OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Joyce Speech

​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.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Keller Speech

​Mr. Keller. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker) for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the violence that occurred in the Capitol today was shameful, unacceptable, and un-American. We are a nation of laws, not lawlessness, and we will never give in to the mob.
Thank you to the men and women of our Capitol Police and other law enforcement agencies who heroically defended this building.
The criminal behavior we witnessed today does not erase the facts before us.
​I am objecting to the certification of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes because Governor Tom Wolf, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the State legislature’s clear constitutional authority to set election proceedings.
Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, only the General Assembly has the power to set election law.
Additionally, Article II of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants State legislatures, not the Governor acting alone and not the courts, the explicit power to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors.
Pennsylvania’s court unlawfully extended the deadline to receive absentee and mail-in ballots. Governor Wolf’s administration dismissed signature authentication procedures for absentee and mail-in ballots, allowed for the uneven administration of the election across counties, and unilaterally changed Pennsylvania’s election code without the State legislature’s consent.
The Constitution is clear and the facts are indisputable.
This past weekend, each Member of this body stood in this Chamber and swore an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. I intend to fulfill my constitutional oath which the people of Pennsylvania have entrusted in me. My objection is grounded in the Constitution and rule of law.
If we allow the Governor to violate the constitutional rights of the General Assembly, what is stopping him from violating the constitutional rights of the 12.8 million Pennsylvanians our State legislators were elected to represent?
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Harris Speech

​Mr. Harris. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The oath I took is very simple. Madam Speaker, you administered it. It is to support and defend the Constitution.
Now, as you walk back to the office buildings, you will walk by that wall that has when the various States accepted that Constitution. Remember, when a State accepts the Constitution, it agrees to accept every part of the Constitution. It doesn’t get to pick and choose.
Pennsylvania was there when it was written. They were so enthusiastic about the Constitution, they approved it in 1787.
My State, Maryland, is a little further down the wall, 1788. They were there when it was written.
The clause that gave the legislature the power over the elections was there when they accepted it. It has been there since. How dare the judicial branch or the executive branch of that State usurp the legislative authority. That is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Now, we heard there is no evidence.
Evidence?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unilaterally extended the deadline to receive absentee and mail-in ballots.
Does anybody contest that over here? Does it say the legislature did that?
No, it doesn’t. It says the court did it.
That is a violation. That is what the Texas lawsuit was all about. We disadvantage other States when States like Pennsylvania, the executive branch and judicial branch, cheat on the Constitution; and that is what they did here.
But there is more evidence. But wait, there is more. The Democrat secretary of the Commonwealth eroded integrity by dismissing signature authentication on a ballot.
Does anyone here believe the Pennsylvania legislature would have agreed ​to create a separate system for mail-in ballots and in-person ballots? That if you mail it in, you don’t need a signature? But if you vote in person, you do and it has to be authenticated?
Of course not. The legislature clearly wouldn’t have agreed to that. But that didn’t stop the usurpation of constitutional authority.
Madam Chair, I vigorously support this objection, and I include in the Record the objection to counting the electoral votes for the State of Arizona additional signers.
Objection to Counting the Electoral Votes for the State of Arizona
ADDITIONAL SIGNERS
* Jeff Duncan SC–3
* Matt Gaetz FL–1
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Kelly Speech

​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.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Kinzinger Speech

​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?
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Herrell Speech

​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.
□ 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.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Johnson Speech

​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.
□ 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.
# Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Pennsylvania Objection Debate/Higgins Speech

​Mr. Higgins of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, my, my, my. Let us take a deep breath, shall we?
Madam Speaker, the cornerstone of the strength of our American Republic is not only the peaceful transition of power; it is the peaceful transition of a lawful power. It is within the parameters of our oath, indeed, is our duty to inquire if we suspect that perhaps our elections have been compromised.
Much has been said about what we do not know. What we do not know calls for investigation.
What we do know is that, in the disputed States, Governors, secretaries of state, or local election commissions acted in violation of the Election Clause of the U.S. Constitution, wherein State legislatures are granted the sole authority to determine how Presidential electors are appointed. It is that simple. State executive officials usurped the constitutionally vested authority of State legislatures within several of the sovereign States.
Now, why we are involved in Congress? Because the Founders gave us a ​narrow role. If we suspect that an election was compromised in a sovereign State, then we have a role in the seating of those electors and the counting.
America is not a confederacy of States. We are a union of States. We are a representative republic. Therefore, each sovereign State has a deep obligation to follow the writ of its own election law during a Federal election.
We would not be having this conversation if our objections were solely rested upon the elections of sovereign State Governors or State senators and representatives. It is a Federal election for the President and Vice President of the United States. We certainly have a role, and we should investigate and support that role.
Madam Speaker, America is an anointed nation, born of imperfect men driven by perfect intent. May we be worthy of what it is to be an American, what it is to be a representative of the American people.
May I ask, may we seek the quiet whisper of God’s own voice within us. And I ask my colleagues to consider supporting this objection.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Alexander, Symphoniarcha

Alexander, Symphoniarcha, a composer in the early part of the seventeenth century, published three books of motets, at Frankfort, in 1606.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Alexandre, C. G

Alexandre, C. G. Author of six duets, Paris, 1775.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Alfieri

Alfieri. A musician and poet. e has surpassed every other poet in portraying the heart of a tyrant. The scenes of his "Timoleon are very fine.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Alexander The Great

Alexander The Great. Music flourished in the reign of this man, and found in him a skilful judge and generous protector. It was customary for the musicians in his employ to sing hymns to his praise, accompanied with instruments.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Alexander, J

Alexander, J., violoncellist and composer at Duisburg, has published, chiefly m Amsterdam, several works for that instrument, since the year 1800.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Alexander Ab Alexandro

Alexander Ab Alexandro, a Neapolitan lawyer, died at Rome, in 1523. He wrote some works on ancient music.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Algarotti, Count Francesco

Algarotti, Count Francesco, was born at Venice, in 1712. He was much esteemed by Frederic II., King of Prussia. e died at Pisa, in 1764. He wrote an essay on the opera, which was translated into English, and published in 1767.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Algisi

Algisi, or ALGHISI, D. P. F. A renowned Italian composer, born at Brescia, about the year 1666. He afterward lived at Venice, and composed two operas there, which were much esteemed, especially "II Trionfo de la Continenza."
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Alipius

Alipius, born at Alexandria, in Egypt, lived about the year 360. His manuscript "De Musicis" is preserved in the library at Bologna. Without this manuscript we should never have known in what manner the ancients wrote their music. Their musical characters appear to havebeen 1620 in number, as may be seen by the tables of Alipius.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Aliquot tones

Aliquot tones. Accessory tones, or harmonics. Tones, faintly heard, which are always produced with the principal tone, at harmonic intervals above it.
# Davis: Mental Illness Awareness Week (2004)

Source: 2004 Congressional Record, Vol. 150, Page E1886
Supporting National Library Week
HON. DANNY K. DAVIS
OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 7, 2004
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, October 3-9 is Mental Illness Awareness Week. During any one-year period, up to 50 million Americans--more than 22 percent--suffer from a clearly diagnosable mental disorder involving a degree of incapacity that interferes with employment, attendance at school or daily life. Like so many disorders, mental illness does not discriminate and affects every age, ethnic, and socioeconomic group.
During this week, there will be a more visible push in the communities to get the information out about mental illness. There will be booths set up and mental health fairs across our country as a way to reach out to more people. I commend the efforts of organizations and individuals who not only during this week but throughout the year work to help others identify and treat their mental illness.
Unfortunately, their hard work is somewhat stifled when there is not equal health care for mental illness or every person needing psychiatric care does not have access to a psychiatrist of their choice. With one in four adults suffering from a mental illness or substance use disorder in any year, it is likely that every family will feel this impact. Yet, most health plans discriminate by providing less care for mental illness, and by requiring patients and their families to pay more out-of-pocket costs.
Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to correct this disparity. Our constituents should not be penalized because they have a mental illness compared to a physical illness. We should ensure that the mental health system provide a more individualized and holistic approach to care without shame or inequity in coverage. Mental illness is like most physical illnesses; the patient is in need of treatment, support and rehabilitation.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Daviess v. Fairbairn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 636
Daviess v. Fairbairn

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davies v. Miller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
130 U.S. 284
Davies v. Miller
Edwin B. Smith and S. G. Clarke, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for defendants in error.
GRAY, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/B/Barba, Daniel

Barba, Daniel. A composer of instrumental music at Vienna about the year 1799.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/B/Barbarino, Bartolomeo

Barbarino, Bartolomeo, called Il Pesarino. A composer, born at Fabriam at the end of the sixteenth century. He published some madrigals at Venice.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/B/Barbella, Emanuele

Barbella, Emanuele. A modest, ingenious musician, and true follower of Tartini's principles on the violin. He studied composition under the celebrated Leo, and pleasantly re-marks of himself, that, "notwithstanding this advantage, Barbella is a mere ass, who knows nothing." He died at Naples in 1773. Some of Barbella's compositions for the violin have been published in England.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/B/Baranius, Henrietta

Baranius, Henrietta. A female singer at Berlin between the years 1784 and 1797.