So to those who say that this is just a formality today—an antique ceremony that we have engaged in for a couple of hundred years—I can’t say that I agree. I can’t say that our precedent suggests that. I actually think it is very vital, what we do. The opportunity to be heard and to register objections is very vital because this is the place where those objections are to be heard and dealt with, debated, and finally resolved—in this lawful means, peacefully, without violence, without attacks, without bullets.
Let me just say now, briefly—in lieu of speaking about it later—a word about Pennsylvania, which is a State that I have been focused on and have objected to, as an example of why people are concerned—why millions of Americans are concerned—about our election integrity.
I say to Pennsylvania, quite apart from allegations of any fraud, you have a State constitution that has been interpreted for over a century to say that there is no mail-in balloting permitted except for in very narrow circumstances, which is also provided for in the law. Yet, last year, Pennsylvania’s elected officials passed a whole new law that allowed for universal mail-in balloting, and they did it, irregardless of what the Pennsylvania Constitution said.
Then, when Pennsylvania’s citizens tried to be heard on this subject before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, they were dismissed on grounds of procedure and timeliness, in violation of that supreme court’s own precedent.
So the merits of the case have never been heard. The constitutionality of the statute, actually, has never been defended. I am not aware of any court that has passed on its constitutionality. I actually am not aware of anybody who has defended the constitutionality, and this was the statute that governed this last election in which there were over 2.5 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.
This is my point, that this is the forum. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hasn’t heard the case, and there is no other court to go to, to hear the case in the State, so this is the appropriate place for these concerns to be raised, which is why I have raised them here today.
I hope that this body will not miss the opportunity to take affirmative action to address the concerns of so many millions of Americans—to say to millions of Americans tonight that violence is never warranted, that violence will not be tolerated, that those who engage in it will be prosecuted, but that this body will act to address the concerns of all Americans across the country.
We do need an investigation into irregularities, fraud. We do need a way forward together. We need election security reforms. I bet my friends on the other side of the aisle don’t disagree with that. We need to find a way to move forward on that together so that the American people from both parties and all walks of life can have confidence in their elections and so that we can arrange ourselves under the rule of law that we share together.
I yield the floor.
The Vice President. The Democratic leader.
Mr. Schumer. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey.
The Vice President. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Casey. Mr. President, I rise tonight to defend the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—to defend the more than 6.9 million voters who voted in this election—and to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this attempt to disenfranchise the voters of Pennsylvania based upon a lie, a falsehood. That same lie sowed the seeds of today’s violence and today’s lawlessness here in the Capitol.
One of my constituents, Susan, from Lehigh Valley—the community of our State where Senator Toomey lives—recently wrote to my office and, perhaps, said it best:
We cannot allow ANYBODY to overturn the legal votes of the citizens of Pennsylvania. This would be the ultimate destruction of our democracy.
Susan had it right. We cannot allow “ANYBODY”—and she put that word in all caps—to overturn the legal votes of the people of our State.
Let me address the allegation regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution and the general assembly and somehow that the general assembly didn’t have the authority to enact “no excuse mail-in voting”—that process—for the people of our State.
First, the law in question, Act 77, was passed in 2019 and was implemented without any serious question as to its constitutionality. The law was passed by a Republican-controlled general assembly, house and senate. It was only after the 2020 election, when it became clear that President-Elect Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by a little more than 80,000 votes, that some Republican politicians in our State decided to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
Second, Act 77 is plainly constitutional. My colleagues allege that the State constitution requires in-person voting except under limited circumstances. This is not true. While Pennsylvania lays out specific situations in which absentee voting is required, there is no in-person requirement in our State constitution. The constitution sets a floor, not a ceiling, for this type of voting.
Third, apart from the argument made by my colleague, there is bipartisan agreement across our State—at the local, State, and Federal levels—that our election was fair, secure, and lawful. On Monday, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, wrote in an op-ed: “The evidence is overwhelming that Joe Biden won this election.”
There is simply no evidence to justify the outrageous claims of widespread voter fraud or election irregularities that have been suggested by those seeking to overturn the election. There have been 60 cases in court after court, all throughout our State and throughout the country, including in the Supreme Court, that have dealt with this bizarre argument that we know is based upon that lie.
In one court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Bibas, appointed by President Trump, wrote:
The campaign’s claims have no merit. The United States has free and fair elections, which are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.
So said Judge Bibas.
Finally, a word about those election officials who did such work. These election officials all across our State—Republicans and Democrats from red counties and blue counties—did their jobs. They are patriots, and these objections are an attack on these Pennsylvania public servants. I will give you one example from Republican Commissioner Al Schmidt, of Philadelphia.
He wrote:
There really should not be a disagreement, regardless of party affiliation, when we’re talking about counting votes … by eligible voters. It is not a very controversial thing or, at least, it shouldn’t be.
After election day, Commissioner Al Schmidt, his family, and his colleagues were subjected to death threats simply because he was trying to do his job with integrity. It calls to mind that great line from “America the Beautiful”: “O beautiful for patriot dream, That sees beyond the years.”
These election officials, like so many of our patriots—and we heard from Senator Duckworth tonight, a real patriot—did their jobs. Let’s support these patriots. Vote against this objection.
I yield the floor.
The Vice President. The majority leader.
Mr. McConnell. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah, Mr. Romney.
The Vice President. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. Romney. Today was heartbreaking, and I was shaken to the core as I thought about the people I have met in China and Russia and Afghanistan and Iraq and other places who yearn for freedom and who look to this building and these shores as a place of hope. I saw the images being broadcasted around the world, and it breaks my heart.
I have 25 grandchildren. Many of them were watching TV, thinking about this building, and whether their grandpa was OK. I knew I was OK. I must tell you, as well, that I am proud to serve with these men and women. This is an extraordinary group of people. I am proud to be a Member of the U.S. Senate and meet with people of integrity as we do here today.
Now, we gather due to a selfish man’s injured pride and the outrage of his
