[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 157 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H11795-H11796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HEALTH CARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, we are engaged in 
a serious debate on health care reform in this country, and there are 
those who believe that the only way to solve this problem is through a 
Washington, D.C. Federal Government takeover of health care. And I say 
that advisedly because I've looked at the bills that are the serious 
bills in the Senate and the House that are going to be presented to us 
at some point in time, or at least parts of them are.
  One of the things that is obvious to me is that these bills stand on 
a number of different principles, and one of them is that there will be 
a requirement that every living man, woman and child must have health 
care insurance as defined by the Federal Government or be subject to a 
fine. Now they call it a tax but it is truly a fine. And the question 
is whether that is an appropriate exercise of authority by the Federal 
Government.
  Some people say, Why do you even get involved in this sort of thing? 
Why would you even ask that question? Well, because the history of this 
Nation is a history of a nation that was established on the concept of 
individual liberty, freedom with responsibility. And because it was, 
our Constitution gave us a limited Federal Government, a Federal 
Government that could not do everything and anything it wishes to do. 
It is perhaps the inconvenient truth in this debate, or perhaps I 
should say the Constitution is the inconvenient truth.
  Let me just cite what James Madison, often called the Father of the 
Constitution, said in the Federalist Papers, the documents that were 
written and then placed upon the public in order to get States to 
ratify the Constitution. This is what he said:
  In the first place, it is to be remembered that the general 
government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and 
administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated 
objects.
  Congress, in other words, can't get up in the morning and just say, 
Well, we see a problem; therefore, we're going to fix it and we're 
going to impose the authority of the Federal Government upon this 
problem by way of our solution.
  Think of this: The President of the United States spoke here from the 
rostrum behind me in his joint session to the Congress a little over a 
month and a half ago; and at that time he argued that an individual 
mandate was constitutional, or was lawful because, he said, it is 
similar to what you have to do to drive in this country. You have to 
have insurance to drive on the public road. But there's a fundamental 
difference. If you analyze all the legal authority on this question, it 
is not that you have a right to drive on public roads, it is a 
privilege, and therefore it can be conditioned by the purchase of 
insurance.
  What we're saying here is your right to breathe in the United States, 
to continue to exist in the United States, will now be conditioned on 
you buying health insurance; and if you don't, you will be fined, we 
are now told $1500, and if you don't pay the fine you can be jailed; 
not because you want to enter into the United States as an immigrant, 
not because you're asking anything of the United States but, rather, 
for the right to exist in the United States.
  There are those who say that the commerce clause is so expansive, it 
can include everything. Well, the courts have told us it is not that 
expansive. Even as they have broadened its application, they have said 
it is limited to an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. 
And if we are going to say that the right for you to breathe in the 
United States, the right for you to exist in the United States, is an 
impact on interstate commerce, there is nothing left that the Federal 
Government cannot do.
  That's why this debate over health care is important for many 
different

[[Page H11796]]

reasons. But if we are going to allow the government to take away our 
liberty, to allow the Federal Government to say there is nothing you 
can do in this country, including breathe, unless you have the 
permission of the Federal Government to act in a certain way, and if 
you don't act in that certain way, you will be fined, and if you do not 
pay the fine you will be jailed, there is absolutely nothing left of 
the freedom that this country was based upon.
  The former Vice President of the United States likes to talk about 
inconvenient truths. The great inconvenient truth in this country is 
the U.S. Constitution. Let us not fail in our fidelity to it.

                          ____________________