Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Congress Debates Electoral College Votes and Objections. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 06, 2021 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:30:00]

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): The 12th Amendment directs the president as the vice president as the president of the Senate to do only this. Open the sealed envelopes and then the vote should be counted. Simple.

It doesn't say count it in a manner that some members of the Congress or the vice president might prefer, no. The votes are simply to be counted as transmitted by the states.

During Reconstruction after the Civil War, more than one slate of electors was appointed by states. Dualling lists were sent and protected processes were undertaken in presidential elections.

As a result, to make an orderly process, Congress enacted the Electoral Count Act of 1887 governing 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 from that state, the governor's slate is counted.

Today, every single slate --

(CROSSTALK)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): If I can be allowed to speak.

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- the majority leader is speaking.

MCCONNELL: The majority leader and the Democratic leader each control up to one hour of debate -- debate time and be authorized to yield up to five minutes of that time to any Senator seeking recognition.

Further, I ask unanimous consent to insert statements into the record.

PENCE: Is there objection?

Without objection so ordered.

MCCONNELL: Mr. President? PENCE: Majority Leader?

MCCONNELL: We're debating a step that's never been taken in American history. Whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a presidential election.

I've served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I've ever cast.

President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories.

I supported the president's right to use the legal system. Dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms all across our country. But over and over, the courts rejected these claims, including all-star judges whom the president himself has nominated.

Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity and, of course, that's unacceptable. I support strong state-led voting reforms.

Last year's bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm.

But, my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election.

Nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence.

The Constitution 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. They've all spoken. If we overrule them it would damage our republic forever.

This election actually was not unusually close. Just in recent history, 1976, 2000 and 2004 were all closer than this one. The Electoral College margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016.

If this election was overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We'd never see the whole nation accept an election again.

[13:35:16]

Every four years would be a scramble for power. At any cost.

The Electoral College, which most of us on this side have been defending for years, would cease to exist. Leaving many of our states with no real say at all in choosing a president.

The effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. Self government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground rules of our system. We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes with a separate

set of facts and separate realities with nothing in common except our hostility toward each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share.

Every time, every time in the last 30 years that Democrats have lost a presidential race, they have tried to challenge just like this. After 2000, after 2004, after 2016.

After 2004, a Senator joined and forced the same debate and, believe it or not, Democrats, like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, praised them and applauded the stunt.

Republicans condemned those baseless efforts back then that we just spent fours condemning Democrats' shameful attacking on President Trump's own election.

So, look, there can be no double standard. If the media, that is outraged today, spent four years aiding and abetting Democrats' attacks on our institutions after they lost.

But we must not imitate and escalate what we repudiate. Our duty is to govern for the public good.

The United States Senate has a higher calling than an endless spiral of partisan vengeance.

The Congress will either override the voters, overrule them, the voters, the states and the courts, for the first time ever or honor the peoples' decision.

We'll either guarantee the Democrats' delegitimatizing efforts after 2016 to become a permanent, new routine for both sides or declare that our nation deserves a lot better than this.

We'll either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of the election accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic coverage our forebearers showed not only in victory but in defeat.

The framers built the Senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our republic.

So I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power.

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 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.

[13:40:01] PENCE: Minority Leader?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Mr. President, vice president, as prescribed by the Constitution and the laws of the nation, the purpose of this joint session is for tellers, appointed on a bipartisan basis by the two Houses, to read to the Congress the results of an election that has already happened.

We are here to receive an announcement of a vote that's already been certified by every state in the union and confirmed by the courts. Many times, many times over.

We are here to watch the current vice president open envelopes and receive the news of a verdict that's already been rendered. It is a solemn and august occasion, no doubt. But it is a formality.

The Congress does not determine the outcome of elections. The people do. The Congress is not endowed with the power to administer elections. Our states are given that power.

By the end of the proceedings today, it will be confirmed, once again, something that is well-known and well settled. The American people elected Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to be the next president and vice president of the United States.

And yet, a number of our colleagues have organized an effort to undermine and object to that free and fair election. They are in the minority. They will lose. They know that.

They have no evidence of widespread voter fraud upon which to base their objections. That's because there's none. There's none. Not brought before any of the courts successfully.

They know that President Trump and his allies have suffered the defeat in court after court across the country. Losing no fewer than 62 legal challenges.

And I might add many Republican-appointed judges, some appointed by President Trump, rendered those decisions.

They know, you all know, that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are going to be sworn in as president and vice president of the United States on January 20th.

But they are going to object to the counting of the vote any way. And in the process, they will embarrass themselves. They will embarrass their party. And worst of all, they will embarrass their country.

This insurrection was fortunately discouraged by the leadership of the majority party but it was not quelled.

It is a very sad comment on our times that merely the accepting of the results of an election is considered an act of political courage.

Sadder and more dangerous still is the fact that an element of the Republican Party believes their political viability hinges on the endorsement of an attempted coup.

That anyone, much less an elected official, would be willing to tarnish our democracy in order to burnish their personal political fortunes.

Over the course of the afternoon, and however far into the evening this band of Republican objectors wants to take us, Senators of goodwill from both sides of the aisle will explain why these challenges must be dismissed.

The Senators from states whose electoral votes are being challenged will explain how the explanations of fraud are baseless and a substantial bipartisan majority must vote to put down the objections and defend the sanctity of our sections and, indeed, our great and grand democracy.

Because that's what we're talking about today. The health of our democracy. This wonderful, beautiful, grand democracy where the peaceful passing of the torch is extolled by school children in the second grade, but not by some here.

[13:45:12]

As we speak, half of our voters are being conditioned by the outgoing president to believe that when his party loses an election the results must not be legitimate.

As we speak the eyes of the world are on this chamber questioning whether America is still the shining example of democracy, the shining city on the Hill.

What message we send today, what message will we send today to our people, to the world that has so looked up to us for centuries?

What message will we send to fledgling democracies who study our Constitution, mirror our laws and traditions in the hopes that they, too, can build a country ruled by the consent of the governed.

What message will we send where democratic values are under assault and look to us to see if those values are still worth fighting for?

What message will we send to every dark corner of the world where human rights are betrayed, elections are stolen, human dignity denied?

What will we show those people? Will we show those people that there's a better way to ensure liberty and opportunity of humankind?

Sadly, a small band of Republican objectors may darken the view of our democracy today.

But a larger group of Senators and House members from both sides of the aisle can send a message, too.

That democracy beats deep in the hearts of our citizens and elected representatives that we are a country of laws and not men.

That traditions are not so easily dis easily discarded even by our president.

That facts matter, that truth matters.

That while democracy allows free speech and free expression, even if that expression is anti-democratic, there will always, always be, praise god, a far broader and stronger coalition ready to push back and defend everything we hold dear.

We can send that message today by voting in large and overwhelming numbers to defeat these objections.

My colleagues, we each swore an oath just three days ago that we would defend and such port the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

We swore that we took this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that we could well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office we were about to enter, so help us God.

The precise words of that oath were shortly written after the Civil War when the idea of true faith and allegiance in this country and Constitution took on enormous meaning.

Let those words, let those words ring in the ears of every Senator today. Let us do our duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help us God.

PENCE: Majority leader?

MCCONNELL: I yield up to five minutes to the Senator of Texas, Senator Cruz.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Mr. President?

PENCE: Senator?

CRUZ: We gather together at moment of great division. At a moment of great passion. We have seen and, no doubt, will continue to see a great deal of moralizing from both sides of the aisle.

But I would urge to both sides perhaps a bit less certitude and a bit more recognition that we are gathered at a time when democracy is in crisis.

Recent polling shows that 39 percent of Americans believe the election that just occurred, quote, "was rigged."

[13:50:06]

You may not agree with that assessment. But it is nonetheless a reality for nearly half the country.

I would note it as not just Republicans who believe that. And 31 percent of Independents agree with that statement. And 17 percent of Democrats believe the election was rigged.

Even if you do not share that conviction, it is the responsibility I believe of this office to acknowledge that is a profound threat to this country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future.

I want to take a moment to speak to my Democratic colleagues.

I understand. Your guy is winning right now. If Democrats vote as a block, Joe Biden will almost certainly be certified as the next president of the United States.

I want to speak to the Republicans who are considering voting against these objections.

I understand your concerns but I urge you to pause and think, what does it say to the nearly of the country that believes this election as rigged if we vote not even to consider the claims of illegality and fraud in this election.

I believe there's a better way. The leaders just spoke about setting aside the election. Let me be clear, I'm not arguing for setting aside the results of this election.

All of us are faced with two choices, both of which are lousy. One choice is vote against the objection.

And tens of millions of Americans will see a vote against the objection as a statement that voter fraud doesn't matter, isn't real. And shouldn't be taken seriously.

And a great many of us don't believe that.

On the other hand, most, if not all of us, believe we should not set aside the results of an election just because our candidate may not have prevailed.

And so I endeavor to look for door number three, a third option. And for that, I look to history, to the president of the 1876 election, the Hayes/Tilden election, where this Congress appointed an electoral commission to examine claims of voter fraud.

Five House members, five Senators, five Supreme Court justices. Examine the evidence and rendered a judgment.

What I would urge of this body is that we do the same. That we appoint an electoral commission to conduct a 10-day emergency audit. Consider the evidence and resolve the claims.

For those on the Democratic aisle who say there's no evident, they've been rejected, then you should rest in comfort if that's the case that an electoral commission would reject those claims.

But for those who respect the voters, simply telling the voters, go jump in a lake, the fact that you have deep concerns is of no moment to us, that jeopardizes, I believe, the legitimacy of this and subsequent elections.

The Constitution gives to Congress the responsibility this day to count the votes. The framers knew what they were doing when they gave responsibilities to Congress. We have a responsibility.

And I would urge that we follow the precedent of 1877. The Electoral Count Act explicitly allows on objections, such as this one, for votes were not regularly given.

And let me be clear, this objection is for the state of Arizona, but it is broader than that.

It is an objection for all six of the contested states, to have a credible, objective impartial body hear the evidence and make a conclusive determination.

That would benefit both sides. That would improve legitimacy of this election.

So let me urge the colleagues -- all of us take our responsibility seriously. I would urge my college, don't take perhaps the easy path.

Astonish the viewers and act in a bipartisan sense to say we will have a credible and fair tribunal, consider the claims, consider the facts, consider the evidence, and make a conclusive determination to whether and to what extent this election complied with the constitutional and with federal law.

PENCE: The Senator from Minnesota.

[13:55:00]

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Mr. President, I first would like to say I appreciate the words of our leader, Senator Schumer, as well as Senator McConnell's call for a higher calling.

January 6th is not typically a day of historical significance for our country. For centuries, this day is simply the day we receive each state's certified electoral votes. It's come and gone without much fanfare.

In fact, this is only the third time in 120 years that the Senate has gather to do debate an objection. As Senator Cruz well knows, both times were, these objections were resoundingly defeated. The last time, the vote was 74-1.

Why? Because Senators have long believed that they should not mess around with the will of the people.

They have understood the words of our great former colleague, John McCain, from the state of Arizona, who once said nothing in life is more liberating that this to fight for a cause larger than yourself.

In this case my colleagues' cause, despite our political differences, is to preserve our American democracy, to preserve our republic. Because as someone once said long ago, it's a republic if you can keep it.

Now, I appreciate all my Democratic and Republican colleagues who have joined our ranks of coup fighters, who have stood up for our democracy, who stand tall for our republic, and who believe in an ideal greater than ourselves, larger than our political parties.

That ideal is America. Senator Cruz, he knows this.

On January 20th, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be sworn in as president and vice president of the United States.

He knows that President-Elect Biden won more votes than any president in history and more than seven million more votes than President Trump.

Despite the unfounded conspiracy theories Senator Cruz tows, he knows that high-ranking officials in President Trump's own Homeland Security Department have concluded that the 2020 election was, quote, "the most secure in American history."

And if he wants to improve the numbers in his own party that he just mentioned, of people believing in our elections, maybe he should start consulting with them.

Or maybe he should start consulting with former Attorney General Barr, who said that he has found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

We don't have to go back to 1877, my colleague.

Senator Cruz knows that 80 judges, including conservative judges, inclusion judges confirmed in this chamber, nominated by President Trump, have thrown out these lawsuits, calling them baseless, inadequate, and contrary to the plain meaning of the constitutional text and common sense.

He knows that all 10 living defense secretaries, including both of Trump's defense secretaries, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William Cohen, he knows all these leaders have come together to say these scurrilous attacks must stop and we must allow for a peaceful transition of power.

Senator Sinema will fill you in on the specific facts as to why this election was found and true in Arizona.

But a summary: President Trump received 1,661,686 votes in the state. President-Elect Biden won 1,672,143 votes. Meaning that he won the state by 10,457 votes.

On November 30th, after Arizona's Republican governor, the secretary of state, the attorney general and the conservative chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court certified the results of the election, the governor actually said, we do elections well here in Arizona, the system is strong.

Eight post-election lawsuits brought in Arizona to challenge the results were dismissed by judges. Nine members of the House from Arizona were elected in the same election, including four Republicans.

And, colleagues, I did not see Senator Cruz over at the swearing-in of the House of Representatives yesterday asking for an audit.

He did not stop their swearing in, because there was no fraud. He did not ask for an audit, because we had a fair election.

I will end with this. My friend, Roy Blunt, my fellow rules committee leader, many years ago, found a statue, a bust of a man at the top of the bookcase.

He did research. He went to the historians. All he could find out was that no one knew who this guy was, except he was a cleric, hence the statue is called "The Unknown Cleric."

At the time, the leaders thought the man important enough that they would warrant a statue for him. But today, no one knows who he is.

[13:59:59]

Senator Blunt's message to school kids and Senators alike that visit his office, when he shows them the statue, what we do here is more important than who we are.