An actual court decision, where the very language you tried to use, of a purported quote supposedly (but not actually) from the Congressional record, was debunked:
Read it and weep. Like you, that unsuccessful sovrun strawman bs artist tried to claim the same thing. The court noted "Notwithstanding the unknown source of the quotation, it appears to be the basis of Mr. Detrick's understanding of the law." LOL
In particular, the following paragraph is edifying:
"Merits of Claim
Plaintiff quotes extensively from a "speech" given by former Representative James Traficant to explain his theory of why individuals are chattel. As noted above, the bulk of language "quoted" by Plaintiff was not in the speech as reported in the Congressional Record. However, whether former Representative Traficant actually said the words attributed to him is not material to the court's decision. That is because "[t]he only possible interpretation of law leads to the inescapable conclusion that plaintiffs' arguments are totally without merit." Sesma v. Dept. of Rev., OTC-MD No 001078F, WL 958920, *4 (July 31, 2001) (awarding $2,000 in damages for pursuing a frivolous appeal). *fn6"
ROFL FAIL FAIL FAIL ROFL