[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 209 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H7140-H7145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GOVERNMENT OVERREACH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to agree with the comments
that have just been made. We do need to come together and provide
assistance to the American public, to those who have been so extremely
adversely affected, not merely by COVID, but by the, in some cases,
very offensive uses of government power and actually unauthorized power
in numerous circumstances taking away people's freedom for the first
time in American history when they were not sick, quarantining people
who were not ill, shutting down businesses, picking and choosing
winners and losers among businesses. Yet we, as Republicans, have been
begging our friends across the aisle, come on, there are things ready
to be used--readymade.
The money that was appropriated several months ago--there is over
$100 billion, maybe a whole lot more than $100 billion--is waiting to
be used, but the deadlines in that initial bill have been exceeded. So
all we need to do is say that money is available again. It is still
just sitting there.
As businesses are going bankrupt, my friends across the aisle are
allowing them to go bankrupt and basically holding them for hostage and
saying: We are going to keep letting businesses go broke; we are not
going to let you use the money that is sitting there waiting to be used
to help these businesses to save them from bankruptcy and to keep them
in business; and we are going to let them keep going out of business
because we want a big comprehensive bill.
As I have said previously here, comprehensive bills is a term that
means we want to make it so big that we can stuff all kinds of pork in
there that you won't be able to find before we pass it. That is what is
meant in Congress by comprehensive bill.
We ought to avoid comprehensive bills and we ought to have rival
shots addressing just what needs to be addressed and not putting
everybody's favorite gift in the legislation.
So we could have agreed on that months ago. I understand the position
of the majority Democrats is that there have just been so many other
important things that we haven't been able to get around to agreeing
with our Republican friends on the need for just providing the billions
and billions of dollars that have already been appropriated and is just
sitting there. We don't want to make that available because we have got
all these important things.
Like last week and this week, all these important things:
Let's see, we took care of saving the lives of ceiling fans this
week. So that apparently was very critical.
And, last week, we knew that people were suffering immeasurably from
COVID, and rather than, again, helping with funding, we took up a
marijuana bill that will provide tax incentives and actually some money
and some assistance in getting marijuana going stronger nationally. It
wasn't a bill that said that we are going to let the States decide for
themselves. It was a Federal bill to really push not medical marijuana,
but just marijuana.
So the answer, according to the majority, to COVID and businesses
going bankrupt is just smoke some dope and you won't be nearly as
anxious about the loss of your business, the suffering of your family,
and the isolation of our senior citizens.
I have had senior citizen places of residence directors just weep
every day as they see the seniors not able to spend time with their
families, in isolation.
{time} 1300
We didn't address any of that, but we did take care of making dope
available through the bill--at least the House has so far. It is
doubtful the Senate will take those things up. And we also voted to
take care of--as I understand, it just pertains to one place--where
tigers are kept.
But as my friend Dr. DesJarlais pointed out--he was looking at the
numbers--and in the time that it took in this Chamber to vote on that
bill, there were more people that died of COVID than have died from
tigers in the last 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are disagreements on priorities.
Apparently, there was a need felt to do this bill to address the need
of tigers, but we still left the needs of those dying from COVID, and
businesses that are dying because of the restrictions, we left all of
that undone to take care of ceiling fans, tigers, marijuana.
Mr. Speaker, we could get a bill done rather quickly. And I
understand we should have had a bill done 2 years ago--it would have
been easy to make it bipartisan--on funding infrastructure. We
desperately need to upgrade our infrastructure. According to most
engineers and studies, we have like a D-minus grade on American
infrastructure. But my understanding for why we have not done a bill in
the last 2 years that the Democrats have been in the majority here in
the House, has been a fervent desire to avoid President Trump getting
any credit for anything that really helps America. Despite that
[[Page H7141]]
desire of some, he has gotten an amazing amount accomplished.
So I am hoping that we can come together rather quickly--hopefully,
by Monday--and we can pass a bill that at least makes available the
tens of billions of dollars that is just sitting there waiting for
authorization to be provided to businesses that are in trouble. And we
could do that quite easily. In fact, we have got a bill that my friend,
Mr. Chabot from Ohio, had filed as the ranking member of the Committee
on Small Business, and it would make the money available.
We have had our colleague, Jaime Beutler--I am missing the last
name--but it is a discharge petition. Everybody needs to come down and
sign it--I think, nearly all the Republicans have--saying, let's bring
this to the floor. Let's make this money available. Hopefully, that
will happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
Mr. Speaker, but all of that, as desperately serious, critically
serious as it is, is still, when we look at the future of this country,
the issue that stands behind the importance of having a free and fair
election, because if you can't have that, the Republic ceases. We
become a totalitarian government, socialist government--of course, that
is a bit redundant. You can't have socialism without having a
totalitarian government. And actually, what has often been referred to
as a Communist Government, like in China, the Chinese Communist Party,
the Soviet Union, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they really
weren't communists. We always refer to them as the communists, but
communism doesn't exist if there is a government. True communism is
where the government fades away, everybody shares and shares alike.
But we have seen, historically, when a rather sad life of a person
named Marx, following up on Engels, came up with this idea. He was
completely wrong. He didn't foresee the rising of a middle class such
as we have had here in the United States. Anybody that didn't foresee
that and try to concoct a form of government without foreseeing that is
not somebody that should be followed.
And just as Dostoevsky said--and Solzhenitsyn quoted him in ``The
Gulag Archipelago''--in Dostoevsky's case, he was speaking
theoretically. In Solzhenitsyn's case, having spent many years in a
Gulag, in a Russian prison, he was speaking not theoretically or
hypothetically, but pragmatically from having been the victim of the
government. But Dostoevsky said the problem with socialism is not
economic. The problem is socialism is atheism. You cannot have a true
socialist government unless the government becomes God.
And there is no place for the one living God that our--nearly all of
the Founders acknowledged. Even Ben Franklin--who is sometimes said to
be a deist, which he clearly wasn't--said in his autobiography that he
was moved to the contrary over a discussion about deism. But he made
very clear he believed in God, he believed that divine providence,
God's providence controlled things. And that is not a deist, for those
that haven't studied deism.
Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, we are in grave danger. And if the Supreme
Court does not take up and resolve this dispute over whether or not we
will continue to have a Democratic-Republican form of government, then
it will cease, and there will not be another Republican elected because
of the circumstances that have arisen. And I will address that further.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).
Honoring the Life and Legacy of Edythe Kengla Swann
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of Edythe
Kengla Swann.
Edythe was born on December 5, 1920, in Tucson, Arizona, to Herman
Kengla and Joaquina Robles Kengla. She is a descendant of Arizona's
pioneering ranching and railroad families.
Since childhood, Edythe was instilled with a pioneering spirit. Her
grandfather, Bernabe Robles, was an immigrant from Mexico who
established a stagecoach shop in Arizona that ultimately became the
Robles Ranch in the mid-1880s. The ranching complex ultimately
comprised over one million acres, making it one of the largest ranches
in Arizona.
Edythe graduated from the University of Arizona in 1941 with a degree
in home economics. As the United States entered World War II, more
women were being called upon to fill jobs that were previously held by
men. Edythe was determined to take advantage of the new opportunities
opening around her. Enamored by the possibility of travel, Edythe
became a flight attendant for American Airlines.
Flight attendant school was an immersive environment of rigorous
training in a multitude of subjects. Edythe became well-versed in the
technical side of flying. She excelled in meteorology and was well-
prepared for difficult emergencies during flight. Edythe also took
great interest in the maintenance of the DC-3 aircraft and was very
knowledgeable about the inner workings of many cockpit systems.
Edythe diligently worked to meet industry expectations and create an
atmosphere that eased the concerns of her passengers while promoting
the airline industry. She loved being a pioneer in a profession that
represented new opportunities to women and allowed them to find freedom
through adventure.
While Edythe was stationed with American Airlines in El Paso, she met
Richard Earnest Swann, a lieutenant in the Army stationed at Fort
Bliss. Edythe and Richard quickly fell in love and were married in
1945. At the time, airlines required that flight attendants be
unmarried, so Edythe made the difficult choice to leave behind her
beloved career for her new future as a wife and a mother.
Together, Edythe and Richard raised five children and started their
own business, representing lamp and home furnishing manufacturers in
Dallas, Texas. Edythe worked hard to assist her husband at the store
while raising their children and becoming an active member of their
community. She served as a precinct chairman and was an avid volunteer
at her church for local events.
In 2017, Edythe was widowed after 72 years of marriage. Together,
Richard and Edythe had 5 children, 12 grandchildren, and 15 great-
grandchildren.
Today, Edythe remains independent in mindset and in ability. Her
pioneering spirit and moral resolve continue to serve as an inspiration
to her family.
Edythe Kengla Swann's life story exemplifies the opportunity afforded
to descendants of immigrants who pursue challenging careers that help
this country grow and whose self-determination and commitment to family
help to maintain the strength of American culture.
Mr. Speaker, Edythe Kengla Swann has lived a long life filled with
joy, love, and above all, a pioneering spirit. I am proud to recognize
her on this joyous occasion and know that her family and friends love
her and are proud of her. I wish Edythe many more years of health and
happiness in the future.
As I close today, I urge all Americans to continue praying for their
country during these difficult times for our military men and women who
protect us from external threats and for our first responders who
protect us here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I hope all Americans have a great holiday season and a
very happy and joyous Christmas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Aggie friend and appreciate that
shout-out to what sounds like an incredible lady.
Mr. Speaker, my friend will be missed here in Congress. We have had
some disagreements, but I know his heart and I know he has always
wanted what is best for the country. And I greatly appreciate that
heart.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have gotten more than two hours sleep
last night. I was thinking ``Jaime Beutler Herrera'' but it didn't
sound right. It is Jaime Herrera Beutler.
Mr. Speaker, she has a discharge petition, and I hope that if there
is any Republican that has not signed onto Jaime's discharge petition
that they will come do that as soon as possible. We need to get that
money. It has already been appropriated. It is just sitting there. Why
could we not agree on that?
I know that Ms. Herrera Beutler, I know Mr. Chabot, they would be
fine if
[[Page H7142]]
the Democrats put somebody else's name on what they have done. That is
fine. Put Democrat names on it, but let's get it done. We are more
concerned about helping people that need the money after having their
businesses shut down, curtailed, cut back. Let's get that money to
them, and I hope that we will.
With regard to this election, on the one hand, you have got COVID
that is killing people. On the other hand, you have fraud that is
killing a nation. And we know it is serious because YouTube did
everything they could--as did Google and Twitter--to censor the public
dialogue about different types of fraud, investigations into the Biden
family. They did everything they could to hurt President Trump and to
help candidate Biden.
Now we see today, YouTube is going to start preventing any discussion
about fraud. So we know it is serious when YouTube has to take the
position as the totalitarian censor--basically, fascist censor, that
the high-tech industry has chosen to be--that they are going to
eliminate anybody's ability using their public forum to discuss the
facts of fraud.
And for those networks that say that they are unfounded, they need to
pull their heads out of the orifice, hole in the ground, whatever, in
which their heads are stuck because there have been hundreds and
hundreds of affidavits. There are thousands of examples of fraud in the
elections.
And as John Fund said, the biggest fraud about elections is the
statement ``there is no fraud in elections.'' It is not new. It has
just never, ever, anywhere in the history of the world, been utilized
in so many ways and with so many ballots as it has been in this
election.
{time} 1315
We have seen the gutless actions of some courts, some places that
have refused to take up critically important issues that will mean this
country has a future as a republic or will end that future and move us
into the socialism that brings totalitarianism. But they refuse to take
it up.
You can understand, if you have no courage, then you would rather not
take up an issue that might make some people mad, even though, as I
figured out early in my career as a judge, if I was going to run from
the job I ran for, I shouldn't even be there.
Most judges haven't figured that out. Some are appointed, but they
were appointed after they sought those positions. Well, if you are
going to run from the job you sought, you shouldn't have that job. Just
be honest and caring enough for the country that if you don't have the
guts to do the job, resign and go. You can mediate. You can arbitrate.
There is great money in arbitration. I had gone through the 3 days of
study and testing by the only institute at the time that prepared
people for international arbitration. There was great money in it. But
at the same time, I was told by a Member of Congress, now is the time
you need to start raising money.
Do I start raising money to run for Congress, or do I pursue the
extremely lucrative and rewarding career in international arbitration?
Well, I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the
difference. Not a fun difference, but this is an important job. The
judiciary is an important job.
So, after the court refused to take up Mike Kelly's suit--totally
legitimate, should have been taken up--we have a lawsuit that was filed
a couple of nights ago by the Texas attorney general. It is styled
State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State
of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, so four defendants.
As Article III of our Constitution says: ``In all cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a
State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned,'' which is up in
the first part of Section 2, ``the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under
such regulations as the Congress shall make.''
But this is a case, as the Constitution says, where the Constitution
provides for original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. That means you
don't go to a lower court--not a magistrate, not a district judge, not
a court of appeals--but you go straight to the Supreme Court.
Now, I had filed things before in the Supreme Court, but I had never
filed an original action. I didn't realize until this week that on
something the Supreme Court is said by the Constitution to have
original jurisdiction, you can't just file. You have to come in and
beg: Oh, please, please, Mount Zion judges, please allow me leave so I
can file this petition because you have original jurisdiction over this
controversy, according to Article III of our Constitution.
Apparently, the Supreme Court has previously decreed that if you want
to file an original action, according to the Constitution, in our
Court, you have to come in and beg us for leave to file such an
original action. We may or may not let you file that lawsuit, even
though the Constitution makes clear it should be, it has to be,
originally in our Court and no other.
So, the State of Texas, by and through its attorney general, filed
this action. But they start by filing a motion for leave to file bill
of complaint. So, that is what they filed. They go through the motions
of doing what is required. Then, we get to the page that says ``Motion
for Leave to File Bill of Complaint,'' and it sets out--I am not going
to read the whole thing, but I think it is important that people
understand exactly what is involved here.
``As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020
election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities
in the defendant States:
``Nonlegislative actors' purported amendments to States' duly enacted
election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause's vesting State
legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of
Presidential electors.''
In other words, the Constitution makes clear the State legislatures
shall determine the appointment of the electors for that State as part
of the electoral college and nobody else. Not a judge, not a State or
Federal judge, not a commissioner, not a secretary of state, not a
Governor, but the legislature has to make that call of the State.
``Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more
favorable allotted to voters--whether lawful or unlawful--in areas
administered by local government under Democrat control and with
populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of
defendant States.
``The appearance of voting irregularities in the defendant States
that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of
ballot-integrity protections in those States' election laws.''
Those are three points made as to why this election suffered from
unconstitutional irregularities in those States that have been sued.
All of these flaws, even the violations of State election law,
violate one or more of the Federal requirements for elections. That
includes equal protection, due process, the Electors Clause, and thus
arise under Federal law.
So, it is not just that the Supreme Court, under our Constitution,
clearly has the original jurisdiction over this suit where a State sues
another State or States, but this involves a Federal question. In case
some on the Supreme Court are asleep or do not understand their
obligation, it is a Federal question as well as being a State versus
State.
In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the Court said: ``Significant departure from
the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a
Federal constitutional question.''
The plaintiff, the State of Texas, ``respectfully submits that the
foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad
saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both State
and Federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing
who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future
elections.''
I hope the Supreme Court--well, I know some of the Justices will take
particular interest and give attention to that. This is for the future
of the Republic.
As Eric Metaxas points out in his book, quoting from Franklin, when
he was asked, what have you given us? after the Constitutional
Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia. He replied: A republic, Madam, if
you can keep it.
[[Page H7143]]
I think the title of Eric's book is ``If You Can Keep It.''
Well, the answer will be determined in this case. If the Supreme
Court refuses to take it up and do their job, then the answer is, we
kept it from 1789 until 2020. Then, because we had people in States
that didn't do their job, or overzealously became partisan and allowed
circumstances, even participating in circumstances, to permit fraud and
to destroy the election process.
Any Republican that thinks, ``Oh, well, if I sound good, and I don't
stand up for the Constitution here, then I will be in good stead to be
the Republican nominee. Then, I can win the Presidency in 2024,'' the
news for those people is, if this fraud in this election is not
addressed and these unconstitutional schemes are not struck down by the
highest court in the country, there is not going to be a Republican
elected again. It is not going to happen.
So, it is rather important. History will judge us accordingly. From
the looks of what the Supreme Court did to Congressman Kelly's case, in
refusing to take it up, there is grave concern, appropriately, that the
Supreme Court is not going to do their jobs, that they will choose to
go down in history as the Supreme Court that allowed this Nation to
lapse as a republic.
There were rumors that the Chief Justice flipped his vote in the
ObamaCare case because he became very sensitive to the allegation that
if ObamaCare was overturned, he would become the most political Chief
Justice since Taney in the Dred Scott case. The rumor was that he
flipped and chose to uphold that decision, making him the most
political Chief Justice in American history, probably more so than
Taney.
In Taney's case--regardless of how you pronounce it--in that case,
that decision helped pave the way for the Civil War because the Supreme
Court did not do their job in protecting the rights listed in the
Constitution in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, this country is headed
for some very dire times if the Supreme Court doesn't resolve this
controversy and the fraud that underlies it.
Again, for those that say there was no fraud, wake up, look at the
evidence. There is sworn testimony. There is video footage.
Another thing that people need to understand about the judicial
system, it is not a new idea that one party to a suit would have
possession of evidence that would show that party should lose the
lawsuit. That has happened throughout jurisprudence.
Over the years, in the common law, a doctrine, a legal doctrine,
developed called spoliation. The doctrine is basically this: If one
party is in possession of evidence, or possesses the capacity to
preserve evidence, and they mix that evidence in with other evidence
that prevents a party from being able to show that it should win the
day, then that doctrine of spoliation can be utilized.
If there is a jury which is the fact-finder, the judge can tell the
jury that it may consider the fact that the defendant in this case had
possession of documents that would either prove or disprove the
plaintiff's case, and since the defendant refuses to produce them or
put them in a manner that they could not be identified or destroyed
them, then you may consider that that evidence supported the
plaintiff's case.
{time} 1330
And you can even take judicial notice, a court can, of a situation
like that. The Supreme Court could take judicial notice of that, that
one party has the evidence that will prove the plaintiff's case, and
they refuse to allow it to be found; or, as we saw in Pennsylvania, we
had a Supreme Court order to preserve evidence, and the eight actors in
Pennsylvania basically ignored the order so they could continue to hide
evidence. That should be evidence and should have judicial notice taken
that that evidence is the fact that they continue to hide what would
have proved the plaintiff's case.
So, as the brief says, taken together, these flaws affect outcome
determinative numbers of popular votes in a group of States that cast
outcome determinative numbers of electoral votes. This Court--and I am
talking about the Supreme Court since they have original jurisdiction--
should grant leave to file the complaint and ultimately enjoin the use
of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the
defendant States' legislatures and remand the defendant States'
respective legislatures to appoint Presidential electors in a manner
consistent with Electors Clause, and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 2.
So that is the motion for leave to file.
And then we get to the bill of complaint that Texas is seeking to
have permission to file.
Oh, please, oh, most holy Supreme Court, please, lower yourselves to
allow us to be heard before your Court of original jurisdiction.
Please, oh, please.
How many times do we need to say it to affect the high and mighty
Supreme Court?
Well, the bill of complaint actually has an appropriate quote from
John Adams: ``That form of government, which is best contrived to
secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of
republics.'' And that is exactly what we will be losing if we do not
preserve the integrity of this election.
The bill of complaint goes on to say: ``Our country stands at an
important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be
followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of
date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National
Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.
``Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy.
The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling
interest in ensuring that the selection of a President--any President--
is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will
founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.
``Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a
justification, government officials in the defendant States of Georgia,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . . .
usurped their legislatures' authority and unconstitutionally revised
their State's election statutes. They accomplished these statutory
revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby
weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials
flooded the defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent
through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of
custody and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures
protecting the integrity of the vote--signature verification and
witness requirements.''
And I might inject here, in the State of Georgia, on Saturday night,
being there with the President, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and so
many other wonderful Georgia officials--and I do love the State of
Georgia. It seemed like I spent 20 years there because I was in the
Army, but my 4 years at Fort Benning, I grew to love the people of
Georgia. We still have many great friends in the State, so it is always
a pleasure to have an excuse to go back to Georgia.
That was a rough time in our history. People did not appreciate those
of us that wore the uniform. We didn't have it as bad as those who had
recently come back from Vietnam, but it was a very unpleasant time to
be in uniform. There were times when we were ordered not to wear it;
yet, generally, the people of Georgia were just superb.
I was there and Vernon Jones showed me an envelope he had gotten from
America Votes, sometimes referred to as Stacey Abrams' group, but it
had a return address on the envelope here in Washington, D.C., and
apparently they sent out millions of these requests for absentee
ballots.
It seemed like something like that ought to be reserved to a
governmental entity so that those are not sent to people who shouldn't
be getting them, that government ought to update their records and make
sure they are not sending them to dead people or to people who have
been moved to other States, other jurisdictions for 40 years, as we
have already heard in some cases.
There was all this information about absentee ballots and pushing the
recipient to fill it out, send it in, and even a postage-paid envelope
was provided, which provides something of value to somebody for them to
send in that absentee request.
[[Page H7144]]
But I just thought: Wow. So Washington, D.C., has gotten involved in
the State of Georgia's election in trying to skew the vote there. It is
really interesting.
But getting back to this complaint by the State of Texas, it says:
``The only date that is mandated under the Constitution is . . .
January 20, 2021, U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.
``Against that background, the State of Texas . . . brings this
action against defendant States based on the following allegations:
``1. Plaintiff State challenges defendant States' administration of
the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1,
Clause 2, and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
``2. This case presents a question of law: Did defendant States
violate the Electors Clause, or, in the alternative, the 14th
Amendment, by taking--or allowing--nonlegislative actions to change the
election rules that would govern the appointment of Presidential
electors?
``3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election
irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of
the defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing
the appointment of Presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep
distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v.
Madison, this Court's attention is profoundly needed to declare what
the law is and to restore public trust in this election.
``4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently: ``Government is not free
to disregard the Constitution in times of crisis. . . . Yet, recently,
during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these
long-settled principles.''
That is in the case of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York
v. Cuomo, a case from 2020. The petition or the complaint says that
this case is no different now.
``5. Each of the defendant States acted in a common pattern. State
officials, sometimes through pending litigation, for example, settling
`friendly' suits, and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat,
announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were
inconsistent with existing State statutes defining what constitutes a
lawful vote.
``6. Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner
that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were
cast in conformity with the legislative set rules and which were not.
This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States by
waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to following the State
statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for
ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now
constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine
allocation of the defendant States' Presidential electors.''
I interject here. A good example, and this also brings in the
doctrine of spoliation, where, in Georgia, you had people lie to get
people out of the area in which ballots were being counted, and then
once they were all out and there was no big water leak, there may have
been a slight leak in a commode, but they were moved out. You can see
the video. But then out from under tables comes suitcases full of
ballots that these people who are unwatched to ensure that these were
legitimate ballots, they started running them through and counting
them.
Well, my understanding is they have refused to make those ballots
available for examination. And that is where spoliation comes in. They
have got the evidence; they refuse to produce it; so the presumption
should be made by the Supreme Court, if those ballots were produced by
the people who have sole control over them, they would prove the
plaintiff's case; therefore, plaintiff's case is proven and the results
are no longer viable and valid.
The complaint goes on: ``Each of the defendant States acted in a
common pattern.''
I touched on that.
``7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of defendant States'
unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending
lawsuits in defendant States or in public view including:
``Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about the physical
blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of
the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late
night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally
backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures
ignored''--and I would interject, and those put in batches where it
could not be determined what signatures came with that ballot. That
ought to lead to spoliation evidence--``signature verification
procedures ignored; more than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County,
Michigan, center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;
``Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are
removed from vote-counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from
entering vote-counting centers--despite even having a court order to
enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath
tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
{time} 1345
``Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation
exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania, a laptop and several USB
drives used to program Pennsylvania's Dominion voting machines were
mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia. The laptop and
the USB drives were the only items taken, and potentially could be
taken to alter vote tallies; in Michigan, which also employed the same
Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election
officials have admitted that a purported `glitch' caused 6,000 votes
for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democratic candidate
Biden. A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left
unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning
hours of November 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper
chain of custody.
``8. Nor was this court''--talking about the Supreme Court--``immune
from the blatant disregard for the rule of law. Pennsylvania itself
played fast and loose with its promise to this court. In a classic bait
and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to
argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State
would segregate potentially unlawful ballots. A court of law would
reasonably rely on such a representation. Remarkably, before the ink
was dry on the court's 4-4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that
guidance, breaking the State's promise to the Supreme Court.''
In the October 28, 2020, decision, it said: ``We have been informed
by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the
Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections
to segregate late-arriving ballots.''
Well, it turns out they lied to the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme
Court will not have at least enough self-respect to call down a State
that lies to the Court to get a ruling they want, then that is one
worthless court.
It is the same problem we have had with the FISA courts and why I
want to eliminate them. They didn't even have enough self-respect that
when they found out they were lied to in a number of manners in order
to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, they didn't get upset.
They didn't put anybody in jail. They didn't hold anybody in contempt.
A court that worthless needs to be eliminated.
As my law school professor, David Gwynne, used to say, you know,
every Federal court in America, except for one, owes its existence and
jurisdiction to the U.S. Congress. That, of course, the Supreme Court.
We brought them into the world, we should be able to take them out. And
that should happen when they don't even have enough self-respect to
enforce the truthfulness required to make that court operate.
In Republican Party versus Boockvar, November 6, 2020, a quote from
that decision: ``This court was not informed that the guidance issued
on October 28th, which had an important bearing on the question whether
to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been
modified.''
That was from Justice Alito.
``10. The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the
popular vote in the four defendant states--Georgia, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--independently given President Trump's
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, is less than
[[Page H7145]]
one in a quadrillion, or one in''--well, I am not even sure what that
number is. Maybe quadrillion. I guess that is 15 zeros. ``For former
Vice President Biden to win these four states collectively, the odds of
that event happening decreased to less than one in a quadrillion to the
fourth power.
``13. By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing State
law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each
State's legislature, defendant States violated not only the electors
clause, but also the elections clause, to the extent that the Article I
elections clause textually applies to the Article II process of
selecting Presidential electors.
``14. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a
Presidential election in which the votes from each of the States are
counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that
complies with the preexisting laws of each State. The President and
vice president of the United States are the only elected officials who
represent all the voters in the Nation. Voters who cast lawful ballots
cannot have their votes diminished''--or the term we have heard over
the last 4 years, disenfranchised--``by States that administered their
2020 Presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to
distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot.
``15. The number of absentee and mail-in ballots that have been
handled unconstitutionally in defendant States greatly exceeds the
difference between the vote totals of the two candidates for President
of the United States in each defendant State.
``16. In addition to injunctive relief for this election, plaintiff
State seeks declaratory relief for all Presidential elections in the
future. This problem is clearly capable of repetition, yet evading
review. The integrity of our constitutional democracy requires that
States conduct Presidential elections in accordance with the rule of
law and Federal constitutional guarantees.
So that is critical.
``18. In a Presidential election, `the impact of the votes cast in
each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in
other States.'''
That is in the Anderson case, 460 U.S. at 795.
``The constitutional failures of defendant States injure plaintiff
States because `the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or
dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by
wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.'''
And that is from Bush versus Gore.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that the Supreme Court step
up and take the jurisdiction that the Constitution requires it to take.
It won't be fun and it won't be pleasurable, but it is absolutely
essential that the U.S. Supreme Court do what the Constitution created
them to do, take up this matter with which it has original jurisdiction
and determine there were unconstitutional actions taken that affected
the outcome of this election. It was not a free and fair election, and
if the Supreme Court does not act accordingly, then, really, the
Supreme Court is irrelevant, Congress is irrelevant; and those who
would seek to hide ballots in the future, create improper ballots,
count ballots multiple times, they will control the future of this
country, not the Supreme Court, not Congress, but a newfangled
electronic--not just electronic. They used every method known to man.
It will make Tammany Hall, and has made Tammany Hall, look like Mister
Rogers' Neighborhood. It is time to act. It is time preserve the
Republic.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________