[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.

                          ____________________