Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 114.

Members recorded prusuant to House Resolution 8, 117th congress

Allred (Wexton)

Babin (Fallon)

Cardenas (Gonzalez, Vicente)

Crenshaw (Fallon)

Graves (MO) (Wagner)

Greene (GA) (Gosar)

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Jayapal (Pocan)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Keating (Clark (MA))

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

Lieu (Beyer)

Lowenthal (Beyer)

McHenry (Banks)

Meng (Clark (MA))

Mfume (Wexton)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Moulton (Underwood)

Napolitano (Correa)

Neal (Lynch)

Nehls (Fallon)

Norcross (Pallone)

Omar (Pressley)

Payne (Pallone)

Porter (Wexton)

Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))

Rush (Underwood)

Sewell (DelBene)

Slotkin (Stevens)

Stefanik (Tenney)

Steube (Timmons)

Trahan (Lynch)

Wasserman Schultz (Soto)

Watson Coleman (Pallone)

Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Wilson (SC) (Timmons)

Madam Speaker, I'm honored to congratulate Lieutenant Todd R. King upon earning the Springettsbury Township Police Department 2018 Officer of the Year award. Due to exemplary performance and diversity of assignments, Lt. King exemplified sound decision-making, tireless dedication, and outstanding judgment while maintaining lasting and meaningful relationships within the department and the citizens he serves.

The Officer of the Year designation is awarded to those who demonstrate a high level of resourcefulness, reliability, and leadership in daily assignments. Over the course of his career, Lt. King has continued to rise through the ranks of the department--in no small part due to his dedication to serve and desire to earn the respect of his fellow officers and staff.

In 2018, Officer King assumed the primary role of evaluating and overhauling department policy and procedures, in addition to procuring and implementing new equipment to bring the department up to speed technologically. His knowledge and resourcefulness played a key role in the quality work produced daily by the department.

The breathtaking level of responsibility delegated to Lt. King also was notable. His daily assignments play a pivotal role in ensuring that ``rank and file'' had whatever was needed to fulfill their critical duties. He continues to be an invaluable asset to the department, and I am proud to recognize his achievements here today.

For exemplary performance, assumption of numerous assignments, commitment to the mission, and tireless service to the Springettsbury Township Police Department and the citizens it serves, I'm honored to recognize Lieutenant Todd R. King as the Department's 2018 Officer of the Year.

Madam Speaker, I'm honored to congratulate Officer Adam Farnsler upon earning the Springettsbury Township Police Department (STPD) 2017 Officer of the Year award.

Officer Farnsler started his career with the STPD in January 2016, after serving two years with the Southern Regional Police Department. From the very first day of field training, it was obvious that Officer Farnsler would give his best every day. He was motivated to learn and get involved with all types of police work.

In 2017, Officer Farnsler was assigned to the night shift and spent the entire year in this position. He was relentless in his efforts to patrol Springettsbury Township and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth. He focused on all forms of violations--from DUIs to drug offense to personal injury crime. Officer Farnsler's efforts resulted in a shift-leading performance on felony and misdemeanor arrests, non- traffic arrests, youth aid panel referrals, and total incidents handled. Officer Farnsler led the night shift with a total of 160 arrests, as well as led the department in officer-initiated reports. This again shows his level of motivation and dedication to duty. He conducted all of this while still handling an even share of crashes, traffic citations, and traffic warnings.

In a notable 2017 arrest, Officer Farnsler observed the occupants of a vehicle acting suspiciously. He began to follow the vehicle, which resulted in the driver turning off his lights to avoid police. Officer Farnsler conducted a traffic stop and was provided a false name by the driver. His diligent pursuit of the truth resulted in his discovery of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and arrest of the subject for multiple offenses.

Officer Farnsler's yearly stats only touch the surface of his law enforcement performance. He also focuses on one of the most important areas of policing--community policing. He assists citizens during myriad and numerous sensitive and emotional situations. Officer Farnsler's efforts were commended in writing by at least three different citizens writing to the department to describe how Officer Farnsler positively affected their lives during a sensitive or emotional situation. This is on top of known instances of Officer Farnsler randomly paying for someone's food or drink just to be nice or helpful. His motivation to find criminal violations is matched only by his motivation to support the community of Springettsbury Township.

Throughout calendar year 2017, Officer Farnsler continuously performed at a high level. He maintained a heavy workload that included numerous self-initiated arrests for serious criminal and traffic investigations, in addition to his normal calls for service that he handled in an outstanding and diligent manner. Officer Farnsler continually investigated each complaint thoroughly. He did all this while continually showing compassion and empathy.

For exemplary performance, tireless dedication to the mission, and for setting the standard for all to follow, I'm honored to congratulate Officer Adam Farnsler for earning the title of the 2017 Springettsbury Township Police Department 2017 Officer of the Year.

Madam Speaker, I'm honored to congratulate the Army's 258th Engineer Combat Battalion for their heroism and service to United States of America as we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Rhine River Assault Crossing. Initially to be celebrated this past year when the pandemic began, we must waste no more time in honoring these brave Warriors of ``The Greatest Generation.''

The 258th ECB was activated at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, on November 20, 1943; draftees from Pennsylvania reported to the New Cumberland Reception Center on January 25, 1944, where they built a kitchen for their train and loaded it with equipment, preparing for the trip to a destination unknown. Upon arriving at Camp Shelby on February 5, and united with other draftees, the battalion of over 600 was formed; with PA residents comprising 20 percent of the battalion and 44 different states. Over 8 months at Camp Shelby, the battalion completed twelve (12) weeks of Infantry and Engineer Basic Training, and eight (8) weeks of Advanced Engineer Training--learning additional mine clearing techniques and bridge construction.

The battalion left for Camp Shanks, NY, in October before leaving the New York Harbor later that month. They would arrive in Swansea, Wales, on November 4, and would spend time throughout the United Kingdom prior to their departure for Le Havre, France, near year's end--from which the Battalion would be split up throughout France and the Netherlands, working on road maintenance before they'd reconvene in Stevensweert, Holland, to begin training for the Rhine River Assault Crossing.

Beginning their training on March 7, 1945, the small country town of Stevensweert along the Maas River would serve as the launching point for the Rhine River Assault alongside the 30th Infantry Division. In the days to come, the battalion spent time unloading equipment and getting the storm boats ready for river training. Soldiers trained with the infantry day and night to operate the 22 H.P. Storm Boat Motors in preparation for the assault, having to remain extremely quiet on their approach. They later arrived near Rheimsburg, Germany, on March 20--4KM from the Rhine, camouflaging the boats with brush until they were fully prepared for the crossing.

On March 24, they moved the final 200 yards under cover of smoke pots to the bank of the Rhine River, launching the storm boats and waiting for H-Hour amidst what was the largest artillery barrage of the war to that point. The battalion's assault began at 0200hrs, as a heavy smoke screen laid over the river, forcing some boats to lose their direction and forcing them back to the starting shore. S/Sgt. Ray Mosser's boat of two engineers and seven infantry was the first of three waves to cross the river, encountering light resistance while others faced sniper and machine gun fire, as German resistance continued until daylight when the Germans sent up flares and artillery fire. Soon after their landing, the infantry was able to advance through enemy lines, and it wasn't long before they were bringing back prisoners. The battalion's assault brought numerous casualties, including Squad Sergeant Paul Eberle, Pvt. Joseph Sasso, and Tech. Sergeant Robert Strayer.

I am honored to commend the entire 258th Engineer Combat Battalion for their distinguished service to our great Nation. Their bravery and sacrifice was instrumental to crossing the Rhine River--the last natural obstacle to overcome in the continued advancement of Allied Forces. Their victory helped lead to the eventual German surrender on May 8, 1945--aka ``V-E Day''--all made possible by a battalion trained to build bridges. We shall long remember their heroism in protecting our country and the world from the evils of Nazism. May God bless them for their tireless service, their dedication to our American freedom, and their legacy of sacrifice.

Madam Speaker. I'm honored to recognize Officer Brett Fishel upon earning the Springettsbury Township Police Department 2019 Officer of the Year award. I commend Officer Fishel on his years of service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States of America.

Officer Fishel came to Springettsbury Township Police Department in 2015, following two years with the Southern York Regional Police Department. In 2019, Officer Fishel continued to do what he had done since his arrival: display good judgement, make sound decisions, and perform tireless service--especially when he was thrust into a greater leadership role. Due to staffing shortages and shift structure, Officer Fishel frequently served as ``Officer in Charge'' (OIC) during many shifts. In 2019; he was assigned to the permanent night shift, and still maintained OIC duties--effectively managing two positions; quite unusual for an officer who had been with the department only for a little over 3 years.

Officer Fishel remained a leader in most activity areas for patrolmen, maintaining the dedicated personal work ethic displayed throughout his tenure--all while becoming a new father. Despite missing December to welcome the new addition to his family, he had 445 traffic enforcement contacts and made 79 criminal arrests. In 2018, he was named a DUI Top Gun Award winner, and in 2019 he continued to keep our roads safe through 25 DUI arrests.

Throughout Officer Fishel's service, what stands out most is the manner in which he interacts with people around him. His calm and professional demeanor consistently received praise from the community, with many citizens writing to STPD officially to thank him for his assistance. He even received thank you cards from some of those traffic contacts because of the way he treated them when he pulled them over.

Officer Fishel was recognized for three internal accomplishments in 2019 for extraordinary actions taken in the line of duty, ranging from a motor vehicle theft arrest to saving someone's life in a house fire. In the house fire incident, Officer Fishel and another officer were dispatched just across the York Township line where a disabled female was reporting her house was filled with smoke and she was unable to get out of bed. The two officers responded to the location to find a smoke- filled house with the front door locked and alarms sounding. Upon forcing the front door open, they were met by clouds of thick, dark smoke, which prevented them from seeing and navigating the residence. With the help of a third officer from YARPD, they were able to locate the individual and carry her to safety.

Officer Brett Fishel's consistent professionalism and dedication to duty has set the standard for all officers to follow. For his exemplary performance, tireless service, and commitment to the mission and vision, I am proud to honor him as the Springettsbury Township Police Department 2019 Officer of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday afternoon at 3 o'clock in Atlanta, an armed robber walked into Chick-fil-A to rob the place.

Now, think about that. You are in there with your children, getting a meal in the middle of the day, and somebody comes in with a gun, puts your life at risk. Everybody in the place is at risk.

Did that guy get a background check to get his firearm? We don't know yet, but odds are he didn't because most of these crimes that are committed with a gun are with people who don't--guess what? I have a news flash--they don't follow the law.

Robbing the Chick-fil-A at 3 o'clock in the afternoon in Atlanta is not in accordance with the law. But I will tell you what happened. An armed citizen stopped the robbery using his firearm, a legally obtained firearm, and saved everybody in the place.

Do you know who is happy? The people in the Chick-fil-A are happy that the guy who bought the gun legally was there to save them and their children. That is who is happy.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, disarms that person who operated his firearm legally. That is what this legislation does. It disarms America. It says to the criminal: Keep on not abiding by the law. You got your weapon illegally. You are going to keep doing it.

It doesn't stop them from doing anything. What it does do is it stops the guy who is going to get his firearm legally and end the crime in his community. That is who it stops.

No charges are pending on that individual in Atlanta who stopped that crime. No charges are pending. He followed the law.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, seeks to punish people who want to follow the law, and that is what is going to happen.

Do you know what is going to happen when we do this? There are going to be more crimes. There are going to be more unauthorized weapons out there, and there are going to be less people out there defending themselves and our community. That is what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this.

Mr. Speaker, we lament the death of our good friend, Mr. Crist's constituent, Mo. We lament it. We especially lament it because when you are in the military and you are on base and you are in uniform, you are prohibited from carrying a firearm. Think about that. Those in our country most well trained to use a firearm lose their lives because they cannot defend themselves, as a regulation by the DOD that says they cannot carry a firearm on base. That is why Mo is not here.

Sure, there is a Saudi terrorist in town that is killing people, but Mo could have stopped that if Mo were allowed to use his skills provided by the taxpayers and desired by him. He wanted to serve his country, he wanted to serve his community, and he should have been allowed to.

This bill is more of the same thing, disallowing American citizens to defend themselves. Unfortunately, Mo is a prime example.

Madam Speaker, what we are saying here is that the American people have to beg their government to avail themselves of their rights: Oh, Federal Government, can I speak now?

Can I defend myself now, or should I wait a little longer?

That is what we are saying now.

The Constitution says, ``shall not be infringed.'' In Pennsylvania where I come from, our constitution says, ``shall not be questioned.''

Madam Speaker, we are questioning it today. We are putting our constituents and we are putting the American people who have the Constitution enshrining their rights on the defensive, begging their government to avail themselves of their rights.

Now, my colleagues and my good friends on the other side of the aisle keep on bringing up the horrific tragedy and the events that happened at the church. We can't bring that up and say that this is the solution when this doesn't fix that.

Madam Speaker, you can't say that the FBI couldn't check all the databases. It chose not to. It could have checked them in those 3 days, but it chose not to.

Now, those are tragic events for sure, but it is not the American people's fault that the FBI didn't do their job. Do not punish the American people. Do not abridge their rights because the FBI and because the government couldn't get it right. Let's fix the government and allow the people to be free and enjoy their constitutional rights and defend themselves when they want to defend themselves.

Madam Speaker, I heard the majority leader speak about something that happened in 1870 and 1880, like the Pinkertons are still running around union busting.

Well, it is not 1870. It is not 1880. It is not even the time of President Obama. But during President Obama's time, he proposed the ambush election rule, and that is in this bill.

What does that mean? That means the employer must give up the addresses, the contact and personal information, and the working schedule of everybody in their facility. And they don't get to say no. The people who work there don't get to say no. Even the Obama NLRB said that they would be subjected to harassment, coercion, or robbery--or robbery.

Madam Speaker, I offered an amendment, which the majority refused, to close the loophole that exempts union violence, coercion, and extortion. Think about that, union violence.

If they have the information of the employees and are prone to violence, and if you live in Philadelphia, you just go back to the helpful union guy, the helpful union guys, the thugs and the presentment.

Reject this. This is the PRO Act, indeed--protecting corrupt union bosses from their own failures. Vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, we all want to help. This is the American Rescue Plan--the American Rescue Plan. Somehow, $8.6 billion of the American Rescue Plan is headed overseas.

This isn't a rescue plan. This is a grift. This is theft.

We are digging tunnels. We are building bridges. That has nothing to do with the pandemic. Ninety percent of this money goes everywhere but the pandemic.

I mean, it is not going to help schools. It is not going to help people who have been put out of their jobs. It is not going to help people who need a vaccination or healthcare, none of that.

Ninety percent of about $2 trillion, this is a payoff. It is payoff to political friends. That is why it is partisan, because we don't think we should be paying off political friends. We want to help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this doesn't help the American people. This is a grift. They are abusing people who are sick and have died and are hurting. This is abuse. I vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Roy, my great friend from Texas. I appreciate the sacrifices that he has made on behalf of this great Nation.

If you know me, you know I am a fan of books because I think, in this transient, throwaway society, they are a record of things that happened in the past. So, like I said, if you know me, you know I love books. They never asked me, because I am not running for President, what books do you recommend? But if I were running for President and they ever deigned to ask me, this would be one. This is by a guy named Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn. It is called ``Warning to the West.'' It is hard to come by. It is a little expensive, but it is well worth the effort. I just want to read an excerpt to you where he is thinking about the West as he sits in a Russian gulag.

``We contemplate the West from what will be your future, or we look back 70 years to see our past suddenly repeating itself today. And what we see is always the same as it was then: adults deferring to the opinion of their children; the younger generation carried away by shallow, worthless ideas; professors scared of being unfashionable; journalists refusing to take responsibility for the words they squander so easily; universal sympathy for revolutionary extremists; people with serious objections unable or unwilling to voice them; the majority passively obsessed by a feeling of doom; feeble governments; societies whose defensive reactions have become paralyzed; spiritual confusion leading to political upheaval. What will happen as a result of all this lies ahead of us. But the time is near, and from bitter memory, we can easily predict what these events will be.''

I certainly will.

It was a guy who lived it, who saw it happen, who lived under the oppression of a Russian gulag, imprisoned for decades, and watched the West, watched 66 million souls exterminated on the border of Russia and Europe, and Europe did nothing about it.

We are in this Capitol today, as Chip has already said, surrounded by razor wire and fences. Free speech, they are saying: Well, you have free speech. The government is not censoring you. The government is not canceling you.

Well, in this age where Google, Facebook, these platforms have 95, 99 percent market share, whatever the heck it is, when you are taken off that, your free speech is taken away, effectively.

We are not here to talk to just each other. Free speech means you can talk to each other, everybody else. So it is not about being able to just have a conversation with yourself in a cell. Free speech is about discussing ideas, and some of them are going to be unpalatable.

There were book burnings back at this time because they wanted to destroy ideas. We are not afraid of ideas. We are afraid of the advent of communism and socialism in our country, but we are not afraid to discuss it because we know that our ideas will win.

What we are afraid of is not being able to discuss it, and that is what is happening. That is happening all across America, whether you are Project Veritas, whether you are President Trump, whether you are Marjorie Taylor Greene and you say the wrong thing. You say the wrong thing, and it is not about disagreement for the other side; it is about obliteration of your thought.

This is a very, very dangerous precipice that we stand on, and we know the outcome. Solzhenitsyn, even though he was discredited-- imagine, discredited by the Soviet Union and the Russians. But he came to America, and he tried to tell us over and over and over again.

Many people know, but my good friend from Texas talked about the concern the American people have. They are scared.

They are not scared of their neighbor. They are not scared of a Democrat. They are not scared of a Republican. They are scared of their government. This is a government of and for the people, by the people. This is our government. The government doesn't own us; we own it. The government is supposed to fear us.

You know, I tell people, it didn't end or it didn't begin with gulags and slave labor work camps where people died of exposure, starvation, exhaustion. It didn't start with that. It started with what we are talking about right now, with razor wire and fences around your Capitol and the inability to say what you want to say. That is where it starts.

We don't have to ask: Well, where does it end?

We know where it ends.

I thank the good gentleman from Texas for this opportunity. You know that we will stand right with you in this crusade to keep America free and to keep speech free.

Mr. Speaker, we all want to help. We all want to help the people in our community find their way; do better for themselves; seek the opportunities that support themselves, their dreams, and their families.

Now, this bill establishes ratios of journeymen and apprentices on the job.

What does that mean?

That means you have to have somebody watching when somebody is pulling wire, you have to have somebody watching when somebody is learning to sweat joints because you have got to make sure it is done right, you have got to make sure it is done safely. And that is great. That ratio is going to be established by the Department of Labor based on something--hopefully by people in the trade that know what they are doing.

But this is what it also does: It says that if you have a collective bargaining agreement, you don't have to worry about those ratios. You can make your own up. So the union and the business can make their own, but everybody else has to use the Department of Labor standards.

Ladies and gentlemen, one standard for all. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. This is picking winners and losers. This is saying, if you are not in a union, you have got to have a different standard. Oh, by the way, the different standard is it is always more expensive for you than it is for the union. Oh, by the way, we see that all the time.

Additionally, this bill prevents entities not affiliated with the union from obtaining Title II grants, the grants we are talking about in this bill. They can't get them. You have to be in a union.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you see what this is. It is okay for me, but not for thee. It is the same old thing in Washington, D.C., and it is the same thing we are seeing around the country: If you are hooked up with the elite, if you are hooked up with the entitled class, you get the fruit. If you are not, you get punished, you are left out in the cold.

Ladies and gentlemen, we want to see one standard. We all want to help our friends and we all want to help the people in our community realize their dream. But picking winners and losers, which is exactly what this does, actually keeps people out of work, increases the price, and picks winners and losers. That is not what our Government is supposed to be doing. That is not what we are supposed to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, what did the Speaker know, and what did other legislative leaders know, and when did they know it? Maybe that is a rush to impeach the President so we will never know what legislative leaders here knew.

The FBI knew about a number of individuals that were planning a war on the Capitol, including killing police officers, and they shared the information. But nothing happened.

The chief Federal prosecutor in Washington stated he is pursuing conspiracy charges. The fact that IEDs were constructed and placed informs me that there was preplanning for portions of the tragic events last week.

How does the President incite an attack that was preplanned and already underway before his speech concluded?

Now, I know my colleagues on the left want America to believe that the President incited a spontaneous riot that they would like to call an insurrection, but the facts are stubborn things, even if you choose to ignore them.

The truth is the multiple lawless and violent events last summer, including a months-long siege of a Federal courthouse, burning, looting, physical violence in so-called sanctuary cities, more closely fits the definition of insurrection than anything the President said last week.

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.

Yes, Mr. Vice President, it is.

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.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

When is the appropriate time to ask that the words be stricken, be taken down?

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the committee for this opportunity.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which will require the Secretary of Defense to report on the current level of threat sharing between the Department of Defense and the defense industrial base related to cybersecurity.

Our defense industrial base faces increasing threats from our adversaries, including Russia and China. The loss of research and information to cybersecurity hacks is putting our Defense Department's investments at risk and eroding the warfighting advantage the United States maintains over our adversaries.

In June 2018, The Washington Post reported that a contractor working with the Navy on a supersonic anti-ship missile was hacked by the Chinese Government.

In December 2018, a Defense Department Office of Inspector General audit found that the Army, Navy, and Missile Defense Agency were failing to take basic cybersecurity steps to ensure that information on America's ballistic missile defense system won't fall into the hands of our adversaries.

I commend the work that the Department has already undertaken to address this need, but more must be done.

The Department of Defense must play an active role in identifying current threats and helping to fortify the cybersecurity of our defense industrial base, which includes many small and medium-sized businesses, as well as academic institutions.

This amendment asks the Secretary of Defense to include a section within an existing report that examines the current level of threat sharing between the Department and the industrial base.

Madam Chair, I thank the committee for allowing this amendment to be included in the en bloc, and ask the committee's indulgence in support of the amendment. I thank the chairman, again, for his willingness to allow me to speak on behalf of the amendment.