[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1013-H1015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1840
FREEDOMS THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duffy). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I always learn something when I hear from
my friend, Professor Bishop.
It has been staggering to hear the testimony over the last several
years as to what has gone on at our border. We used to be a law-and-
order country where the law meant something, but we've seen that
eroded.
I heard our Democratic friends, before Mr. Bishop spoke, speaking of
selling our birthright, and I enjoyed hearing them talk about how we
ought to use our energy in this country. Well, welcome to the
Republican position. That was great to hear. That's just fabulous to
hear from our Democratic friends because, as we know, and one of the
things that Mr. Bishop pointed out, there have been regulations and
government bureaucracies used to not only prevent us from enforcing our
immigration laws, but also to prevent us from utilizing our own
resources over and over and over. For heaven's sake, if somebody has
got 800 safety violations like BP had, prohibit them from drilling, but
don't prevent everybody from drilling.
The things that the government should be allowing entities to do,
like providing the energy that we have--we've got more energy than any
country in the world. Relative to the size of other countries, we're
not the biggest, but we have more natural resources than any other
country in the world has been blessed with. It's amazing. In this
administration, and even before this administration, we had our
Democratic friends prohibiting, through bureaucracies, through laws
passed, using our own energy, which has been just an outrage.
It's the poor single moms, those struggling to make it through the
month with what's left on the limits of their credit card so they can
still buy gas to get to their job so they can get a paycheck and pay
down their credit cards enough to buy gas for the next month, that are
hurting the most. Ironically, the people that donate to Democrats 4 to
1 over Republicans, as they did to Obama over McCain 4 to 1, are the
Wall Street executives, the big bank executives. All they have to do is
endure some name-calling from the President and they get richer than
they could have ever hoped.
Yet we get back to freedoms that made this country the greatest
country in history. I believe that. Prominent among our freedoms you
can find in the First Amendment. It doesn't say States can't, because
there were some States that required religious tests, but ``Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
There is no mention of separation of church and State. There is no
mention of a wall of separation. That was in a letter Thomas Jefferson
wrote to the Danbury Baptists. This is the same Thomas Jefferson that
came to church every day he was in Washington, D.C., while President.
He came to church right down the hall in the House of Representatives
and at times had the Marine Band come play the hymns. He didn't see
that as a problem for the Constitution's prohibition against
establishment of religion, but he certainly never would have dreamed of
prohibiting any Christian from practicing their religion, as this
administration has now done and attempted to do, or the freedom of the
press.
We know the press is free to slant the news however they wish. For
example, when gas prices were going up in 2008, the Main Street press,
Main Street media had 4 to 1 more stories about the price of gas going
up then than they do now, and the prices now are higher than they were
then. Gee, could it be that the Main Street media has a vested interest
in keeping the President that they put in office in office, keeping him
there? But they've got that freedom of the press. They can keep
slanting their stories as they wish.
Or the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment, that's it.
There is a great big grievance that a majority of Americans have, and
it's with the President's health care bill. This is front and back. It
is very thin paper so you can get all of the President's ObamaCare in
here. This says 2,407 pages. There you are, the President's health care
bill. It's interesting.
Here is a story that Edward White filed February 16, maybe from our
friends at ACLJ, but it points out last month DOJ again argued that the
penalty is a tax--talking about the penalty in the health care bill--is
a tax when it filed its opening brief with the Supreme Court in the
ObamaCare case the Court will consider this March.
We know February 16, in response to a question from the great
Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey, he asked Director Zients
whether the individual mandate penalty for failing to buy health care
is a tax. Zients answered that it is not a tax. Today we had Secretary
Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services that is overseeing
the implementation of ObamaCare. Secretary Sebelius also indicated it's
not a tax. Yet the DOJ has argued basically that the minimum
[[Page H1014]]
coverage positions are well within Congress' commerce power.
The DOJ contends that Congress has broad power under the Commerce
Clause and the necessary proper clause to enact economic regulation.
The DOJ contends the minimum coverage provision is an integral part of
a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation, and the provision itself
regulates the economic conduct with a substantial effect on interstate
commerce.
It certainly has had an effect on interstate commerce. It's doggone
near killing it.
The minimum coverage provision is independently authorized by
Congress' taxing power contingent of the DOJ. The DOJ argues that the
provision operates as a tax law. Validity of an assessment under
Congress' taxing power does not depend on whether it's denominated a
tax.
Anyway, interesting time. That is from the National Law Review, that
assessment. Today the question was to Secretary Sebelius, and she
disagrees with DOJ as well.
There are just a number of issues here with this bill. And the recent
demand by the administration that the Catholic Church, Catholic
hospitals provide free contraceptives was not about contraceptives. If
anybody needs contraceptives, they can get them. It's not an issue.
{time} 1850
It shouldn't be. People that want them can get them. It's not an
issue, although some are trying to make it out to be. It's about the
prohibition of the free exercise of religion.
It's incredible that a White House would decide that they get to tell
the Catholic Church which parts of their religious beliefs that this
White House will allow them to practice. Even coming back after the
White House had all of these people come in and meet and decide and
discuss, they should have come back and said, Sorry, you were right. We
never intended to indicate we had the power to tell you you could not
practice your religious beliefs.
It's not what the White House came back and said. The White House
came back and said, in effect, Well, we still obviously have the power
to tell you what parts of your religion you cannot practice. But
listen, Catholic Church, we're going to do you a favor. Even though we
have the power to prohibit you from practicing your religious beliefs,
we're going to require the insurance companies to provide this feature
even though it goes against your religious beliefs. We'll require the
insurance companies to provide that.
Now, how stupid do you have to be to not understand that when a
requirement of an insurance company policy is dictated by the
government, there is going to have to be a recouping of that expense
from the people that buy those insurance policies? So that was no
remedy.
The Church, the Catholic hospitals are still going to have to provide
those policies that provided that. They just weren't going to be
required to tell the insurance companies to do that because the
government did it for them. What a ridiculous end-run to do the same
thing.
But the White House did not even address a real core issue.
I'm a Baptist. I don't have the same beliefs about contraceptives;
but this is so dangerous, this is such a violation of our First
Amendment. For this White House to think for a moment they have the
authority to tell any religious group, and here's the kicker, any
religious person that they cannot practice an important tenet of their
religious beliefs is unconscionable.
Now, the administration says, Oh, Catholic Church, Catholic hospital,
we'll work with you. What about Catholic individuals who believe with
all their heart the things that are taught by Catholic schools, by the
Catholic Church, and expounded by the Pope himself?
How powerful a Pope does the White House or the President, any
President, have to be to dictate that what the Pope says is not going
to be observed in America by any individuals who are here in the United
States?
We hadn't heard a lot of discussion about the freedom of the
individuals, but this was not talking about the freedom of the Church
or a hospital. It was talking about the freedom of individuals; and
even if the White House tries to accommodate some hospital, some
church, what about the beliefs of an individual? A Catholic in America
who's told, Sorry, this President is going to trump your Pope, and
you're going to have to pay for what you believe is against your
religious beliefs, it's unconscionable.
Do you think the Founders would have put up with that? As Dennis
Miller said, they were willing to go to war and die and risk everything
over a tax on their breakfast drink. Do you think they wouldn't be
willing to fight for their right to practice their religious beliefs?
Good grief. They came--so many of the early settlers came here to get
away from the prejudice and discrimination against Christian beliefs:
Protestants, Catholics. They came to America hoping to have freedom of
worship.
It's been interesting to hear in Israel that the Muslims who are most
free to practice their Islamic beliefs as they feel led them to
actually be in Israel, because depending on which administration is in
charge in Iran, Syria, Egypt, wherever, you better not get too far
afield from what the administration of that country believes.
Here in America, people are free to practice Islam, Christianity,
Buddhism, atheism, so long as it does not threaten this Nation as a
whole.
You know, we were told by the President there was no chance any
Federal money would ever go for abortion. And some of our friends
actually bought into that representation. Turns out, it wasn't true.
Some of us tried to explain back then. You can't bind with an executive
order what the law says specifically. It sets out requirements for
health care providers, clinics, insurance policies. There are those
that will provide abortions and ultimately there will be tax dollars,
since dollars are fungible, that will be used for abortions under
ObamaCare.
We keep coming back to this. If ObamaCare is constitutional and the
mandates in ObamaCare are constitutional, there is nothing the Federal
Government cannot dictate.
As I've said from here many times, this ObamaCare, 2,407 pages, was
about the GRE. It's what it's all about. This bill is about the GRE,
the government running everything. Because if the government has the
right to control everyone's health care in America, they do have the
right then to tell your children what they can or can't eat, to tell
your children that their parents or parent is not fit because they
don't know how to feed a child because it disagrees with what the
government says.
They have the right to tell you what you can put in a vending
machine. They have a right to tell you whether or not you're exercising
enough. They have a right to tell you you use too much butter when you
should have used something else in cooking.
They have a right to do that if they have a right to control your
health care.
If this is constitutional, the government has a right to tell every
Supreme Court Justice how they can live, and if any Supreme Court
Justice thinks they'll be immune from this government telling them how
they can live, what they can eat, what they can do, what they cannot
do, then they are amusing themselves frivolously because that day will
be coming.
Sure, this administration knows they stacked the deck with Justice
Kagan. Of course, anybody that would send an email all excited about
having the votes to pass ObamaCare, how wonderful that is, it's just
amazing.
{time} 1900
We keep wondering how many emails have not been provided. The noble
thing would be to recuse oneself.
We should have known this when liberal groups that want the
government to control everybody's lives were so adamant in throwing
stones at Justice Thomas. It's clear we've seen this method before.
What that means is they were nervous about somebody else who was a
shoo-in to vote for the President's bill to have that issue raised
about her. That's the way they always do.
So as soon as I saw these ridiculous allegations about Justice Thomas
because his wife had an opinion, boy, I didn't see any liberals
screaming about somebody with the ACLU whose husband had taken strong
positions on different issues that she wasn't qualified
[[Page H1015]]
or should recuse herself because her husband had an opinion; but some
of these same liberals, so-called, took the position that, gee, if
Clarence Thomas' wife has a position, he must be disqualified.
The hypocrisy goes on and on.
Hopefully, Justice Kagan will tell us all of the emails, allow us to
see all of the emails that were sent, all of the consultations in which
she was a part. Then we'll see the truth.
This bill required the spending of $105 billion at a time we didn't
have $105 billion. We're having to borrow over $42 billion, $43
billion, $44 billion of that from other places, including from China.
China doesn't mind seeing this happen. I think they realize it will
bring down this Nation financially.
The President said it would cost less than $1 trillion to implement.
Well, the first CBO score came back over $1 trillion. The Director of
CBO called over to the White House. He comes back and says, You know,
it's more like $800 billion. Then once it gets in place, he says, You
know what, we had a mathematical error or two. It's actually over $1
trillion.
That's why CBO deserves to have a margin of error of 25 percent, plus
or minus.
We keep coming back to this one thing, that this bill is not nearly
as much about health care as it is about the government's running
everything--running individual lives. Sam Adams, John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, those who gave their lives for our freedoms, would never
have stood for this. The government's running everything? But it's
true. If the Federal Government can do this, there is nothing that is
closed to the government's direction and law. If the government has the
right to direct everyone's health care, then this opens the bedroom to
Federal Government jurisdiction like nothing ever has, not immediately
but eventually.
Is that what people want? Do you want the Federal Government being
able to say, This practice is okay. This one in the bedroom is not okay
because, see, we're in charge of your health care, and we've seen that
it ends up costing more if you do this, that or the other, so we're
going to prohibit that?
If they can direct against someone's religious beliefs and that
certain bedroom practices will be allowed, they can direct which ones
can't be. If they can direct what the Catholic Church or Catholic
individual has to provide or pay for, they can sure tell them what they
can't engage in as well. This opens a door to the government's running
everything like never before.
This month marks 2 years that it has been passed against the will of
the American people, against the will of most State legislatures,
against the Constitution. Is it a tax? Is it not a tax? It appears this
administration will say whatever it has to say to try to get this held
as constitutional. I can say unequivocally, if the Supreme Court were
to hold this bill and its mandates and its intrusions into every area
of personal being as constitutional, it will give me no satisfaction to
someday say to a Justice of the Supreme Court whose religious beliefs
have been violated, I told you so. None.
It will break many of our hearts that there was such blindness, but I
have that hope that spring is eternal in the human breast, that there
is still enough reliance on the Constitution, itself, and on our
Supreme Court that they will recognize the door that is open, that they
will recognize the inconsistencies of this administration in trying to
come up with some argument to justify these violations of our freedoms.
Some say that States require you to have auto insurance. That's only
if you're going to drive on their roads. If you're going to participate
in that privilege, then, yes; but nobody is required to have auto
insurance if they're not going to drive a car on their highways. In
fact, the only insurance that has been required by any State
mandatorily is insurance to cover others who might be harmed by an
individual's driving and harming them. I don't know of a State that
requires insurance on individuals hurting themselves while they're
driving, only liability.
Now, we do have the problem in Massachusetts where Massachusetts
basically had a mandate. Other than that mandate in Massachusetts, no
State has ever been able or even thought of or tried to require the
purchase of a product.
Oh, this is going to be for the working poor.
Look, we already have Medicare and Medicaid. Until this
administration, with the help of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid in the
Senate, gutted $500 billion out of Medicare, until that happened, there
was not going to be any damage to Medicare. We were going to take care
of our seniors and take care of our poor. But if you look in this bill
as I have--and I've been through the whole thing--you will find out, if
you are just above the poverty line--if you're working, if you're doing
everything you can to get by, to make it with your family, but can't
afford as good an insurance policy as is mandated by the Federal
Government--that this administration wants you to have an additional
tax on your income as if that's going to help.
This hurts the working poor. It devastates Medicare by pitting people
against our seniors, taking $500 billion away from Medicare. It's time
for America to rise up again and make clear: This is unconstitutional.
And I think even the Supreme Court would hear that, when Americans rise
up and say, You're not governing every aspect of my personal life like
this opens the door to doing.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________