[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.

                          ____________________