[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H76-H115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES--JOINT SESSION OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE HELD 
      PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1

  At 12:59 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 joint session was called to order by the Vice President.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Vice President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Virginia will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Vice President, in order to follow the Speaker's 
instructions that only a limited number of people be on the floor, may 
I ask how one would make an objection or make a parliamentary inquiry 
in the future if you are not on the floor but in the gallery.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, 
debate is not permitted in the joint session.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Vice President, I am not attempting to debate. I am trying to 
find out how a parliamentary inquiry or a parliamentary point of order 
would be made in following with the Speaker's request that most of us 
not be on the floor. How do you make one of those points of order when 
you don't know what is going to happen later?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Respectfully, the gentleman's parliamentary 
inquiry constitutes debate, which is not permitted in the joint session 
under section 18 of title 3, United States Code.
  Madam Speaker, Members of Congress, pursuant to the Constitution and 
the laws of the United States, the Senate and House of Representatives 
are meeting in joint session to verify the certificates and count the 
votes of the electors of the several States for President and Vice 
President of the United States.
  After ascertainment has been had that the certificates are authentic 
and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the 
votes cast by the electors of the several States.
  The tellers on the part of the two Houses will take their places at 
the Clerk's desk.
  The tellers, Mr. Blunt and Ms. Klobuchar on the part of the Senate, 
and Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois on the part of the 
House, took their places at the desk.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with 
the reading of the formal portions of the certificates.
  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. After ascertaining that the certificates are 
regular in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast 
by the electors for each State, beginning with Alabama, which 
the Parliamentarians have 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.



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H76, the following appeared: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. After ascertaining that the certificates are regular in 
form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by 
the electors for each State, beginning with Alabama, which the 
Parliamentarian has advised me is the only certificate of vote 
from that State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. After ascertaining that the certificates are regular in 
form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by 
the electors for each State, beginning with Alabama, which the 
Parliamentarians have advised me is the only certificate of vote 
from that State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote 
of the State of Alabama seems to be regular in form and authentic, and 
it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida 
received 9 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of 
Indiana received 9 votes for Vice President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the 
certificate of vote of the State of Alabama that the teller has 
verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?

[[Page H77]]

  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Alaska, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H77, first column and first paragraph, 
the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this 
certificate from Alaska, 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Alaska, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of 
the State of Alaska 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 Alaska 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 Arizona, the 
Parliamentarians have advised me, is the only certificate of vote that 
the State 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H77, first column and fourth paragraph, 
the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this 
certificate from Arizona, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is 
the only certificate of vote that the State 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Arizona, the 
Parliamentarians have advised me, is the only certificate of vote 
that the State 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral 
vote of the State of Arizona 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 State of Arizona that the teller has 
verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Vice President, I, Paul Gosar from Arizona, rise for 
myself and 60 of my colleagues to object to the counting of the 
electoral ballots from Arizona.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a 
Senator?
  Mr. GOSAR. Yes, it is.
  Senator CRUZ. 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:

   Objection to Counting the Electoral Votes of the State of Arizona

       We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United 
     States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes 
     of the State of Arizona on the ground that they were not, 
     under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
                                                       Paul Gosar,
                                 Representative, State of Arizona.
                                                         Ted Cruz,
                                          Senator, State of Texas.


                                Senators

       Mike Braun, John Kennedy, Ron Johnson, Steve Daines, James 
     Lankford, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn.


                          Members of Congress

       Mo Brooks AL-5, Andy Biggs AZ-5, Jim Jordan OH-4, Madison 
     Cawthorn NC-11, Scott Perry PA-10, Mike Kelly PA-16, Clay 
     Higgins LA-3, John W. Rose TN-6, 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, Steven Palazzo 
     MS-4, 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, Rick 
     Crawford AR-1, Roger Williams TX-25, Bob Gibbs OH-7, Russ 
     Fulcher ID-1, 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, Chuck Fleischmann TN-3, Tim Burchett 
     TN-2, Chris Jacobs NY-27.
       Andrew S. Clyde GA-9, Lance Gooden TX-5, Diana Harshbarger 
     TN-1, Mary E. Miller IL-15, Mark E. Green TN-7, Ron Estes KS-
     4, Neal Dunn FL-2, Ronny Jackson TX-13, 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, Randy K. Weber TX-14.

  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there further objections to the certificate 
from the State of Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. 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}  1315


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will remind Members of the need to adhere to 
the decorum requirements of the Chamber as laid out in the Speaker's 
announced policies of January 4, 2021, in accordance with the guidance 
of the Attending Physician.
  Members are advised to remain in the Chamber only if they are 
participating in debate and must wear a mask at all times, even when 
under recognition for debate.
  Members must also practice proper social distancing while present in 
the Chamber.
  Please, in the interests of your own health and as an example to the 
American people, abide by the numbers, now up to 25 on each side of the 
aisle, to participate in this stage of the debate.
  Pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 and 3 U.S.C. 17 governing 
the procedure for counting the electoral votes, 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 will 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:

   Objection to Counting the Electoral Votes of the State of Arizona

       We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United 
     States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes 
     of the State of Arizona on the ground that they were not, 
     under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
                                                       Paul Gosar,
                                 Representative, State of Arizona.
                                                         Ted Cruz,
                                          Senator, State of Texas.


                                senators

       Mike Braun, John Kennedy, Ron Johnson, Steve Daines, James 
     Lankford, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn.


                          Members of Congress

       Mo Brooks AL-5, Andy Biggs AZ-5, Jim Jordan OH-4, Madison 
     Cawthorn NC-11, Scott Perry PA-10, Mike Kelly PA-16, Clay 
     Higgins LA-3, John W. Rose TN-6, 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, Steven Palazzo 
     MS-4, 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, Rick 
     Crawford AR-1, Roger Williams TX-25, Bob Gibbs OH-7, Russ 
     Fulcher ID-1, 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, Chuck Fleischmann TN-3, Tim Burchett 
     TN-2, Chris Jacobs NY-27.
       Andrew S. Clyde GA-9, Lance Gooden TX-5, Diana Harshbarger 
     TN-1, Mary E. Miller IL-15, Mark E. Green TN-7, Ron Estes KS-
     4, Neal Dunn FL-2, Ronny Jackson TX-13, 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, 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 Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to object to a number of 
States that did not follow the constitutional requirement for selecting 
electors.
  Madam Speaker, this is something that is clear that our Founding 
Fathers debated about as a fundamental decision of how we choose our 
President. There was a lot of back and forth, if anyone reads the 
founding documents of our country, about the different versions they 
went through to ultimately come up with a process where each State has 
elections; each State has a process for selecting their electors and 
sending them to Washington.
  Madam Speaker, in a number of those States, that constitutional 
process was not followed, and that is why we are here to object.
  If you look at what the requirement says, nowhere in Article II, 
Section 1

[[Page H78]]

does it give the secretary of state of a State that ability; nowhere 
does it give the Governor that ability; nowhere does it give a court 
that ability. It exclusively gives that ability to the legislatures. In 
fact, in most States, that is the process that was followed. But for 
those States, this wasn't followed.
  Unfortunately, this is not new. We have seen over and over again more 
States where the Democratic Party has gone in and selectively gone 
around this process. That has to end, Madam Speaker. We have to follow 
the constitutional process.
  Now, there might be reasons why some people don't like the process 
laid out by a legislative body.
  Madam Speaker, I served on one of those legislative bodies when I was 
in the State legislature for 12 years. I served on the House and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, where we wrote the laws for our State's 
elections. And I can tell you, when we had to make changes, those were 
extensively negotiated. We would have people on both sides come.
  Republicans and Democrats, Madam Speaker, would get together to work 
through those changes, any minute change to how a precinct would 
function, to how a change would be made in the time of an election, 
signature requirements, all the many things that involve a clerk 
carrying out the duties in each parish, in our case.
  You would see people come and give testimony, Madam Speaker. Both 
sides could come. Clerks of court were there in the hearing rooms.
  It was an open process, by the way, not behind closed doors in a 
smoke-filled room where somebody might want to bully a secretary of 
state to get a different version that might benefit them or their party 
or their candidate. That is not what our Founding Fathers said is the 
process. Maybe it is how some people wanted to carry it out. But they 
laid out that process.
  So when we would have to make those changes, they were in public 
view; they were heavily debated; and then, ultimately, those laws were 
changed in advance of the election so everybody knew what the rules 
were. People on both sides knew how to play by the rules before the 
game started, not getting somewhere in the process and saying, well, 
you don't think it is going to benefit you, so you try to go around the 
Constitution.
  That is not how our system works. It has gotten out of hand. So 
President Trump has called this out, and President Trump has stood up 
to it. So many of us have stood up to it.
  In fact, over 100 of my colleagues, Madam Speaker, asked the Supreme 
Court to address this problem just a few weeks ago, and, unfortunately, 
the Court chose to punt. They didn't answer it one way or the other. 
They didn't want to get in the middle of this discussion.
  We don't have that luxury today. We have to discuss this. We have to 
fix this.
  In fact, on our first full day of this Congress, many of us brought 
legislation onto the House floor to start fixing the problems with our 
elections, to restore integrity to the election process, which has been 
lost by so many millions of Americans. And we had a vote. Every single 
Republican voted to reform the process. Every single Democrat voted 
against it. They don't want to fix this problem.
  But the Constitution is our guide, and it is time we start following 
the Constitution. It is time we get back to what our Founding Fathers 
said is the process for selecting electors: that is the legislatures in 
public view, not behind closed doors, not smoke-filled rooms, not 
bullying somebody that might give you a better ruling.
  Let's get back to rule of law and follow the Constitution, Madam 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) seek recognition?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise to strike the last word.
  The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, this day marks a crossroads for American 
democracy. Those who object to the counting of the electoral college 
votes, which reflect the votes of the American people, want to 
substitute their preferences for the voters' choice. That is not what 
our Constitution requires, and it is at odds with our American 
democratic Republic.
  If Congress selects the next President instead of the American 
voters, we would have no need for an electoral college. In fact, we 
would have no need for Presidential elections at all. We would be 
moving from a government elected by the people to a government selected 
by those already governing.
  That is not America. In the United States, we abide by the choices of 
the people, not by an elite few.
  The Framers of our Constitution considered to have Congress select 
the President and specifically rejected it. Instead, they wrote Article 
II and the 12th Amendment.
  Article II creates the electoral college, where each State appoints 
electors. Laws of all 50 States and D.C. require electors to vote for 
the winner of the State's popular election. Each State provides for the 
orderly conduct of elections, including lawful challenges, recounts, 
and the like.
  The 12th Amendment is what brings us to today. It says the electors 
meet in their States. That happened December 14.
  The amendment says the electors shall cast their votes, sign and 
certify them, and transmit them to us, sealed. That has been done. The 
sealed envelopes containing the signed and certified ballots from each 
State's electors reflecting the votes of the people are in those 
mahogany boxes.
  The 12th Amendment directs the Vice President, as the President of 
the Senate, to do only this: open the sealed envelopes and then the 
votes shall be counted. Simple. It doesn't say counted in a manner that 
some Members of Congress or the Vice President might prefer. No. The 
votes are simply to be counted as certified and transmitted by the 
States.

                              {time}  1130

  During reconstruction after the Civil War, more than one slate of 
electors were appointed by States. Dueling lists were sent and 
protracted processes were undertaken in Presidential elections. And, as 
a result, to make an orderly process, Congress enacted the Electoral 
Count Act of 1887. This law governs our proceedings today. The act 
provides dispute resolution mechanisms.
  Under the ECA, if a Governor certifies a slate of electors and there 
are no competing slates in that State, the Governor-certified must be 
counted. Today, every single slate of electors won by Joe Biden, or won 
by Donald Trump, got their Governor's certification. Not a single State 
submitted a competing slate. There is no dispute to resolve.
  The 2020 election was the most secure election conducted in modern 
history. Challenges were resolved by lawful recounts and audits.
  The result?
  Vice President Biden won the 2020 election.
  More than 60 lawsuits were filed contesting elements of the election 
process. None of these lawsuits prevailed.
  Why?
  As even President Trump's own judicial appointees ruled, there was no 
evidence of any wrongdoing that would change the outcome.
  The people spoke. It was not a close election. The margin of victory 
for Biden in 2020 was larger than Trump's margin in 2016. In fact, the 
Biden victory is one of the most decisive in modern times, exceeding 
the margin enjoyed by Reagan when he defeated Carter in 1980.
  Congress has gathered in a joint session to count electoral votes 
every four years since 1789. I understand the disappointment people 
feel when their candidate for President loses. I have felt the same 
several times in my voting life.
  When that happens, it is not an invitation to upend the Constitution 
and the laws of the United States. It is an invitation to work with the 
new President for the good of the country and to wait for the next 
election in 4 years if you are dissatisfied.
  In that spirit, I urge my colleagues to uphold the American democracy 
and reject the objection.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Americans instinctively know there was 
something wrong with this election. During the campaign, Vice President 
Biden would do an event and he

[[Page H79]]

would get 50 people at the event. President Trump, at just one rally, 
gets 50,000 people. President Trump increases votes with African 
Americans; increases votes with Hispanic Americans; won 19 of 20 
bellwether counties; won Ohio by 8; Iowa by 8; and Florida by 3. 
President Trump got 11 million more votes than he did in 2016, and 
House Republicans won 27 of 27 toss-up races.
  But somehow the guy who never left his house wins the election?
  Eighty million Americans, 80 million of our fellow citizens, 
Republicans and Democrats, have doubts about this election; and 60 
million people, 60 million Americans think it was stolen.
  But Democrats say: No problem. No worries. Everything is fine.
  We asked for an investigation. We asked Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman 
Maloney for an investigation. They said no. They wouldn't want to 
investigate something that half the electorate has doubts about. It is 
just the Presidency of the United States.
  Why? Why not one single investigation? Why not even one single 
hearing over the last 9 weeks in the United States House of 
Representatives? Why?
  Because all the Democrats care about is making sure President Trump 
isn't President. For 4\1/2\ years that is all they have cared about.
  July 31, 2016, before he was elected the first time, Jim Comey's FBI 
takes out the insurance policy; opens an investigation on the President 
based on nothing.
  May 17, 2017, Bob Mueller was named special counsel. Two years they 
investigate the Russia hoax. Nineteen lawyers, 40 agents and $40 
million of taxpayer money for nothing.
  December 18, 2019, Democrat House Members vote to impeach President 
Trump based on an anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge, 
who was biased against the President and who worked for Joe Biden.
  But none of that worked. As hard as they tried, none of that worked. 
They threw everything they had at him.
  So what did they do next?
  They changed the rules. They changed the election law and they did it 
in an unconstitutional fashion, and that is what we are going to show 
over the next several hours of debate.
  The Constitution is clear, as Whip Scalise just said. State 
legislatures and only State legislatures set election law.
  In Arizona, the law says voter registration ends on October 5.
  Democrats said: We don't care what the law says.
  They went to a court, got an Obama-appointed judge to extend it 18 
days. No debate, as Steve talked about. No debate. No discussion. They 
just did it.
  Pennsylvania, same thing. Pennsylvania laws says mail-in ballots have 
to be in by 8 p.m. election day.
  Democrat Supreme Court said: Nope. We are going to extend it.
  Election day doesn't end on Tuesday now. They took it to Friday. 
Extended the election 3 days; not the legislature, the partisan Supreme 
Court.
  Pennsylvania law says mail-in ballots require signature verification.
  Democrat secretary of state said: Nope. I am going to decide by 
myself that it doesn't, for 2.6 million ballots.
  Pennsylvania law says mail-in ballots can't be processed until 
election day. Some counties said no. And you can imagine which counties 
they were. Democrat-run counties said no and allowed ballots to be 
cured and fixed before election day.

  They did an end-run around the Constitution in every State that 
Republicans will object to today. Every single one. It was a pattern. 
It was their template. They did it in Arizona. They did it in Georgia. 
They did it in Michigan. They did it in Pennsylvania. They did it in 
Nevada. They did it in Wisconsin.
  Yet, some of our Members say: Don't worry about it. We shouldn't do 
anything. Just let it go. It was just six States who violated the 
Constitution.
  What if it is 10 States next time? What if it is 15? What if, in 
2024, 2028, it is 26 States? What if it is half the States that do an 
end-run around what the Constitution clearly spells out?
  We are the final check and balance. The authority rests with us, the 
United States Congress, the body closest to the American people, right 
where the Founders wanted it. We should do our duty. We should object 
to and vote for this objection to the Arizona electors.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, a little more than 2 months ago, America 
performed an extraordinary feat. Under some of the most trying 
circumstances in our history, our fellow citizens conducted a free and 
fair election, vindicating our Founders' belief once again, that we 
were capable of self government and a peaceful transition of power.
  On November 3, the American people chose Joe Biden to be their next 
President by an enormous margin. The successful conduct of that 
election, among the most secure in American history, was not an 
accident. It was the result of the dedicated work of thousands of 
volunteers, canvassers, poll workers, electors, and State and local 
election officials.
  When the conduct of any State election was challenged, the courts, 
through judges appointed by Democrats and those appointed by 
Republicans, heard unsubstantiated claims of fraud, found they had no 
merit, and said so.
  But most important, the American people persevered. In the midst of 
the worst pandemic in a century, America had one of the most impressive 
elections in a century, with historic voter turnout.
  Our fellow citizens did their civic duty. The question we face today 
is: Will we do ours?
  That we are here, with a substantial number of our Members seeking to 
overturn an election is remarkable, tragic, and all too predictable, 
for it is the natural result of a locomotive set in motion months ago 
with a myth. For weeks and weeks, before, during, and after our 
election, a dangerous falsehood was propagated: That our election would 
be marred by massive fraud.
  Never mind it was the same election which brought the very men and 
women to this Chamber who would challenge its results. What value has 
consistency when measured against ambition?
  A former Senator from Georgia, remarking on a contested election over 
a century ago, said: ``Able men, learned men, distinguished men, great 
men in the eyes of the nation, seemed intent only on accomplishing a 
party triumph, without regard to the consequences to the country. That 
is human nature. That is,'' he said, ``unfortunately, party nature.''
  Was he right?
  We stand in a House which was once the place of giants. Have we 
become so small? Does our oath to uphold the Constitution, taken just 
days ago, mean so very little?
  I think not. I believe, to quote our dear departed friend, Elijah 
Cummings, that we are better than that. I think Elijah would be proud 
that the debate here today is not between Democrats and Republicans, 
and that some Republicans, including the Republican leader of the 
Senate, remain devoted to the principle that we are a nation of laws, 
not individuals, let alone a single individual.
  It may seem unfair to the new Members who have only just taken the 
oath for the first time, that they should be so soon tested with one of 
the most consequential votes they may cast, no matter how long they 
serve. But it is so, and none of us can shrink from that 
responsibility. Nor can we console ourselves with the intoxicating 
fiction that we can break that oath without consequence because doing 
so will not succeed in overturning the election. An oath is no less 
broken when the breaking fails to achieve its end.
  We must be mindful that any who seek to overturn an election will do 
injury to our Constitution, whatever the result. For just as the 
propagation of that dangerous myth about this election made this moment 
inevitable, our actions today will put another train in motion. This 
election will not be overturned.
  But what about the next? Or the one after that?
  What shall we say when our democratic legacy is no more substantial 
than the air, except that we brought trouble to our own house and 
inherited the wind?
  This isn't the first time we have had a contentious election, and it 
won't be the last. In 1800, John Adams lost a closely contested 
election to Thomas

[[Page H80]]

Jefferson, in the first peaceful transition of power from one party to 
another in our history. Adams was hardly pleased with the result, 
choosing to skip the inaugural activities, but he did what leaders are 
required to do in a democratic government when they lose. He went home. 
He went home.
  Jefferson would later refer to his victory as the Revolution of 1800, 
but marveled that the Revolution had occurred ``by the rational and 
peaceful instruments of reform, the suffrage of the people.''
  It has never been our place to overturn an election, and if we hope 
to remain a democracy, it never will be.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I join the objection to counting votes of 
electors from my home State of Arizona, as well as Georgia, 
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada, because election 
integrity is the heart of our American constitutional republic?

  In a representative form of government, we must be able to trust that 
our elections accurately represent the will of the American voter. This 
is the appropriate forum anticipated and provided for by our Founders 
to debate whether this election complied with the Constitution that we 
have all sworn to protect.
  Every particular of the Constitution is to be protected, including 
Article II, Section 1. The debate as to the legitimacy of the 2020 
Presidential election has been suppressed by the left and its 
propagandists in the media until today.
  State legislatures are required to determine the manner in which 
electors are chosen. Arizona names its electors on the general election 
ballot and identifies what candidate those electors are required to 
vote for should that candidate obtain the majority of votes in the 
general election.
  As part of the manner for determining electors, Arizona also 
establishes deadlines for voter registration. The deadline has been in 
place for 30 years.

                              {time}  1345

  This year, that voter registration deadline was October 5. Early 
voting commenced 2 days later. Five days before the deadline, a group 
filed a lawsuit demanding that Arizona election officials not enforce 
the deadline.
  The Federal District Court decided that since other States have a 
deadline later than Arizona's and some even allow for registration when 
voting, that Arizona's new deadline would be a time he chose, not the 
legislature's timeline.
  The appellate court effectively overturned the lower court ruling and 
noted that the Arizona deadline established by the State legislature 
was sound and appropriate and complied with the Constitution. But the 
appellate court merely shortened the extension, the bypassing of the 
deadline to 10 days.
  The appellate court, without legal justification, also decided that 
everyone who registered after the legal deadline, but before the 
deadline created by judicial fiat, could still vote.
  Note that the Arizona legislature was no longer in control of 
determining the manner of appointing Presidential electors because the 
court had set a new deadline, even though the appellate court found the 
legislature's deadline was constitutionally sound.
  During that window, more than 32,000 voters registered in Maricopa 
County alone. Here are copies of those voter registration records. In 
going around the deadline set by the legislature, the court ignored the 
Arizona legislature's obligation and right to direct the manner of 
choosing Presidential electors as set forth in Article II, Section 1.
  As a consequence of that judicial usurpation, more than 32,000 people 
were allowed to unlawfully cast ballots in Arizona's Presidential 
election in 2020.
  The Arizona legislature seeks an independent audit of the election. 
The Governor refuses now to call them into a special session. The 
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has refused to comply with 
legislative subpoenas. In Arizona, the people who control the evidence 
related to the election have done everything possible to prevent an 
independent audit directed by the legislature.
  Arizonans have used the limited amount of records available to 
investigate the 2020 Presidential election. Of a limited sample of 
1,000 addresses of voters, they found 539 voters did not live at the 
addresses on the voter rolls. Here is a stack of 1,000 declaration of 
affidavits supporting that.
  I object to counting the votes of Arizona electors because the 
Federal courts went around the legislatively constructed mechanism for 
choosing Arizona's Presidential electors, allowing tens of thousands of 
voters to unlawfully cast votes. The court usurped a key component of 
the Arizona legislature's manner of selecting Presidential electors, 
thus violating Article II, Section 1. The legislature is being 
obstructed in its efforts. And what little evidence we have and what 
little information we have has produced this kind of evidence, which 
indicates a significant problem with the integrity of the Presidential 
election.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my written comments, together 
with the voter registration records that reflect the 32,000 
registrations permitted in contravention of State law; letters and 
resolutions from Arizona legislators pertaining to the count of votes 
from electors; along with approximately 1,000 affidavits and 
declarations pertaining to potential voter fraud in Arizona in the 2020 
Presidential election; and the statement of Congressman Randy Weber of 
Texas.

                                                December 31, 2020.
       Dear Vice President Pence: As the Chairwoman of the Arizona 
     House Elections Committee, I write to you with upmost urgency 
     to communicate to you several occurrences that thwart our 
     ability as legislators to investigate legitimate and 
     concerning allegations of election fraud in the most recent 
     general election. On December 14, 2020, Arizona sent an 
     alternate slate of electors, along with a resolution from 21 
     current and 8 newly elected legislators asking you to refrain 
     from accepting the Biden electors until we could adequately 
     investigate these claims of fraud.
       Soon after the election, I requested an Elections Committee 
     discovery hearing in order to use subpoena power to acquire 
     the voting machines and ballots in order to do a 
     comprehensive and forensic audit. I was told that it was not 
     a good idea and was denied the ability. I continued to 
     request the hearing with the Speaker of the House, asked 
     publicly, and tried every avenue to no avail. A full month 
     later on December 9th, the Senate President authorized a 
     hearing via the Judiciary committee, and that did result in 
     subpoenas to the Maricopa County Supervisors (who oversee the 
     elections process) that have yet, as of the writing of this 
     letter, been complied with.
       Court cases have been dismissed due to not having evidence, 
     however our efforts to do an audit to obtain such evidence 
     have been suppressed. We held a hearing on 11/30/2020 with 
     Rudy Giuliani to at least hear testimony from citizens who 
     experienced irregularities, along with subject matter experts 
     who reported severe irregularities and probable tampering 
     with the machine apparatus. On 11/30/2020, a group of Arizona 
     citizens reported publicly that they had uncovered with great 
     confidence a minimum estimation of 160,000 fraudulent voters, 
     based on over 1000 declarations/affidavits collected. This 
     supports an earlier document submitted to the Attorney 
     General and would largely impact the outcome of the election.
       We have experienced obstruction at every turn. For your 
     reference, I have itemized, in Exhibit A, many of the various 
     ways we have been stopped from investigating claims of fraud 
     and gross irregularities. It is my hope that you will see 
     that the Arizona Presidential election is still in dispute 
     and unresolved. We call on you to take this into 
     consideration as you perform your duties on January 6th, and 
     not accept the electors until we have resolution to these 
     matters.
           With utmost respect,
                                                Kelly J. Townsend,
                                                    Senator-Elect.

                               Exhibit A

       1. Requests from the House Elections Chairwoman (myself) 
     and the House Federal Relations Chairman (Mark Finchem) to 
     hold an evidentiary hearing were repeatedly denied and have 
     yet to be honored. Multiple Chairmen of various committees 
     requested a hearing in order to investigate claims, to no 
     avail. We were forced to hold an unofficial hearing on 
     November 30th where many came forward with very concerning 
     evidence and claims.
       2. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was not held 
     until 41 days after the election on 12/14/2020, the same day 
     as the Electors were to cast their votes. This delay rendered 
     the hearing of little effect regarding having confidence in 
     the correct votes cast. The Chairman thus issued a subpoena 
     for the equipment and ballots, but the Maricopa Board of 
     Supervisors has countersued and refuse to comply. They will 
     not release any machine or ballot info, even though within 
     the RFP for the Dominion machines, it is stated that their 
     key features are their ability to conduct hand counts, 
     perform risk limiting audits, and publish ballot images and 
     adjudication records with markings on a

[[Page H81]]

     public website, calling it their open data initiative. Now 
     that they are being asked for it, they are refusing to make 
     it available, citing voter confidentiality. There is no voter 
     information contained in the machine or on a ballot, however, 
     so that reasoning is insufficient. Their inaction and 
     nonfeasance prevent us from proper discovery.
       3. I, along with several others, requested the Governor to 
     call us in for special session to be able to deal with the 
     issue. It is our understanding that we cannot enforce the 
     subpoena for equipment and ballots unless we are in session. 
     His ongoing unwillingness to call us into session to address 
     these issues had kept us from adequate discovery. On 12/02/
     2020, Governor Doug Ducey was asked by the media if he was 
     going to honor the Legislator's request for a special 
     session. He proceeded to incorrectly name Monday January 13th 
     as our first day back in regular session. In response, the 
     reporter asked, ``So you see no need for a special session to 
     look at any of these issues or the issue of Presidential 
     electors...,'' to which the Governor interrupted and said, 
     ``I'll see the Legislature in January.''
       4. The House leadership attempted to deter Representative 
     Bret Roberts from sending a letter to Attorney General 
     Brnovich and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 
     regarding the accurate performance of a hand count based on 
     the statutory requirement to do so by precinct, versus vote 
     center. By doing a hand count based on voting centers, it 
     renders it impossible to tell if there was a rogue precinct 
     involved in fraud. Nevertheless, Rep. Robert's efforts to 
     enforce statute were thwarted by House leadership.
       5. One week prior to the Electors voting, on December 7th, 
     the House and Senate leadership closed the buildings in the 
     name of COVID-19, preventing any in-person hearings or work 
     to be performed. This greatly hindered our ability to push 
     for discovery regarding election integrity during the last 
     days before the Elector's votes were cast.
       6. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors held a closed 
     meeting on 11/20/2020 in order to certify the election 
     results, where the public was not allowed to participate and 
     ask questions. Prior to that meeting, on 12/08/2020, Merissa 
     Hamilton (a data integrity expert) delivered to the Attorney 
     General a statistically significant listing of deceased 
     voters that received a ballot and those deceased who actually 
     returned a ballot. At the aforementioned meeting, the 
     Maricopa County Elections Director Ray Valenzuela stated that 
     the list of deceased voters casting a ballot was mere 
     folklore and dismissed it as a nonissue. This accusation is 
     still pending an investigation.
       7. After submitting a public records request for the 
     Federal only voters who cast a ballot in the 2020 General 
     election, I was told by a staff member that the Elections 
     Director was ``vetting the list'' before he gave it to me. I 
     did not request a cleaned-up list of voters, but the list in 
     its entirety. This diminished my confidence in that list, 
     that I have a true representation of persons who cast a 
     ballot that cannot establish their identity or citizenship.
       8. Arizona State House leadership prevented Legislators 
     from issuing press releases having to do with the election 
     that did not conform to their own opinion. This diminished 
     our ability to communicate to the public our concerns about 
     how the election and post procedures were being handled.
       9. On 12/01/2020, I requested the Attorney General's 
     Elections Integrity office to investigate the claims made at 
     the November 30th Giuliani hearing and provided them the 
     link. I was told that none of the items listed at the 
     Giuliani hearing would be investigated by that office.
       10. The Maricopa County Recorder attended more than one 
     DefCon conference that focused on the ability to hack voting 
     machines. The Legislature was never informed that the outcome 
     of these conferences recommended that elected officials be 
     notified due to unprotected ports on the machines, passwords 
     left unset or left in default configurations and security 
     features of the underlying commercial hardware were left 
     unused or even disabled. It was recommended that to improve 
     election security, paper ballots should be used, and a 
     rigorous post-election audit be performed. We learned about 
     this issue via social media, and it was obfuscated by the 
     Election officials.
       11. Arizona Republican State Chair Kelli Ward reports the 
     following malfeasance and obstruction:
       a. No allowed review of the digitally adjudicated ballots--
     over 200,000.
       b. Only 100 of the duplicated ballots reviewed--3% error 
     rate in favor of President Trump. Maricopa County refused to 
     look at the other 28,000 ballots.
       c. No meaningful signature verification. County employees 
     doing signature verification offsite, over the internet, 
     without oversight, and at times at a rate of 30 signatures or 
     more per minute.
       12. The Secretary of State took 24 days to answer a public 
     records request by Merissa Hamilton, asking them to deliver 
     the meeting minutes from their technical committee to certify 
     the Dominion voting equipment. Only after four requests and 
     the involvement of the Ombudsman did she obtain the 
     information. The results of that request showed that despite 
     the voting equipment not being able to calculate the votes 
     properly, which was never addressed, the machines were still 
     certified. The Maricopa County RFP for the Dominion equipment 
     did not give the public a chance to give input on the 
     procurement. There was never any discussion or an offer of 
     various options to choose from. The Board of Supervisors went 
     straight to a vote with no discussion and approved the 
     machines unanimously.
       13. There are multiple/numerous examples of how on election 
     day observers and poll workers were prevented from overseeing 
     the various procedures, thereby undermining confidence that 
     there was no illegal activity and violating Arizona's 
     statutes regarding election integrity. We have had no formal 
     investigation into the vast majority of these accusations.


                                Summary

       Arizona has many unresolved issues that we would like to 
     have investigated in order to confidently say our electors 
     voted for the true victor in the 2020 Presidential election. 
     We still have outstanding issues left unresolved and are 
     being stopped at nearly every turn from investigating. For 
     example, the Maricopa County Recorder's office started 
     counting early ballots 14 days before election day. During 
     that time, the backup server was removed each night by a 
     Dominion employee. This is of significant concern because the 
     information on those servers could have been manipulated and/
     or provided to nefarious people as to how many ballots/votes 
     were needed to change the results of the election as time 
     went on.
       Many in the Legislature believe that if we are able to do a 
     forensic audit, we could investigate these and other serious 
     claims brought forward to us. However, as you can see by the 
     list above (not exhaustive but brief for your benefit) we 
     have many entities who appear to be blocking our efforts to 
     get to the bottom of the issue. One can only ask, in a 
     supposedly secure and fair election, why discovery is being 
     quashed.


                               Conclusion

       It is asked that all of these issues be considered when 
     contemplating the eleven Arizona electoral votes. Our 
     election is still in dispute, and we have obfuscation and 
     attempts at running out the clock to prevent discovery of the 
     facts. We believe it is impossible to conclusively declare a 
     winner in Arizona and pray that you would refrain from 
     counting the electoral votes from our state, and consider the 
     alternate slate should we be able to establish validity to 
     the various claims of election fraud on such a scale that 
     would change the outcome.
       Thank you, kindly, for your attention to these matters.
                                  ____


                        A Resolution to Congress

       Whereas, it is the constitutional and legal obligation of 
     the Legislature of the State of Arizona to ensure that the 
     state's presidential electors truly represent the will of the 
     voters of Arizona; and
       Whereas, pursuant to the direction of Congress as set forth 
     in United States Code, title 3, section 1 as authorized by 
     Article II, section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the 
     United States, and state law adopted pursuant thereto, 
     Arizona conducted an election for presidential electors on 
     the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November of 2020-
     that is, on November 3, 2020; and
       Whereas, that election was marred by irregularities so 
     significant as to render it highly doubtful whether the 
     certified results accurately represent the will of the 
     voters; and
       Whereas, Congress has further directed in U.S. Code, title 
     3, section 2 that when a state ``has held an election for the 
     purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice 
     on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed 
     on a subsequent day in such manner as the legislature of such 
     State may direct''; and
       Whereas, that provision implicitly recognizes that Article 
     II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants to 
     each state legislature, with stated limitations, the sole 
     authority to prescribe the manner of appointing electors for 
     that state; and
       Whereas, the United States Supreme Court and other courts 
     have explained that when a state legislature directs the 
     manner of appointing electors, it does so pursuant to a grant 
     of authority from the U.S. Constitution rather than by reason 
     of any state constitutional or other legal provision; that 
     this authority may be exercised by the legislature alone 
     without other aspects of the normal lawmaking process; and 
     that the state legislature's authority over the appointment 
     of presidential electors is plenary and may be resumed at any 
     time; and
       Whereas, because U.S. Code, title 3, section 7 mandates 
     that all presidential electors vote for President and Vice 
     President of the United States on December 14, 2020, it is 
     impossible to pursue the Legislature's preferred course of 
     action, which would be for Arizona's voters to participate in 
     a new and fair and free presidential election before that 
     date; and
       Whereas, in view of the facts heretofore recited, the 
     Legislature is required to exercise its best judgment as to 
     which slate of electors the voters prefer; and
       Whereas, legal precedent exists where in 1960 the State of 
     Hawaii sent an alternate slate of electors while the 
     Presidential election was still in question in order to meet 
     the deadline of selecting electors, and upon recount the 
     alternate slate of electors' ballots were ultimately counted; 
     and
       Whereas, the undersigned have an obligation to find the 
     truth. For this reason, on several occasions since November 
     3, we state lawmakers have requested fact-finding hearings to 
     include a comprehensive and independent forensic audit. At 
     this time, no such

[[Page H82]]

     audit has been authorized. This leaves the uncertainty of the 
     election results in a state that requires further 
     investigation and resolution; and
       Whereas, ongoing election irregularity litigation is 
     currently active, and there are unresolved disputes by both 
     the Legislature and at least one Presidential campaign, 
     rendering the election inconclusive as of date of signing of 
     this letter,
       Therefore, be it
       Resolved by the undersigned Legislators, members of the 
     Arizona House and Senate, request that the alternate 11 
     electoral votes be accepted for to Donald J. Trump or to have 
     all electoral votes nullified completely until a full 
     forensic audit can be conducted. Be it further resolved that 
     the United States Congress is not to consider a slate of 
     electors from the State of Arizona until the Legislature 
     deems the election to be final and all irregularities 
     resolved.
       Signed this day, 14 December, 2020.
       Senator Elect Kelly Townsend, Legislative District 16; 
     Representative Kevin Payne, Legislative District 21; 
     Representative Mark Finchem, Legislative District 11; Senator 
     Sonny Borrelli, Legislative District 5; Representative Bret 
     Roberts, Legislative District 11; Representative Bob Thorpe, 
     Legislative District 6; Senator David Farnsworth, Legislative 
     District 16; Representative Leo Biasiucci, Legislative 
     District 5; Representative Anthony Kern, Legislative District 
     20; Senator Sylvia Allen, Legislative District 15; Senator 
     Elect Nancy Barto, Legislative District 15; Majority Leader 
     Warren Petersen, Legislative District 12; Representative 
     Steve Pierce, Legislative District 1; Representative Tony 
     Rivero, Legislative District 21; Senator David Gowan, 
     Legislative District 14; Representative David Cook, 
     Legislative District 8; Representative John Fillmore, 
     Legislative District 16; Representative Travis Grantham, 
     Legislative District 12; Representative Walter Blackman, 
     Legislative District 6; Representative Shawnna Bolick, 
     Legislative District 20; Representative Noel Campbell, 
     Legislative District 1; Representative Elect Jacqueline 
     Parker, Legislative District 16; Representative Elect Beverly 
     Pingerelli, Legislative District 21; Representative Elect 
     Jake Hoffman, Legislative District 12; Senator Elect Wendy 
     Rogers, Lt Col, USAF (ret), Legislative District 6; 
     Representative Elect Steve Kaiser, Legislative District 15; 
     Representative Elect Brenda Barton, Legislative District 6; 
     Representative Elect Joseph Chaplik, Legislative District 23; 
     Representative Elect Judy Burges, Legislative District 1; 
     Representative Elect Quang Nguyen, Legislative District 1.

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank you first and all my dear beloved 
colleagues for your love and tenderness, which my family and I will 
never forget.
  Abraham Lincoln, whose name is a comfort to us all, said: ``We have 
got the best government the world ever knew.''
  It is best because the first three words of the Constitution tell us 
who governs here: We the People.
  Watch this proceeding today and tell the world with pride, as Lincoln 
did, about the brilliant meaning and promise of our country. Our 
Government belongs to the people.
  As President Ford said: Here the people rule.
  Today we are in the people's House to complete the people's process 
for choosing the people's President. We assemble into joint session for 
a solemn purpose that we have all sworn a sacred oath to faithfully 
discharge. The 12th Amendment obligates each and every one of us to 
count the electoral votes to recognize the will of the people in the 
2020 Presidential election.
  We are not here, Madam Speaker, to vote for the candidate we want. We 
are here to recognize the candidate the people actually voted for in 
the States.
  Madam Speaker, the 2020 election is over and the people have spoken. 
Joe Biden received more than 80 million votes. Seven million more than 
President Trump. A number larger than any other President has received 
in U.S. history. The sweeping popular victory translated into an 
electoral college victory of 306-232, a margin which President Trump 
pronounced a landslide when he won by those exact same numbers in 2016.
  So now we count the electoral votes that were just delivered to us in 
the beautiful mahogany cases brought by those hardworking Senate pages. 
These mahogany cases contain only the 538 electoral votes that were 
sent in by the States, not the 159 million ballots that were cast by 
our constituents. Those were counted 2 months ago by hundreds of 
thousands of election officials and poll workers across America who 
risked their health and even their lives in the time of COVID to 
deliver what our Department of Homeland Security called the most secure 
election in American history. Many of these officials have endured 
threats of retribution, violence, and even death just for doing their 
jobs.
  Just as the popular vote was for Biden, so was the electoral vote. On 
December 15, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recognized it. 
``The electoral college has spoken,'' the Senator said from the Senate 
floor. ``Today I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden.''
  Yet, we have seen escalating attacks on our election with unfounded 
claims of fraud and corruption. More than 60 lawsuits have been brought 
to date seeking to overturn the results. They have failed repeatedly 
and they have failed spectacularly.
  Every objection we hear today maligning our States and their 
officials--both Republican and Democrat--has been litigated, 
adjudicated, and obliterated in both Federal and State Courts. The 
President has not just had his day in court, Madam Speaker, he has had 
more than 2 months in court looking for a judge to embrace these 
arguments. In more than 50 cases, Madam Speaker, at least 88 different 
judges, including many appointed by the President himself, have 
meticulously rejected the President's claims of fraud and corruption.
  Take Georgia U.S. District Court Judge Steven Grimberg, who was named 
to the bench by President Trump last year. He rejected President 
Trump's prayer to block certification of Biden's victory in Georgia, 
saying it ``has no basis in fact or law.''
  Take U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig, another Trump nominee who took 
the bench in September. He dismissed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 
results in Wisconsin, calling it ``extraordinary.''
  He said: ``A sitting President who did not prevail in his bid for 
reelection has asked for Federal Court help in setting aside the 
popular vote based on . . . issues he plainly could have raised before 
the vote occurred.
  ``This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and 
he has lost on the merits.''
  Trump has asked for the rule of law to be followed, Judge Ludwig 
observed, and he said definitively: It has been.
  I have been a constitutional law professor for 30 years, and if I 
were to test my students on these decisions, it would be the easiest 
test in the world because the plaintiffs have lost nearly every case 
and every issue in the most sweeping terms. That is all they would have 
to remember. There is no basis in fact or law to justify the 
unprecedented relief that is being requested of nullifying these 
elections.
  We are here to count the votes. Let us do our job.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, to ease everyone's nerve, I want Members 
to all know that I am not here to challenge anyone to a duel like 
Alexander Hamilton or Aaron Burr.
  Madam Speaker, my primary objection to the counting of the electoral 
votes of the State of Arizona is based on the Constitution and the 
direction of State legislatures through State law, as spelled out in 
the following two clauses of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: ``Each 
State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may 
direct, a number of electors.''
  And the election clause of the Constitution provides State 
legislatures with explicit authority to prescribe ``the times, places, 
and manner of holding elections.''
  For more than three decades, Arizona law, set by the State 
legislature, has required that voter registration end no later than 29 
days before an election.
  This is clear. It is law, unless amended by the State legislature. 
This is the way it needs to be carried out.
  In Arizona, the deadline for voter registration for the 2020 
Presidential election was October 5, 2020. Using COVID as a reasoning, 
Democrats filed a lawsuit to extend this deadline by 18 days. An 
injunction was made by an Obama-appointed judge preventing the Arizona 
secretary of state from enforcing the constitutional deadline set by 
the State legislature.

  As a result of this frivolous, partisan lawsuit, 10 extra days were 
added via

[[Page H83]]

judicial fiat to allow voter registration. These 10 days were added 
after voting had already begun. This is completely indefensible. You 
cannot change the rules of an election while it is underway and expect 
the American people to trust it.
  Now, in this 10-day period, at least 30,000 new voters were 
registered to vote in Arizona. All of these votes are unconstitutional. 
It does not matter if they voted for President Trump or if they voted 
for Vice President Biden. They did not register in time for the 
election. The law states October 5. Either we have laws or we do not.
  If we allow State election laws as set forth by the State 
legislatures to be ignored and manipulated on the whims of partisan 
lawsuits, unelected bureaucrats, unlawful procedures, and arbitrary 
rules, then our constitutional Republic will cease to exist.
  The oath I took this past Sunday to defend and support the 
Constitution makes it necessary for me to object to this travesty. 
Otherwise, the laws passed by the legislative branch merely become 
suggestions to be accepted, rejected, or manipulated by those who did 
not pass them.
  Madam Speaker, I have constituents outside of this building right 
now. I promised my voters to be their voice. In this branch of 
government in which I now serve, it is my separate but equal obligation 
to weigh in on this election and object.
  Are we not a government of, by, and for the people?
  They know that this election is not right; and as their 
Representative, I am sent here to represent them. I will not allow the 
people to be ignored.
  Madam Speaker, it is my duty under the U.S. Constitution to object to 
the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Arizona. The 
Members who stand here today and accept the results of this 
concentrated, coordinated, partisan effort by Democrats, where every 
fraudulent vote cancels out the vote of an honest America, has sided 
with extremists on the left.
  The United States Congress needs to make an informed decision, and 
that starts with this objection.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
  Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, I rise as well to support the objection, and 
I rise with the simple question: Can the Chair honestly tell Americans, 
with a pending Supreme Court case over legal observers not being 
allowed to observe and inspect signatures, that the laws and the 
Constitution of that State were not violated to change voting outcomes?
  Madam Speaker, I will wait for a response.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) has 25 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, I will repeat my question.
  Can you honestly tell Americans, with a pending Supreme Court case 
over legal observers not being able to observe and inspect signatures, 
that the laws and Constitution of Arizona were not violated to change 
voting outcomes?
  And I will wait for a response.
  The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1400

  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, today is an important day. In 1862, during 
the depths of the Civil War, President Lincoln submitted his annual 
message to Congress, to this body, and in it, he wrote the following: 
``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We, of this Congress and 
this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. . . . 
The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or 
dishonor, to the latest generation. . . . We shall nobly save, or 
meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth.''
  Madam Speaker, we gather today to ensure the survival of our grand 
American experiment, the greatest democracy this world has ever known, 
and there are millions of people watching today's proceedings. The eyes 
of the world are on us now, my colleagues, wondering if we will keep 
the faith, wondering if our constitutional Republic will hold.
  Will we adhere to our Constitution, that solemn visionary document 
that has guided us so well for so long and enabled the peaceful 
transfer of power for the last 230 years?
  Will we continue to be a country premised on the consent of the 
governed, a Congress that respects the will of the people, and a 
Republic that will endure?
  Madam Speaker, those are the questions before us today. With respect 
to my new colleague from Colorado, the question is not whether Joe 
Biden was elected the 46th President of the United States. He clearly 
was. The people of Arizona, like so much of the country, spoke clearly 
and resoundingly. They voted in record numbers, and over 81 million 
Americans selected Joe Biden as the next President.
  Now, today, we hear from some in this Chamber--not all, but some of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--vague claims of fraud.
  No substance.
  No evidence.
  No facts.
  No explanation for why over 88 judges across this land have rejected 
the very same claims.
  Madam Speaker, the bottom line is this. As my colleague, 
Representative Raskin, so eloquently put it, the people have spoken, 
and that is why, on December 14, the electoral college met to certify 
the election of a duly elected President, just as they have done for 
centuries during terrible world wars, recessions, depressions, plagues, 
and pandemics.
  They met their duty, and they once again rose to the occasion and 
certified the election. And the question now is, will we do ours?
  Now, I know there are many textualists among us, many of my 
colleagues who would understand that the Constitution must guide our 
work today. And the Constitution is crystal clear: Our duty today is a 
narrow one.
  Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 reads: ``The President of the Senate 
shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open 
all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person 
having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the 
President.''
  That is it, period. Our job is not to replace the judgment made by 
the American people with our own. Yet, that is precisely what so many 
of my House and Senate Republican colleagues ask this body to do, to 
substitute their judgment for the expressed will of the American 
people.
  In America, we don't do that. In the United States, we accept the 
results of free and fair elections.
  Madam Speaker, we don't ignore the will of the voters and attempt to 
install a preferred candidate into power. That doesn't happen here.
  Madam Speaker, I will close with this. Our duty, our task, is a very 
simple one: to honor the voice of the people, to honor our 
Constitution, to count the votes, to certify this election, and begin 
to heal this great country of ours.
  I pray each of us may find the courage to do so.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, we have a solemn 
responsibility today. We must vote to sustain objections to slates of 
electors submitted by States that we genuinely believe clearly violated 
the Constitution in the Presidential election of 2020.
  This is the threshold legal question before us, and it is an issue 
before us for the State of Arizona. We have to repeat this for emphasis 
because a lot of people seem to be confused.
  Because judges and not the State legislature changed the rules of the 
election, Arizona clearly violated the plain language of Article II, 
Section 1 of the Constitution in its selection of Presidential 
electors.
  The Framers of our Constitution recognized that elections were 
susceptible to corruption. We all know that. So, how did they fix it? 
How did they provide for that? They created the electoral college as a 
safeguard, and they expressly empowered State legislatures to ensure 
the integrity of our unique election system.
  Only the State legislatures, because they are a full body of 
representatives and not rogue officials, were given the authority to 
direct the manner of appointing Presidential electors because it was so 
important.

[[Page H84]]

  The Supreme Court has acknowledged this over and over. They 
previously affirmed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: ``The 
appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with 
the legislatures of the several States.'' That authority can never be 
taken away or abdicated.
  The Arizona Legislature did enact detailed rules and procedures that 
the State was supposed to follow to choose its electors. But in the 
months preceding the 2020 election, as we have heard--and by the way, 
a thousand pages of evidence have just been submitted on the facts on 
this--those well-established rules and procedures were deliberately 
changed.

  They weren't changed by the legislature, friends. They were changed 
by judges. And those actions taken by the judiciary were not limited to 
mere interpretations of existing law. No, they were substantive, 
wholesale changes to those statutes.
  Madam Speaker, that is a usurpation of the authority that the 
legislature had. That usurpation was repeated across the country this 
year. It is the primary reason--it is one of the reasons why the 
election of 2020 became riddled with an unprecedented number of serious 
allegations of fraud and irregularities all over the country.
  National polls, it has been said, indicate that a huge percentage of 
Americans now have serious doubts about not just the outcome of this 
Presidential contest but also the future reliability of our election 
system itself.
  Since we are convinced that the election laws in Arizona and some 
other key States were changed in this unconstitutional manner, we have 
a responsibility today. The slates of electors produced under those 
modified laws are thus unconstitutional. They are not ``regularly 
given'' or ``lawfully certified,'' as required by the Electoral Count 
Act, and they are invalid on their face. That is just the conclusion 
that you have to reach.
  Madam Speaker, given these inescapable facts, we believe we have no 
choice today but to vote to sustain objections to those slates of 
electors.
  Mr. Raskin and others today have cited the 12th Amendment, and they 
cite Article II, Section 1, Clause 3--remember that, Clause 3. And they 
have asserted that Congress has only one narrow role today; we are just 
supposed to count the electoral votes that have been submitted. But 
those advocates have overlooked a critical first principle.
  Their assertion is only true so long as Congress first is convinced 
that the electoral votes were not produced by a process that violated 
the Constitution is there. We have to get through Clause 2 of Article 
II, Section 1, before we get to Clause 3 is the point.
  Look, in our unique system, Congress is positioned as the last 
bulwark in a Presidential election to ensure the Constitution has been 
followed. Indeed, just two decades ago, the Supreme Court spoke to 
this. They plainly acknowledged this important deliberative role of 
Congress. It was the famous Bush v. Gore litigation that everybody 
remembers from 2000.
  In a per curiam opinion--meaning all nine Justices, that it was 
unanimous--they noted strict adherence to the provisions of the 
Electoral Count Act may create ``a `safe harbor' for a State insofar as 
congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned.''
  However, unanimously, the Court said since title 3, section 5 
contains a principle of Federal law that would assure finality of the 
State's determination if they followed all the proscriptions there, if 
the will of the legislature is attempted to be changed by a State 
court, that is a problem. That, they said, Congress might deem to be a 
change in the law.
  That is precisely why we are here right now. Go read Bush v. Gore, 
and you will see this.
  Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined 
in a concurring opinion 8 days later, and they reiterated this point.
  A significant departure from the legislature's scheme for appointing 
Presidential electors presents a Federal question. It is a big problem 
for us, and it is one we cannot get around. That is why we are here.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to look at the facts, to 
follow the law, and to follow our congressional oath. We are supposed 
to support and defend the Constitution. That is what we do here today. 
I urge everyone to do the right thing.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, this exercise in futility that Congress 
is undertaking is at the behest of Republican Members of Congress. The 
effort to overturn the Presidential election and grant Donald Trump 4 
more years is the motivation behind it. And to continue a baseless 
conspiracy-fueled threat to our democracy makes no sense because there 
is no viable constitutional or legal path to overturn the election that 
will make Vice President Biden and Senator Harris President and Vice 
President of the United States after January 20.
  One certain outcome of this whole process is the weakening of our 
democracy and the threatening of our democracy. Beginning with Arizona, 
Congress is being asked to chase down a rabbit hole baseless, 
discredited, and judicially discarded fringe conspiracy theories.
  Madam Speaker, for the record, let's talk a little bit about Arizona. 
Arizona and State and local officials did an unbelievable job to ensure 
that the 2020 elections ran smoothly. Mr. Hickman, the Republican 
chairman of the Maricopa County board, the largest county in the State 
of Arizona, said: ``No matter how you voted, this election was 
administered with integrity, transparency, and in accordance with State 
laws.''
  Arizonans showed up to the polls in record numbers. More than 3.4 
million people voted, with increases in every county, and 65 percent of 
all eligible voters in Arizona voted in the 2020 election. Arizonans 
cast their ballots up and down for Republicans and Democrats, and 11 
electoral votes were granted to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris based on 
their victory in Arizona. That is the story.
  Arizonans voted in hundreds of races this year. In addition to the 
Presidency, these races include nine members of the State's 
congressional delegation that are with you--four of them, my Republican 
colleagues. These Members have already been seated in the 117th 
Congress. They do not question the accuracy of Arizona's 2020 elections 
to select the congressional delegation, yet my four Republican 
colleagues question the Presidential election.

  Our colleagues may say they are only asking questions and seeking to 
reassure voters, but let us be clear: These questions have been 
answered by the voters and by the courts. Rather than accepting the 
answers and the results of the election, they are fanning the flames of 
unfounded suspicion and once again creating a threat, a very real and 
dangerous threat to our democracy.
  Again, our friends do not question the outcomes of their own 
elections. That is because they have no reason to, just as they have no 
legitimate reason to question the results of the Presidential election 
in Arizona.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reject this objection, to 
respect the will of the voters in the State of Arizona and throughout 
this country, and to fundamentally add some preservation to our 
democracy from any future damage, that this effort that we are 
undertaking in this House and in the Senate today does not further 
damage our democracy.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I filed my challenge on the slate of 
electors from the State of Arizona that was actually put forward by 
Governor Ducey of Arizona.
  My ask to you, the Speaker, through the Vice President, is simple. Do 
not count these electors until and unless the secretary of state allows 
a forensic audit of the election, a request she has denied repeatedly.
  We have been told over and over that even though this was a public 
election using public money and public machines utilizing public 
employees, the public today has no ability to simply double-check the 
veracity of these results.

                              {time}  1415

  If the Presidential election was a football game, we would get a 
slow-motion review from multiple angles and a

[[Page H85]]

correction of a controversial decision. But not so, we are told by our 
secretary of state, for the Presidential election, no review for you.
  No access to the Dominion voting machines with a documented history 
of enabling fraud through its now discredited adjudication system, a 
system that literally allows one person to change tens of thousands of 
votes in mere minutes.
  In the only audit done in Arizona, a court found 3 percent error rate 
against President Trump. Vice President Biden's margin of error was 
one-tenth of that, at 0.03 percent. By the way, a 3 percent error rate 
at minimum is 90,000 ballots. After finding the 3 percent error rate, 
the court stopped the audit and refused to go further.
  In Arizona, as my attachments make clear, mail-in ballots were 
altered on the first day of counting as shown in data graphs we have 
provided, as concluded by data analysts. Over 400,000 mail-in ballots 
were altered, switched from President Trump to Vice President Biden, or 
completely erased from President Trump's totals.
  The proof is in the counting curves, the curves that cannot occur 
except with odds so rare and unlikely that winning the Mega Millions 
lottery is more probable.
  Mr. Speaker, can I have order in the Chamber?


                                 Recess

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McGovern). Pursuant to clause 12(b) of 
rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of 
the Chair.
  Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess.

                              {time}  1426



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021 on page H85, first column, the following 
appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McGOVERN). Without 
objection, pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the Chair declares 
the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair. There was no 
objection. Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the 
House stood in recess.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore (Mr. McGOVERN). Pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the 
Chair. Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House 
stood in recess.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              After Recess

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McGovern) at 2 o'clock and 26 minutes p.m.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H85, the following appeared: AFTER 
RECESS The recess having expired, the House was called to order by 
the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McGOVERN) at 2 o'clock and 29 minutes 
p.m.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: AFTER RECESS The 
recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McGOVERN) at 2 o'clock and 26 minutes 
p.m.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) has 
2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the probability of these 
ectopic curves, you have a better likelihood of winning the Mega 
Millions lottery than you do having statistical issues here.
  Over 30,000 illegal aliens voted in Arizona using the Federal ballot, 
yet our secretary of state refused the public access to review the 
ballots.
  Over a thousand residences were visited for proof of residency and 
address; 456 failed that test. They were vacant lots. Even the 
Recorder's office was used as an address.
  What are they hiding? If the process was fair, these would be 
improbable. These would be once-in-a-lifetime-type applications.
  So let's look at the ballots, the signatures, and the adjudicated 
records. Until this is done, Mr. Speaker, we should not count this 
slate.
  You have a letter from the Arizona Legislature stating its intent to 
review the issue on January 11. Our Governor has refused to allow the 
State to properly convene to do its proper oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you one question today: Are you a ceremonial 
figurehead in your current role, or did the drafters of the 12th 
Amendment and Congress, in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, envision a 
role where you made discretionary decisions about ballot fraud and fair 
elections?
  If you are merely ceremonial, then let's be done with this. Let's eat 
our tea and crumpets and witness our national decline.
  But if you are not merely ceremonial but vested with discernment, 
rationality, and legal authority to not just count from 1 to 270, then 
do not accept Arizona's electors as certified. Remand the slate back to 
the secretary of state, back to the Governor, with the following 
instructions: Until a full, complete electoral forensic audit is 
allowed by the secretary of state, the electors currently certified 
will not be counted.
  It will then fall on the State of Arizona to decide are its electors 
in the game or not. Anything less is an abdication of our 
constitutional Republic and our ethos: one man, one vote.

  We ask: Why? What is there to hide? Shouldn't the lawful victor of an 
election be proud, open, and transparent about an election audit? I 
would. Instead, we are met with denials, cover-ups, and contempt of 
subpoenas.
  There is too much evidence of fraud, demonstrated by statistical 
anomalies that experts have determined cannot happen in the absence of 
fraud, to accept such a slate. I am not asking these electors never be 
counted; it is just that they need to be certified the proper way.
  Our beloved Constitution is but a mere piece of paper if we do not 
follow the law, upholding the law. But now, alas, we find ourselves 
lawless, destroying the very thread that binds us together. But we need 
to get back to the rule of law. That is what has been violated, truly, 
by the actions in these States.


                                 Recess

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021 on page H85, second column, the following 
appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, pursuant to 
clause 12(b) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess 
subject to the call of the Chair. There was no objection. 
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the Chair declares 
the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair. Accordingly 
(at 2 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              {time}  2102


                              After Recess

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker at 9 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will address the Chamber.
  Today, a shameful assault was made on our democracy. It cannot, 
however, deter us from our responsibility to validate the election of 
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. For that reason, Congress has returned to 
the Capitol.
  We always knew that this responsibility would take us into the night, 
and we will stay as long as it takes. Our purpose will be accomplished. 
We must, and we will, show to the country, and indeed to the world, 
that we will not be diverted from our duty, that we will respect our 
responsibility to the Constitution and to the American people.
  On Sunday, it was my great honor to be sworn in as Speaker and to 
preside over a sacred ritual of renewal as we gathered under the stone 
of the temple of democracy to open the 117th Congress. I said, as we 
were sworn in then, we accept a responsibility as daunting and 
demanding as any previous generation of leadership has ever faced.
  We know that we are in difficult times, but little could we have 
imagined the assault that was made on our democracy today.
  To those who stoked deterrence from our responsibility, you have 
failed. To those who engaged in the gleeful desecration of this, our 
temple of democracy, American democracy, justice will be done.
  Today, January 6, is the Feast of the Epiphany. On this day of 
revelation, let us pray that this instigation to violence will provide 
an epiphany for our country to heal.
  In that spirit of healing, I invoke the song of Saint Francis. I 
usually do. Saint Francis is the patron saint of my city of San 
Francisco, and the ``Song of Saint Francis'' is our anthem.
  Lord, make me a channel of thy peace.
  Where there is darkness, may I bring light.
  Where there is hatred, let us bring love.
  Where there is despair, let us bring hope.
  We know that we would be part of history in a positive way today, 
every 4 years when we demonstrate again the peaceful transfer of power 
from one President to the next, and despite the shameful actions of 
today, we still will do so. We will be part of a history that shows the 
world what America is made of, that this assault, this assault is just 
that. It shows the weakness of those who have had to show through 
violence what their message was.
  My colleagues, it is time to move on. I wear this pin quite 
frequently. Actually, I gave it to our beloved  John Lewis just the 
weekend or so before he left us. It is the flag of our country, a flag 
of the United States of America. On it, it says, ``One country, one 
destiny.''
  ``One country, one destiny'' is written on the flag. That was also 
what was embroidered in Abraham Lincoln's coat that he had on that 
fateful night--Lincoln's party, Lincoln's message: One country, one 
destiny.
  So on this holy day of Epiphany, let us pray. I am a big believer in 
prayer. Let us pray that there will be peace on Earth and that it will 
begin with us. Let us pray that God will continue to bless America.

[[Page H86]]

  With that, let us proceed with our responsibilities to the 
Constitution to which we have just, within 72 hours, taken the oath to 
uphold.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, it is a sad day in America. It is a 
wrenching day in America. It is a day in which our words and our 
actions have had consequences of a very, very negative nature. We ought 
to watch our words and think what it may mean to some.
  My remarks were written before the tragic, dangerous, and 
unacceptable actions--and ``unacceptable'' is such a tame word. My 
remarks started with, ``Madam Speaker, the American people today are 
witnessing one of the greatest challenges to our democracy in its 244-
year history.''
  Little did I know that this Capitol would be attacked by the enemy 
within. I was here on 9/11 when we were attacked by the enemy without.
  We need to all work together to tame and reduce the anger and, yes, 
the hate that some stoke. What some--not all, Madam Speaker, but some--
in this House and this Senate are doing today will not change the 
outcome of the election, which is the clear and insurmountable victory 
of President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris. Instead, all 
they will accomplish is to further the dangerous divisions.

  This was written before this Capitol was assaulted, before this 
democracy was put aside by thousands, encouraged by the Commander in 
Chief.
  Instead, all they will accomplish is to further the dangerous 
divisions, as I said, among our people and energize conspiracy theories 
stoked by our foreign adversaries, which seek to erode America's 
confidence in our democracy and our system of free and fair elections.
  I was here in 2000. I was strongly in favor of Al Gore for President, 
and my candidate got more votes than the other candidate. His name was 
George Bush, of course. And one of the saddest days was January 20th of 
2001 when our candidate, who won the election, in my view, was not 
elected. But it was also one of the proudest moments of my career 
because the greatest power on Earth passed peacefully from Bill Clinton 
to George W. Bush.
  Not a shot was fired. Nobody assaulted this Caucus or this Congress 
or this Chamber. Because we were not disappointed? No. Because we were 
not angry? No. Because we believe in democracy. We believe in ``We the 
people.''
  One of the speakers, I think it was the Senator from Texas, 
expressed: We are here for the people.
  If those were the people, we are in a lot of trouble.
  Our electoral system, our democratic system, however, did not break 
under the strains of the misinformation, the claims of fraud, which 
court after court after court have dismissed out of hand, not because 
there was a little evidence, but because there was no evidence.
  That is why we are the longest-lasting constitutional democracy in 
the world. I hope all of us in this body are proud of that and 
understand why that is the case. Because, as Dick Gephardt said on this 
floor many years ago, democracy is a substitute for war to resolve 
differences. It proved once more the ever-beating strong heart that 
gives life to our Republic and our freedoms.
  That strength, Madam Speaker, is derived in part from our institution 
and our laws, but most importantly, it is powered by citizens' and 
leaders' commitment to our Constitution. Not just us. We swear an oath. 
But it is all of America.
  Barack Obama spoke from that Chamber, and he said: I am going to be 
taking another title next year--citizen.
  And he was proud to take that. And every citizen needs to protect, 
preserve, and uplift our democracy.
  Some today did not do that, many today.
  Sixty-eight years ago in Springfield, Illinois, Governor Adlai 
Stevenson gracefully conceded his loss to General Dwight Eisenhower. He 
said this: ``It is traditionally American,'' he told his deeply 
disappointed supporters, ``to fight hard before an election.''

                              {time}  2115

  But then he added, it is equally traditional to close ranks as soon 
as the people have spoken--not the Congress, not the electors, the 
people have spoken.
  That which unites us as American citizens is far greater than that 
which divides us as political parties.
  It was another man from Springfield, fourscore and 8 years earlier, 
who won reelection to the Presidency in the national crisis that tested 
our country and its democratic institutions, who pleaded even in his 
hour of victory for the same spirit of reconciliation. That was the 
party of Lincoln. That hasn't happened to this hour.
  Lincoln said: ``. . . now that the election is over,'' he asked, 
``may not all, having a common interest, reunite in a common effort to 
save our common country?''
  Such is the duty of an American who stands for elections, or 
participates in our politics, to be either humble in triumph or 
gracious in defeat.
  I have lost some elections--not too many--and I have won a lot of 
elections. I hope that I have been gracious in defeat and humble in 
victory. I hope that I put my State and my country first, not myself.
  It is clear to all that the outgoing President has not followed the 
path that Stevenson and Lincoln urged. So, we, the people--each one of 
us represents about 750,000 to 800,000 people, some a few less. The 
people, they have spoken in the way that our Constitution set for them 
to be heard by us and by the country--they voted, and they voted pretty 
decisively.
  We, the people, together, must turn away from division and its 
dangers.
  The senior Member of our body,   Don Young from Alaska, spoke the 
other day when we were sworn in and said: Ladies and gentlemen of this 
House, we are so divisive that it is going to destroy our country. We 
need to reach out and hold one another's hands.
  We all have a title that we honor more than any other--perhaps 
parent, perhaps husband. But we are all Americans. Not Americans-R; not 
Americans-D. We are Americans.
  Let us hope tonight that we act like Americans. Not as Ds and Rs, but 
as Americans, just as Al Gore, just as Hillary Clinton, just as Adlai 
Stevenson, just as Abraham Lincoln, who had won that election, of 
course. But he had defeated people, and he said that is not the issue; 
the issue is to reunite.
  We, the people, must again be the strong heart of our American 
democracy.
  We, the people, on this day in Congress, must be agents of unity and 
constructive action to face the grave threats that confront us and tell 
those who would assault our Capitol: That is not the American way.
  We, the Members of Congress, who swore an oath before God to preserve 
and protect the Constitution of the United States and our democracy, 
must do so now.
  I don't usually read Senator McConnell's speeches, but I am not 
speaking as a Democrat, nor was he speaking as a Republican just a few 
hours ago.
  ``We're debating a step that has never been taken in American 
history, whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a 
Presidential election.''
  He went on to say that he supports a strong State-led voting reform.
  ``The Constitution,'' he said, ``gives us here in Congress a limited 
role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections 
on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken.''
  Five people said the election of 2000 was over. We didn't agree with 
them. But Al Gore said: We are a nation of laws. Five people--yes, they 
were members of the Supreme Court, but they were five people--said the 
election is over. I sat on that podium and saw that power transfer to 
George W. Bush.
  McConnell went on to say: ``If we overrule them, it would damage our 
Republic forever.''
  He said that, McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, about 2 
hours ago, 3 hours ago, now 4 hours.
  He went on to say: ``If this election were overturned by mere 
allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death 
spiral.''
  He concluded: ``It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise 
American voters and overrule the courts and the States on this 
extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a

[[Page H87]]

vote would be a harmless protest gesture . . .''
  How presciently he spoke. People who think that the election has been 
stolen with some fraud, why do they think it? Because the Commander in 
Chief said so, and they respect him and they follow him. And words 
matter.
  ``Pete,'' as he ended, ``I will not pretend such a vote would be a 
harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. 
I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of 
government as we know it.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this objection, as McConnell 
said, a danger to our democracy.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise for a point of personal privilege 
to address the House for 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise to address what happened in this 
Chamber today and where do we go from here.
  The violence, destruction, and chaos we saw earlier was unacceptable, 
undemocratic, and un-American. It was the saddest day I have ever had 
serving as a Member of this institution.
  The Capitol was in chaos. Police officers were attacked. Guns were 
drawn on this very floor. A woman tragically lost her life.
  No one wins when this building and what it stands for are destroyed. 
America, and this institution, is better than that.
  We saw the worst of America this afternoon. Yet, in the midst of 
violence and fear, we also saw the best of America.
  It starts with our law enforcement--the Capitol Police, the National 
Guard, the FBI, and the Secret Service--who faced the most difficult 
challenges but did their duty with confidence and strength. Many 
of them are injured right now.

  It also extends to this Chamber, where both Democrats and Republicans 
showed courage, calm, and resolve.
  I would like to recognize the Members now who helped to hold the 
line: Markwayne Mullin, Tony Gonzales, Jason Crow, Pat Fallon, and Troy 
Nehls. Working with the Capitol Police, they ensured the floor of this 
Chamber was never breached. These are the heroes among us. Thank you 
for the show of courage.
  Looking back on the past few hours, it is clear this Congress will 
not be the same after today, and I hope it will be the better. I hope 
not just this institution, but I hope every American pauses for that 
moment and thinks among themselves that we can disagree with one 
another but not dislike each other; we can respect the voices of 
others.
  There are many times we debate in this body, and we should. There are 
many times we can get heated. I still consider Steny Hoyer a very good 
friend. There are times I get upset, and I will call him at home to 
express the things I may not see fair or just, but that is the way we 
should handle things.
  The majority leader is right: We are all Americans first.
  But we should also think for a moment: What do we put on social 
media? What do we convey to one another? Just because you have a 
personal opinion different than mine, you have a right to say it, but 
nobody has a right to become a mob. And we all should stand united in 
condemning the mob together.
  We solve problems before our Nation, not through destruction, but 
through debate. That is the heart of this democracy. I know what we 
debate today is tough, but it is just; it is right.
  This isn't the first side of the aisle that has ever debated this 
issue. I thought of what Madam Speaker said back in 2005, ``this is 
democracy at its best,'' when they talked about a Presidential election 
in Ohio.
  These are the moments that we should raise the issue about integrity 
and accountability and accuracy in our elections. But you know what we 
should do, the next difference? Not just raise the issue, but work 
together to solve the problems.
  Now is the moment to show America we can work best together. I will 
tell you, the size of the majority is slim, so it gives us the 
opportunity to make that happen. The only thing that can hold us back 
is the will of one another to do it.
  This side of the aisle always believes in working with anybody who 
wants to move it forward. That does not mean that we are going to agree 
100 percent of the time. That does not mean our voice cannot be heard. 
That does not mean we cannot be treated fairly; we should be. That may 
mean on the size of committees, that means on our ability to offer an 
amendment, that means on our ability to have our voice. But at the end 
of the day, it helps us come to a better conclusion.
  By returning here to complete the work we were sent to do, we are 
proving that our democracy cannot be disrupted by criminal behavior. We 
will not falter; we will not bend; and we will not shrink from our 
duty.
  Let me be very clear: Mobs don't rule America. Laws rule America. It 
was true when our cities were burning this summer, and it is true now.
  When Americans go to bed tonight, their lasting memory should not be 
a Congress overrun by rioters. It must be a resolute Congress 
conducting healthy debate.
  We may disagree on a lot in America, but tonight we should show the 
world that we will respectfully, but thoroughly, carry out the most 
basic duties of democracy.
  We will continue with the task that we have been sent here to do. We 
will follow the Constitution and the law and the process for hearing 
valid concerns about election integrity. We will do it with respect.

                              {time}  2130

  We will respect your opinion, we will respect what you say, and we 
are willing to listen to it. I think the Nation will be better for it 
on both sides of the aisle. Let's show the country the mob did not win. 
We have a job to do. Let's do it with pride and let's be better when 
the sun rises tomorrow.
  Mr. STANTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STANTON. Madam Speaker, over the last few hours, we have seen the 
consequences of dangerous un-American rhetoric; an armed insurrection 
against the seat of government of the most powerful country on Earth; a 
breach of this Capitol building to attack Congress, something that has 
not taken place since the British occupied this building during the War 
of 1812; an attempted coup spurred by rhetoric coming from those who 
are looking out for themselves, not country.
  It is stunning, Madam Speaker, that there are some in this House who 
have voiced support for what happened. It was not a protest. It was 
treason. It was sedition. And it should be prosecuted as such.
  At its root is a disease that has infected our politics, one that 
will make some political leaders do anything, including lie and incite 
violence to hold on to power. That is what we are seeing before our 
very eyes.
  In contesting the outcome of this election, my Republican colleagues 
make a contradictory argument that puts party and power before country. 
They argue the election results were valid when it showed they won 
their races, but the same ballots were somehow fraudulent when it 
produced a result President Trump did not like.
  Keep the results we like, they demand, cancel the one we don't.
  That is not how democracy works, and neither is armed insurrection.
  Here is the truth: Arizona has a long bipartisan record of conducting 
safe, secure, and fair elections. And I say that as someone whose party 
has more often than not been on the losing end of those elections. This 
last election was, once again, safe and secure. And I commend our State 
and county election officials, public servants on both sides of the 
aisle, for making Arizona proud once again.
  We are here because the case that Republicans have brought before us 
has failed in court over and over and over again.
  My colleagues say: Let's go back to the State, let them decide.
  My friends, Arizona has spoken. They have sent the correct electors.
  Arizona's Republican attorney general, one of the most partisan in 
the country, said: ``There is no evidence, there are no facts that 
would lead anyone to believe the election results will change.''
  The Republican speaker of our State house has told us he doesn't like 
the

[[Page H88]]

results of the election, but they are the right results. Joe Biden has 
won Arizona.
  The State supreme court, made up entirely of justices appointed by 
Republican Governors, has spoken, too. The court said the President's 
challenge ``fails to present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes, 
or that the Biden electors did not in fact receive the highest numbers 
of votes for office.''
  Look to the words of one of the President's own campaign chairs in my 
State, our Governor, Doug Ducey. Our Governor loves the President. He 
has been so loyal. He made sure the President could hold large rallies 
in our State in the middle of a pandemic. The Governor personally 
attended them. They spoke so often that the Governor gave the President 
a special ``Hail to the Chief'' ring tone on his phone.
  After election day, as the legal challenges played out, the Governor 
kept quiet; but when the truth became clear, even he acknowledged ``Joe 
Biden did win Arizona.''
  I am grateful that, in this instance, the Governor put law, not 
partisan politics, first. And I urge my colleagues in the House to 
follow his lead.
  Each and every one of us in this House, the people's House, swore an 
oath to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic. Over the last few hours, we have gained 
a better understanding of what that means.
  The future of the Constitution, the most precious of the founding 
documents of the greatest democracy human kind has ever known, is in 
our hands. Defending democracy is not, and should not be, a partisan 
task. It is a sacred one. Right here, right now, we must recognize that 
fidelity to the founding principles of our Nation are not about loyalty 
to one man, but rather to ensure that government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
  The world is watching us all right now. We must get it right. Reject 
this ill-conceived attack on our democracy.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. This has been 
a truly tragic day for America. We all join together in fully 
condemning the dangerous violence and destruction that occurred today 
in our Nation's Capitol.
  Americans will always have their freedom of speech and the 
constitutional right to protest, but violence in any form is absolutely 
unacceptable. It is anti-America, and must be prosecuted to the fullest 
extent of the law.
  Thank you to the heroic United States Capitol Police. And thank you 
to the bipartisan professional staff of the United States Capitol for 
protecting the people's House and the American people.
  This hallowed temple of democracy is where generations of Americans 
have peacefully come together to face our Nation's greatest challenges, 
bridge our deepest fissures, and create a more perfect system of 
government. This is the appropriate place we stand to respectfully and 
peacefully give voice to the people we represent across our diverse 
country.

  The Representatives of the American people in this House are standing 
up for three fundamental American beliefs: The right to vote is sacred, 
that a Representative has a duty to represent his or her constituents, 
and that the rule of law is a hallmark of our Nation.
  And in the spirit of healing--those are not my words--those are the 
words of you, Madam Speaker, from this very Chamber, when some of my 
colleagues and friends across the aisle objected to the 2005 electoral 
college certification.
  In fact, there were objections on this floor to the certification of 
nearly every Republican President in my lifetime: In 1989, in 2001, in 
2005, and in 2017.
  So history is our guide that the people's sacred House is the 
appropriate venue for a peaceful debate. And this peaceful debate 
serves as a powerful condemnation to the violence that perpetrated our 
Capitol grounds today. The violence that was truly un-American.
  Today's discussion is about the Constitution and it is about the 
American people, but it must also be about clearly and resolutely 
condemning the violence that occurred today.
  I am honored each and every day to represent New York's 21st 
Congressional District, and I believe it is my solemn and sacred duty 
to serve as their voice and their vote in the people's House.
  Tens of millions of Americans are concerned that the 2020 election 
featured unconstitutional overreach by unelected State officials and 
judges ignoring State election laws. We can and we should peacefully 
and respectfully discuss these concerns.
  In Pennsylvania, the State supreme court and secretary of state 
unilaterally and unconstitutionally rewrote election law eliminating 
signature matching requirements.
  In Georgia, there was constitutional overreach when the secretary of 
state unilaterally and unconstitutionally gutted signature matching for 
absentee ballots and, in essence, eliminated voter verification 
required by State election law.
  In Wisconsin, officials issued illegal rules to circumvent a State 
law, passed by the legislature as the Constitution requires, but 
required absentee voters to provide further identification before 
obtaining a ballot.
  In Michigan, signed affidavits document numerous unconstitutional 
irregularities: Officials physically blocking the legal right of poll 
watchers to observe vote counts, the illegal counting of late ballots, 
and hand-stamping ballots with the previous day's date.
  My North Country constituents and the American people cherish the 
Constitution. They know, according to the Constitution, elected 
officials closest to the people in State legislatures have the power of 
the pen to write election law, not unelected bureaucrats, judges, 
Governors, or secretaries of state.
  To the tens of thousands of constituents who have reached out to me, 
thank you. Please know that I am listening and I hear you, both those 
who agree and those who disagree. Our Constitutional Republic will 
endure this tragic day because the Founding Fathers understood Congress 
and the American people would face unprecedented and historic 
challenges by debating them on this very floor.
  I believe that the most precious foundation and the covenant of our 
Republic is the right to vote, and the faith in the sanctity of our 
Nation's free and fair elections. We must work together in this House 
to rebuild that faith so that all our elections are free, fair, secure, 
safe and, most importantly, that they are according to the United 
States Constitution.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, today, the people's House was attacked, which 
is an attack on the Republic itself. There is no excuse for it. A women 
died. And people need to go to jail. And the President should never 
have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot 
be.
  I applaud House leadership of both parties for bringing us back to do 
our job, which is to count the electors and no more.
  The problem we face, though, is even bigger. We are deeply divided. 
We are divided about even life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
The words which used to bind us together now, at times, tear us apart 
because we disagree about what they even mean.
  My constituents at home in Texas are genuinely upset. I say to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have a constant barrage 
of those who wish to remake America into a socialist welfare State, 
efforts to attack our institutions, tear down statues, erase our 
history, defund our police. We have seen the debasing of our language. 
We teach our children that America is evil. We destroy our sovereignty, 
empower cartels. We attack our Second Amendment. We destroy small 
businesses through lockdowns. We divide ourselves by race. We can't 
even agree that there is man and woman. We extinguish the unborn before 
they even have a chance to see daylight.

  But at the heart of our path forward lies the essence of our 
Republic, its cornerstone. That we are a union of States bound together 
for common defense and economic strength, and more

[[Page H89]]

so bound together through federalism in which we may live together 
peacefully as citizens in this vast land agreeing to disagree, free to 
live according to our own beliefs and according to the dictates of our 
conscience.
  Now, many of my colleagues were poised this afternoon to vote to 
insert Congress into the constitutionally prescribed decisionmaking of 
the States by rejecting the sole official electors sent to us by each 
of the States of the Union. I hope they will reconsider.
  I can tell you that I was not going to, and I will not be voting to 
reject the electors. And that vote may well sign my political death 
warrant, but so be it. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of 
the United States, and I will not bend its words into contortions for 
personal political expediency.
  Number one, rejecting the electors certified to Congress by sovereign 
States violates the 12th Amendment and the entirety of the Constitution 
it amends, notwithstanding claims that you must read certain sections 
first. It is clear, it is black and white, we count. It is ministerial. 
And our only job is to count the electors before us. We have only one 
slate of electors per State sent to us under color of law, and no more.
  Number two, to the extent you believe we do have constitutional 
authority to reject, we are arguing using incomplete and often 
misleading data points to prove it. I am not afforded time to go point 
by point, but there are more misleading claims than legitimate ones.

                              {time}  2145

  Three, rejecting the electors ignores the Founder's specific 
admonition that Congress not choose the President, as articulated in 
Federalist No. 68.
  Four, indeed, the Founders drafted the inclusion of a phrase 
specifically putting Congress into the manner of the election process 
then specifically rejected it.
  Five, if more than a trivial bloc of this body votes to reject a 
sovereign State's electors, it will irrevocably empower Congress to 
take over the selection of Presidential electors, and doing so will 
almost certainly guarantee future Houses will vote to reject the 
electors of Texas or any of our States for whatever reason.
  Six, voting to reject the electors is not remotely consistent with 
our vote on Sunday, a vote I forced to highlight the very hypocrisy: to 
accept the outcome of the election of ourselves through elections 
conducted under the same rules, by procedures put in place by the same 
executive branch officials, impacted by rulings from the same judges, 
State and Federal. To do so is entirely inexplicable on its face.
  Seven, the argument for rejection most given by my colleagues is 
based on the allegations of systemic election abuse by executive or 
judicial branch officials interfering with the ``legislatures thereof'' 
in Article II.
  Many States made poor policy decisions. Whether these poor policy 
decisions violate State laws is a contested matter and a matter for the 
States to resolve for themselves.
  More, five of the six legislatures are controlled by Republicans. Not 
one body has sent separate electors. Not one body has sent us even a 
letter by a majority of its whole body. The only body, the Pennsylvania 
Senate, who managed to come up with a majority of Republicans to 
complain only did so yesterday in an eleventh-hour face-saving 
political statement. Not one GOP statewide official has formally called 
on us to change. Not one law enforcement organization, State or 
Federal, has presented a case of malfeasance.
  History will judge this moment.
  Let us not turn the last firewall for liberty we have remaining on 
its head in a fit of populist rage for political expediency when there 
is plenty of looking into the mirror for Republicans to do for 
destroying our election systems with expansion of mail-in ballots.
  I may well get attacked for this, but I will not abandon my oath to 
the Constitution. And I will make clear that I am standing up in 
defense of that Constitution to protect our federalist order and the 
electoral college, which empowers the very States we represent to stand 
athwart the long arm of this Federal Government by its very design.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, for years, Democrats and their 
media allies deceived America about Trump-Russian collusion and the 
extent of foreign interference in the 2016 elections. Yet, in 2020, 
Democrats promoted massive foreign interference in American elections 
by helping illegal aliens and other noncitizens vote in American 
elections, thereby canceling the votes of and stealing elections from 
American citizens.
  Want evidence? Exhibit A. In 1993, Democrats rammed through Congress 
the National Voter Registration Act, making it illegal--illegal--to 
require proof of citizenship that prevents illegal aliens and 
noncitizens from registering to vote.
  Why did Democrats do that? Simple. To steal elections, of course.
  Exhibit B. How bad is the noncitizen voting problem? In 2005, 
Democrat President Jimmy Carter's Commission on Federal Election Reform 
warned that ``noncitizens have registered to vote in several recent 
elections'' and recommended that ``all States should use their best 
efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters.''
  Exhibit C. A June 2005 General Accountability Office report 
discovered that up to 3 percent of people on voter registration lists 
are not U.S. citizens.
  Exhibit D. In 2008, Electoral Studies surveyed 339 noncitizens. Eight 
percent admitted voting in American elections.
  As an aside, I have seen higher percentages in other studies.
  Exhibit E. The 2010 Census counted 11 million illegal aliens in 
America.
  Exhibit F. A 2018 Yale study estimated as many as 22 million illegal 
aliens in America.
  Exhibit G. The math means between 880,000 and 1.72 million illegal 
aliens illegally voted in the 2020 elections.
  Exhibit H. In 2014, Old Dominion University and George Mason 
University professors surveyed noncitizens and illegal aliens and found 
they vote Democrat roughly 80 percent of the time.
  Exhibit I. The math is again straightforward. The 60 percent Biden 
advantage times the illegal alien voting number means Joe Biden gained 
roughly 1,032,000 votes from illegal alien voting. That is the high 
number.
  Exhibit J. While no one knows for sure how massive the illegal alien 
voting bloc is, we do know Joe Biden and his campaign believed it large 
enough and critical enough to winning the Presidential race that, at 
the October 22 Presidential debate, Joe Biden publicly solicited the 
illegal alien bloc vote by promising: ``Within 100 days, I am going to 
send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 
million undocumented people.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, Madam Speaker, that is the pot of gold at the 
end of the rainbow for illegal aliens. Joe Biden knew exactly what he 
was doing by seeking the illegal alien bloc vote. After all, on May 11, 
1993, then-Senator Joe Biden voted for the National Voter Registration 
Act, which makes it illegal to require proof of citizenship from 
illegal aliens and other noncitizens when they seek to register to 
vote.

  Madam Speaker, the evidence is compelling and irrefutable. 
Noncitizens overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden in exchange for the 
promised amnesty and citizenship and in so doing helped steal the 
election from Donald Trump, Republican candidates, and American 
citizens across America.
  Madam Speaker, in my judgment, if only lawful votes cast by eligible 
American citizens are counted, Joe Biden lost and President Trump won 
the electoral college.
  As such, it is my constitutional duty to promote honest and accurate 
elections by rejecting electoral college vote submissions from States 
whose electoral systems are so badly flawed as to render their vote 
submissions unreliable, untrustworthy, and unworthy of acceptance.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, as a proud Republican, I rise in opposition 
to the objection to the electorate.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I come to this side of the aisle as a proud 
Republican but, most importantly, as a proud American.
  Today, we saw an assault on our democracy. I love this institution. I 
love the United States Congress, and I love

[[Page H90]]

the United States of America. And what I saw today was mob rule that 
spat upon the blood of my father that is in the soil of Europe and in 
the soil of Korea, and who gave us through that blood this sacred 
Constitution and the sacred ability to lead this world as a power that 
says we settle our differences not with mob rule; we settle our 
difference through elections. And when those elections are over, we 
have a peaceful transition of power.
  Now, make no mistake to my colleagues on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, I will be passionate in my disagreement with you. I will be 
passionate in my ideas for the future of this country, and I will fight 
for my Republican ideas that I hold near and dear. But I will stand 
with you tonight and send a message to the Nation and all Americans 
that what we saw today was not American, and what we see tonight in 
this body shall be what we do in America, and that is to transfer power 
in a peaceful way.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for 
standing with me and with all of us.
    Tom Reed is my co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus. He is a 
Republican, and I am a Democrat. When it comes to policy views, we 
often disagree. But at the end of the day, we are united as Americans. 
My good friend, like me, always puts country first.
  Today, a group of lawless thugs sought to upend the Constitution and 
the peaceful transition of power because they didn't like the outcome 
of the Presidential election. So, they tried to nullify it using 
improvised explosives, shattering windows, breaking down doors, 
injuring law enforcement, and even tearing down the American flag that 
rises above this beacon of democracy.
  But their attempt to obstruct democracy failed. Their insurrection 
was foiled. The American people and the greatest democracy the world 
has ever known won.
  Abraham Lincoln, who served in this very body, famously said: ``A 
house divided against itself cannot stand.'' That is why, for the sake 
of this country, we must stand together, united, and celebrate a 
peaceful transition of power.
  In 14 days, President-elect Biden will be sworn in. And despite all 
of our differences, I have faith that, for the American people, we will 
come together, Democrats and Republicans, committed to unity, civility, 
and truth. We will recognize our higher purpose to help America through 
these dark days.
  That is the only way we will beat COVID, rebuild our economy, and 
stand up to threats at home and abroad.
  Working together as Democrats and Republicans, I know our best days 
will always be ahead of us.
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to always search 
their conscience and their souls. I respect my Republican colleagues 
and my Democratic colleagues, but today, let us pause and remember what 
happened here today. Let us pause that our tenure in this Congress will 
far surpass the time that we stay here. And let us pause and cast our 
votes today recognizing that what we do here today will set the course 
of this institution for years to come.
  This institution, Madam Speaker, shall not fail because the United 
States of America shall forever be the beacon of hope, the inspiration 
to all.
  May God bless our great country.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, my constitutional oath is sacred, and I 
have a duty to speak out about confirmed evidence-filled issues with 
the administration of the 2020 Presidential election in certain 
battleground States.
  Signature verification, ballot observation, voter roll integrity, 
voter ID requirements, and ballot collection protections were weakened 
on top of the millions of mailboxes that were flooded with unrequested 
mail-in ballots.
  Many of my constituents have been outraged and demanding that I voice 
their objections here today.
  This debate is necessary because rogue election officials, 
secretaries of state, and courts circumvented State election laws. They 
made massive changes to how their State's election would be run. These 
acts, among other issues, were unlawful and unconstitutional.
  Congress has the duty to defend the Constitution and any powers of 
State legislatures that were usurped.
  Some claim today's objections set new precedent by challenging State 
electors. That claim, of course, ignores that Democrats have objected 
every time a Republican Presidential candidate has won an election over 
the past generation. If you don't have any observations today, that is 
your call, but don't lecture about precedent.
  Over the past 4 years, Democrats boycotted President Trump's 
inauguration and State of the Union Addresses, pushed the Trump-Russia 
collusion conspiracies and investigations and knowingly lied about it, 
voted to impeach the President before even knowing what to impeach him 
for, and then actually passed Articles of Impeachment before Senate 
Democrats voted to remove him from office.
  Today's debate is necessary, especially because of the insistence 
that everything President Trump and his supporters say about the 2020 
election is evidence-free. That is simply not true.
  No one can honestly claim it is evidence-free. When I say that, in 
Arizona, courts unilaterally extended the legislatively set deadline to 
register to vote.

                              {time}  2200

  The Arizona State Senate issued subpoenas post-election to get 
information from the Maricopa County board on various election matters, 
but the board and the courts refused to help at all to let the State 
senate complete its constitutional duties.
  In Pennsylvania, where State legislators wrote us about their powers 
being usurped, the Democrat majority on the State supreme court changed 
signature, signature matching and postal marking requirements. The date 
to submit mail-in ballots was extended contradictory to the date set by 
State law.
  The State legislature expanded no-excuse mail-in balloting without a 
constitutional amendment. Constitutions apply to the acts of all 
branches of government.
  The issue was magnified by the voter rolls being so inaccurate that 
more voters submitted ballots than there were registered voters. 
Signature authentication rules for absentee and mail-in ballots were 
weakened by the Democrat secretary of the Commonwealth without 
authorization. Ballot defects were allowed to be cured in some counties 
but not others. There were poll watchers denied the ability to closely 
observe ballot counting operations.
  In Georgia, the secretary of state unilaterally entered into a 
settlement agreement with the Democratic Party, changing statutory 
requirements for confirming voter identity. Challenging defective 
signatures was made far more difficult, and the settlement even 
required election officials to consider issuing training materials 
drafted by an expert retained by the Democratic Party.
  In Wisconsin, election officials assisted voters on how to circumvent 
the State's voter ID laws and signature verification laws, while also 
placing unmanned drop boxes in locations picked to boost Democrat 
turnout. The Democracy in the Park event in Wisconsin had over 17,000 
ballots transferred that shouldn't have been.
  These are all facts and certainly not ``evidence free.''
  Americans deserve nothing less than full faith and confidence in 
their elections and a guarantee that their vote--their voice--counts 
and that their concerns are being heard. That is why we need to have 
this debate today, whether you like it or not.
  This isn't about us. This is about our Constitution, our elections. 
This is about our people and our Republic.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, I am the proud son of immigrants. Growing 
up, I heard stories about parties,

[[Page H91]]

politicians, and Presidents invalidating elections when the people took 
power for themselves. That is why, when I joined the Marine Corps, the 
most sacred part of my oath was to protect the Constitution of the 
United States.
  I never thought I would have to do that on the floor of Congress, but 
here we are. The people have spoken, and the power of the people, the 
Constitution, will be preserved.
  Madam Speaker, I left my youth, I left my sanity, I left it all in 
Iraq for this country because there is this one precious idea that we 
all had, that we all believed: that this country was going to protect 
everyone's individual rights, that you were going to be able to vote, 
that you were going to be able to preserve democracy and pass it on as 
a legacy, as an inheritance to every American.
  But today--today--there was treason in this House. Today, there were 
traitors in this House.
  So I am not asking my Republican colleagues to help me and stop this 
objection to Arizona; I am asking you to get off all these objections. 
It is time for you to save your soul. It is time for you to save your 
country.
  That man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will forget you. He will use you 
and he will dump you to the side, but what will be left will be the 
stain--the stain--on democracy that you are engaging in right now.
  Listen to yourselves. I consider most of you very smart, believe it 
or not, but the idea that we would rig an election for the President 
but not preserve the congressional seats for all of our friends that we 
just lost in the last election is absurd.
  The idea that we would help Vice President Biden win but wouldn't 
make sure that we got enough Senators in the Senate for us to pass a 
full agenda is absurd.
  The idea that there was somehow nefarious border registration in 
Arizona that tipped the scale when, during that same time of border 
registration, there were more registered voters that were Republicans 
than Democrats is absurd.
  You are better than this. Many of you did serve, many of you have 
never served, but there is an opportunity and a time for courage. I 
hope you never have to face fire or bullets or bombs for your country, 
but right now--right now--this country is asking you to be better. 
Right now, this country is asking you to show courage.
  That man will leave. Your soul will stay with you for the rest of 
your life.
  You owe it to democracy. You owe it to the hundreds and thousands of 
men and women that have sacrificed their life.
  You know better. You are better. Be the good American. Be the 
American you want. Preserve this democracy; reject this movement; and 
stop this terrorism that is happening from the White House.
  The SPEAKER. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favor 
of the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, it has been quite a day. 
And in contrast to the gentleman's comments just now, I couldn't get 
over this text that I received from the mayor of Charlotte, Vi Lyles, 
about 30 minutes ago. She is a progressive Democrat, a political 
opponent for years, a tremendous and graceful person. She said:

       Representative Bishop, I hope you are safe and well. It 
     must have been a day of anguish for the world to see our 
     Capitol buildings under siege. I know you have a long night 
     ahead and want you to know I was thinking about you, your 
     family, and staff.
       God bless.
       Vi.

  Back home, the generosity of spirit still exists.
  And I understand the sharp words and feelings on the other side 
tonight, but there are also good people back home, and I have heard 
from many, many, many of them.
  News would suggest there are millions of Americans--that is a big 
number--millions, tens of millions, who believe something went awry in 
this election. And they aren't dumb. They aren't mindless. They don't 
believe things simply because the President says them. There were 
problems.
  I know that Joe Biden will be President, but I don't know that it 
hurts or would hurt any of us to have the generosity of spirit to 
continue to reflect on what might be better or what might seriously 
have gone wrong here, even if you reject the notion that the result was 
wrong.
  I would like to offer a slightly different perspective, a distinct 
perspective. Perhaps it will be rejected. I think if I were sitting on 
the other side of the aisle, it would be very difficult for me to 
listen to tonight, but you all have heard it said, and it certainly is 
true, that many executive branch officials around the Nation departed 
from State legislatures' enacted laws.
  I know it is less understood how this came to pass.
  It was not a spontaneous, independent decisionmaking, but it 
resulted, I would argue, from a coordinated, nationwide partisan plan. 
And the fact and scope of the plan really isn't disputed.
  If you go to democracydocket.com, it is the website of Marc Elias, 
the national Democratic election lawyer who appeared in hundreds of 
cases across the country in the course of the election year.
  This plan was not a response to COVID, by the way. It preexisted 
that. And his website shows that as well. He explained that in January 
of 2020.
  It was a chaos strategy, a plan to flood State and Federal courts 
with hundreds of simultaneous election year lawsuits aimed at 
displacing State legislative control.
  Now, as I have seen it, only the most experienced and independent 
judges appear to have recognized what was afoot. In the fourth circuit, 
dissenting judges Wilkinson and Agee said this: ``Let's understand the 
strategy that is being deployed here . . . Our country is now plagued 
with a proliferation of preelection litigation.'' And as they put it, 
385 election year cases to that point on October 20, and they referred 
to the website healthyelections.org to verify that.
  ``Around the country,'' they wrote, ``courts are changing the rules 
of the upcoming elections at the last minute. It makes the promise of 
the Constitution's Elections and Electors Clauses into a farce.''
  This was a political operation masquerading as a judicial one. And in 
keeping with that, it featured gross breaches of litigation ethics: 
forum shopping, repetitive suits after losses, and collusive 
settlements with cooperating Democratic officials of State and local 
governments.
  That is what led to officials changing the rules in State after 
State, mainly through consent orders, or the preliminary, unreviewed 
decisions of State and Federal trial judges inclined by partisanship or 
having limited experience with the Electoral Clause.
  In turn, the displacement of rules set by State legislatures led to 
chaotic conditions on the ground, about which so many Americans are 
angry and disheartened.
  I think we can do better. I think that strategy was unwise, and I 
think, particularly in light of what has happened here today, we 
should.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to the 
objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Madam Speaker, as a nation, we have endured trying 
times and overcome many challenges, and now we face an unprecedented 
effort to ignore the will of the American people and the people of 
Arizona. Given the facts and the unprecedented events of tonight, this 
effort must be finished, and America can be united again. That is going 
to take leadership.
  We are all leaders.
  We are elected to be leaders. And if we are going to do that, we have 
to do it from respect to others, the idea that truth is important, that 
factual content is important, that we are going to tell the American 
people what is going on in this country and not what we hope they hear 
from a 30-second sound bite.
  I used to be a homicide investigator. My job was to follow the facts, 
develop a case, make decisions and recommendations based on where those 
facts led me. Following the process means that decisions cannot be made 
on rumors and innuendos alone.
  I am proud to say that Arizona has used mail-in voting for over two 
decades. Both Republicans and Democrats

[[Page H92]]

have long been proud of how our State has administered elections.
  In 2020, over 65 percent of eligible Arizonans voted, a record 
number. Our Republican Governor, Republican attorney general, 
Democratic secretary of state, and our State's election administrators 
and volunteers worked with integrity to administer a fair election.
  We saw turnout increases in both Republican and Democratic areas, 
and, in fact, more Republicans registered in this election than any 
other party. I am proud that many of our Tribal, rural, and underserved 
communities voted in record numbers, all during a pandemic. In 2020, 
Arizonans made their voices heard.
  The fact is, multiple Federal and State judges, agencies, and State 
elected officials concluded the winner was Joe Biden.
  In Arizona, this process was administered and overseen by officials 
from both parties. Election officials conducted random, hand-counted 
audits of many precincts that confirmed there were no errors that would 
change the result of the election.
  The fact is that the Republican chairman of Maricopa County, the 
largest Republican county in the State, the biggest population county, 
stated: ``More than 2 million ballots were cast in Maricopa County, and 
there is no evidence of fraud or misconduct or malfunction.''
  He concluded: ``No matter how you voted, this election was 
administered with integrity, transparency, and in accordance with State 
laws.''
  The fact is, the President, his campaign, and several Republican-led 
groups filed eight election lawsuits, all of which were dismissed. The 
Arizona Supreme Court, a body where all justices have been appointed by 
Republican Governors, unanimously dismissed the case.

                              {time}  2215

  The justices found that the party had ``failed to present any 
evidence of `misconduct,' or `illegal votes' . . . let alone establish 
any degree of fraud or a significant error rate that would undermine 
the certainty of the election results.''
  After these judicial rulings, the Governor said: ``I trust our 
election system. There's integrity in our election system.''
  The fact is, Joe Biden is the certified winner of Arizona's 11 
electoral votes. Arizona's elected and appointed officials from both 
parties followed the facts and came to this conclusion. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  To my colleagues across the aisle, I know we may disagree on who we 
want as President, but what we personally want is not what matters 
here. Rather, the people's influence, as reflected in the certified 
electoral college results, is what matters. Facts matter.
  Undermining faith in our election process by attempting to mislead 
the American public only serves to weaken us and make us vulnerable to 
foreign actors who do us harm. For the good of our country, this must 
stop. Now is the time to come together to preserve our democracy and to 
protect our national security.
  I know my constituents are looking to Congress to move past its 
divisions, find common ground, and pass legislation to improve the 
lives of struggling families. We must stay focused on fighting the 
pandemic. We must work to ensure all Americans can be vaccinated as 
soon as possible so we can save American lives, safely reopen schools, 
get people back to work, and visit loved ones again. I urge my 
colleagues to follow this.
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, one of the first things we did when the 
House convened today was to join together to extend our grace and our 
kindness and our concern for a colleague who has experienced just an 
insurmountable amount of grief with his family. And I want all of our 
fellow Americans watching to know that we did that because we care 
about each other and we don't want bad things to happen to each other, 
and our heart hurts when they do.
  Now, I am sure there are plenty of folks over there who don't like me 
too much and there are few of them that I don't care for too much. But 
if anybody had been hurt today, it would have been even more of a 
catastrophe than we already saw, and I think that is an important point 
for the country.
  Another important point for the country is that this morning, 
President Trump explicitly called for demonstrations and protests to be 
peaceful. He was far more--you can moan and groan, but he was far more 
explicit about his calls for peace than some of the BLM and leftwing 
rioters were this summer when we saw violence sweep across this Nation.
  Now, we came here today to debate, to follow regular order, to offer 
an objection, to follow a process that is expressly contemplated in our 
Constitution; and for doing that, we got called a bunch of seditious 
traitors.
  Now, not since 1985 has a Republican President been sworn in absent 
some Democrat effort to object to the electors; but when we do it, it 
is the new violation of all norms. And when those things are said, 
people get angry.
  Now, I know there are many countries where political violence may be 
necessary, but America is not one such country.
  Madam Speaker, it was wrong when people vandalized and defaced your 
home. It was wrong when thugs went to Senator Hawley's home. And I 
don't know if the reports are true, but The Washington Times has just 
reported some pretty compelling evidence from a facial recognition 
company showing that some of the people who breached the Capitol today 
were not Trump supporters. They were masquerading as Trump supporters, 
and, in fact, were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.
  Now, we should seek to build America up, not tear her down and 
destroy her. And I am sure glad that, at least for one day, I didn't 
hear my Democrat colleagues calling to defund the police.
  Now, I appreciate all the talk of coming together, but let us not 
pretend that our colleagues on the left have been free of some 
antidemocratic impulses. Just because we signed on to legal briefs and 
asked courts to resolve disputes, there were some on the left who said 
that we should not even be seated in the body, that we ought to be 
prosecuted, maybe even jailed. Those arguments anger people.
  But people do understand the concepts of basic fairness, and no 
competition, contest, or election can be deemed fair if the 
participants are subject to different rules.
  Baseball teams that cheat and steal signs should be stripped of their 
championships. Russian Olympians who cheat and use steroids should be 
stripped of their medals. And States that do not run clean elections 
should be stripped of their electors.
  This fraud was systemic; it was repeated; it was the same system; 
and, I dare say, it was effective. We saw circumstances where, when 
Democrat operatives couldn't get the outcomes they wanted in State 
legislatures, when they couldn't get the job done there, they went and 
pressured and litigated and usurped the Constitution with extra-
constitutional action of some officials in some States. They 
fraudulently laundered ballots, votes, voter registration forms, and 
then they limited review.
  In 2016, Democrats found out that they couldn't beat Donald Trump at 
the ballot box with voters who actually show up, so they turned to 
impeachment and the witness box. And when that failed, they ran to the 
mailbox, where this election saw an unprecedented amount of votes that 
could not be authenticated with true ID, with true signature match, and 
with true confidence for the American people.
  Our Article III courts have failed by not holding evidentiary 
hearings to weigh the evidence. We should not join in that failure. We 
should vindicate the rights of States. We should vindicate the 
subpoenas in Arizona that have been issued to get a hold of these 
voting machines, and we should reject these electors.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the dean of the Arizona 
delegation.

[[Page H93]]

  

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado 
for yielding time.
  I will be very brief, Madam Speaker. There is really nothing left to 
say. This challenge brought by Members of this House, Republican 
Members from this House from Arizona and a Senator from Texas, the 
whole discussion today, this challenge to the 11 electoral votes that 
are designated for President Biden and Vice President Harris, the 
discussion today proves there is no merit to denying those electoral 
votes. There is no legal standing. The courts have proven that in 
Arizona time and time again. There is no precedent. There was no 
constitutional violation.
  But we are here today, Madam Speaker, because of one man and those 
who are desperate to please him.
  So what do we have to show for this process today? Fear, a lockdown, 
violence, and, regrettably and sadly, death, arrests, present and real 
danger, threats, an assault on our institution, this House, this 
Congress, and the very democracy that we practice here.
  And to what end? What did we accomplish?
  The reality is that the challenges will be defeated. Come January 20, 
President Biden and Vice President Harris will be the President and 
Vice President of the United States.
  So what have we accomplished? To further divide this Nation? To 
continue to fan the same rhetoric of division and us versus them? To 
paralyze and dismantle our democracy? Is that what we attempted to 
accomplish today?
  The mob that attacked this institution, I hold no Member specifically 
responsible for that madness that was around us, but we do share a 
responsibility, my friends, to end it. It is past time to accept 
reality, to reaffirm our democracy and move on.
  I would urge my colleagues from Arizona who filed this challenge to 
withdraw their challenge to this, to Arizona and to the electors that 
have been chosen to give their 11 votes to the winners in that 
election.
  But if that doesn't happen, then I would urge my colleagues to reject 
this challenge and defend all voters, defend the voters of Arizona and 
that democracy that we practice daily in the representation of our 
constituents. That is what is at stake today.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, every Member in this Chamber 
took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and there is only one vote 
tonight for those who took that oath, and that vote is to reject this 
challenge
  The SPEAKER. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Shall the objection to the Arizona electoral college 
vote count submitted by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) be agreed to.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 121, 
nays 303, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               YEAS--121

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Banks
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brooks
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Crawford
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Estes
     Fallon
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     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)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClain
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Moore (AL)
     Mullin
     Nehls
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Steube
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Drew
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wright
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--303

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bentz
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     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
     Foxx
     Frankel, Lois
     Fudge
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Graves (LA)
     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
     Joyce (OH)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Keller
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Kustoff
     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
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Owens
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     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
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spartz
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Duyne
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bilirakis
     Brady
     Granger
     Hastings
     Kim (CA)
     Steel
     Tlaib

                              {time}  2308

  Messrs. MOONEY, WITTMAN, VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas, YOUNG, and 
GROTHMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. JOHNSON of Ohio, RESCHENTHALER, and Mrs. WALORSKI changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. KIM of California. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 10.
  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 the Vice President.

[[Page H94]]

  



                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER. To remind both sides of the aisle, during in the joint 
session, there are 11 House Republicans, 11 House Democrats, 11 House 
Senate Democrats, 11 Senate Republicans. 44 Members on the floor. 
Please view the proceedings from your offices. Thank you.
  This is not a suggestion. That is a direction, in the interest of 
good example to the public of how serious we take the coronavirus 
threat and the need for social distancing.
  Please, my colleagues, if you are not participating in the next part 
of this, please return to your offices.
  I wish to remind Members that we have to reduce the number of Members 
on the floor to the gallery to witness the proceedings from there, in a 
relative number. So first come, first serve.


                        MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H94, the following appeared: I wish to 
remind Members that we have to reduce the number of Members on the 
floor to the gallery to witness the proceedings from there, in a 
relative number. So first come, first serve.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 
                        FMESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
  
  The online version has been corrected to delete the Bodoni dash 
and reset the header following the Bodoni dash as a small cap 
title.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H94, second column and second 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: This certificate 
from Arkansas, the Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H94, second column and fifth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from California, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H94, second column and eighth 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Colorado, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H94, third column and first paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Connecticut, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H94, third column and fourth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Delaware, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H94, third column and seventh 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from the District of 
Columbia, the Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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

[[Page H95]]

Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, first column and first paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Florida, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, first column and fourth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Georgia, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, first column and 10th paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. In that case, the objection cannot be entertained. This 
certificate from Hawaii, the Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, second column and fourth 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Idaho, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, second column and seventh 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Illinois, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, second column and 10th paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Indiana, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, third column and third paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Iowa, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, third column and sixth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Kansas, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H95, the third column and ninth 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky, the Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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.

[[Page H96]]

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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, first column and third paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Louisiana, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, first column and sixth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Maine, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, first column and ninth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Maryland, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, second column and third paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Massachusetts, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, second column and sixth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Michigan, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, third column and second paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing no further objections, this certificate from 
Minnesota, the Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, third column and fifth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Mississippi, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H96, third column and eighth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Missouri, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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.

[[Page H97]]

  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, first column and second paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Montana, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, first column and fifth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Nebraska, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, first column and eighth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Nevada, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, second column and sixth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. This certificate from New Hampshire, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, second column and ninth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. This certificate from New Jersey, the Parliamentarians 
have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, third column and first paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. This certificate from New Mexico, the Parliamentarians 
have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, third column and fourth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from New York, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H97, third column and seventh 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from North Carolina, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              {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?

[[Page H98]]

  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from North Dakota, 
the Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H98, first column and first paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from North Dakota, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H98, first column and fourth paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, the certificate from Ohio, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H98, first column and seventh 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Oklahoma, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H98, first column and 10th paragraph, 
the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Oregon, the 
Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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 Parliamentarians have 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H98, second column and fourth 
paragraph, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, the Parliamentarians have 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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

[[Page H99]]

     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

[[Page H100]]

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.

[[Page H101]]

  


                              {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

[[Page H102]]

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

[[Page H103]]

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.

[[Page H104]]

  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

[[Page H105]]

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.

[[Page H106]]

  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 

[[Page H107]]

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

[[Page H108]]

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

[[Page H109]]

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. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this objection.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. 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.



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H109, the following appeared: 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. DAVIDSON. 
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this objection. The SPEAKER. 
The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. DAVIDSON. 
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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


 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

[[Page H110]]

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. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H110, the following appeared: Mr. 
DAVIDSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. DAVIDSON. I 
yield to the gentleman from Ohio.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  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

[[Page H111]]

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

[[Page H112]]

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:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                               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.


                    FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H112, the following appeared: 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 
                    FFURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
  
  The online version has been corrected to delete the Bodoni dash 
and reset the header following the Bodoni dash as a small cap 
title.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  A further 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.

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


                         Honoring Shuwanza Goff

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this would not be the time I would have 
chosen, but it may be the last time that we are in session before the 
new administration comes in.
  We are losing an extraordinary young woman who has been with me for 
over a decade and who is our floor leader, our floor director. All of 
you know her. Her name is Shuwanza Goff, and she has been with me for a 
significant period of time.
  Shuwanza is a wonderful person. And the problem with having 
wonderful, talented, good staff is that at an administration change, 
they steal your people. It is just a terrible thing that happens. Two 
of my staff, Shuwanza Goff and Mariel Saez, will be going to the 
administration as well, and I have asked the administration to please 
do not take any more of my people.
  But Shuwanza Goff has just been extraordinary. Those of you who have 
dealt with her understand how bright she is.

[[Page H113]]

  That is the bad news, Madam Speaker, that they have taken her. But 
the good news is, she is going to be the administration's 
representative to the House of Representatives, so we are going to see 
a lot of Shuwanza. I am sure she will be talking to both of us on both 
sides of the aisle and urging us to vote one way or the other or 
getting us information or doing all sorts of things that we might ask 
her to do and that she would want to do for us.
  I want to say, Madam Speaker, and I know you share my view, those of 
us who have had an opportunity to work closely with Shuwanza, I love 
Shuwanza Goff. She is just a wonderful spirit. She is smart. She knows 
the rules. She knows the floor. I think Mr. McCarthy's and Mr. 
Scalise's staffs would say the same thing if I had given them any 
notice that we were going to do this, but I thought we had some time.
  Shuwanza, I really do want to thank you, and we wish you the best of 
luck. We know you are not going far. I know we are going to see a lot 
of you, but we wish you great success in everything you do.
  I tell my staff, Madam Speaker, that they can go off the payroll, but 
they cannot go off the staff.
  God bless, Shuwanza, and good luck.

                              {time}  0322

  At 3:22 a.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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 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 7 ayes to 92 nays 
     rejects the objection to the electoral votes cast in the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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 Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania.

  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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
will be counted as provided therein.
  The tellers will now record and announce the vote of the State of 
Rhode Island for President and Vice President in accordance with the 
action of the two Houses.
  This certificate from Rhode Island, the Parliamentarians have 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 that State purporting to appoint and ascertain 
electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H113, second column and third 
paragraph, the following appeared: This certificate from Rhode 
Island, 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 that State purporting to appoint and ascertain 
electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: This certificate 
from Rhode Island, the Parliamentarians have 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 that State purporting to appoint and 
ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral 
vote of the State of Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island 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 South 
Carolina, the Parliamentarians have 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 that State 
purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H113, second column and sixth 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing 
none, this certificate from South 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 an authority of that State purporting to 
appoint and ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from South Carolina, the 
Parliamentarians have 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 that 
State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. President, the certificate of the 
electoral vote of the State of South Carolina seems to be regular in 
form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of 
the State of Florida received 9 votes for President and Michael R. 
Pence of the State of Indiana received 9 votes for Vice President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the 
certificate of vote of the State of South 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 South Dakota, 
the Parliamentarians have 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 that State 
purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H113, second column and ninth 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing 
none, this certificate from South Dakota, 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 that State purporting to 
appoint and ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from South Dakota, the 
Parliamentarians have 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 that 
State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote 
of the State of South 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 South Dakota that the teller has 
verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  0330

  The VICE PRESIDENT. This certificate from Tennessee, the 
Parliamentarians have advised me, is the only certificate of electoral 
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 that State 
purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H113, third column and second 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. This 
certificate from Tennessee, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is 
the only certificate of electoral 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 that State purporting to appoint 
or ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. This certificate from Tennessee, the Parliamentarians 
have advised me, is the only certificate of electoral 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 that State 
purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of 
the State of Tennessee 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 the vote of the State of Tennessee that the teller has 
verified as regular in form and authentic?
  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Texas, the 
Parliamentarians have advised me, 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 that State that purports 
to appoint or ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H113, third column and fifth paragraph, 
the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this 
certificate from Texas, the Parliamentarian has advised me, 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 that State that purports to appoint or ascertain 
electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Texas, the 
Parliamentarians have advised me, 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 that State 
that purports to appoint or ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral 
vote of the State of Texas seems to be regular in form and authentic, 
and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida 
received 38 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of 
Indiana received 38 votes for Vice President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the 
certificate of the vote of the State of Texas 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 Utah, the 
Parliamentarians have 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 from the State purporting 
to appoint or ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H113, third column and eighth 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing 
none, this certificate from Utah, 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 from the State purporting to appoint 
or ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Utah, the 
Parliamentarians have 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 from the 
State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of ILLINOIS. Mr. President, the certificate of the 
electoral vote of the State of Utah 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 of the State of Utah

[[Page H114]]

that the teller has verified to be regular in form and authentic?
  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Vermont, the 
Parliamentarians have advised me, 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 that State purporting 
to appoint or ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H114, first column and first paragraph, 
the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this 
certificate from Vermont, the Parliamentarian has advised me, 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 that State purporting to appoint or ascertain 
electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Vermont, the 
Parliamentarians have advised me, 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 that 
State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote 
of the State of Vermont 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 the vote of the State of Vermont 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 Virginia, the Parliamentarians have 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 
from that same State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H114, first column and fourth 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing 
none, this certificate from the Commonwealth of Virginia, 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 from that same 
State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, the Parliamentarians have 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 from that same State purporting to appoint or ascertain 
electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of 
the Commonwealth of Virginia seems to be in regular in form and 
authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the 
State of Delaware received 13 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris 
of the State of California received 13 votes for Vice President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the 
certificate of the vote of the Commonwealth of Virginia that the teller 
has verified as appearing regular in form and authentic?
  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Washington, 
the Parliamentarians have 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 an authority from the same State purporting to appoint 
or ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H114, first column and seventh 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing 
none, this certificate from Washington, 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 an authority from the same State purporting to appoint or 
ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Washington, the 
Parliamentarians have 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 an authority from the same State 
purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral 
vote of the State of Washington seems to be regular in form and 
authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the 
State of Delaware received 12 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris 
of the State of California received 12 votes for Vice President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the 
certificate of the vote of the State of Washington that the teller has 
verified and appears to be regular in form and authentic?
  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from West 
Virginia, the Parliamentarians have 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 from the State 
purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H114, second column and first 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing 
none, this certificate from West Virginia, 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 from the State purporting to appoint 
or ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from West Virginia, the 
Parliamentarians have 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 from the 
State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of ILLINOIS. Mr. President, the certificate of the 
electoral vote of the State of West Virginia seems to be regular in 
form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of 
the State of Florida received 5 votes for President and Michael R. 
Pence of the State of Indiana received 5 votes for Vice President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any objections to counting the 
certificate of the vote for the State of West Virginia 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 Wisconsin, 
the Parliamentarians have advised, is the only certificate from that 
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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H114, second column and fourth 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing 
none, this certificate from Wisconsin, the Parliamentarian has 
advised, is the only certificate from that 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. Hearing none, this certificate from Wisconsin, the 
Parliamentarians have advised, is the only certificate from that 
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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of 
the State of Wisconsin 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. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
rise?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. President, I object to the electoral votes of the 
State of Wisconsin because 71 House Members, all of who condemn 
violence as we witnessed today, are firmly committed to the resolution 
of disagreements in civil, lawful, peaceful institutions with full and 
fair debate, free of violence. And though not a single court has 
allowed an evidentiary hearing to listen to the significant body of 
evidence of fraud, and though some seize on the court's failure to 
misrepresent that no court would listen to the evidence as saying 
evidence did not exist; while Democrat leaders in Milwaukee illegally 
and unconstitutionally created more than 200 illegal polling places; 
tens of thousands of votes were changed by workers, despite election 
workers' objections, plus so many other illegalities to fraudulently 
create a 20,000-vote lead, we object, along with a Senator who now has 
withdrawn his objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Sections 15 and 17 of title 3 of the United 
States Code require that any objection be presented in writing, 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. GOHMERT. It is in writing. It is signed by a Member, but it is 
not signed and objected to by a Senator, Mr. President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. In that case, the objection cannot be 
entertained.
  This certificate from Wyoming, the Parliamentarians have advised, is 
the only certificate of vote from that State and purports to be a 
return from the State and has annexed to it the certificate of an 
authority from the same State purporting to appoint or ascertain 
electors.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H114, third column and fourth 
paragraph, the following appeared: The VICE PRESIDENT. In that 
case, the objection cannot be entertained. This certificate from 
Wyoming, the Parliamentarian has advised, is the only certificate 
of vote from that State and purports to be a return from the State 
and has annexed to it the certificate of an authority from the 
same State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. In that case, the objection cannot be entertained. This 
certificate from Wyoming, the Parliamentarians have advised, is 
the only certificate of vote from that State and purports to be a 
return from the State and has annexed to it the certificate of an 
authority from the same State purporting to appoint or ascertain 
electors.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Senator BLUNT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote 
of the State of Wyoming 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 a 
certificate of the vote of the State of Wyoming that the teller has 
verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
  There was no objection.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Hearing none, the Chair advises Members of 
Congress the certificates having been read, the tellers will ascertain 
and deliver the result to the President of the Senate.
  Senator KLOBUCHAR. The undersigned, Roy Blunt and Amy Klobuchar, 
tellers on the part of the Senate; Zoe Lofgren and Rodney Davis, 
tellers on the part of the House of Representatives, report the 
following as the result of the ascertainment and counting of the 
electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States 
for the term beginning on the 20th day of January, 2021. The report we 
make is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be the President and the 
Vice President, according to the ballots that have been given to us.
  The tellers delivered to the President of the Senate the following 
statement of results:


 JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS FOR THE COUNTING OF THE ELECTORAL VOTES FOR 
   PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES--OFFICIAL TALLY

  The undersigned, Roy Blunt and Amy Klobuchar tellers on the part of 
the Senate, Zoe Lofgren and Rodney Davis tellers on the part of the 
House of Representatives, report the following as the result of the 
ascertainment and counting of the electoral vote for President and Vice 
President of the United States for the term beginning on the twentieth 
day of January, two thousand and twenty one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  For President      For Vice President
                             -------------------------------------------
  Electoral votes  of each    Joseph R.
            State               Biden,   Donald J.  Kamala D.   Michael
                                 Jr.       Trump      Harris    R. Pence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama--9..................  .........          9  .........          9
Alaska--3...................  .........          3  .........          3
Arizona--11.................         11  .........         11  .........
Arkansas--6.................  .........          6  .........          6

[[Page H115]]

 
California--55..............         55  .........         55  .........
Colorado--9.................          9  .........          9  .........
Connecticut--7..............          7  .........          7  .........
Delaware--3.................          3  .........          3  .........
District of Columbia--3.....          3  .........          3  .........
Florida--29.................  .........         29  .........         29
Georgia--16.................         16  .........         16  .........
Hawaii--4...................          4  .........          4  .........
Idaho--4....................  .........          4  .........          4
Illinois--20................         20  .........         20  .........
Indiana--11.................  .........         11  .........         11
Iowa--6.....................  .........          6  .........          6
Kansas--6...................  .........          6  .........          6
Kentucky--8.................  .........          8  .........          8
Louisiana--8................  .........          8  .........          8
Maine--4....................          3          1          3          1
Maryland--10................         10  .........         10  .........
Massachusetts--11...........         11  .........         11  .........
Michigan--16................         16  .........         16  .........
Minnesota--10...............         10  .........         10  .........
Mississippi--6..............  .........          6  .........          6
Missouri--10................  .........         10  .........         10
Montana--3..................  .........          3  .........          3
Nebraska--5.................          1          4          1          4
Nevada--6...................          6  .........          6  .........
New Hampshire--4............          4  .........          4  .........
New Jersey--14..............         14  .........         14  .........
New Mexico--5...............          5  .........          5  .........
New York--29................         29  .........         29  .........
North Carolina--15..........  .........         15  .........         15
North Dakota--3.............  .........          3  .........          3
Ohio--18....................  .........         18  .........         18
Oklahoma--7.................  .........          7  .........          7
Oregon--7...................          7  .........          7  .........
Pennsylvania--20............         20  .........         20  .........
Rhode Island--4.............          4  .........          4  .........
South Carolina--9...........  .........          9  .........          9
South Dakota--3.............  .........          3  .........          3
Tennessee--11...............  .........         11  .........         11
Texas--38...................  .........         38  .........         38
Utah--6.....................  .........          6  .........          6
Vermont--3..................          3  .........          3  .........
Virginia--13................         13  .........         13  .........
Washington--12..............         12  .........         12  .........
West Virginia--5............  .........          5  .........          5
Wisconsin--10...............         10  .........         10  .........
Wyoming--3..................  .........          3  .........          3
    Total--538..............        306        232        306        232
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Roy Blunt,
     Amy Klobuchar,
       Tellers on the part of the Senate.
     Zoe Lofgren,
     Rodney Davis,
       Tellers on the part of the House of Representatives.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The state of the vote for President of the United 
States, as delivered to the President of the Senate, is as follows:
  The whole number of electors appointed to vote for President of the 
United States is 538. Within that whole number, a majority is 270.
  The votes for President of the United States are as follows:
  Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware has received 306 
votes.
  Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida has received 232 votes.
  The whole number of electors appointed to vote for Vice President of 
the United States is 538. Within that whole number, a majority is 270.
  The votes for Vice President of the United States are as follows:
  Kamala D. Harris of the State of California has received 306 votes.
  Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana has received 232 votes.
  This announcement of the state of the vote by the President of the 
Senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected 
President and Vice President of the United States, each for the term 
beginning on the 20th day of January, 2021, and shall be entered, 
together with the list of the votes, on the Journals of the Senate and 
House of Representatives.
  The Chair now recognizes for the purpose of a closing prayer the 62nd 
Chaplain of the United States Senate, Chaplain Barry C. Black.

                              {time}  0340



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2021, on page H115, the following appeared: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. The state of the vote for President of the United 
States, as delivered to the President of the Senate, is as 
follows: The whole number of the electors appointed to vote for 
President of the United States is 538, of which a majority is 270. 
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the state of Delaware, has received for 
President of the United States 306 votes; Donald J. Trump, of the 
state of Florida, has received 232 votes; The state of the vote 
for Vice President of the United States, as delivered to the 
President of the Senate, is as follows: The whole number of the 
electors appointed to vote for Vice President of the United States 
is 538, of which a majority is 270. KAMALA D. HARRIS, of the state 
of California, has received for Vice President of the United 
States 306 votes; MICHAEL R. PENCE, of the state of Indiana, has 
received 232 votes. This announcement of the state of the vote by 
the President of the Senate shall be deemed a sufficient 
declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of 
the United States, each for the term beginning on the twentieth 
day of January, two thousand and twenty one, and shall be entered, 
together with the list of the votes, on the Journals of the Senate 
and House of Representatives. 0340 The VICE PRESIDENT. The whole 
number of electors appointed to vote for President of the United 
States is 538. Within that whole number, a majority is 270. The 
votes for President of the United States are as follows: Joseph R. 
Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware has received 306 votes. 
Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida has received 232 votes. 
The whole number of electors appointed to vote for Vice President 
of the United States is 538. Within that whole number, a majority 
is 270. The votes for Vice President of the United States are as 
follows: KAMALA D. HARRIS of the State of California has received 
306 votes. Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana has received 
232 votes. This announcement of the state of the vote by the 
President of the Senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration 
of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United 
States, each for the term beginning on the 20th day of January, 
2021, and shall be entered, together with the list of the votes, 
on the Journals of the Senate and House of Representatives. The 
Chair now recognizes for the purpose of a closing prayer the 62nd 
Chaplain of the United States Senate, Chaplain Barry C. Black.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The VICE 
PRESIDENT. The state of the vote for President of the United 
States, as delivered to the President of the Senate, is as 
follows: The whole number of electors appointed to vote for 
President of the United States is 538. Within that whole number, a 
majority is 270. The votes for President of the United States are 
as follows: Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware has 
received 306 votes. Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida has 
received 232 votes. The whole number of electors appointed to vote 
for Vice President of the United States is 538. Within that whole 
number, a majority is 270. The votes for Vice President of the 
United States are as follows: KAMALA D. HARRIS of the State of 
California has received 306 votes. MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State 
of Indiana has received 232 votes. This announcement of the state 
of the vote by the President of the Senate shall be deemed a 
sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice 
President of the United States, each for the term beginning on the 
20th day of January, 2021, and shall be entered, together with the 
list of the votes, on the Journals of the Senate and House of 
Representatives. The Chair now recognizes for the purpose of a 
closing prayer the 62nd Chaplain of the United States Senate, 
Chaplain Barry C. Black. 0340


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Chaplain BLACK. Lord of our lives and sovereign of our beloved 
Nation, we deplore the desecration of the United States Capitol 
Building, the shedding of innocent blood, the loss of life, and the 
quagmire of dysfunction that threaten our democracy.
  These tragedies have reminded us that words matter and that the power 
of life and death is in the tongue. We have been warned that eternal 
vigilance continues to be freedom's price.
  Lord, You have helped us remember that we need to see in each other a 
common humanity that reflects Your image. You have strengthened our 
resolve to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States 
against all enemies domestic, as well as foreign.
  Use us to bring healing and unity to a hurting and divided Nation and 
world. Thank You for what You have blessed our lawmakers to accomplish 
in spite of threats to liberty.
  Bless and keep us. Drive far from us all wrong desires, incline our 
hearts to do Your will, and guide our feet on the path of peace. And 
God bless America.
  We pray in Your sovereign name.
  Amen.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The purpose of the joint session having 
concluded, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1, 117th Congress, 
the Chair declares the joint session dissolved.
  (Thereupon, at 3 o'clock and 44 minutes a.m., the joint session of 
the two Houses of Congress was dissolved.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). Pursuant to Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 1, the electoral vote will be spread at large 
upon the Journal.

                          ____________________