably, the 20 suits filed by the Trump campaign, Pennsylvania Republicans, and others challenging the results in Pennsylvania have never claimed that there was voter fraud.
{time} 0040
Perhaps that is because attorneys could lose their licenses when they make unsubstantiated claims in court. That is where the rubber really meets the road.
So if these lawsuits didn't claim election fraud, what did they claim?
Most of the legal challenges to the Presidential election in Pennsylvania question relatively small numbers of ballots that were allegedly tainted by technical violations. Even assuming that all of these ballots had been cast for Joe Biden, throwing them out wouldn't have changed the result of the election.
Now, one exception is the lawsuit filed by one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, Kelly v. Commonwealth, which would have thrown out all the mail-in votes cast in the 2020 general election on the grounds that Act 77, the State law allowing those votes, was unconstitutional. That suit would have disenfranchised 2\1/2\ million Pennsylvanians. Let's let that sink in, 2\1/2\ million Pennsylvanians would have had their votes nullified.
Now, I want to provide my colleagues with some background about the State law at the heart of this challenge. In 2019, the Republican-
controlled State legislature approved Act 77, a bipartisan bill to reform the State's election laws, which instituted no-excuse mail balloting. Act 77 was supported almost unanimously by Republicans in the State House and State Senate. In fact, it was unanimous in the State Senate and all but two Republicans in the State House.
Moreover, once this Act was passed, Act 77 had a 120-day period where challenges could be filed against the Act if people thought it was unconstitutional. Well, 4 months went by, nobody files a challenge. On June 3, Pennsylvania had their primary under this new system. Nobody challenged the primary election. It was only challenged in November, when Republicans didn't get the result they wanted at the top of the ticket. Not surprisingly, this case was dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
Another exception is Texas v. Pennsylvania. They asked the court to reject the results of the Pennsylvania Presidential contest in Pennsylvania and several other States, disenfranchising tens of millions of the voters. Seven Republican members of the Pennsylvania U.S. House delegation signed the U.S. House Republican brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania.
While I feel compelled to point out to my colleagues that the same voters who sent them to the 117th Congress cast their votes for the President by marking the very same ballots, which were read by the very same ballot scanners and monitored by the very same election workers. Yet our colleagues who signed the brief only want to invalidate the Presidential votes. This is illogical and inconsistent, colleagues, and I am pleased to note that the Supreme Court rejected it as well.
The fact is, the election has received unprecedented scrutiny in the courts. I believe it is irresponsible and undemocratic to argue today that the U.S. Congress ought to relitigate the 2020 Presidential election and second-guess the will of the voters in multiple States, the decisions of numerous State and Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and the counts and recounts conducted by State election officials.
There were 20 lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania challenging aspects of the Presidential election. In 19 of them you got laughed out of court. The one case you won affected roughly 100 votes. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won by over 80,000.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening with a heavy heart. The violence that occurred today at the U.S. Capitol was senseless, destructive, and counter to our American values.
This past Sunday, each Member of this body took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. And while the path of least resistance, particularly following today's events, would be to remain silent, my oath to uphold the Constitution does not permit me to maintain silence.
While systemic voter fraud was not something proven, we witnessed a systemic failure in the application of Pennsylvania's voting law when it comes to the 2020 general election.
In late 2019, the Commonwealth revisited and modernized its election law with the bipartisan Act 77. Granted, in late 2019, the Commonwealth's legislature did not have the foresight to anticipate how COVID-19 would present challenges to voting. Despite that, it is not up to the Governor, the secretary of the Commonwealth, nor the State supreme court to unilaterally create law.
The election abuses to Pennsylvania Act 77 taken by the Pennsylvania executive branch and upheld by the Pennsylvania judicial branch were clearly unconstitutional and had an obvious, if not major, impact on the 2020 election, particularly when it comes to the citizens' faith in the electoral process.
Irregularities in Pennsylvania included: Uneven application of the law; ballot curing; ignoring signature validation requirements; using unsecured drop boxes; accepting ballots beyond the deadlines; and interfering with certified poll watcher access, among others.
These actions were taken by the Commonwealth's Governor and secretary of state where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court circumvented the authority of the State legislature. Furthermore, the chief law officer of the Commonwealth sat idly while this process unfolded.
Now, I joined many of my colleagues in Pennsylvania requesting the legislators in Harrisburg conduct an investigation and audit to ensure such negligence will be prevented in future elections.
I have serious concerns about how these irregularities in the application of the Commonwealth's election laws will play in future elections. Only with equal application of law will the voters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have certainty in their election processes.
Now, I remain committed to ensuring the voters receive an electoral system they deserve and where equal application of law is guaranteed. If our election integrity is compromised, we have failed the very voters who have sent us here to defend the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The oath I took is very simple. Madam Speaker, you administered it. It is to support and defend the Constitution.
Now, as you walk back to the office buildings, you will walk by that wall that has when the various States accepted that Constitution. Remember, when a State accepts the Constitution, it agrees to accept every part of the Constitution. It doesn't get to pick and choose.
Pennsylvania was there when it was written. They were so enthusiastic about the Constitution, they approved it in 1787.
My State, Maryland, is a little further down the wall, 1788. They were there when it was written.
The clause that gave the legislature the power over the elections was there when they accepted it. It has been there since. How dare the judicial branch or the executive branch of that State usurp the legislative authority. That is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Now, we heard there is no evidence.
Evidence?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unilaterally extended the deadline to receive absentee and mail-in ballots.
Does anybody contest that over here? Does it say the legislature did that?
No, it doesn't. It says the court did it.
That is a violation. That is what the Texas lawsuit was all about. We disadvantage other States when States like Pennsylvania, the executive branch and judicial branch, cheat on the Constitution; and that is what they did here.
But there is more evidence. But wait, there is more. The Democrat secretary of the Commonwealth eroded integrity by dismissing signature authentication on a ballot.
Does anyone here believe the Pennsylvania legislature would have agreed to create a separate system for mail-in ballots and in-person ballots? That if you mail it in, you don't need a signature? But if you vote in person, you do and it has to be authenticated?
Of course not. The legislature clearly wouldn't have agreed to that. But that didn't stop the usurpation of constitutional authority.
Madam Chair, I vigorously support this objection, and I include in the Record the objection to counting the electoral votes for the State of Arizona additional signers.
Objection to Counting the Electoral Votes for the State of Arizona
Additional Signers
Jeff Duncan SC-3
Matt Gaetz FL-1
{time} 0050
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, tonight, we will not be picking the President, for the people did that on November 3. Rather, tonight, in this House, we will decide whether American democracy survives. Let us be under no illusion. These are the stakes. If this objection succeeds and the will of 7 million Pennsylvania voters is cast aside, it will be the end of our representative democracy.
Now, there is no reasonable debate about what happened in this election in Pennsylvania. Seven million Pennsylvanians voted. Joe Biden won by over 81,000 votes. This was certified in 67 counties by bipartisan local-elected officials, including Republicans. And every single court, whether the judge is a Democrat or a Republican, has reaffirmed this outcome.
The objectors, however, claim we do not know the will of the people because the election in Pennsylvania was somehow conducted corruptly. Much of their objection centers around the State law passed in 2019 known as Act 77 that gives voters the option of expanded mail-in voting. Objectors are alleging that this law was somehow a brilliant plot by Democrats to disadvantage Republicans and rig elections. This is laughable.
Here are the facts. Act 77 was a Republican-led effort in a Republican-controlled legislature. Literally, every single Republican in the Pennsylvania Senate voted for it. And in the statehouse, the vote among Republicans was 105-2.
Here is what the Republican speaker of the Pennsylvania House had to say about Act 77: This bill does not benefit one party or the other or any one candidate or single election. It serves to preserve the integrity of every election and lift the voice of every voter in the Commonwealth.
So there is no question as to the facts surrounding this election. They are as clear as they are overwhelming. The only question that remains is this: Will this House reaffirm our fidelity to our democracy, or will we end it?
I must concede, Madam Speaker, I have been naive about one subject. I always just assumed our democracy would naturally endure, almost as if it was predestined, I never even questioned it until the last several years.
Two centuries ago, one of our Founding Fathers cautioned against this notion. John Adams wrote, ``Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.''
I now realize the wisdom of his words. Never again will I take for granted our democracy. It must be jealously defended by every generation. Always.
But, Madam Speaker, despite the alarm, I feel that our democracy has been brought to this breaking point, as we have seen today. Nonetheless, I still maintain hope.
Growing up in Philadelphia, raised in an immigrant family, I was often brought down to visit the historic sights. Every summer, without fail, we would spend a day seeing Independence Hall, Congress Hall, the Liberty Bell.
It was at Independence Hall where our Nation was declared free and our Constitution born. At the Constitutional Convention, the oldest and most widely accomplished delegate was Benjamin Franklin, one of our greatest Founding Fathers and my city's greatest citizen.
On the final day, as the last delegates were signing the Constitution, Franklin pointed to the painted Sun on the back of the Convention chair. Observing the painters had found it difficult to distinguish a rising Sun from a setting Sun, Franklin went on to say:
I have often, during the course of this session, looked at that Sun without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now, at length, I have the happiness to know it is a rising Sun.
Madam Speaker, on a day like today, when a mob has stormed the Capitol, and some Members are threatening the core of our democracy, it can be hard to tell whether for American democracy the Sun is rising or setting. But I maintain my faith that tonight, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress, we will uphold the will of ``We the People,'' and our democracy will live.
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. I would like to point out that all the cases that have been thrown out have been thrown out on standing, not the evidence of voter fraud. I would also like to point out the same people who, for 4 years, have failed to find a shred of evidence to convict President Trump of Russian collusion are the same people trying to discredit hardworking American poll watchers who are risking perjury by signing affidavits confirming massive voter fraud in multiple States.
The same fake news who took the word of Christine Blasey Ford against Justice Kavanaugh, who her own friends denied happened, also dismissed the sworn under penalty of perjury accounts from people who witnessed the election fraud.
The same fact-checkers who told you that Dominion machines weren't connected to the internet and couldn't be hacked are the same people telling you that there has been no voter fraud and no violations of election law. But it has been proven that these machines are connected and that they can be hacked.
We have heard repeatedly argued that objecting to these ballots is unconstitutional and violates the rights of State legislatures. They would rather us affirm fraud and pass the buck back to States rather than following the process Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and the Framers of the Constitution designed.
When States fail to do their job, we are the last line of defense. Congress is here for this exact situation. We are here to be the fail-
safe when States refuse to protect the people's votes.
By objecting today, we are telling the thousands of witnesses who signed affidavits that we have their back, and we will not allow local officials who violate their own election laws to steal this election from those who lawfully voted.
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the foundation of our democracy, the Constitution of the United States of America. This document is the fabric and the solid foundation of a nation we call America, which has been a beacon of hope and a shining city on the hill for over 230 years.
The words of our Constitution, as spelled out in Article II, Section 1, are very clear when it comes to our elections: mandating, not suggesting, not implying, but mandating that State legislatures, not secretaries of State, not State commissions, not county officials, not Governors, but State legislators prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections.
This mandate was not followed in the great State of Pennsylvania. If we allow this fraud to go on--in a football analogy, the moving of the goalpost after the ball has been kicked and in the air--the preview of coming attractions will be future elections that do not adhere to honest and open voting by ``We the People'' and the loss of our great Republic.
As a lady told me not long ago, don't spit in my face and tell me it is raining. This is exactly what has happened to the American people in this election. In the words of Winston Churchill, when Great Britain was under siege by Germany, he said: There will be a time when doing your best is not good enough. We must do what is required.
And we must do what is required to save this great Republic.
Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, as terrifying as today was here in the people's House, it was, thankfully, fairly short in duration. In contrast, the pain and fear that so many Americans are experiencing this year has been long and continuous to this very moment.
Rather than pitting Americans against Americans, as we are here, we should be working to ensure rapid distribution of vaccines and adequate relief to Americans who are struggling economically because of this horrific pandemic. But we are not doing that. Instead, we have witnessed a stunning assault on our democracy itself.
This challenge is not an act of patriotism. The position of the objectors is completely incompatible with patriotism.
Our country is defined by her great people, and our democracy is defined above all else by our Constitution, a Constitution that these individuals want to ignore because they have decided that their judgment, the judgment of a small minority of partisan elites, should somehow override that of the more than 155 million Americans who participated in this election. That, my friends, is not democracy.
{time} 0100
We should all remember this country's founding was a rejection of monarchy, a rejection of the notion that any one person could be all-
powerful. Our commitment to self-determination is what gave rise to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It is why our Founders made the choice to build a country anchored in respect for the rule of law rather than one tied to the whims of men. It is why we have free and fair elections that allow us to vote out those who hold office.
I am proud to join the vast majority of my colleagues in both Chambers, Republicans and Democrats alike, in making it clear that our democracy is bigger than any of us.
Let's be clear: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won a victory of 306 electoral votes in the electoral college, the same margin that President Trump won by in 2016 when he called it a landslide.
Nearly 7 million of my fellow Pennsylvanians braved this devastating pandemic and economic crisis to cast their ballots, culminating in a total turnout of more than 70 percent, the highest in the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And nationwide, we saw record-
breaking turnout.
Both in Pennsylvania and nationally, the President's efforts to overturn the election results in the courts failed resoundingly, with many of the strongest rebukes coming from judges the President himself appointed.
In fact, contrary to the assertion of my colleague from Georgia across the aisle, not a single lawsuit in Pennsylvania alleged fraud. The gentlewoman may not be aware of this, but allegations of fraud require specificity and detail, and no lawyer could risk his or her license to make such false claims.
I am heartened that several of the country's leading Republicans, including Senate Republican Majority Leader McConnell, Senator Mitt Romney, and former Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have spoken out against this political stunt.
Senator Romney said: ``The egregious ploy to reject electors may enhance the political ambition of some, but dangerously threatens our democratic Republic.''
And as former Republican Representative Charlie Dent from my district said, the claim by the President of voter fraud in our State ``was simply reprehensible; the truth is that he suppressed his own vote by discouraging mail-in voting.''
And as Pennsylvania State Senator Gene Yaw, also a Republican, has said: ``My question is, if the mail-in voting of Act 77 was so bad, why did The Trump Organization send out a mail-in ballot application to every registered Republican in the State?''
Today, I am thinking of all of the people who took the time to do their civic duty and vote, many standing in long lines or painstakingly researching how to vote by mail correctly.
We reject these disgraceful attacks on the voters of Pennsylvania and this attempt to throw out their votes.
To those in this Chamber who may cynically believe that stoking the forces of disinformation and division may be worth a short-term benefit to their political careers, I would urge serious self-reflection.
Our democracy is one of the most precious resources of the American people, protected against enormous odds and at great sacrifice by each generation of servicemembers and everyday citizens who put their lives on the line to build a freer and more equitable nation. They deserve better than what is happening in this Chamber today.
Mr. SMUCKER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMUCKER. Madam Speaker, I would like to start by making two basic points:
Number one, individual States who administer elections must ensure that they are conducted fairly, uniformly, and in accordance with the law; and
Number two, every American wants to be, and deserves to be, confident that our elections are secure and that all eligible legal votes are counted accurately and in a transparent manner.
And I will say this. In my district in Lancaster and York Counties, I think that occurred. I am very proud of my county election officials, who upheld the Pennsylvania Constitution and followed the letter of the law; but, unfortunately, that sentiment is not shared across the Commonwealth.
Today, my objection is not about voter fraud; it is grounded on unconstitutional measures taken by bureaucrats and partisan justices in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that have unlawfully changed how this election was carried out. This potentially changed the outcome and certainly caused millions of our States' voters to question the election results. Other speakers have outlined this issue.
In brief, the Pennsylvania State Legislature, in 2019, passed a bipartisan election law reform bill, and then the partisan Pennsylvania Supreme Court took it upon themselves to rewrite that law just 7 weeks before the election. They unlawfully legislated from the bench and made substantive changes to the law, including allowing for unsecured drop boxes and ordering that ballots received after the election be counted, among other things.
The Pennsylvania Secretary of State took it even further. Her unilateral, unconstitutional changes resulted in counties treating ballots differently so that some voters had the opportunity to change mail-in ballots to correct deficiencies, while in other counties, their ballots simply were not counted.
As Members of Congress, we serve as a voice for our constituents. This is the one time I have a voice in this process, and I cannot simply look away when tens of thousands of my constituents have real and legitimate concerns about how this election was conducted in Pennsylvania.
In fact, I think an inadequate response to those concerns by Pennsylvania officials is one of the major problems. Simple measures like audits should be routine and random and supported by both parties, and I believe they are critical for restoring faith in Pennsylvania's elections moving forward.
The bottom line for my constituents is that Pennsylvania's officials, at all levels, failed to conduct a uniform and legal election, and for that reason, they inappropriately and unlawfully certified the State's electors.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller), my colleague.
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Smucker) for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the violence that occurred in the Capitol today was shameful, unacceptable, and un-American. We are a nation of laws, not lawlessness, and we will never give in to the mob.
Thank you to the men and women of our Capitol Police and other law enforcement agencies who heroically defended this building.
The criminal behavior we witnessed today does not erase the facts before us.
I am objecting to the certification of Pennsylvania's electoral votes because Governor Tom Wolf, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the State legislature's clear constitutional authority to set election proceedings.
Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, only the General Assembly has the power to set election law.
Additionally, Article II of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants State legislatures, not the Governor acting alone and not the courts, the explicit power to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors.
Pennsylvania's court unlawfully extended the deadline to receive absentee and mail-in ballots. Governor Wolf's administration dismissed signature authentication procedures for absentee and mail-in ballots, allowed for the uneven administration of the election across counties, and unilaterally changed Pennsylvania's election code without the State legislature's consent.
The Constitution is clear and the facts are indisputable.
This past weekend, each Member of this body stood in this Chamber and swore an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. I intend to fulfill my constitutional oath which the people of Pennsylvania have entrusted in me. My objection is grounded in the Constitution and rule of law.
If we allow the Governor to violate the constitutional rights of the General Assembly, what is stopping him from violating the constitutional rights of the 12.8 million Pennsylvanians our State legislators were elected to represent?
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I represent the Third District of Pennsylvania, which includes part of Philadelphia, the birthplace of America. It was in Philadelphia that the Constitution of the United States was written and signed, the very Constitution that we are all sworn to uphold as Members of the House of Representatives.
We are elected to serve our constituents, and it is our job to represent them and their interests in Congress.
Yesterday, I spoke to the son of the late Dick Thornburgh, who is a two-time Republican Governor of Pennsylvania and was Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan and President Bush. His son stressed to me that his father would have wanted the rule of law to prevail regardless of the political outcome, because he cared more about the safeguarding of democracy than partisanship.
In addition, Al Schmidt, who was a Republican commissioner of elections, said, when Philadelphia certified its results on November 23: ``I'm proud that the birthplace of our Republic held the most transparent and secure election in the history of Philadelphia.''
Instead of using this time to dispute the results of our fair and lawful election, we should be spending this time making sure vaccines are quickly given to essential workers and our most vulnerable communities, that people are getting housing.
We should look at rental assistance. We should ensure that that is available.
Small businesses, the engines of our economy, should be getting needed grants and loans.
That should be our focus.
Hospitals desperately need support and help. We should be paying attention to the needs of hospitals.
We are in the middle of a pandemic where hundreds of thousands of people are dying, and we are in a recession that is putting millions of Americans at risk of hunger, homelessness, or both. It is time we start legislating for the people.
One last person I want to mention is our junior Senator, Senator Toomey. There are very few things that he and I agree on, but he has stated very clearly that Joe Biden has won this election. He has stood up on the Senate floor and he has stated that.
So it needs to be very clear that the late Governor Thornburgh; Albert Schmidt, the commissioner; and our current junior Senator all have one thing in common: democracy first, partisanship second. Let's keep that in mind.
Ms. HERRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico for 5 minutes.
Ms. HERRELL. Madam Speaker, this is not how I imagined my first speech in the House of Representatives or my first week to be in Washington.
The violence that occurred in this building yesterday is reprehensible and inexcusable. I am appalled by anyone who assaults our Nation's law enforcement officers.
I swore an oath on Sunday to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We are here today delayed, but not deterred, to debate a constitutional question and follow a constitutional process.
The Constitution gives State legislators, not State executives or judges, the sole authority to determine how their State selects Presidential electors.
Nobody disputes that in Pennsylvania, as well as in other States, rules and regulations were changed by executive fiat or judicial edict.
These changes were significant and irregular. They included changes to vote-by-mail deadlines, identity verification requirements, and other ballot handling practices.
In Pennsylvania specifically, the Democrat Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the constitutional authority of the State legislature.
{time} 0110
Together, they exceeded their authority by extending the deadline for absentee ballots and by waiving signature requirements for those ballots.
In their haste to make these changes, the secretary and the court created two different and unequal standards for voters. Pennsylvanians who chose to vote in person still had to have their signatures verified at their polling place, but those who chose to vote by mail did not. How is this process fair?
This objection is about Pennsylvania, but it affects every State. As a State Representative of New Mexico, Pennsylvania's unconstitutional actions disenfranchised my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues. It is my duty to give my constituents a voice. Signing these objections raises their concerns to the fullest extent my office allows.
I, again, condemn in the strongest terms the violence that took place here yesterday. We have many issues to solve, including reforms to restore all Americans' faith in the fairness of our elections. I look forward to those serious civil and peaceful debates.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, this process we are going through today isn't about personalities. This isn't about Joe Biden or Donald Trump. As hard as some try to paint it that way, let me say that names and personalities don't matter. This is, gravely, about the Constitution of the United States.
Almost 20 years ago, after the attacks on 9/11, Americans were persuaded to give up some of their constitutional liberties. Using the justification of that global crisis, the terrorist attacks on that fateful day, America saw the erosion of their liberties for the safety and security many felt they may receive through the USA PATRIOT Act and other resulting processes too many felt would keep us safe from another attack here on our shore.
This year, using the justification of the global pandemic, COVID-19, we once again saw our Nation's Constitution violated. You see, the Constitution is clear in Article II, Madam Speaker, that the power and duty to set the manner of national elections rests solely with the State legislatures.
That power doesn't rest with us. That power didn't rest in the hands of unelected county election officials, secretaries of state, or a supreme court but, rather, in the hands of the State legislatures, which pass laws setting the manner of elections held in their States.
This year, using the extraordinary circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed these duly passed laws circumvented and usurped time and again, not by having the laws changed in the respective State legislative bodies, but those laws arbitrarily and unilaterally changed by county clerks; secretaries of state; and, in this case of Pennsylvania, an elected supreme court, which is supposed to interpret the law, not make law.
When those nonlegislative entities change the laws without getting the general assemblies to change the law, in my opinion, the resulting ballots cast, either by mail or in person, those ballots were illegal under the law.
Illegal ballots should not be counted. Therefore, the resulting electoral votes should be considered invalid.
What bothers me is that so many of you are okay with that, that so many Americans, because their person won, you are okay with the manner in which that victory was gained.
It is politics. Look, I get it. But we didn't swear an oath to play politics. We swore an oath to the United States Constitution. As George Washington said: The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Speaker, first, I do want to acknowledge the devastating events of the last 12 hours and to express my deep appreciation for those who have worked to secure this building and safeguard our democracy. On behalf of my colleagues, we are all grateful for your service.
I ran for this office on a platform of civility and decency, and many of my colleagues and constituents know that I am a third-generation veteran, and I grew up in a military household.
{time} 0120
Madam Speaker, what you may not know, though, is that I grew up in a divided household. Throughout my childhood, one parent voted Democrat and the other Republican. In my purple household, I learned that duty to country was far more important than party allegiance. With each election, my father would say: ``And when the election is done, we salute smartly and we carry on.''
Now I live in and I serve in a community that has a lot in common with the home that I grew up in. It, too, is a purple place that honors civility and decency. Pennsylvania's Sixth District is, in many ways, a microcosm of the Commonwealth and of our Nation. Our voter registration in Chester County is 40-40-20, R, D, and I. Voters across my district commonly split their ticket, some voting for President-elect Biden while also voting down the ballot for Republicans for our State legislature.
What some of my colleagues are arguing today is that those very ballots are illegitimate. My colleagues cannot honestly believe that. In fact, just this week they joined me on the House floor to be sworn in to this hallowed body, and they trusted that the votes cast in their favor were legitimate. And they are right. If those votes counted, then so too must the votes for President-elect Biden.
We have also heard today concerns about mail-in ballots. I am not a lawyer, but I am an engineer and, therefore, a student of numbers. It wasn't just Democrats who voted by mail. It was not a free-for-all, as it was described earlier. Madam Speaker, 600,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania across the State voted by mail. By questioning the election results, you are telling those Pennsylvanians that the hours they spent in line to cast their ballot or the trip they took to the post office in the middle of a pandemic just didn't matter.
Alan Novak is a man who served as the chair of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania for nearly a decade. I will say that again. The Chair of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania for a decade is one of those voters I am talking about in Pennsylvania. He lives in my district, and he split his ticket. He voted for me as his Member of Congress and also for President Trump. And he eloquently said:
What makes America great, exceptional, and enduring is our commitment to our government of laws, our orderly constitutional process that settles our election disputes, and our peaceful transfer of power with respect and civility. It is easy when it is pretty and the outcome is not controversial. But when it is not pretty and there is controversy, then it is even more important that we respect, honor, and abide by our revered and tested process for the orderly transfer of power. Perhaps that may be all that we can agree on, and it is the need for grace, respect, and civility.
So I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Are you willing to disenfranchise people like Mr. Novak and the more than 400,000 people in Pennsylvania's Sixth District?
Perhaps some of the independent and pragmatic spirit that is so prevalent among voters in my community comes from the history of the place that we call home. Many Americans have visited Philadelphia and our historic sites, but very few make it out to my community, which is the home of Valley Forge. Here, General George Washington led the Continental Army to winter quarters. The war had not been going well for our young soldiers, and that winter was harder still. It was bitterly cold, and food shortages and smallpox were abundant. Many people died.
We remember what happened there because it was a test of our endurance, a demonstration of devotion to mission and to our country over ourselves. Coming out of that awful winter experience, our troops emerged better trained, united, and ultimately victorious. In those harsh, dark times, they found their common ground and their fortitude.
Just like then, it is in these trying moments when we learn who our leaders truly are. They are the ones who don't just represent the people or give orders or ready us for a fight. They are those who educate and who speak truth. They inspire confidence and unity rather than sowing division and strife. There is a striking parallel between our nascent country and what they endured in Valley Forge and what we are enduring right now: A hard winter of division, illness running rampant, and an uncertain future.
Today, our country's resolve is being tested, and I know that we will pass this test together and be made stronger. We now have the opportunity and the responsibility to do that tonight by upholding the will of the people, by voting to certify the results of this electoral college and by moving forward with a servant heart and a common resolve to preserve this great experiment that is the United States of America.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BABIN. It is with great pride and a profound sense of responsibility that I object to the 2020 election in the State of Pennsylvania.
I am very proud to stand alongside fellow patriots who have pushed back against a fraudulent and criminal election process--a process that was the antithesis to the very rule of law that governs these United States.
At the same time, standing here tonight is surreal because this is a critical juncture that will undoubtedly determine the survivability of this great Republic.
Our free and fair election process--and by extension, the people's trust in its legitimacy--is what has separated us as a nation. A process that we have shared with the world, its moral force. A process that now, sadly, has been bastardized by those more interested in the maintenance of power than they are in the free and open voice of the American people.
If I remember correctly, Democrats were calling for transparency in 2000 and 2004, when George W. Bush was elected; and again in 2016, when President Trump took office.
Where are you now?
I ask this, Madam Speaker: What do you have to lose by having a thorough investigation to determine the validity of these votes?
Why not encourage an investigation to relieve the concerns of half of the people in this country?
If you are so convinced that Biden was elected legitimately, what do you have to fear?
If there was no fraud, simply show us the proof. Investigate it. Validate it. This isn't about one candidate versus another. This is about upholding the principles that are indispensable to the existence of the democratic Republic that we are so fortunate to call home.
I have no doubt that there was widespread election fraud this past November, and I am not alone. I stand here today speaking for 75 million Americans whose voice was unconstitutionally silenced.
To you, the silenced, I say this: I will continue to fight for you. You have been heard. For more than 240 years, tyranny has sought to extinguish the light of freedom.
As Ronald Reagan said before: Freedom is a fragile thing, and it is never more than one generation away from extinction.
The Constitution and the Bible on which it stands is stronger than the cheap tyrannical tactics of those who seek to destroy it.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, mob violence is not representative of our country or of this building. The American people--at least the ones who are still up watching right now--have seen this body return to a peaceful debate. And that is the American way. So let's get back to that debate and let's talk for a moment about Pennsylvania.
For decades, absentee voting was reserved for members of the military and citizens who are medically or physically unable to get to the polls. But in 2019, Pennsylvania dramatically increased the amount of ballots that would be cast in the Presidential election through expanded, no-excuse, mail-in voting.
On September 17, Pennsylvania's Democrat-controlled Supreme Court violated the Constitution by extending the deadline to receive mail-in ballots. Article II states that legislatures, not the courts, determine the time, manner, and place of their States' elections. But Pennsylvania's high court directed the State officials to assume that non-postmarked ballots were received on time without any evidence that they were sent before election day.
On October 23, while early voting was already underway, the State supreme court ruled that election officials did not have to authenticate signatures for mail-in ballots.
To sum it up, Pennsylvania officials illegally did three critical things:
One, they radically expanded vote by mail for virtually any reason.
Two, they removed restrictions when a ballot can be sent in.
Three, they removed signature verification on those very ballots.
Just this week, the Pennsylvania Senate pleaded with Members of this body to delay certification until the Supreme Court resolves these disputes. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania violated their own constitution. They violated the U.S. Constitution. They opened the door for thousands of unverifiable ballots.
Because they failed to guarantee the integrity of their votes, I cannot consent to accepting Pennsylvania's electoral votes.
{time} 0130
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the challenge.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for America--a day of shame, a day of ignominy, an attack on this Capitol, an attack on our country.
Madam Speaker, our words matter. Mobs, thugs, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists attacked our government with the aim of attacking our free and fair elections.
Make no mistake, these terrorists came armed, armed with false flags; armed with hate; armed with weapons; and, tragically, armed with lies force-fed to them by those at the highest level of government, including some from the legislative and, yes, the executive branches. Incited by the one at the highest level of government, they attacked people, property, this Capitol, this cathedral of democracy.
Words matter. In his last words to our Nation and to all of us here, our dear colleague, John Lewis, wrote last July: ``Democracy is not a state. It is an act.'' And each generation has an obligation to preserve its institutions.
Democracy is a series of acts, acts by you and by me, by citizens, one building upon the other and another--not acts that we have heard and seen and suffered today, words and acts to incite violence, acts that tear at the very fabric of our democracy.
Madam Speaker, yet, I have hope. We, too, are armed. We are armed with the facts. We are armed with the truth. We are armed with the love of our country. We are armed with our sworn oaths. And we are armed with our precious Constitution.
We have faced tyranny and insurrection before. We are here tonight to herald to America and to the world: We will defend our democracy, and we will endure.
Madam Speaker, when I came into work this morning, as I was preparing to come to the floor, I read Tom Friedman's op-ed, which began with the words from the Gospel of Mark: For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?
For what shall it profit any man.
Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to have the courage to uphold their oath, courage like that of Congresswoman Margaret Chase Smith, a lifelong Republican and the first in her party to speak out against McCarthyism. Putting duty over fear, she said: ``I do not want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny--Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear. Surely, we Republicans are not that desperate for victory.''
Madam Speaker, for today, we have seen the cost of victory by such means. It shook the very walls of this building. Our colleagues know there is no truth to this challenge.
For what shall it profit a man.
Madam Speaker, it has been my solemn honor to participate in this sad day. I pray for our country.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection of the electoral certification of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, as a new Representative here, I did not envision my first speech on the House floor to be this, here tonight, but rather, a tribute to our first responders and frontline workers who have been a shining light in an otherwise tough year for us all.
After the events tonight, I am especially grateful for our men and women who put service above self, confronting lawlessness and danger while protecting this very Chamber, its Members, and our constitutional Republic.
As a Member of the people's House, and the wife of a first responder, thank you to our law enforcement here today. But, especially, after tonight's unacceptable breach of the people's House, I am furthermore resolved in the fact that we, as representatives of the people, must take a stand for every American's right to a free and fair election as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution explicitly rests the time and manner of our elections in the hands of our State legislatures. However, State law in the 2020 election was modified or circumvented without approval of the State legislature. These actions are in clear violation of the Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, which grants State legislatures the sole authority to establish how State Presidential electors are appointed.
These changes, along with other election irregularities throughout the 2020 election, require me, as a Member of this body, to object to the certification of these electoral votes, just as my colleagues across the aisle have objected to every Republican Presidential election over the last 20 years.
Tonight, as we undertake the very serious responsibility of debating these State electoral certifications, I urge my colleagues to listen earnestly and with an open mind, remembering that just 3 days ago, we swore an oath to the United States Constitution, not a political party.
Our constituents are counting on us. Our country is counting on us. Our children are counting on us, and we cannot let them down.
Madam Speaker, in December, 25 of my freshman colleagues and I sent you a letter imploring you to investigate these election irregularities. To date, we have not received a response. That brings us to today.
My colleagues across the aisle have repeatedly invoked our Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, who famously said: We have a republic, if we can keep it.
I say, let's keep it.
Madam Speaker, it is with that sentiment in mind that I ask my colleagues to defend the power vested in this legislative branch by the U.S. Constitution and reject the certification of the electoral votes of the State in question. It is our responsibility to have courage in the face of adversity and bring integrity back to this process.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Mrs. Cammack), my friend.
Madam Speaker, as Americans, we believe governments receive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That sacred transaction can only happen legitimately in a free and fair election.
Election integrity is the very lifeblood of our unrivaled system of self-government. The law and the Constitution gave Congress not only the authority but, I believe, the responsibility to serve as the last check on the integrity of our Presidential elections. We either believe, according to statute, that every elector was ``lawfully certified'' and ``regularly given,'' or we don't.
States certainly have broad delegated powers to administer Federal elections, but they still must operate within the bounds of the Constitution.
Despite receiving numerous petitions--to the detriment of the country, I might add--the Supreme Court failed to answer the most important question of the 2020 election: Can entities outside of the State legislatures make election law?
The plain language of Article II of the Constitution answers the question unequivocally no.
The decisions made today in these Chambers are of the utmost consequence, and the horrible precedent that will be established if we don't act will have lasting impact on our beloved Republic.
Madam Speaker, this proceeding is not just about the integrity of this election. It is about ensuring the integrity of all future elections.
I take no pleasure or pride in making my objection today, nor do I wish for any State electors to be disqualified. However, based on the law, the Constitution, and my conscience, I cannot support certifying votes from any State that violated the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, this decision is not about loyalty to a President. It is about my fidelity to the Constitution and the oath that I swore.
Mr. LAMB. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMB. Madam Speaker, I came here tonight prepared to talk about the place I represent and how well the Democratic and Republican county officials ran our election. I wanted to point out that in my home county of Allegheny County, in the place they were counting the votes, there were 31 video cameras--31--in the same place, just showing people counting votes, every single one of them on paper, with representatives from both campaigns watching.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out to all these great lovers and supporters of the Pennsylvania legislature that it was the Republican Pennsylvania legislature that passed a Republican bill that they all voted for and supported that set up the system under which we just ran the election, and that the reason the President lost was because he was not as popular as other Republicans in our State. He got fewer votes than all of them.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to lay out all this evidence because I thought it was a sign of respect for my colleagues and for all the Americans out there who don't know who to trust. I was raised on that. I was raised on that respect, which makes this a hard speech for me to give. Because to do this with any kind of honesty means admitting and declaring in this House that these objections don't deserve an ounce of respect--not an ounce.
{time} 0140
A woman died out there tonight, and you are making these objections.
Let's be clear about what happened in this Chamber today. Invaders came in for the first time since the War of 1812. They desecrated these Halls and this Chamber and practically every inch of ground where we work. For the most part, they walked in here free. A lot of them walked out free. There wasn't a person watching at home who didn't know why that was--because of the way that they look.
My point, Madam Speaker, is this: Enough has been done here already to try to strip this Congress of its dignity, and these objectors don't need to do anymore.
We know that that attack today didn't materialize out of nowhere. It was inspired by lies, the same lies that you are hearing in this room tonight. And the Members who are repeating those lies should be ashamed of themselves. Their constituents should be ashamed of them.
We know what is going to happen as soon as I walk away, what has happened all night tonight, what will continue to happen. They will take these same symbols, these same concepts, smuggle them into their arguments, and make the same arguments. I want people at home, anyone who is still watching, to know that these arguments are not for them; they are for you.
None of the evidence we wanted to discuss here tonight will change their opinions or what they are about to say. But you need to know that is not the end. It is not as if there is nothing we can do because of that. And if there was, I don't think this Nation would have made it to almost 250 years.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, that at the end of the day, people--
Point of Order
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma'am. The point of order would be that the gentleman said that there were lies on this floor here today, looking over in this direction. I ask that those words be taken down.
We may have a disagreement on matters, but--
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman's demand is not timely.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania will proceed.
Mr. LAMB. Madam Speaker, the fact is, at the end of the day, it hurts. It hurts them; it hurts this country. It hurts all of us. But the fact is that the people have made this country work by not giving in.
Go ahead. Shout it out.
One last thing to say, Madam Speaker. And I thank you for your patience. All people need to know tonight, Madam Speaker--
Madam Speaker, the truth hurts. But the fact is this: We want this government to work more than they want it to fail.
After everything that has happened today, we want that more than ever. Know that. Know that, the people watching at home. We want this government to work. We will make it work. They will not make it fail.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PERRY. When is the appropriate time to ask that the words be stricken, be taken down?
The SPEAKER. Immediately after the words are uttered.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Louisiana seek recognition?
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, my, my, my. Let us take a deep breath, shall we?
Madam Speaker, the cornerstone of the strength of our American Republic is not only the peaceful transition of power; it is the peaceful transition of a lawful power. It is within the parameters of our oath, indeed, is our duty to inquire if we suspect that perhaps our elections have been compromised.
Much has been said about what we do not know. What we do not know calls for investigation.
What we do know is that, in the disputed States, Governors, secretaries of state, or local election commissions acted in violation of the Election Clause of the U.S. Constitution, wherein State legislatures are granted the sole authority to determine how Presidential electors are appointed. It is that simple. State executive officials usurped the constitutionally vested authority of State legislatures within several of the sovereign States.
Now, why we are involved in Congress? Because the Founders gave us a narrow role. If we suspect that an election was compromised in a sovereign State, then we have a role in the seating of those electors and the counting.
America is not a confederacy of States. We are a union of States. We are a representative republic. Therefore, each sovereign State has a deep obligation to follow the writ of its own election law during a Federal election.
We would not be having this conversation if our objections were solely rested upon the elections of sovereign State Governors or State senators and representatives. It is a Federal election for the President and Vice President of the United States. We certainly have a role, and we should investigate and support that role.
Madam Speaker, America is an anointed nation, born of imperfect men driven by perfect intent. May we be worthy of what it is to be an American, what it is to be a representative of the American people.
May I ask, may we seek the quiet whisper of God's own voice within us. And I ask my colleagues to consider supporting this objection.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, before I start, something I didn't plan on saying. This is a debate. It is a discussion. Everybody has a right to an opinion. That is American. Because someone doesn't agree with your view or your ideas does not mean that they are liars. It means they have a different view, a different opinion.
And I think, for God's sake, as people watch this or see it or hear it, they expect more from us than that. We can disagree at a certain level. There is nothing worse than moral pomposity.
You know, today was an amazing and terrible day. But one thing that we do know is that our law enforcement protected lives, and they protected and preserved our democracy. I watched firsthand, as I always have, just as I do back home in south Jersey, these brave men and women put their lives on the line to defend all of us.
May God bless the woman who lost her life today, and may God bless what will always be the greatest Nation in the history of the world: the United States of America.
At the core of our country's greatness is our democratic system of government. Without faith in the integrity of our elections, Americans will not have faith in our democracy.
The United States of America is the international embodiment of freedom and opportunity, the shining city on a hill. Free and fair elections have always been a hallmark of America's greatness.
After this past Presidential election, approximately 60 million Americans have serious doubts about the outcome. That is a number that we cannot ignore.
{time} 0150
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I started this day disheartened that our colleagues were going to drag us through this cynical political charade of objecting to duly certified electoral college votes, but I was ready and eager to defend Pennsylvania's elections and the will of Pennsylvania's voters.
Never did I expect to be answering calls from family and friends concerned for my safety or to have to barricade myself in an office. But most important of all, never did I expect to see our Capitol overrun by armed insurrectionists intent on disrupting our government at the urging of the President.
What happened here today has made me heart-sick for our country, but it only strengthens my resolve to uphold the rule of law and to protect the decision of Pennsylvania's voters.
Earlier this week, we raised our hands and swore an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. But, today, those who are blocking the counting of electors from Pennsylvania are showing that their allegiance lies not to the Constitution or to their constituents, and many would argue not even to the Republican Party, but to their own political fortunes and the outgoing President.
Pennsylvania's voters, not Members of Congress, are tasked with choosing Pennsylvania's Presidential electors, and particularly not congressmen from other States. The people have spoken, and Pennsylvania certified our electors. We must respect our oath here by rejecting this unfounded objection to Pennsylvania's electoral votes, and not substitute Congress' judgment for that of the people of Pennsylvania.
Legal challenges to elections are serious matters, and that is why there is a place to consider those challenges: In courtrooms before impartial judges.
And Pennsylvania's legal process has worked. The pseudo-legal arguments that are being raised by the objectors here today are not new. Over the past 2 months, the President and his allies have filed more than 20 lawsuits to challenge the Pennsylvania election. Those challenges have been rejected in Federal courts, State courts, appellate courts, and the United States Supreme Court. Challenges have been rejected by judges who are registered Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and who have been appointed by Democratic and Republican Presidents.
And why did they lose all those cases?
As Third Circuit Judge Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote, ``Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.''
What the Court said points to an important distinction about when and how claims of election misconduct are made. It is easy to make wild claims of election fraud on cable television or Twitter, but those claims are not facts. And while there may be no immediate consequences for misleading the public with such statements, there is certainly a penalty for misleading the courts.
A lawyer faces fines, jail, and loss of his or her license for making frivolous or false claims. The lawyers for the Trump campaign never alleged widespread fraud or illegal voting had impacted Pennsylvania's elections because those claims are false.
When our colleagues indulge in this political theatre and endorse fringe conspiracy theories, they may think there are no consequences because they know that this time the majorities of the House and Senate will overrule them. But as the entire world saw today, their baseless claims of election fraud do have consequences. They undermine faith and respect for our elections and our government. They chip away at the foundation of our constitutional Republic and they take a sledgehammer to the peaceful transfer of power. It is our job to respect the rule of law and reject this political charade.
Finally, I want to offer my deepest respect to our Republican colleagues in both the House and the Senate who have withstood intense political pressure, and today honor their oath in the rule of law by rejecting these unfounded objections.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would first like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who said we should be ashamed over here, I am not ashamed, and neither are my colleagues over here. We are actually proud of what we are doing and what we are standing for. So I hope the Record will show that.
Yesterday's cowardly attack on our American democracy was a horrible act. While Congress attempted to execute their constitutional duty to debate and vote on this certification of the electoral college, violence interrupted the proceedings in an attempt to stop the democratic process.
Those who committed these acts are domestic terrorists and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I thank the Capitol Police and all of the law enforcement organizations that pushed back against this mob.
I can't help but be reminded of the bravery during the baseball shooting on myself and my Republican colleagues in June of 2017. I thank God every day for their presence.
The American people deserve full transparency in the electoral process, with confidence that any irregularities and inconsistencies in that process will be fully investigated.
As a former Texas secretary of state, I know the electoral process well. And above all, I know what the courts, the executive branch, and the elections officials can and cannot do without approval of the State legislature. During my tenure, I knew that my authority was confined to the powers the legislature provided me. If States fail to abide by the Constitution and follow their owns laws, it calls into question whether the votes in Texas, or any other State, are fairly represented.
And now, as a duly elected Member of Congress, the Constitution outlines my rights to speak and voice my constituents' concerns with my vote. It is pivotal that we have free and fair elections in our representative democracy and, more importantly, that we trust in the results of those elections.
In no way is voicing an objection an attempt to overturn an election. And when this process is complete and all objections have been heard, I acknowledge that we will have a peaceful transfer of power on January 20.
Faith in our system must be restored and Americans must be confident that their vote matters, and only lawful votes will be counted. This is a sad day in our Nation's history, but a solemn reminder that our country will not falter and will not fail. In God we trust.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cawthorn).
Mr. CAWTHORN. Madam Speaker, as I said in my convention speech, I want a new generation of Americans to be radicals--to be radicals for freedom and for liberty, but not radicals for violence. I am bitterly disappointed by the protest that happened yesterday. The actions of a violent few were cowardly and pathetic, and I am not afraid to call it out.
The Republican Party is a party of limited government. It is the big tent party. It is not the party of destruction.
Madam Speaker, the oath I took just days ago demand that I speak out in defense not of one President or another, but in defense of a hallowed document that has safeguarded this Republic for over 200 years. The Constitution grants power solely to State legislatures to determine how elections are carried out. When other officials who are not vested with constitutional authority usurp their role and grind the Constitution under their heel, I must object.
{time} 0200
Our Nation is a nation of resilience. In Valley Forge, George Washington prayed for a republic to be formed from the ashes of a monarchy. At Gettysburg, Americans gave their lives to defend a very simple idea, that the American democracy that had been earned with the blood of their forefathers would not perish due to internal division.
Then, on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, American servicemen gave their lives to defend this Nation's freedom from fascism.
What unites each and every generation of Americans is the idea that those who submit themselves to the authority of government ought to have a voice in that same government.
We are Americans here in this Chamber and in this country. But what does it really mean to be an American? It means believing in the rule of law. It means speaking up in defense of our founding principles and in defense of the Constitution.
Being an American means that you are proud of your country but that you never beat your chest. And being an American means that sometimes you must stand alone while others sit.
Now, obviously, I can't stand, but trust me, if I could stand, I would stand in defense of our Constitution today.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague Representative Dwight Evans, and I remind this Chamber that Pennsylvania is the cradle of American democracy.
We can't claim to be the birthplace of American democracy. That would be a disservice to James Otis, Jr., who, in 1761, stood up in a Massachusetts courtroom and argued against the King's writs of assistance.
But Pennsylvania is the cradle of democracy. It is where we hosted the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.
It was Pennsylvanians who immediately went to battle to defend this idea of democracy. They went right after Bunker Hill to the Siege of Boston. American riflemen were instrumental at the transformational Battles of Trenton and Saratoga in victory. And it is Independence Hall where these documents got signed, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
You heard my colleagues. You heard Representative Houlahan talking about the privations at Valley Forge, all in support of creating democracy.
You heard Representative Brendan F. Boyle quoting John Adams, that democracy only dies by suicide.
You heard Representative Dean quoting John Lewis, our hero, who said: Democracy is not a state. It is an act.
You heard Representative Wild talking about this stunning assault on our democracy.
If it seems like we get a little prickly in Pennsylvania about assaulting democracy, you are right. We do. Pennsylvania is the cradle of democracy.
You heard how foolish and empty these challenges are. Representative Lamb said it: 31 cameras filming the place where the count was happening, resulting in thousands of hours of videotape--you can see it on YouTube--proving there was no fraud.
You heard Representatives Michael F. Doyle and Brendan F. Boyle talking about Act 77, how the Republicans in Pennsylvania were falling all over themselves to pass this law for mail-in voting because they thought it would help them.
You heard Representative Scanlon explaining why there were no allegations of fraud made in court because a lawyer going into court and lying to the court gets his or her ticket to practice law punched. They can be disbarred.
Politicians can say anything on cable TV, but they have to be darn careful when they are in court. So all these big TV talkers never alleged fraud in court.
Let me tell you about one court case. It was a case where they brought on their best legal talent. It was a case where they drew as a judge a staunch, principled, conservative Republican, Judge Matthew Brann. He called this case ``strained legal arguments without merit'' and ``speculative accusations.'' He called it ``like Frankenstein's monster,'' a ``haphazardly stitched together'' case.
Judge Brann said he ``has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens.''
On appeal Judge Bibas, a Trump appointee writing for the Third Circuit, agreed. He said: ``Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.''
So, we have judges--dozens and dozens of them, Federal judges, State judges, Democrats, Republicans--turning away these challenges. All they ever wanted was evidence.
Here is the number-one rule when you go to court: Don't forget to bring the evidence with you.
This objection, in all seriousness, reflects the most profound disrespect to our American judiciary. We Pennsylvanians understand democracy. It was in Pennsylvania that our Founders signed the Constitution, and Article II makes it plain as day: We elect our President. We don't have a king.
If you can undo a Presidential election simply by alleging that something was amiss, then we don't have a democracy at all. We have something else entirely.
And if we vote to sustain this objection, we are not upholding our Constitution at all. We are doing something else entirely.
Let's vote ``no'' on this objection.
Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, every one of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I swore that oath in uniform, and the first part of that oath is the same as what we swear here in Congress.
The last time we needed to defend our Constitution against a domestic enemy, we fought a civil war. And at the conclusion of that Civil War we passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that make clear that no State is so sovereign that they can deprive their citizens of equal protection of the laws.
When it comes to elections, that means one person gets one vote. It doesn't mean that other citizens can dilute the votes of other citizens and deprive them of equal protection. And it doesn't mean that a State can do that by law or by practice.
So whether the law was changed and made it such that there is no way to provide equal protection--one person, one vote--or the practice was corrupted, it cannot stand. Frankly, lastly, it must guarantee that there is a proof that it was equal protection under the law.
None of that happened in a number of States. The people of America, tens of millions of them who came out to vote, have been unheard by this body and by far too many courts. We need to show them the respect they are due by the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution that we fought to sustain to end the era of Jim Crow to pass civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and so many other pieces of jurisprudence.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman needs to maintain his position and control of the time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this objection and to give voice to the 249,386 men and women of Ohio's Sixth Congressional District who have had their voices silenced by the rogue political actors in Pennsylvania who unilaterally and unconstitutionally altered voting methods to benefit the Democratic candidate for President.
Secretaries of state and State supreme courts cannot simply ignore the rules governing elections set forth in the Constitution. They cannot choose to usurp their state legislatures to achieve a partisan end, Constitution be damned.
Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for America. We have seen too many sad days like this recently: assaults on courthouses, police stations, and now the U.S. Capitol. People who disagree with the results of police work and court decisions are wrong to respond violently. And people who disagree with the results of an election are also wrong to respond with violence. Thank you to the Capitol Police and all the law enforcement involved for protecting the people's House today.
Madam Speaker, some may question our motives for raising these objections, but other than the Bible, our Constitution is the most sacred document known to man because it created the most free and prosperous nation in human history.
{time} 0210
2021 has the chance to be remembered for when the leaders of a deeply divided America came together to defend that sacred document and to ensure that the integrity of future Presidential elections is ensured. It is imperative we take this opportunity. The future of our Republic depends on it.
Benjamin Franklin, in the summer of 1787, during the heated debate to create our sacred Constitution, said these famous words: ``I have lived long, sir, a long time . . . and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth . . . that God governs in the affairs of men.
``And, if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that `Except the Lord build it, they labor in vain that build it.' ''
Madam Speaker, I pray that we would turn to the God Almighty that ordained our Nation into being to help us in our time of need.
Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, as a student of foreign policy, if somebody described to me the actions that we saw, I would have assumed we were in a failed nation or a banana republic. Storming past police, some carrying the flag of the Confederacy, the mob breached this House.
But there is good news: The democracy held today.
For the last few years, misinformation and fear has been fed into people for profit and power, and for too many years, leaders around the country said nothing and sometimes echoed those messages because of the belief that winning, no matter the cost, was worth everything.
Today, we saw the result of ignoring these warning signs.
People look to Washington to give hope. Instead, we simply amplify fears.
People look to us for expertise on what can and can't be possible. Sometimes it is easier to say what makes people feel good instead of the hard facts.
Today, some Members of Congress argue that we can unilaterally pick the next President, that with our glorious wisdom, armed with Twitter, we know better than the American people. Some have shown that, if conspiracies are repeated enough, they become facts and they aren't disputed.
Even here in this Chamber after the events today, some speeches have been shockingly tone-deaf. I have seen people applaud cheap political lines that are embarrassing.
Power and cultural fights have divided us so much that they are the ultimate goal now, and sometimes the oath we swear to uphold feels like a prop.
People have been lied to by too many for too long.
So here is the truth: Joe Biden won this election, the effort will fail, and everybody knows it.
For some out there, this isn't about making a statement for the betterment of our country; it is about avoiding the pain of leveling with the people and telling them the truth: the emperor has no clothes.
I know many are disappointed in the result, but what legacy are we leaving? Have our kids seen the day where Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill had a beer over their differences, or have they learned that to lead, you must tweet, and sometimes all in caps, because now this is Hollywood, fame is the ultimate goal?
But the first step that we can take to restore this is to reject the charade, and what happens next is up to us.
We get threatened with primaries; we worry about the political implications. But our names will long be forgotten; the legacy of now will exist.
The bottom line: If we ask men and women to be willing to give their lives for this Nation and we talk about their service with tears in our eyes, shouldn't we be willing to give up our jobs to uphold that Constitution?
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, is this a country, is this an America that we want to give to our children, a country of lawlessness, of might makes right, of mob rule?
Previous generations of Americans have laid down their lives to answer ``no'' to that question. I do not want to be the first generation of Americans so selfish as to answer ``yes.'' Nothing is more important to me than preserving this constitutional Republic as a Representative.
Article II of the Constitution states: ``Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,'' meaning that it is the duty of the State legislatures to select their electors in a manner they stipulate. It is right here.
The Founders of our Republic did not want to federalize elections, which is why they reserved the selection of electors to the State legislatures.
Historically, when Congress intervened in the electoral process, it was in the Civil War. It was when States were sending multiple slates of electors. But that is not the case today.
Of the six States actively being contested, five have Republican legislatures; five are controlled by one party; five have the authority to get together and to vote to change the elector that they sent to us.
How many of the six did? Not one.
Pennsylvania did not get together and vote as a body and send us a new slate of electors. They did not send us a bill or a resolution citing injustice at the State level.
None of them.
Are they cowards? Do they not know the Constitution? Have they not read it, like you and I? Or are they merely passing the buck?
Here is the reality. Look, I believe this was not a fraud-free election. I believe that there were problems in Pennsylvania and in Georgia. But the Constitution gives us the right to fix that at the State level, not throw out the electoral college. We do not want to absolve the responsibility of the people in those States to hold their own lawmakers accountable.
I, as a Washington State Congresswoman, don't know better than the people in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Folks, we can't vote to undermine the electoral college today. We have to uphold it.
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, as you have heard from both sides of the aisle over and over and over today and tonight, Members of Congress take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Clearly, the Constitution says State legislatures make voting laws, period, end of subject. And, clearly, in Pennsylvania and some other States, nonlegislators changed those voting laws.
No matter who wins or who loses, those are violations of the Constitution whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not.
As Congressman Davidson pointed out, over a dozen FBI agents were immediately dispatched to fully investigate Bubba Wallace's garage door. But, sadly, the FBI never responded to my request to investigate massive voting irregularity accusations, like the video footage from Georgia that we all wished we didn't see.
Neither has the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Postal Inspector General, the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and, saddest of all, the U.S. Department of Justice.
The right to vote is not only a constitutional right, it is also a civil right, and we must protect it. Running a fair and transparent election is not something America should run away from. It is something we must live up to.
Every eligible American has a right to have their vote counted and the right to feel confident that his or her vote was counted, not neutralized by an illegal vote.
{time} 0220
Otherwise, I fear our Republic is doomed. That is why I implore you to support a full investigation.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the fine gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting day. And I know we want to debate this, and we brought up all kinds of things, all kinds of points of history and what happened and where it happened and all the rest of this, and we are very, very grateful to the Capitol Police and all those who came in to protect us.
But the real debate right now about Pennsylvania is Pennsylvania's Act 77. Was it constitutional or was it unconstitutional? All the rest of the trimmings you can set aside and just decide: Was it constitutional or unconstitutional?
Act 77 changed Pennsylvania's voting law and Pennsylvania's Constitution.
Now, Pennsylvania could change that law, but it is done through an amendment to the constitution. It is not just done because somebody would like to see that done.
We had a mail ballot that was available. It was an absentee ballot. We did not have a no-excuse ballot.
What did Pennsylvania have to do to get to the point where they would have a no-excuse mail-in ballot?
Number one, in two successive sessions of the Pennsylvania Legislature, that had to be passed in that legislation, one session after the other. If it passed both times, then it had to be published in every one of the 67 counties of Pennsylvania, twice. When that was finished, it then had to go before the Pennsylvania voters to decide whether they wanted the constitution amended.
Pennsylvania did the first one. They actually did take a vote, and it was overwhelming. But then they scrapped it, and they put it in an omnibus bill. That is an unconstitutional change. You cannot do it. It is that simple.
So I love the idea about Washington crossing the Delaware. I love the idea about Washington going through a terrible winter.
I hate the idea of what we had to go through today. But if oaths don't matter, and we have all taken them, and if the Constitution doesn't matter, why do we even do it? Why go through this charade that somehow we are really close friends, except when it comes to the really important things?
We have driven this country apart through the people's House, and we wonder what happened?
The biggest loss on November 3 was not by Donald Trump; it was the faith and trust that the American people lost in this voting system because we have allowed it to happen. It is unconstitutional.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, 80 years ago today, Franklin Roosevelt delivered his third inaugural address. ``Every realist knows,'' he said, ``that the democratic way of life at this moment is being directly assailed in every part of the world--assailed either by arms, or by the secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who would seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations still at peace.''
Today, the principal threat to our democracy comes from a different but also poisonous propaganda of those who seek to destroy our unity and promote discord.
According to this propaganda, America cannot conduct a free or fair election. Our elections are rigged and doomed.
According to this propaganda, the voters can no longer decide who shall be President. The Congress must decide for them.
At a time when our Nation faces an unprecedented health crisis, with thousands dying every day, with Americans struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head, who are we to say that the man America chose to lead us out of this calamity shall not take office?
The coronavirus will claim more American lives than all of the casualties in World War II. To meet that moment will require unity, not discord; will require an abiding faith in our country, in our democracy, in our government's ability to function and provide for the needs of its citizens.
The Members of this body cannot continue to challenge the merits of an election that was fairly conducted and overwhelmingly won by Joe Biden. It must stop.
Look at the damage that was wrought in this House today, to this country today. Is that not enough?
Roosevelt said: ``This Nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women. . . . Our strength,'' he concluded ``is our unity of purpose.''
Let us unite once again in defense of the greatest hope of freedom-
loving people around the world, this precious democracy.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the baseless attack on Pennsylvania and its electors brought to mind, for me, the great Tom Paine, the champion of popular democracy, who came over to America to fight with us in the Revolution against the king. He lived in Philadelphia, where he wrote
``Common Sense'' and ``The Age of Reason.'' And Paine said: In the monarchies, the king is the law; but in the democracies, the law will be king.
When you think about it, the peaceful transfer of power is the central condition of maintaining democracy under the rule of law. That is why the famous election of 1801 was such a big deal.
When John Adams relinquished the Presidency to his passionate adversary and lifelong friend Thomas Jefferson, it was the first peaceful transition of power between democracies in a democratic republic in the history of the world.
And he said, as he rode back to Massachusetts from Washington, Adams said that he did this because we are a government of laws and not of men. We will betray this principle if we trade a government of laws for a government of men or, even worse, a single man, or an impressionable and dangerous mob intent on violent sedition and insurrection against our beloved democratic Republic.
Here is Abraham Lincoln right before the war. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I would answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must, ourselves, be its author and its finisher.
Madam Speaker, my family suffered an unspeakable trauma on New Year's Eve a week ago. But mine was not the only family to suffer such terrible pain in 2020. Hundreds of thousands of families in America are still mourning their family members. Many families represented in the Congress are still mourning their family members who have been taken away from us by COVID-19, by the opioid crisis, by cancer, by gun violence, by the rising fatalities associated with the crisis in mental and emotional health.
Enough, my beloved colleagues. It is time for America to heal. It is time for our families and communities to come together. Let us stop pouring salt in the wounds of America for no reason at all. Let us start healing our beloved land and our wonderful people.
The SPEAKER. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Shall the objection submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) be agreed to.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Members are reminded to vote when their group is called and to leave the Chamber after they have voted.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 138, nays 282, not voting 11, as follows:
YEAS--138
Aderholt Allen Arrington Babin Baird Banks Bentz Bergman Bice (OK) Biggs Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brooks Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Crawford Davidson DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Estes Fallon Fischbach Fitzgerald Fleischmann Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Guest Hagedorn Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hudson Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Jordan Joyce (PA) Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kustoff LaMalfa Lamborn Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Malliotakis Mann Mast McCarthy McClain Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Mooney Moore (AL) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Norman Nunes Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Rutherford Scalise Schweikert Sessions Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smucker Stefanik Steube Stewart Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Van Drew Van Duyne Walberg Walorski Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Wright Zeldin
NAYS--282
Adams Aguilar Allred Amodei Armstrong Auchincloss Axne Bacon Balderson Barr Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown Brownley Buchanan Bucshon Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cheney Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Comer Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crenshaw Crist Crow Cuellar Curtis Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Davis, Rodney Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Emmer Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Feenstra Ferguson Fitzpatrick Fletcher Fortenberry Foster Frankel, Lois Fudge Gallagher Gallego Garamendi Garbarino Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Grothman Guthrie Haaland Harder (CA) Hayes Herrera Beutler Higgins (NY) Hill Himes Hinson Hollingsworth Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Huizenga Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Katko Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (CA) Kim (NJ) Kind Kinzinger Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster LaHood Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latta Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Mace Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Massie Matsui McBath McCaul McClintock McCollum McEachin McGovern McHenry McKinley McNerney Meeks Meijer Meng Mfume Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Newhouse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Reed Rice (NY) Richmond Rodgers (WA) Ross Roy Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Sewell Sherman Sherrill Simpson Sires Slotkin Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Spartz Speier Stanton Stauber Steil Stevens Stivers Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Takano Taylor Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Turner Underwood Upton Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Wagner Waltz Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wenstrup Westerman Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Womack Yarmuth Young
NOT VOTING--11
Bilirakis Brady Buck Granger Hastings Joyce (OH) LaTurner Scott, David Steel Tlaib Trone
{time} 0308
Ms. Clarke of New York changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the objection was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will now notify the Senate of the action of the House, informing that body that the House is now ready to proceed in joint session with the further counting of the electoral vote for the President and Vice President.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 4
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up