[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 144 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H11083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM LEGISLATION PENDING 
                       CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to address this 
body about a document that is sometimes forgotten. A document that 
gives meaning and purpose to what we do in this body, that in fact is 
the basis upon which this body actually exists. And that is the 
Constitution of the United States.
  For over two centuries, this document has been the foundation for our 
free people. It has become the model for other governments who have 
copied it around the world. And yet too often it appears that the very 
document that is the core of our liberties, the core of our existence 
in this representative democracy, is overlooked in this body. It's as 
if it were treated as a document of antiquity to be given proper 
respect in the Library of Congress but to be paid no attention to in 
our deliberations here. I think that is quite ironic.
  I had a town hall meeting this weekend, and one of my constituents 
raised the issue of the constitutionality of one of the bills that are 
pending before this body. I promised him I would address that issue, 
and that is what I intend to do very briefly this evening.
  When those 56 men met in Philadelphia, they understood the 
significance of trying to write a document that controlled the actions 
of legislative and executive bodies. And they did a very good job of 
it. Over these two centuries plus, there have only been some 27 
amendments that have been adopted.
  It used to be that when Congress would legislate on an issue that it 
would preface it with the constitutional basis upon which the 
legislation would be even authorized to be considered. That practice 
has, unfortunately, been abandoned. For those who are familiar with our 
Federal courts, it is not unlike what a party going into that court 
would be required to do, and that is to specify the basis on which the 
Federal court has jurisdiction to consider the issue that is presented 
to the court.
  I think we should do the same thing here in this body. We should ask 
ourselves the question before any piece of legislation is even 
considered, Upon what basis of the Constitution do we even have a right 
to consider to legislate on this subject?
  Now, this subject is not just something that I want to talk in 
generalities about. I think we have a concrete example of a piece of 
legislation where the core issue is that of its constitutionality, and 
that is the health care reform legislation.
  Now, admittedly, Congress has, under the commerce clause of the 
Constitution, reached into many realms of our activity in this country. 
But here in this bill there is one central ingredient, and that is the 
mandate on an individual that they must purchase a health insurance 
policy. Now, I think that is where the unconstitutionality of that 
proposition rises to the fore. And I suggest it for this reason:
  First of all, it imposes what is presumed to be a tax if you do not 
comply. I think it is very clear under the interpretations of our 
Constitution that Congress cannot impose a tax unless it first has the 
authority under other parts of the Constitution to regulate the 
activity, namely the commerce clause or some other designated ability 
to regulate under the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Here there 
is no such enumeration. And certainly buying a health insurance policy, 
the requisite of that is not engaging in interstate commerce. Somebody 
doesn't go to the doctor to engage in interstate commerce; they go for 
their own health care concerns.
  Some would argue, well, we mandate that people have to have 
automobile liability insurance. I remind them that it is a quid pro quo 
in which the State issues a driver's license as a condition for 
requiring the mandate of insurance. We do not issue a license to the 
citizens of this country to breathe or to exist. Therefore, by what 
right do we have the ability to impose a personal mandate?
  Now, this issue is not new. I want to quote from a report from the 
Congressional Budget Office back in 1993 when they were considering the 
Clinton health care proposal, and I quote:
  ``A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance 
would be an unprecedented form of Federal action. The government has 
never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of 
lawful residence in the United States.''

                          ____________________