Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, the majority leader just said: Everything we do depends on this bill. I guess he is right because the Democrats are trying to tip the scales of elections to their party. Besides giving the uni-party in the swamp power, funding politicians with taxpayer dollars, and preventing the use of voter identification laws, Democrats will prevent ballot harvesting and mandate nationwide mail-in balloting, which Jimmy Carter himself said is a recipe for fraud. Madam Speaker, Democrats are so enamored of power, it appears that they want to legalize cheating in elections. If that isn't enough for you, they want 16-year-olds to be able to register to vote, as well as felons and illegal aliens to be able to vote. What could possibly go wrong? Madam Speaker, while most in the country have some doubt as to the integrity of our elections across both parties, my colleagues across the aisle want to ensure we never have an honest election again. This bill is a dubious path on which to embark. If we do not stop it again, it will become increasingly difficult to depart to a better road that actually restores trust in America. Madam Speaker, when I hear the argument of voter suppression, I say we had more voters in the last election for President than ever--more than ever. This bill is a monstrosity. It is a waste. It is unnecessary. I urge people to vote ``no.''

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill. Despite its name, this bill is not about equality. It does attack religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and all the important rights recognized in the First Amendment. This bill is about forcing the ideas and beliefs of the far left on all Americans. It is about government control over every aspect of your life. It is a remnant from the scrap heap of failed legislation from yesteryear. I believe that all Americans should be treated equally and respected, but this bill does not do that. There are lots of concerns to have with this bill, but today, I am going to just highlight two. First, this bill will have a serious and deadly consequence for unborn children. It expands abortion and undoes current Federal law that prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion. It does so by adding to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,'' which has been recognized by courts and the EEOC to mean abortion, to the definition of sex. I am reminded of when I used to work at the United Nations and would attend conferences throughout the world. The code language in the United Nations documents, in international law, was enforced pregnancy. That meant abortion. That meant you could not proscribe abortion. This bill takes that same tack. This bill also states that pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions. That is that same tack that is in international documents. This means that abortion cannot be treated differently than other medical conditions, and therefore abortion will be protected by our civil rights laws. That is not about equality; that is about expanding abortion. Secondly, this bill will negatively impact all Americans whose religious beliefs influence their actions. This bill makes crystal clear that an individual's religious beliefs do not matter, as my colleague from Ohio just referred to. This bill specifically prevents Americans from relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was a bipartisan bill in 1993 signed by President Clinton. This bill says specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 shall not provide a claim concerning or defense to a claim under a covered title or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title. How can you say with a straight face that this bill does not impede or stomp on someone's right of conscience or right of religious worship? It is set forth. It is specific. Who can deny that? This bill, if enacted, will mean that Americans will not be able to act in accordance with their religious beliefs. They will be forced to set their religious beliefs aside or face consequences. This is unacceptable. This is un-American. For these and many other reasons, I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here today, but what I feel and what I believe as I am listening and I am hearing the debate is this is not really about words said by Mrs. Greene before she was ever elected overwhelmingly in her district. If it was about language and that we were disciplining because of language, we would have disciplined somebody else on this side, on the Democrat's side, who said: ``Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evildoings of Israel.'' ``It is all about the Benjamins, baby.'' That would invoke some discipline, I would have thought. How about this one comparing Jewish Israeli settlers to termites. That guy didn't get disciplined. He is still on the committees I sit on. He said: There has been a steady stream, almost like termites can get into a residence and eat. And before you know that, you have been eaten up, and you fall in on yourself. It goes on and it goes on. The Speaker of this House has said that Republicans are enemies of the state. All of these incite violence. All of these demean. All of these dehumanize. All of these are statements that just should not be accepted, but they were accepted. There was no condemnation. And as the last speaker just said, no condemnation is an endorsement. So I guess there is endorsement from all of them on those statements. So here today you are doing something that is unprecedented. You are taking somebody for things she said before she got into this body, and you are saying that we are going to control the minority choice of committee assignments. This has never happened before, but here it goes. I am afraid it is going to cascade, because that is not the way we should do this. You can't take away the rights of the minority leader and the minority conference. That is the problem that we have here. No one endorses what Mrs. Greene said, but we endorse her election and the right of the leader to make her committee assignments and not to have those be taken away by the majority.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, it is with wariness and a certain unhealthy, morbid curiosity that I watch the beast attempt to devour President Donald J. Trump again. The craving to crush President Trump has never been satisfied--not through investigations, not through false allegations, and not even through an impeachment that was wholly without merit. And the timing of this impeachment makes little sense. Your candidate will take office in a few hours, and President Trump will relinquish the levers of power to President-elect Biden. Your craving was never a Biden victory, nor was it even a Trump defeat. You believe that your hunger will be finally satiated by impeaching this President without completion of his full term of office. You don't merely seek victory, but you seek obliteration of your nemesis. The thirst for Trump's destruction will not be slaked, however, even if you are successful today and were the Senate to convict President Trump. Yours will be a Pyrrhic victory, for, instead of stopping the Trump train, his movement will grow stronger, for you will have made him a martyr. Surely you are aware of this, and that is why your allies in the media seek to censor conservative voices. Your chums who sit on the boards of corporate America--yes, the same companies that the left vilifies--promise to starve Republicans from receiving their PAC donations. But I bet that the groundswell of support for President Trump and his policies will not go away. You see, the movement he started is based on building an incredibly robust economy on a foundation of lower taxes and fewer regulations that has the wonderful effect of putting more people to work than ever. It is built upon a strong military that is extricated from endless wars. It provides border security, America- first trade agreements, Mideast peace and stability. Those are the things the American people want. Your 4-year appetite will be temporarily assuaged while you will, no doubt, continue to chase after leaders of this movement, but your appetite will be unfulfilled. I urge you, please, do not--and I am mixing metaphors here--attempt to douse the remaining burning embers of this movement with gasoline. No one wants that. I urge you, please, to reconsider the reckless action in which you engage today.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, the violence at the Capitol last week has been condemned by Republicans, Democrats, and President Trump. So, I wonder: Why are the Democrats stoking the fire instead of dousing the flames? This 25th Amendment resolution is actually similar, with some differences, to the proposal filed in October of this year by the same Representative and joined by 42 Democrats. The problem at that time is they were trying to get this commission together. This time, they want the Vice President to invoke the other portion of article 4. But the problem, of course, is that the Vice President sent a very lovely letter to them, saying he is not going to do that. Our Nation is divided. While folks on the left are trying to lay this all on President Trump, you should consider a few statements from colleagues across the aisle. One of our colleagues at one point said: ``If you see anybody from that Cabinet,'' meaning Mr. Trump's Cabinet, ``in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere.'' Senator Booker called for his supporters to: ``Go to the Hill today. Get up and please get up in the face of some Congresspeople.'' I have dozens more similar statements. But what we are talking about here today is a resolution, asking the Vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment and get the Cabinet together to remove this President. What that does, it is basically doing what Democrats wrongfully claimed President Trump did on January 6. It pours gas on the smoldering embers, which consist of tens of millions who believe the integrity of the election was questionable. They feel disenfranchised. And quite frankly, they are more angry than aggrieved. Some believe that by doing this, it is going to be healing. I heard this gentleman say this in the Rules Committee, that doing this would be healing. Yet, the Vice President said he is not going to do that. If this resolution is to ask the Vice President to invoke this 25th Amendment, if this is what the purpose of this is, to ask the Vice President, then the purpose is now null. But I suggest to you it looks like, it would appear like, if we are going to proceed on, even after you received the answer that you are seeking, and it is disapprobation of your idea, that the only thing that could be left is to pour gas on the fire. I am asking that cooler heads prevail here. This is not necessary. Don't let this get in the way. Just to parrot the last speaker, I am asking friends across the aisle: Don't do this.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I join the objection to counting votes of electors from my home State of Arizona, as well as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada, because election integrity is the heart of our American constitutional republic? In a representative form of government, we must be able to trust that our elections accurately represent the will of the American voter. This is the appropriate forum anticipated and provided for by our Founders to debate whether this election complied with the Constitution that we have all sworn to protect. Every particular of the Constitution is to be protected, including Article II, Section 1. The debate as to the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election has been suppressed by the left and its propagandists in the media until today. State legislatures are required to determine the manner in which electors are chosen. Arizona names its electors on the general election ballot and identifies what candidate those electors are required to vote for should that candidate obtain the majority of votes in the general election. As part of the manner for determining electors, Arizona also establishes deadlines for voter registration. The deadline has been in place for 30 years. This year, that voter registration deadline was October 5. Early voting commenced 2 days later. Five days before the deadline, a group filed a lawsuit demanding that Arizona election officials not enforce the deadline. The Federal District Court decided that since other States have a deadline later than Arizona's and some even allow for registration when voting, that Arizona's new deadline would be a time he chose, not the legislature's timeline. The appellate court effectively overturned the lower court ruling and noted that the Arizona deadline established by the State legislature was sound and appropriate and complied with the Constitution. But the appellate court merely shortened the extension, the bypassing of the deadline to 10 days. The appellate court, without legal justification, also decided that everyone who registered after the legal deadline, but before the deadline created by judicial fiat, could still vote. Note that the Arizona legislature was no longer in control of determining the manner of appointing Presidential electors because the court had set a new deadline, even though the appellate court found the legislature's deadline was constitutionally sound. During that window, more than 32,000 voters registered in Maricopa County alone. Here are copies of those voter registration records. In going around the deadline set by the legislature, the court ignored the Arizona legislature's obligation and right to direct the manner of choosing Presidential electors as set forth in Article II, Section 1. As a consequence of that judicial usurpation, more than 32,000 people were allowed to unlawfully cast ballots in Arizona's Presidential election in 2020. The Arizona legislature seeks an independent audit of the election. The Governor refuses now to call them into a special session. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has refused to comply with legislative subpoenas. In Arizona, the people who control the evidence related to the election have done everything possible to prevent an independent audit directed by the legislature. Arizonans have used the limited amount of records available to investigate the 2020 Presidential election. Of a limited sample of 1,000 addresses of voters, they found 539 voters did not live at the addresses on the voter rolls. Here is a stack of 1,000 declaration of affidavits supporting that. I object to counting the votes of Arizona electors because the Federal courts went around the legislatively constructed mechanism for choosing Arizona's Presidential electors, allowing tens of thousands of voters to unlawfully cast votes. The court usurped a key component of the Arizona legislature's manner of selecting Presidential electors, thus violating Article II, Section 1. The legislature is being obstructed in its efforts. And what little evidence we have and what little information we have has produced this kind of evidence, which indicates a significant problem with the integrity of the Presidential election. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my written comments, together with the voter registration records that reflect the 32,000 registrations permitted in contravention of State law; letters and resolutions from Arizona legislators pertaining to the count of votes from electors; along with approximately 1,000 affidavits and declarations pertaining to potential voter fraud in Arizona in the 2020 Presidential election; and the statement of Congressman Randy Weber of Texas. December 31, 2020. Dear Vice President Pence: As the Chairwoman of the Arizona House Elections Committee, I write to you with upmost urgency to communicate to you several occurrences that thwart our ability as legislators to investigate legitimate and concerning allegations of election fraud in the most recent general election. On December 14, 2020, Arizona sent an alternate slate of electors, along with a resolution from 21 current and 8 newly elected legislators asking you to refrain from accepting the Biden electors until we could adequately investigate these claims of fraud. Soon after the election, I requested an Elections Committee discovery hearing in order to use subpoena power to acquire the voting machines and ballots in order to do a comprehensive and forensic audit. I was told that it was not a good idea and was denied the ability. I continued to request the hearing with the Speaker of the House, asked publicly, and tried every avenue to no avail. A full month later on December 9th, the Senate President authorized a hearing via the Judiciary committee, and that did result in subpoenas to the Maricopa County Supervisors (who oversee the elections process) that have yet, as of the writing of this letter, been complied with. Court cases have been dismissed due to not having evidence, however our efforts to do an audit to obtain such evidence have been suppressed. We held a hearing on 11/30/2020 with Rudy Giuliani to at least hear testimony from citizens who experienced irregularities, along with subject matter experts who reported severe irregularities and probable tampering with the machine apparatus. On 11/30/2020, a group of Arizona citizens reported publicly that they had uncovered with great confidence a minimum estimation of 160,000 fraudulent voters, based on over 1000 declarations/affidavits collected. This supports an earlier document submitted to the Attorney General and would largely impact the outcome of the election. We have experienced obstruction at every turn. For your reference, I have itemized, in Exhibit A, many of the various ways we have been stopped from investigating claims of fraud and gross irregularities. It is my hope that you will see that the Arizona Presidential election is still in dispute and unresolved. We call on you to take this into consideration as you perform your duties on January 6th, and not accept the electors until we have resolution to these matters. With utmost respect, Kelly J. Townsend, Senator-Elect. Exhibit A 1. Requests from the House Elections Chairwoman (myself) and the House Federal Relations Chairman (Mark Finchem) to hold an evidentiary hearing were repeatedly denied and have yet to be honored. Multiple Chairmen of various committees requested a hearing in order to investigate claims, to no avail. We were forced to hold an unofficial hearing on November 30th where many came forward with very concerning evidence and claims. 2. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was not held until 41 days after the election on 12/14/2020, the same day as the Electors were to cast their votes. This delay rendered the hearing of little effect regarding having confidence in the correct votes cast. The Chairman thus issued a subpoena for the equipment and ballots, but the Maricopa Board of Supervisors has countersued and refuse to comply. They will not release any machine or ballot info, even though within the RFP for the Dominion machines, it is stated that their key features are their ability to conduct hand counts, perform risk limiting audits, and publish ballot images and adjudication records with markings on a public website, calling it their open data initiative. Now that they are being asked for it, they are refusing to make it available, citing voter confidentiality. There is no voter information contained in the machine or on a ballot, however, so that reasoning is insufficient. Their inaction and nonfeasance prevent us from proper discovery. 3. I, along with several others, requested the Governor to call us in for special session to be able to deal with the issue. It is our understanding that we cannot enforce the subpoena for equipment and ballots unless we are in session. His ongoing unwillingness to call us into session to address these issues had kept us from adequate discovery. On 12/02/ 2020, Governor Doug Ducey was asked by the media if he was going to honor the Legislator's request for a special session. He proceeded to incorrectly name Monday January 13th as our first day back in regular session. In response, the reporter asked, ``So you see no need for a special session to look at any of these issues or the issue of Presidential electors...,'' to which the Governor interrupted and said, ``I'll see the Legislature in January.'' 4. The House leadership attempted to deter Representative Bret Roberts from sending a letter to Attorney General Brnovich and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors regarding the accurate performance of a hand count based on the statutory requirement to do so by precinct, versus vote center. By doing a hand count based on voting centers, it renders it impossible to tell if there was a rogue precinct involved in fraud. Nevertheless, Rep. Robert's efforts to enforce statute were thwarted by House leadership. 5. One week prior to the Electors voting, on December 7th, the House and Senate leadership closed the buildings in the name of COVID-19, preventing any in-person hearings or work to be performed. This greatly hindered our ability to push for discovery regarding election integrity during the last days before the Elector's votes were cast. 6. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors held a closed meeting on 11/20/2020 in order to certify the election results, where the public was not allowed to participate and ask questions. Prior to that meeting, on 12/08/2020, Merissa Hamilton (a data integrity expert) delivered to the Attorney General a statistically significant listing of deceased voters that received a ballot and those deceased who actually returned a ballot. At the aforementioned meeting, the Maricopa County Elections Director Ray Valenzuela stated that the list of deceased voters casting a ballot was mere folklore and dismissed it as a nonissue. This accusation is still pending an investigation. 7. After submitting a public records request for the Federal only voters who cast a ballot in the 2020 General election, I was told by a staff member that the Elections Director was ``vetting the list'' before he gave it to me. I did not request a cleaned-up list of voters, but the list in its entirety. This diminished my confidence in that list, that I have a true representation of persons who cast a ballot that cannot establish their identity or citizenship. 8. Arizona State House leadership prevented Legislators from issuing press releases having to do with the election that did not conform to their own opinion. This diminished our ability to communicate to the public our concerns about how the election and post procedures were being handled. 9. On 12/01/2020, I requested the Attorney General's Elections Integrity office to investigate the claims made at the November 30th Giuliani hearing and provided them the link. I was told that none of the items listed at the Giuliani hearing would be investigated by that office. 10. The Maricopa County Recorder attended more than one DefCon conference that focused on the ability to hack voting machines. The Legislature was never informed that the outcome of these conferences recommended that elected officials be notified due to unprotected ports on the machines, passwords left unset or left in default configurations and security features of the underlying commercial hardware were left unused or even disabled. It was recommended that to improve election security, paper ballots should be used, and a rigorous post-election audit be performed. We learned about this issue via social media, and it was obfuscated by the Election officials. 11. Arizona Republican State Chair Kelli Ward reports the following malfeasance and obstruction: a. No allowed review of the digitally adjudicated ballots-- over 200,000. b. Only 100 of the duplicated ballots reviewed--3% error rate in favor of President Trump. Maricopa County refused to look at the other 28,000 ballots. c. No meaningful signature verification. County employees doing signature verification offsite, over the internet, without oversight, and at times at a rate of 30 signatures or more per minute. 12. The Secretary of State took 24 days to answer a public records request by Merissa Hamilton, asking them to deliver the meeting minutes from their technical committee to certify the Dominion voting equipment. Only after four requests and the involvement of the Ombudsman did she obtain the information. The results of that request showed that despite the voting equipment not being able to calculate the votes properly, which was never addressed, the machines were still certified. The Maricopa County RFP for the Dominion equipment did not give the public a chance to give input on the procurement. There was never any discussion or an offer of various options to choose from. The Board of Supervisors went straight to a vote with no discussion and approved the machines unanimously. 13. There are multiple/numerous examples of how on election day observers and poll workers were prevented from overseeing the various procedures, thereby undermining confidence that there was no illegal activity and violating Arizona's statutes regarding election integrity. We have had no formal investigation into the vast majority of these accusations. Summary Arizona has many unresolved issues that we would like to have investigated in order to confidently say our electors voted for the true victor in the 2020 Presidential election. We still have outstanding issues left unresolved and are being stopped at nearly every turn from investigating. For example, the Maricopa County Recorder's office started counting early ballots 14 days before election day. During that time, the backup server was removed each night by a Dominion employee. This is of significant concern because the information on those servers could have been manipulated and/ or provided to nefarious people as to how many ballots/votes were needed to change the results of the election as time went on. Many in the Legislature believe that if we are able to do a forensic audit, we could investigate these and other serious claims brought forward to us. However, as you can see by the list above (not exhaustive but brief for your benefit) we have many entities who appear to be blocking our efforts to get to the bottom of the issue. One can only ask, in a supposedly secure and fair election, why discovery is being quashed. Conclusion It is asked that all of these issues be considered when contemplating the eleven Arizona electoral votes. Our election is still in dispute, and we have obfuscation and attempts at running out the clock to prevent discovery of the facts. We believe it is impossible to conclusively declare a winner in Arizona and pray that you would refrain from counting the electoral votes from our state, and consider the alternate slate should we be able to establish validity to the various claims of election fraud on such a scale that would change the outcome. Thank you, kindly, for your attention to these matters.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the ranking member for all of his work here on this bill and so many others to benefit the lives of our veterans and their families. I appreciate it very much. I strongly support S. 2216, the TEAM Veteran Caregivers Act, and, as the sponsor of H.R. 6571, the House companion of this legislation. Family caregivers assume enormous responsibilities by caring for our wounded veterans, including many who are among our most vulnerable. I introduced this legislation because one of my constituents, Ms. Sharon Grassi, came to us with her concerns related to the VA's family caregiver program. Sharon is the mother and caregiver of her son Derek, a 100-percent disabled veteran who served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as a combat medic. Since Derek's departure from the service, Sharon has dedicated her life to securing the well-being of her son. Sharon told our office countless stories of her struggles attempting to gain access to her son's VA medical records, even something as simple as a much-needed copy of an MRI. As many caregivers know, having timely access to medical records is extremely important to move forward in the recovery process of the patient. Sharon has had issues getting access to these records because the VA does not formally recognize family caregivers in the health records of the veteran. Today, we are one step closer to fixing this issue by requiring the VA to report to Congress on the feasibility and the advisability of recognizing family caregivers in the electronic health records of the veteran. I will continue to work with my House and Senate colleagues and the VA to ensure that no family caregiver goes through the same bureaucratic nightmares as Sharon has. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the caregivers who support our wounded veterans every day, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and all the veterans service organizations that voiced their strong support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, for his service in Congress and his strong support of our Nation's veterans. I will say I respect him. His leadership and expertise will be missed in the Halls of this Congress. Thank you, Dr. Roe. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes''.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I will talk about what I view as a massive confusion in this bill. We have heard arguments this morning, already, that States are regulating this, and I believe, ultimately, that is where this regulation, domestically, should be: within the States. Mr. Speaker, this bill ostensibly deregulating cannabis imposes a Federal tax, Federal agencies, Federal oversight. You are not de- federalizing marijuana; you are just changing the regulatory structure in which you control marijuana. That is interesting to me, and I find it very disingenuous in some ways. Mr. Speaker, what it also does is it obviates Congress' constitutional obligation to manage or oversee interstate commerce. That is what this bill does. It obviates that, while you are throwing a Federal tax on all these folks. That is a bit of a problem, but it goes to an enhanced problem. As long as we have the massive and growing social welfare state that we have today, we will incur whatever detriment comes from the criminalization, nationally, of marijuana. We must, in my opinion, have a serious discussion on this and not a congeries, a bill that is a congeries, a mishmash of ideas and hopes instead of data-driven science. As the gentleman from North Carolina just iterated to us, it is a problem. If you have prosecuted or defended--and I did both, and I defended for many years. My specialty, the area that I focused on, was drunk and drug driving cases. It is a problem, and it is exacerbated by the decriminalization and legitimization of marijuana use in the States. This bill does not address that appropriately. This bill does not do anything more than provide a different mishmash of Federal laws over marijuana regulation. I am hoping for a serious dialogue sometime about an issue. Mr. Speaker, I have to just close by saying this. When I heard someone say that all the States that have passed this have done so overwhelmingly, Arizona rejected it three times before barely passing it this time--barely passing it this time--and that is an election that is being contested even right now in the courts.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I have sat here and listened to some of the 1 minutes from my friends across the aisle, and they are talking about the need for COVID relief. Apparently, to get COVID relief, you have got to have cannabis. You have got to have pot. That is the Democrats' version of COVID relief this week. But they don't feel like they all need to be here to deal with this issue, so they are going to mail it in. They are going to phone in their votes, and, quite frankly, in a most disturbing and unconstitutional manner. Mr. Speaker, we can be here; they should be here. If this meant everything that they say it does, they would show up. They would show up and vote. We could have had committee hearings, for Pete's sakes. We could have committee hearings where we could discuss and debate. We would have floor debates with open rules. And you know what? People would show up.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I join in condemning racial discrimination of all kinds. It should never be tolerated. I wish we had the perfect society and everybody recognized everybody in a colorblind way, but what this bill does today is it doesn't address that. When I heard the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just refer to calling the virus that originated in China the Wuhan prefecture, when I heard him say that this is somehow equivalent to the Chinese Immigration Exclusion Act or somehow equivalent to the Japanese internment camp experience that we had where over 100,000 Japanese were removed from their homes and taken to camps, I said: This really is the woke culture on steroids. This has gone beyond. If this would have been a condemnation of anti-Asian discrimination, I probably would have been right there signing this. I lived in northeast Asia for 2 years. I speak Japanese. I have traveled extensively in Asia. This doesn't address that. What it does is says: You know what, we want to do something when we are about 6 weeks out from an election. That is what this resolution is about. You can't tell the truth here. Let's just recite some of the things we know: The West Nile virus, that is because that virus emerged from the West Nile district of Uganda, 1930. The Saint Louis encephalitis virus broke out around St. Louis in 1933. The Japanese encephalitis virus broke out in Japan in 1870. Coxsackie, New York State; Marburg, Germany; Hendra, Australia, all have viruses named after them. You will always have the ignorant who act out on racial animus. We condemn that. But let's tell the truth. The Middle East Respiratory Syndrome virus in 2012. We call that ``MERS.'' This week we learned from Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan that not only did this virus originate in China, but it may have been manufactured and released intentionally by the Chinese Communist Party. So when the media refers to this as the ``Wuhan virus'' or the ``China virus,'' and other officials, including folks from this party over here, it is not because they have an existing racist sentiment, but it is rather to describe its origination as has been done historically. This resolution today is even more than a measure to appease the woke and tolerant and politically correct leftists. It is an attack on President Trump and all who support President Trump. It is a crying shame that you can't take the actual issue that you want to address and address it. You have to expand it that way for political purposes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks) for his words and also for his work on the legislation that I think will be very important. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), my friend and my seatmate from Arizona.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I will begin by recognizing the heroic men and women who serve in the L.A. County Sheriff's Department as well. This week, our country witnessed a cowardly evil attack on two L.A. County deputies. As the two county deputies were sitting inside of their parked car in Compton, California, a thug approached their vehicle and shot them point-blank. We are grateful that both of them are expected to survive. We regret that ambush, totally without justification, and we need to bring them to justice. I am reminded of what the British moralist C. S. Lewis described in his book, ``The Abolition of Man,'' where he said of shallow and heartless people as being ``men without chests.'' Perhaps, now, we are seeing that from the vicious criminals who are attempting to single out and overthrow our cities and, specifically, attack our police force. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), my friend.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my good friend.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who will be speaking as fast as a Texan can speak.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the sweltering heat of Arizona deserts, we have multiple jurisdictions of police officers who come to the rescue, not just armed with guns, but they will save those who are fighting through the desert, fighting through the heat, whether they are here in this country illegally or not. Whether they are with the Customs and Border Patrol, whether they are with ICE, whether they are with the county sheriff's department or our local municipal police departments, they provide first aid assistance and lifesaving assistance, and I pay homage to them. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).