[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 103 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4823-H4825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OBAMACARE AND OTHER ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fincher). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have had a number of people ask, Why would we have a vote today to
repeal ObamaCare when it has been done before?
There had not been a vote taken since the United States Supreme Court
said that the administration misrepresented what was really in this
bill. It was a tax. We know there have been misrepresentations about
different things, but this bill creates a massive tax for the people
who can least afford it.
So run the numbers:
If you make $14,856 or more and if you're a single individual, then
the chances are you're probably not going to be able to pay for a
$12,000 health insurance policy, which is the estimated cost of the
insurance policy that is being mandated by the ObamaCare law. If you
cannot and if you make more than $14,856--let's say you make $20,000--
and you can't afford the $12,000 for the insurance policy, then you
will have an extra annual tax of $371 when the 2\1/2\ percent extra
income tax kicks in. If you only make $14,856 and if that's before
taxes--take away a hunk of that for income tax, Medicare tax, Social
Security tax--then that $371 means a lot. It may mean the difference
between being able to fill up a worker's car enough times to get to and
from work so he doesn't lose his job.
If you're a family of two and if you make $20,123 or more--if you
make $30,000 or anything over $20,123--then you will have an extra 2\1/
2\ percent tax of $503.
{time} 1820
But the more you make over $20,123, the more the tax is. But it's a
minimum of $503. If you make $30,657 and you're a family of four, four
people living off $30,657 under ObamaCare, if you still cannot afford
the $12,000 or so policy that the government mandates under this law,
then you will have an additional $766 with which you will not be able
to buy food for your family. You'll not be able to buy gas for your car
with that extra $766. I don't mean people who make $30,000 and have a
family of four have an extra $766. The people I talk to that make that
kind of money and have a family of four don't have any extra money, and
especially not to pay the extra $766 Obama tax on these individuals.
If you make $41,190 or more and you're a family of six, you will have
a minimum $1,030 extra income tax that you will have to pay in order to
meet the requirements of ObamaCare and to keep the Obama tax IRS agents
off your doorstep. There are thousands and thousands of new IRS agents
who will find jobs, even though there's hundreds of thousands in net
loss of jobs since this President has taken over. We've lost four more
jobs than we've picked up.
At least one piece of good news is that the government has gotten
bigger. That's good news for those who love big government. I don't
happen to. There's good news for those who love more IRS agents because
we're adding thousands and thousands of those who will make sure that
if you make $41,190 and you're a family of six, they'll make sure that
not only do you have to pay your regular income tax, you will have an
added tax, an Obama tax in ObamaCare of $1,030 minimum. Anything you
make above $41,190 and you're a family of six or fewer, then you will
keep paying more tax the more you make. And that is if you're not able
to afford the $12,000 or so average cost that is estimated that the
Obama health insurance that's dictated in the ObamaCare bill will
require.
If you're a family of eight or more and you make $51,724 or more, you
will have a minimum tax of $1,293 on top of regular income tax.
Congratulations, that's a gift from the Obama administration and all of
those--not a single Republican--on the Democratic side of the aisle
that voted to cram down ObamaCare on a Nation where it was clear poll
after poll after poll what the people wanted. The American people got
it. They did not want the government dictating their health care.
Now we have Chief Justice John Roberts abandoning intellectual
integrity with his opinion in pages 11 through 15 and saying clearly
this is not a tax, it's a penalty. It's the Obama administration
penalizing everybody in America that doesn't buy exactly what the
administration says. It's a penalty. Chief Roberts makes it clear the
best evidence he says of what it is is Congress' own language. Congress
calls it a ``penalty.'' It really is. It just penalizes those who don't
do what the Obama administration says.
[[Page H4824]]
Then at about the middle of page 15 of the Supreme Court opinion,
Chief Justice Roberts says since it's a penalty and not a tax, the
Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. So the Supreme Court does have
jurisdiction because, as he makes clear, if this were really a tax, the
Anti-Injunction Act would apply, and no one could file suit over the
ObamaCare bill until 2014. But he says since it's a penalty and not a
tax, then we do have jurisdiction, we can proceed now, and we don't
have to wait until 2014.
Then he proceeds through the rest of his opinion, after talking about
the Commerce Clause, to say that no matter what Congress called it,
this is really a tax. Then, of course, he has to also justify why he
calls it a penalty for one thing and a tax for another. It is one of
the worst written opinions that I've seen.
At least when the liberals on the Supreme Court have written
opinions, they've at least been more intellectually consistent than
that tragic opinion as written by our Chief Justice. He's a good man.
He lost his way. I feel sure that at some point he will find his way
back when he realizes what has really occurred.
Today, the ObamaCare bill was debated somewhat further; but yesterday
during the debate I heard people on the Democratic side of the aisle
who kept saying, No one has lost their insurance. No one will lose
their insurance. If you like your insurance, you're not going to lose
it. There were people that I have great respect for saying that, and I
know they would never intentionally tell something that's false, the
key being intentionally.
What it told me is they really don't know; they honestly don't know
that people across America have already been losing their insurance
that they liked and wanted to keep. They don't know that. So I'm
hopeful that people across America, when they've heard over the last
few days people saying nobody will lose their insurance, nobody has
lost their insurance, that as people continue to and have already lost
their insurance, that they will make sure to drop a line or give a call
or something and make sure that people here know that, Yes, we have
lost our insurance and we liked it. We were okay with it. It was
ObamaCare that caused the loss.
We heard people who kept saying we ought to be talking about jobs. I
know they're sincere about that. What they don't understand is that
this bill is killing jobs. As so many people have said that I've talked
to, We are right there at the 50-employee limit under ObamaCare. We
don't want to have 50. We're keeping things small. We're not going to
hire some folks. We're doing other things because we simply cannot
afford to pay that extra $2,000 an employee tax that we get hit with
the minute we go over that 50-employee limit.
There are people not being hired. There are people that are losing
jobs. Others are saying, We're downscaling. We don't want to be over
that 50-employee number so that we can maybe stay competitive in a down
economy.
But the trouble is, people are hurting these days. The economy is
difficult.
And I've been intrigued, as have people on both sides of the aisle,
who let me know that during this time when we have a chance--Democrats
for a time, Republicans for a time, back and forth--have a chance to
bring things to the floor to get into the Congressional Record and to
make public things that others may have missed. I constantly have
people say, I had no idea about that until I heard you talking about it
on the floor. I was watching C-SPAN.
And I've been told before, Gee, we love it when you're on TV because
then we can finally turn you off. Then I have been told by others in
some offices here on Capitol Hill that they actually turn up the sound
when they see me on.
Whatever the case, Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful chance to make
sure people get information that they don't have time to get otherwise.
{time} 1830
We have been hearing a great deal about the photo ID.
In the District of Columbia Federal court here, we have been having a
suit between our so-called Department of Justice and Texas over whether
Texas can do as Indiana did and require a photo ID in order to vote.
Texas pretty well tracked the Indiana law. It looks like a good law.
I read it. I read the Supreme Court opinion that addressed the issue
and upheld the law as being a legitimate law.
I don't know that, from reports I heard today, whether or not Texas
is trying the case properly, but if they put on the evidence that's
available and is quite convincing and clear, there should be no reason
for Texas to lose this case that requires a photo ID. If someone cannot
afford a photo ID, they can't afford the few dollars for that, then
under the Texas law, as the Indiana law, they can simply make that
indication, and if you can't pay for it, then you're going to get it
free.
There are groups in Texas that have made clear if you can't get to
where you need to go to get a photo ID, we'll take you there.
In fact, if this Justice Department had spent a tiny, tiny fraction
of the money it has spent on this litigation against Texas, against
Florida, and against these other States on just helping people get
photo IDs, there wouldn't have been a problem in the world with
everybody having a photo ID that needed one.
This article, a July 11, 2012, publication, Katie Pavlich, News
Editor, writes:
Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the
NAACP National Convention at the George R. Brown Convention
Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to
attend? That's right, government issued photo identification
(and a second form of identification too!), something both
Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to
voting.
Wow, the NAACP and the Attorney General have just disenfranchised a
slew of people that probably would have liked to have heard the
Attorney General. But they disenfranchised them, said you can't come
into the NAACP convention unless you've got a photo ID. You can't come
in.
Yet the Attorney General was in court saying that what Texas is doing
is wrong, and if it's wrong, why are the NAACP and the Attorney General
doing it?
The article says:
All media must present government-issued photo ID (such as
a driver's license) as well as valid media credentials.
Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials.
And it gives the website. Then it says:
For security purposes, media check-in and equipment setup
must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT
security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed,
additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and
swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.
But what's sad is these so-called folks that can't get a photo ID
that the NAACP and the Attorney General are complaining about, not
being able to get one, they can't even get into the convention.
So how is it that these people who say we're out for those that don't
have a photo ID really care about those without a photo ID if they
won't even let them into their convention?
Continuing:
Ironically, NAACP President Ben Jealous railed against
voter ID just before Holder took the stage.
In the convention they are railing against it, but the people without
photo IDs, if there are those who can't get them that really want them,
they couldn't get in to hear the speech.
Going on:
The head of the NAACP on Monday likened the group's fight
against conservative-backed voter ID laws that have been
passed in several States to the great civil rights battles of
the 1960s.
Benjamin Todd Jealous, the CEO and president of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
said these are ``Selma and Montgomery times,'' referring to
historic Alabama civil rights confrontations. He challenged
those attending the NAACP's annual convention to redouble
their efforts to get out the vote in November.
``We must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression
with the high tide of registration and mobilization and
motivation and protection,'' he said.
``Simply put, the NAACP will never stand by as any State
tries to encode discrimination into law,'' Jealous said.
Well, obviously he doesn't have a chance to get out and see the real
news. But in Georgia they passed a photo ID requirement for voters and
have had two elections since, and in both those elections
minorities have
[[Page H4825]]
increased greater than before, and actually increased greater than
Anglo voters. There has been no disenfranchisement in Georgia.
So, actually, it turns out that the photo ID has engaged minority
voters. The fact is the Voting Rights Amendment is a violation of our
United States Constitution until it is applied, section 5 is applied,
to every State in the Union.
There were southern States that were guilty of racial suppression in
the sixties and prior, and it is an abomination to this Nation that
such occurred, not nearly as much as slavery, but it's still an
abomination. It still should not have been happening. The Voting Rights
Act has done a great deal toward eliminating that.
But, unfortunately, under the Voting Rights Act, atypical of most
things in America, once you improve your State to the place where there
is no problem, you still are not out from under punishment, the penalty
of section 5, because of what happened in the 1960s and before.
So, States have complained, look, you know, we fix things. We're
doing good. In fact, we are doing better than so many districts in
other parts of the country that are not under section 5 that's so
punitive.
Some of us couldn't help but wonder, when a big majority on both
sides of the aisle voted to extend the Voting Rights Act, including
section 5 that got even tougher for another 25 years, why they wouldn't
have supported the Gohmert amendment. The Gohmert amendment said, look,
section 5, punitive provisions ought to apply to every district, every
State in the country. Failure to do so is a violation of equal
protection.
Why is it that districts in other parts of the country, north, east,
west, are allowed to grow into racial disparity and suppression of
minority vote but they're not treated with section 5, whereas States
that have been under that punitive provision can't ever get out from
under it even though they are better off than other parts of the
country?
Well, the reason, it seems to be--you wonder, why would people vote?
Why not vote to do it across the country? If it's good for these States
that have proved better than our own State, why should it not apply to
everyone? And I still ask that question. The only thing you wonder is
we had the power to ram this down on these States punitively, so we
did. The last thing we wanted was any of those punitive provisions
applying to our States or our districts where disparity is more a
problem than those original areas.
So, I don't know. I wonder if at some point we're going to have a
rush of the bipartisan leadership that pushed that through to come back
and say, You know what, Louie, you're right. If it applies to southern
States, it ought to apply to everybody. It ought to apply to those
districts that have more of a racial problem than there has been or
exists now in those States that are treated punitively.
{time} 1840
Well, we'll see.
We've also heard about the loving relationship, as this
administration says, with such a great ally as Israel. And it defies
explanation. This is from Breitbart, William Bigelow, dated 10 July
2012:
How much does Barack Obama hate Israel and want to throw
her under the bus? Here's how much: the Obama administration
not only excluded Israel from a new counterterrorism forum in
Spain; it didn't even mention Israel in its remarks. If there
were ever a country that has dealt with murderous terrorist
attacks over and over again, that country would have to be
Israel.
Here's what Marie Otero, the State Department's Under
Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights,
said:
``Last September at the official launch of the Global
Counterterrorism Forum, I had the privilege to introduce the
premiere of a film `Hear Their Voices,' which tells the
stories of 11 survivors of terrorist attacks from Pakistan,
Jordan, Northern Ireland, Uganda, Turkey, Indonesia, India,
Spain, Colombia, and the United States. The film, which was
produced by the Global Survivors Network, is a powerful plea
for audiences around the world, especially those sympathetic
to the grievances expressed by extremists, to recognize the
human cost of terrorism, and I am delighted that our Spanish
hosts are planning on showing this film here later this
afternoon.''
When Secretary of State Clinton announced the coalition's
formation in June, she didn't include Israel on her list of
countries that suffer from terrorist attacks.
How could Secretary Clinton not immediately think of Israel as a
country that suffers from terrorist attacks when they have bombs, they
have rockets flying into Israel every day?
Defenders of Israel were furious, even those who were
Democrats. Josh Block, a Democratic strategist and a former
spokesman for AIPAC, said, ``When the administration promised
to include Israel in the counterterrorism forum that the
United States founded--after Jerusalem's inexplicable
exclusion from the initial meeting a month ago--one would
think that they would be true to their word. Clearly, someone
failed here. How Israel could be excluded from another
meeting of an anti-terror forum that we in the United States
chair is beyond comprehension, especially one that focuses on
victims of terrorism. At a time when Romney is challenging
the administration's record on U.S.-Israel relations, this
error stands out.''
First of all, Mr. Block, no one failed here. Obama
succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
Later in the article:
Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the
Foundation of Defense of Democracies, said, ``What we're
seeing is a trend of Israel being left out of the global
discussion on terrorism, while Israel was extremely helpful
during the beginning stages of this conversation. The Obama
administration is downplaying the struggle that Israel has
been enduring. I believe to a certain extent this is due to
regional politics, and it's disconcerting to see this change.
It just looks like a quiet effort to downplay the issue.''
The State Department would not answer questions about the
matter.
Pretty tragic how this State Department, how this administration
could continue to exclude Israel from counterterrorism discussions
about countries who have been victims of terrorism.
Here is an interesting additional article. We had another hearing
today in one of our Judiciary Committees. It caused us to think again
about Fast and Furious, never far from your mind when you know there
are guns out there still being used to kill innocent people that were
put there, forced there, by this administration. This article, dated
July 6 from Deroy Murdock, National Review Online--and I'm not going to
read the whole article, but a significant part is important to note.
Mr. Murdock writes:
While Brian Terry is the most visible victim of this
notorious policy, he is not its sole casualty.
On February 15, 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata, 32, was shot mortally in San
Luis Potosi, Mexico. Members of Los Zetas drug gang also hit
ICE agent Victor Avila in that ambush, although not fatally.
This assault involved a rifle purchased in Dallas in another
Obama administration ``gunwalking'' escapade.
Largely overlooked is this plan's calamitous impact on
Mexico, its people, and U.S.-Mexican relations. Fast and
Furious has spilled American blood. But south of the border,
it has made blood gush like an oil strike.
``One of the things that's so offensive about this case is
that our Federal Government knowingly, willfully,
purposefully, gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 weapons--
mainly AK-47s--and allowed them to walk,'' Representative
Jason Chaffetz told NBC News. These arms were supplied to
lead Federal agents in Phoenix to the Mexican thugs who
acquired them. Instead, Fast and Furious guns melted into
Mexico without a trace.
And I add, parenthetically, because they were never intended to be
followed. And that was clear.
Back to the article:
These weapons became invisible, but not silent.
The 300 Mexicans or so that have died as a result of this also
deserve attention and what it's done to our American-Mexican relations
needs great sympathy and heartfelt apologies.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________