[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10520-10527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   SUPREME COURT HEALTH CARE DECISION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a group of 
colleagues of mine to speak in contrast to what we just heard. It is 
shocking to me, not only the news of today and the continuation of the 
overreach of the Federal Government, but to hear colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who are advocating for the Progressive Caucus, 
the progressive movement in this Nation celebrating, truly celebrating 
the Supreme Court ruling of today which allows the Federal Government 
to continue reaching into the homes of American families all across 
this country in a way that has never been done before, and granted so 
much more taxing power that has never been granted before, and yet they 
celebrate.
  And they used a lot of different terms, like ``charting the new 
course.'' That was a phrase that was used by the Progressive Caucus 
here just a moment ago--charting the new course. One has to wonder: 
What is this new course? It has been a course that the progressive 
movement has been on now for nearly a century; and today they are 
celebrating that course continuing to be charted, and that is a course 
of more government and less liberty. And that is what this decision was 
all about today. It was about empowering government and not empowering 
the American people. It is about creating more government and less 
liberty. That's what the decision reflected today.
  I am joined today by many good friends here in the House of 
Representatives who are on the side of liberty. They're on the side of 
the American taxpayers, and they're on the side of the private sector. 
They believe in free markets and capitalism and profits and success and 
dreaming, and they don't think that the Federal Government has to get 
in the way of any of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to first yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) to get his insights on today's decisions.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Graves for leading the floor 
tonight on this very important matter. He joins me, I'm sure, in saying 
that we're all extremely disappointed that we have to come to the floor 
tonight and that the Supreme Court ruled today that the Commerce Clause 
does not support the individual mandate, but it may be upheld within 
Congress's power to lay and collect taxes.
  So what we have found today is that Congress cannot use the Commerce 
Clause to compel you to do something. But, instead, Congress can tax 
you into submission. It should have been crystal clear that the 
Commerce Clause, which grants power to Congress to enforce free trade 
pacts amongst the States, could not use that clause to regulate it.
  If Congress can force you to purchase a product, then there is 
nothing government cannot force you to do. This would have been a 
violation of your individual liberties as well as the constitutional 
doctrine of enumerated powers in which Congress is only given few and 
specific powers.
  As the Supreme Court's syllabus of this case states:

       The Framers knew the difference between doing something and 
     doing nothing. They

[[Page 10521]]

     gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel 
     it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle 
     that the Federal Government is a government of limited and 
     enumerated powers.

  But the Supreme Court instead told us that Congress has the power to 
tax and tax and tax until you submit to it.
  Is this at all consistent with the founding principles of this 
country? Did those brave patriots who fought in the Revolutionary War 
and faced estrangement from their families, who endured British cannon 
fire and musket fire, weathered freezing winters and blazing summers, 
marched without shoes, slept without blankets, and suffered perpetual 
starvation all so that Congress could tax the people to form their 
behavior in Congress's image?
  Did the Founders, who objected to the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, and 
the Declaratory Act, which led our great Nation to revolt, risk the 
charge of treason and put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor at 
risk, all so that they could replace one King who demanded more 
taxation, and now replace it with a President who demands more 
taxation? No.
  We are Americans, citizens of a constitutional Republic where 
individual liberty is our birthright, won by our Founding generation's 
sacrifices. We are not and shall never be mere subjects of a government 
that can tax its way to tyranny. And disturbing as it is, there are 
many problems with this majority Court's rationale.
  You see, the Obama administration has been confused as to whether or 
not the monetary penalty for failure to pay is in fact a tax or not. 
But even if we accept the penalty as a tax, as the Court has rewritten 
the law to be, such a tax is still unconstitutional for many reasons.
  First, the Constitution lays out three types of permissible taxes. 
This tax is not accessed on income, so it is unconstitutional in that 
regard. This tax is not assessed uniformly and is triggered by economic 
inactivity so it is unconstitutional in that regard. And the tax is not 
apportioned among the States by population, so it is unconstitutional 
in that regard.
  Even more importantly, the Constitution does not grant Congress an 
independent power to tax for any purpose that it wants. Taxing to 
provide for the general welfare does not mean there is limitless power 
of Congress to tax. Rather, it means that a tax must be for a national 
purpose to achieve the ends that are outlined within the enumerated 
powers.
  Now, this is not only my view; this was the view of James Madison, 
who ought to know a little bit about the Constitution since he is the 
man most responsible for it.
  There is nothing about the individual mandate defined as a tax that 
is sanctioned by the Constitution.
  But we have strayed far from the Constitution of the Founders. No 
longer is the ability to tax constrained by the limits imposed by that 
great document. The growth and power of this government would render it 
not only unrecognizable, but also repulsive to the Founders.
  Madison and his fellow revolutionaries worried about the growth of 
government and the yielding of liberty. The writings they left for 
posterity are full of warnings about the fragility of limited 
government. Madison believed Republican governments would perpetually 
be on the defensive against the encroachments of aspiring tyrants. John 
Adams agreed when he said, ``Democracy never lasts long.''
  And perhaps the most famous quote of all was Ben Franklin at the 
Constitutional Convention when he said we have produced ``a republic, 
if you can keep it.''
  And now, 225 years later, we have arrived at this moment.
  We should strive to restore the free society of our Founding Fathers 
that they fought for. If liberty is our goal, the Supreme Court has 
failed the American people. And so although we come here tonight 
extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court did not rise to the 
defense of the Constitution, I can take solace with the knowledge that 
the people of this country will.

                              {time}  1830

  See, the Americans of this country revere the Constitution, and they 
will not let it be trampled upon. They long cherish their liberties. 
They will not surrender them without a fight.
  Since the enactment of ObamaCare, I have seen the tireless efforts of 
patriots, both in my district, in the State, and across the country, 
trying to repeal ObamaCare. I am inspired by their passion, by their 
determination to defend the Constitution. This generation of Americans 
will not allow history to say that we presided over the demise of the 
American experiment in limited government.
  Now, it is true that the struggle against ObamaCare has been long and 
difficult and sometimes met, as today, with disappointing results. But 
for those of us who still believe in our founding principles, I offer 
some advice from Thomas Jefferson, who said, ``The ground of liberty is 
to be gained by inches.''
  So we stand here tonight all together, pledging to work alongside the 
people of this great Nation who will fight inch by inch in defense of 
the Constitution, and we will repeal ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare 
must be repealed entirely, because if it is not, the constitutional 
Republic and the safeguards of our natural rights through limited 
government will be lost.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for your 
inspirational remarks reflecting back on the history of this country 
and the great leaders and the Founders and the principles which this 
Nation was based upon. While the erosion continues--and we've seen more 
of it even today with the ruling--the resolve is even stronger.
  So to those that may be listening or watching, you can know that 
there is a group of Members in the House of Representatives that are 
not going to let up, that are going to be fully resolved to repealing 
ObamaCare in its entirety, pulling it out, each and every root of this 
legislation, and empowering the people and not empowering government. 
Because, why? Because this is not a government of the Court, by the 
Court, or for the Court. This is a government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people, and I am convinced that the people will 
have their voice heard in the next few months.
  So as we heard from the progressives earlier in their continued march 
down this new chartered course of more government and less liberty, we 
are thankfully joined tonight by a great friend of liberty and a great 
advocate of liberty, and that is Louis Gohmert from Texas.
  I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I sure do appreciate my friend from Georgia. He is an 
absolute patriot, standing for truth, justice, and what used to be the 
American way. It is, according to the Supreme Court, not so much 
anymore. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  I've been going through this decision, and having been an attorney--
and I've been a prosecutor and a judge and a chief justice. It was a 
small, three-judge court, but you learn things--you go to judicial 
conferences--about how to write opinions and things, never to the level 
of the United States Supreme Court. But as a certified member of the 
United States Supreme Court Bar, you follow the holdings of the courts.
  So it's been with great interest, after I got my wind back from 
having found that Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the five-
person majority, okay, so we start going through the opinion. Let's see 
how in the world he came to this conclusion.
  Well, I'll be very brief in jumping through, even though it's a very 
long opinion, including the dissents. But the first thing that the 
Court had to consider is the Anti-Injunction Act that was passed by 
Congress years ago that makes very clear that the Supreme Court cannot 
take up any issue regarding a tax unless the tax has actually been 
levied and someone required to pay the tax, and then someone against 
whom the tax has been levied--required to pay that tax--files suit, 
that person then has standing. Well, under ObamaCare, if the mandate is 
a tax,

[[Page 10522]]

the penalty is a tax, then the Anti-Injunction Act would kick in and no 
one would be allowed to have standing before the Federal district 
court, court of appeals, and certainly not the U.S. Supreme Court.
  So the first thing the Supreme Court had to get past was the issue 
of: Is this penalty a tax? Because if it's a tax, then the Supreme 
Court must throw this case out, announce that the plaintiffs in these 
cases have no standing--and will not until around 2014--until such time 
as the tax is levied.
  So the Court goes through, and if anybody prints out the decision, 
you can look at pages 11 through 15 specifically where they discuss the 
Anti-Injunction Act. They point out just, in essence, what I have 
hopefully clarified: If it's a penalty, then the Court can take it up. 
If the penalty that you must pay for not buying the insurance is a tax, 
then this case goes out, no Supreme Court decision for at least 2 to 4 
years.
  So Chief Justice Roberts--brilliant man, there's no question he's a 
very brilliant intellectual--he indicates this and says:
  Congress's decision to label this exaction a penalty rather than a 
tax is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other 
exactions it creates that are taxes.
  And he says this:
  Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and 
different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress 
acts intentionally.
  So he goes on and he says:
  The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act are creatures of 
Congress' own creation. How they relate to each other is up to 
Congress, and the best evidence--the Supreme Court's words, Justice 
Roberts' words--the best evidence of Congress' intent is the statutory 
language, the statutory text.
  So he goes on to conclude that since Congress says in ObamaCare, the 
Affordable Care Act--boy, is that a misnomer, the Affordable Care Act--
since Congress calls it a penalty, then Justice Roberts and the 
majority say it's not a tax; it is a penalty.
  So around page 15 or so, 15, 16, they come around and say--I guess, 
15, okay:
  Congress made clear that the penalty is what it is--not a tax. 
Therefore, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply, so our Court has 
jurisdiction. As he says, the Anti-Injunction Act, therefore, does not 
apply to this suit since it's a penalty and not a tax. Therefore, as he 
says, we may proceed to the merits.
  Okay. So he clears it's a penalty; it's not a tax. Because if it's a 
tax, they can't do anything; they've got to throw it out. Okay. So it's 
a penalty, not a tax.
  So then he goes on, after page 16, he goes on in the majority opinion 
to discuss this issue of whether or not it violates the Commerce 
Clause, this penalty. He comes to the proper conclusion that if 
Congress can mandate a penalty for not buying a product, there's 
nothing to stop Congress from intruding in every area of individual 
Americans' lives.
  It's mentioned in this opinion that the main purpose--one of the two 
main purposes is to bring down the cost of health care. The Supreme 
Court thinks that's a legitimate reason to pass an act, bring down the 
cost of health care. But Justice Roberts and the majority decide it 
would violate the Commerce Clause, because if you can force individual 
Americans to buy a particular product in order to bring down the cost 
of health care, you can order anything. You and I can be ordered to 
join a gym and to start exercising X number of hours a week.
  We're told that the Federal Government does not monitor debit card 
and credit card purchases--although, supposedly it could. Well, if it 
has a duty to bring down health care costs and it has the ability to 
watch your purchases, and, under ObamaCare, the Federal Government, 
through their relationship with General Electric--sweetheart deal they 
did with GE--they're going to hold everybody's medical records. So if 
they're holding everybody's medical records, then I don't know why they 
wouldn't go ahead and monitor everybody's cholesterol rate, blood 
pressure, things like that.

                              {time}  1840

  And so it could conceivably get to the point where, gee, you get a 
letter from the government that says, we notice your cholesterol rate's 
up to 250 or so and we notice you bought bacon this weekend. What were 
you thinking? You know, you've got to take that back. You can't keep 
bacon.
  Anyway, there's no limit to what Congress can do to intrude in 
people's lives. And I'd point out to my friend from Georgia, liberals 
are constantly on the protection of bedroom privacy rights. I really 
thought that once they fully examined the potential effect of 
ObamaCare, they would be standing down here with you and me and my 
other friends hear, Louisiana, Georgia, they'd be out here saying, wait 
a minute. If the government has the right to order us to do or not do 
acts or buy or not buy products for the sole purpose of bringing down 
the costs of health care, there are studies that say some certain 
relational activities create more risk for health care problems than 
others, so if this is true, the Federal Government would have the right 
not only to invade the kitchen and the bathroom, but head straight to 
the bedroom and dictate people's rights.
  I didn't want to go there, and I felt like once we found out that 
Chief Justice Roberts makes clear, this is a penalty, not a tax, it 
violates the Commerce Clause to force people to buy a product like 
this, you would think that would be the end of it.
  But then Chief Justice Roberts goes on, and it doesn't make sense 
because then he begins to say, well, it violates the Commerce Clause, 
but does it violate the Tax-and-Spend Clause?
  And then he goes through and makes a case for saying, it's not a 
penalty, it's a tax. And he's already told us that the best way to tell 
what it is is to look what Congress called it. And I think, in this 
case, not only look what Congress called it, look at what the President 
called it.
  I just happen to have a partial excerpt or an excerpt from the 
transcript of a show the President did with his friend, George 
Stephanopolous. And Stephanopolous is asking him about it and said, you 
know, under this mandate, the government's forcing people to spend 
money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?
  Well, President Obama goes on and he lays out all this weak 
gibberish, and eventually gets--Stephanopolous interrupts him and says, 
okay, that may be, but it's still a tax increase. And the President 
said, that's not true, George. For us to say that you've got to take 
responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax 
increase.
  The President also says, nobody considers that a tax increase.
  He's not done making clear the will of the Congress and of the 
President, who pushed this bill to make it his shining bill that he had 
passed through Congress. Stephanopolous goes on and says, I want to 
check for myself, but your critics say it's a tax increase. President 
Obama says, my critics say everything is a tax increase.
  Stephanopolous: But you reject that it's a tax increase.
  President Obama says, I absolutely reject that notion. Not a tax 
increase.
  So you would think that if Chief Justice Roberts and the majority, 
the other four, are going to uphold the President's prize bill, he 
might accept what the President said he's done in this bill. But oh, 
no.
  After finding that it's not a tax, it's a penalty, then Chief Justice 
Roberts comes over to page 39 and he says, the joint dissenters argue 
that we cannot uphold section 5000(a) as a tax because Congress did not 
``frame it'' as such.
  And then he goes on and he says, labels should not control here.
  What? He just said before, Congress' own expressed written intent is 
the best evidence of what their intent is. And yet, now he comes over 
here, page 39 and says, wait, wait, wait. We have to look at what the 
intent is, but labels should not control.
  So then he goes through and makes this ridiculous argument that it is 
a tax. And he says over here, page 44, the Affordable Care Act's 
requirement that

[[Page 10523]]

certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health 
insurance may be reasonably considered as a tax because the 
Constitution permits such tax. It's not our role to forbid it or to 
pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
  But then, one of the big mysteries in this brilliant man's opinion 
for the majority uses the first person pronoun, I. Now, you know, 
anybody that's been a judge, normally you go to judicial conferences, 
you have seminars, you have training in writing style. If it's an 
individual judge, sole court opinion, then you'll write it one way. If 
it's a multiple justice opinion you write it another way.
  You see first person pronoun I in dissents, even though it's really 
not the best grammar to use pronouns in dissents. But you don't see 
them in well-written majority opinions. And Chief Justice Roberts is 
one of the best linguists we've had on the Court.
  And he takes Justice Ginsberg to task a few different places in the 
majority opinion, and yet, she is one of his voting justices to support 
the majority. That doesn't make sense.
  You don't normally see one justice writing the majority opinion take 
off and criticize someone who's voting with him. That doesn't make 
sense. But here at page 44 he says, Justice Ginsberg questions the 
necessity of rejecting the government's commerce power argument, given 
that section 5000(a) can be upheld under the taxing power.
  He says, Chief Justice Roberts, majority opinion, but the statute 
reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax. So 
now he's back to what he originally said before he says it is a tax.
  And then he says this: And I, Chief Justice Roberts, would uphold it, 
talking basically of future perfect tense. I would uphold it as a 
command if the Constitution allowed it. I would uphold it.
  He's writing for the majority. There's no reason for him to have the 
first person pronoun ``I'' there. It doesn't make sense. I don't know. 
Maybe this part he was writing as a dissent, and all of a sudden found 
himself in the majority, and amazingly, nobody caught this problem of 
style in writing the opinion.
  It doesn't make sense that a man that smart would have a product this 
poor, using first person, criticizing another justice in the majority 
with him, then saying what he would do. Well, he is doing, he's writing 
the majority opinion. He has no business saying that.
  And then he goes through, it says the States also can end Medicaid 
expansion exceeds authority under the spending clause. But basically he 
comes back and upholds it, and then strikes down that you can't force 
the States to do these things.
  But, I remind my friends, the President says it's absolutely not a 
tax. The only way this bill gets upheld is if the Supreme Court finds 
it is a tax after they find jurisdiction by saying it's not a tax.
  But this is the same President who said, if you like your health 
insurance, you're going to keep it. He said, if you like your doctor, 
you can keep your doctor. We found those were lies.
  He said, it's going to bring down the cost of health care. In every 
indication we've seen, insurance has dramatically gone up. And I get 
tired of hearing people say, because their memories are poor in here 
across the aisle, well, look at the good things in here. Twenty-six 
year olds can be on their own parents' insurance. Gee, you can buy 
insurance across State lines because of us. We've taken care of the 
unfairness that some insurance used with preexisting conditions as an 
exclusion.
  But I would encourage my friends, I know my colleagues here remember, 
back when they had the House, they had the Senate majority, they had 
the White House, Republicans, many of us begged them, let us do some 
bipartisan bills together because we can agree. It's not a problem to 
let 26-year-olds stay on your parents' insurance. Heck, the insurance 
companies love that because they are usually healthy. It's not a big 
cost. So we were going to be able to agree on that.
  It was a Republican, heck, John Shadegg is the first one I ever heard 
saying you've got to sell insurance across State lines. That was a 
Republican idea, so of course most of us supported that.

                              {time}  1850

  As for the preexisting conditions, most of us are aware of 
circumstances in which insurance companies have been grossly unfair in 
using that exclusion. We were prepared to reach some agreements and 
have bipartisan, standalone bills. I know that my friend Dr. Price out 
here had some concern about health care, his having devoted his life to 
it before government, trying to fix what government had done to health 
care. People have been concerned about it. We were willing to agree on 
these things, but they would not have it.
  So to say without ObamaCare we don't have these other things is 
simply not true, and it forgets current history. We were ready to agree 
on standalone bills. They didn't want a bipartisan agreement. They 
wanted the whole brass ring and to shove it around our heads, around 
our necks, and eventually down our throats, and that is what has 
happened. I've been amazed at how many people have picked up laws and 
started reading them, and I would encourage them to read this opinion. 
It's a very, very strange opinion. It contradicts itself on so many 
levels.
  ObamaCare takes away religious freedom. I'm Baptist. I see what 
they're doing to the Catholics, and I don't want to someday say, ``I 
saw what they did to the Catholics, and I remained silent,'' and 
eventually there was nobody to object when they did it to me. We all 
have to stand together, and I'm grateful to stand with my friends.
  One other comment. I heard my Democrat friends before we spoke say, 
without this ObamaCare bill, these clinics will die.
  There have been clinics before the ObamaCare bill that helped. We 
have some in my district, and they're doing wonderful work. They need 
more help. The best are, really, charitable institutions. The clinics 
are not going to die.
  What came from the President's mouth and was also in his town hall 
was when a woman in the White House, as part of the town hall, said, 
Mr. President, at an advanced age, my mother got a pacemaker. If the 
doctor had not met her, the cardiologist was not going to let her have 
a pacemaker. After he met her, he said, absolutely, and she has lived 
years beyond that since she has had a pacemaker. So would you consider 
someone's quality of life under your panels--we know they don't want to 
call them ``death panels,'' but whatever you want to call them--will 
they be able to consider the quality of life that people have before 
they agree or disagree to let them have a procedure?
  The President beat around the bush as he did with Stephanopoulos--and 
you can find the transcript. It's available on the Net--and ultimately 
said, You know, maybe we're just better off telling your mother to take 
a pain pill. You don't get a pacemaker. You don't get these additional 
years of life. You get a pain pill.
  So, when our friends across the aisle tonight say that the clinics 
will die, I would humbly submit that, based on the President's own 
words, it's not the clinics that will die under this bill.
  I thank you so much for your generous yielding of so much time. It's 
a bad opinion, and I appreciate having the time to walk through some of 
it.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas for walking 
us through the opinion.
  I hope all those who are viewing this understand that this is about a 
tax now. This is a new taxing authority, in essence, a broadening of 
the taxing authority. As Mr. Gohmert brought up, this is unheard of. We 
will now have a Federal Government that can do whatever it wants to do 
through taxation.
  In just thinking about the difference between ``tax''and ``penalty,'' 
I guess one way to find out is, who do you send the check to, right? I 
mean, where is the bill coming from? I imagine it's going to be from 
the Internal Revenue Service. I remember being on the Appropriations 
Committee and having the IRS before us. It was wanting hundreds of 
millions of more dollars to hire more

[[Page 10524]]

people for the implementation of ObamaCare, and now we all know why, 
and we know what that agency or that department collects.
  So here is the crux of the decision today:
  While the Court might have said, well, the Federal Government can't 
tell you what to do, they can sure as heck punish you through taxes if 
you don't do what they want you to do, which is to be followed up here 
by my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) who has got some great 
insight.
  Thank you for joining us.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Congressman Graves. I appreciate your 
leadership. Sometimes we wish there had been someone like you on the 
Court today.
  Actually, before we forget, as for one of the five votes that upheld 
ObamaCare, in any other court of law, that Justice would have recused 
herself. The decision might have only been 4-4. Justice Kagan should 
not have been in on this decision. In any other court, she would have 
been recused. If a lawyer had refused to recuse himself as a judge, he 
would have been violating ethical rules. Every attorney in this country 
knows that, including the Chief Justice, and they said nothing.
  Do you know what? I'm not here to talk specifically about that. You 
talked about taxes. Our other Congressman friend did as well.
  In this bill, there are 21 tax increases by the definition of the 
Court, but I want to talk about two in particular because I believe, 
when we look back on the American system of a once limited government, 
this day, June 28, 2012, will stand as the definitive date in the 
advance of government tyranny. In today's ruling, a slim majority of 
the Court turned the Constitution on its head and ruled that the 
Federal Government, in effect, can force upon the American people 
anything it darned well pleases so long as it's called a ``tax.''
  Let's not forget that, when our Founding Fathers put everything on 
the line, risking life, limb, and property to make us an independent 
Nation, they did so in order to ensure that no man was taxed without 
representation. They also asserted that every man and woman has 
inalienable rights that are not to be violated by the government. They 
enshrined these concepts in the Declaration of Independence and, 
ultimately, in our Constitution.
  Today, in my opinion, the Supreme Court offered a perverse 
interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Just across the street from here, 
they said that, even though you have a right to do something, the 
decision to exercise that right will incur a tax. The decision to 
exercise that right, said the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 
will incur a tax.
  Can you imagine the limitless possibilities for Washington? Why not 
extend this interpretation to other parts of the Constitution? For 
example, why not tax the exercise of your First Amendment rights?
  Sure, you've got First Amendment rights. Send your Member of Congress 
a letter, but pay a fine to the government. That makes sense under this 
ruling. Sell a newspaper or publish a blog. Don't forget to tell the 
IRS and the new 16,500 agents they want to hire to enforce it. What 
about a right to a fair and speedy trial? That's guaranteed, but you 
know, that's yours to have but for a fee.
  That's the lack of logic. For average Americans who love their 
Constitution, these are guaranteed. They're not allowed to be imposed 
if you pay the fine or the fee.
  One thing in particular I want to talk about, Congressman Graves, is 
that, in addition to this health insurance mandate tax, the President's 
health care law creates what is clearly a religion tax. A religion tax? 
Yes, you heard me right, and it's even if you morally or ethically 
disagree with something being promoted.
  Right now, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and former Governor of 
Kansas, look at her record. Most Americans would completely disagree 
with her moral views, but if you disagree with her mandates of the 
President's health care plan, it doesn't matter. You will still have to 
pay for it. If you dare to follow your conscience and, maybe, actually 
practice your faith or no faith whatsoever and refuse to participate, 
you will be fined. Why? You will be taxed because of what you believe 
and your desire to live it out. You will be forced to give your hard-
earned money to the IRS in Washington, D.C., because of what you 
believe. That, my friends, is a religion tax. It's a faith tax. It's a 
direct attack on our freedom of religion.
  Now, today the Court didn't rule on that. There are dozens and dozens 
and dozens of lawsuits coming on about the HHS mandate coming out of 
ObamaCare. This is the start: a tax on religion.
  I have an employer who sent me an email. He said, Well, Tim, 
everybody is talking about the individual mandate. What about the 
employer mandate? I don't want to cover abortions for my employees. I 
refuse to participate.
  He will be fined $3,000 at a minimum for every single employee. Why? 
Because of what he believes.
  That's why we started this country--for freedom to believe as we 
ought, not as the government or as the king or as the Chief Justice 
would have us believe. But they didn't address this directly in this 
decision; they'll be coming. This is a shocking attack, I believe, on 
the first supreme right in the First Amendment, which is the right to 
believe in and follow the God one chooses.

                              {time}  1900

  The Supreme Court may not have dealt ObamaCare the death it deserved, 
but it's incumbent upon each and every one of us here in Congress and 
each and every American. I would have loved to have witnessed a home 
run, knock it out of the park and say it's clearly unconstitutional. 
Again, if Justice Kagan had been ethical, it would have been a 4-4 
decision. They didn't worry about that. Ethics doesn't matter. It's 
just the end. It's kind of the Progressive Caucus approach. The end 
justifies the means, but not in America.
  I ask all Americans to realize this decision is not about health 
care. It's about liberty. When we have created and designed a method by 
which future Congresses, future Presidents, can get around any limit in 
the Constitution--the Constitution is a limit on my power, on every 
power of every Member in this Chamber and every Member across the way 
and every President of the United States. That's what the Constitution 
does. It doesn't empower us. It takes away our power.
  This Court today has said, if you call it a tax, if you use those 
three words--even though the Chief Justice says ``labels don't 
matter.'' He said labels don't matter, and then he turns around and 
says the word ``tax'' does matter. If you do that, it makes it suddenly 
constitutional--anything you do, including attacking the very faith 
that is held by the Chief Justice himself. It says, You cannot hold 
that faith, Mr. Chief Justice, unless you're willing to be fined by 
your own government.
  That is a travesty of justice in this country.
  What this means is we cannot overturn this with this President in the 
White House. This has taken an issue, and people are ready to work on 
it and say, You know what? This is going to be the issue for November 
6. This is the choice. Do you want the government to mandate and 
control everything in your lives, as long as they use that magic word? 
They love to use the ``tax'' word. If you allow them to do that, you 
allow them to be in every part of your life, which is an absolute 
contradiction to what this country was founded upon.
  I appreciate the leadership of many in this room. I am just a 
freshman. I was not here when this debate started last time, as some of 
these colleagues who have been fighting all along. But I tell you, if 
the folks in the First District of Kansas are any indication of what 
Americans are saying all over, this is the time. They're going to dust 
off that Constitution. They're going to read it and say, My goodness. I 
don't want to lose this. It's too precious.
  We're leading the world, and now is the time to take back our 
government,

[[Page 10525]]

take back our Constitution, and take back power out of Washington, D.C.
  I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for your 
words.
  Regarding unintended consequences, I can tell you there are going to 
be an amazing amount of unintended consequences with the Affordable 
Care Act, which I'm not sure that we can call it that anymore. I think 
it's more like the Limited Care Act. It's the Very Expensive Care Act.
  For the Progressives that were here earlier--and I know many folks 
listened to them--they were celebrating. They were excited. They were 
happy, gleeful; whereas, we're lamenting but resolved to do away with 
this once and for all.
  Why would they be gleeful? Because it's their movement. That's what 
they've been trying to do now for almost 100 years, and that is 
increase the size of government, get it into the lives of the American 
people, dictate their behavior, and limit freedom.
  I read recently that part of their agenda is to divorce the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But to use one and to 
prop up on that one so they can almost sort of claim that they are for 
the founding of this Nation--and we heard earlier when they used the 
Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. They were celebrating that this was the right bill to be in 
law because of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you can 
claim that with this legislation, there are no bounds in which you can 
go with this Federal Government, there are no limits.
  As the gentleman from Kansas just raised, this is clearly not about 
health care. This is about freedom, and this is about liberty and 
preserving it for future generations.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
  Mr. Huelskamp was just on the mark. I will venture to say that 
today's ruling actually extinguishes the fire of life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. It destroys life, liberty, and that pursuit.
  The question today for this country can best be summed up by 
President Ronald Reagan when he said, back in the 1960s, in a speech:
  Will history write that those who had the most to lose did the least 
to prevent it from happening?
  This is a sad and tragic day for the Constitution. Where are the 
limits of our government? While the Court has answered that the 
Commerce Clause does have its limits and gives us that ruling, it takes 
away by saying that Congress has unlimited taxing power. Its limits are 
unlimited. I guess that Congress now, when it sees fit to regulate an 
issue, an industry, need only now to turn to its taxing power, as Mr. 
Huelskamp said.
  This law was sold to us as a mandate and not a tax. It was reaffirmed 
by the President that this is not a tax. Yet, when the arguments were 
made to its constitutionality, this administration took the position 
that it was a tax, and the Court agreed.
  Let's see the taxes. In 2010, an excise tax on charitable hospitals 
was enacted; the codification of the economic substance doctrine; a tax 
hike of $4.5 billion was implemented; a black liquor tax hike, a tax 
that increases on the type of biofuel; a tax on innovator drug 
companies was enacted; a BlueCross/BlueShield tax hike was enacted; a 
tax on indoor canning services was enacted; a medicine cabinet tax, so 
that Americans are no longer able to use their FSAs, flexible spending 
accounts, or HRAs, their health reimbursement pretax dollars to 
purchase nonprescription over-the-counter medicine was implemented; the 
HSA withdraw tax hike was implemented; a tax that will take effect this 
year, the employer reporting of insurance on W-4s.
  Where are they going with that, Mr. Graves? Where are they going with 
that?
  Remember, not long ago we had a big debate about that, that now we're 
going to report to the IRS the amount of your insurance policy that 
your employer gives you on your W-4, because they want to tax that as 
income.
  And then taxes that will take effect in 2013: a surtax on investment 
income; a hike in the medical payroll tax.
  Wait, the medical payroll tax? I thought we had a payroll tax 
holiday. Not in 2013. We're going to get an increase.
  A tax on medical device manufacturers; a flexible spending account 
cap that is going to affect those parents who have special needs kids.
  So those parents who have special needs kids that the other side of 
this aisle claims to always want to represent, this health care law is 
now going to tax.
  An elimination of the tax deduction for employers that cover 
prescription drugs; a $500,000 annual executive compensation limit; an 
individual mandate excise tax; an employer mandate excise tax; a tax on 
health insurers.
  And last but not least, in 2018, an excise tax on comprehensive 
health insurance plans, which will affect union employees.
  This ladder of success that we had in this country has now had three 
rings of it removed, because now the government tells the individual, 
if you live below a certain poverty line, you will be given food, 
shelter, and now health care tax free, no requirement by you who are 
receiving these, to pay anything back to the government, zero.

                              {time}  1910

  What is the incentive to climb? Because the moment you start to 
climb, you lose these amenities and the government starts to take from 
you. So the decision becomes, can I jump high enough to grab a rung so 
that I can then start paying back and get more of the amenities that 
the government was giving us and I was provided?
  Let me conclude as I began, by asking: Will those who have the most 
to lose do the least to prevent it from happening? And as I spend time 
in this city, I have come to realize that the giants of America who 
have been memorialized for their great contributions to our society did 
not contribute with the goal of being memorialized but did what was 
right and just in the eyes of the Lord, with no ego and no agenda other 
than for the greater good. And that is what this country so desperately 
needs. We need those giants.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
  You brought up one major component of all this legislation. I 
remember in one of the State of the Unions, the President said, We need 
tax reform. Tax reform.
  I think he got tax reform in this law. What did you say? Twenty-one 
new taxes are being implemented because of ObamaCare? There are 21 new 
taxes, and yet the Progressives earlier said, No, this is great for 
America. Free health care. Affordable health care. No one has to pay. 
They'll actually get credits back.
  Somebody's got to pay. That's the way this place works. Whenever 
they're promising you something, they're taking from someone else. And 
you just laid out 21 different areas that impact every American that 
the President promised he wouldn't raise taxes on. So I appreciate you 
doing that.
  And next, the other component of it is, what's left? What really was 
in this health care law, this Big Government expansion, this overreach 
into the homes of American families? A tremendous amount is left.
  I know Dr. Price from Georgia has been leading the fight not only 
against this measure, but for positive patient-centered and patient-
driven measures as well. And I want to thank you for joining us and 
sharing with us.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Graves, so very much. I want to 
commend you for your work on this issue and your leadership for 
principled solutions, principled solutions in the area of health care 
and everywhere else.
  I know that Republicans think every day is the Fourth of July and 
Democrats think that every day is April 15. Why would I say that? Today 
we've been highlighting it in this conversation we're having here, 
because our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that every 
day is another day to raise taxes.

[[Page 10526]]

  Today the Supreme Court of the United States said, If you want to 
raise taxes, have at it. Raise them as high as you want. In fact, the 
Democrats are so incredibly happy this day because it's not just that 
they can now raise taxes or fight to raise taxes on what we do, but 
goodness gracious, they can fight to raise taxes on what we don't do. 
In fact, if you don't do something, then the Federal Government can 
say, Oh, you'd better do that or we're going to raise your taxes. And 
that is exactly what the Court said today, which confounds and astounds 
everybody.
  I was privileged to sit in the Court today, though, and hear the 
reading of the ruling, and Chief Justice Roberts said one thing that I 
found very, very interesting. He said, ``It's not our job to protect 
citizens from their political decisions.''
  ``It's not our job to protect citizens from their political 
decisions.'' And that's exactly what this was. This decision was fixed 
on Election Day in 2008. This decision came down on Election Day 2008.
  As a physician, I want to talk for a very brief moment here about the 
incredible importance of Election Day 2012 because, as you said, Mr. 
Graves, there are a lot of things in this bill that we're not just 
talking about money. As a physician, I know what we're talking about is 
people's lives, the health care of the American people. And nothing 
could be so important, nothing could be so personal.
  And what the Court said today is, Let the things in there stand. The 
$500 billion reduction, the $500 billion decrease from the Medicare 
program--taking the Medicare program and saying, You don't need that 
money, seniors in this country. You don't need that money. We're going 
to use it over here.
  What does that mean? What that means is that those seniors--your 
parents, your grandparents, the parents and grandparents of this great 
country, the people of the Greatest Generation cited by this country, 
are now going to have diminished health care.
  And how are they going to do it? They're not going to do it through 
the front door. They're not going to say, We're going to decrease this 
care for you transparently, openly. Oh, no. They're going to do it 
through the backdoor, something called the Independent Payment Advisory 
Board that we've talked about before, the 15-member bureaucratic panel. 
Nonelected individuals are going to have the power, under this law, to 
say, Dr. Smith, you can't do that for Mrs. Jones. If you do it, we're 
not going to pay you. That's the coercive power of this government. 
That's the coercive power that this Court today said is okay.
  Well, Mr. Graves, you and I both know that it's not okay for us, and 
it's not okay for the American people. And that's why we stand here 
tonight, and we say with every ounce of our being that the election 
that occurred in 2008 may have written this in stone, but there are 
some sandblasters out there. And what we're going to do between now and 
the first Tuesday in November is to make certain that the American 
people understand and appreciate that there are folks in this town who 
are fighting as hard as we can to uphold the rule of law, to uphold the 
Constitution, and to adhere to those fundamental principles, especially 
in health care--the principles of affordability and accessibility and 
quality and choices for the American people.
  The bad news was written today. The good news is that you can solve 
all of these challenges in health care without putting the Federal 
Government in charge of the thing. We've got the solutions. We've 
talked about them before. We'll be going on the road now talking about 
them from now until November, because the American people want to know 
that there is somebody fighting for them in this town on their behalf. 
And we are.
  What we need from the American people is for them to stand up and 
say, No more. We will not tolerate a government that will reach into 
our lives and destroy quality health care in this country to the degree 
that the Court said it was okay to do today.
  I thank my friend for the wonderful work you are doing and for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  Not only are you a physician--you are not here speaking on behalf of 
physicians. You are here speaking on behalf of patients all across this 
country and defending them. And I appreciate the great fight that you 
are putting on and the resolve that you have for each of us, as you are 
leading us here as Republicans here in the House.
  As we go into the last 5 minutes here with the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop), he brought up the government right now taxes us on what 
we do or consume, but this is a first in which the government can now 
tax you on what you don't do. That's an amazing concept. I hadn't 
really thought of it that way until Mr. Price brought it up.
  So now the Federal Government has moved into a realm which has never 
been here before, saying, Hey, because you're not doing something, I'm 
going to tax you. So I'm going to determine what it is that you should 
be doing that you are not doing so, therefore, I can collect a little 
revenue. And here we are today with something such as this.
  As we are just wrapping up this spirited discussion here, earlier, 
Mr. Bishop, you heard the Progressives celebrating this decision today.
  What were they celebrating? The Federal Government can tax you if you 
do something. But today's celebration was the fact that the Federal 
Government can tax you when you don't do something.
  I appreciate you joining us tonight and giving your thoughts from the 
great State of Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me a few 
moments here. Truly, this is a unique day. And I'm happy to join my 
colleagues in talking about this particular issue.
  You know, the old cliche is simply, a Supreme Court decision should 
not be confused with constitutional principles. Today we had one case 
brought by States to the Supreme Court. And the administration has 
always said, This ObamaCare is not a tax. It is not a tax.
  Well, the Court said, on five of the nine decisions, Yes, it is a 
tax. And I guess it's legal if you call it a tax. Four of the nine said 
not even that's good enough; but, nonetheless, it's a tax.

                              {time}  1920

  It's appropriate that we talk about that power of taxing because the 
most famous of all cases, McCulloch v. Maryland, which was one the 
major decisions actually made in this particular building, simply said 
the power to tax is the power to destroy. And we have that in front of 
us right now.
  I don't think we should've expected judges to do what the legislative 
branch--in this case, Congress--ought do. And I think it's positive 
that we move forward in this effort to make sure that this program does 
not go into effect and we take concerns for our constituents and maybe 
even learn something from it.
  The idea of judicial review didn't exist for the first decade and a 
half of this country. Marbury v. Madison didn't happen until almost 15 
years into the country. Washington, in the Constitutional Convention, 
also thought the veto should be what determined constitutionality, kind 
of executive review, and Jefferson always said there should be 
legislative review.
  So I think perhaps our Founding Fathers thought all branches should 
be involved in that kind of concept. And I think there should be a 
fourth one added to it, which is the States at the same time, who 
started this process of going to the courts. But we don't come on this 
floor often and quote anti-Federalists because they lost. However, I 
want to today, because even though they were wrong on the Constitution, 
every once in a while they were right on some of the concepts.
  So in the ``17th Letter from a Federalist Farmer,'' written either by 
Melancthon Smith or one of the Lees of Virginia--no one really knows 
who actually did it--he talked about this idea that the States, if we 
have the concept of federalism, should have some power to do some real 
things. He simply said:

       I have often heard it observed that our people are well 
     informed and will not submit to

[[Page 10527]]

     oppressive governments, that the State governments will be 
     ready advocates. But of what avail will these circumstances 
     be if the State governments, thus allowed to be guardians of 
     the people, possess no kind of power to stop the laws of 
     Congress injurious to the people?

  One of the things they quickly said is States really don't have the 
concept or the power to actually involve themselves in this particular 
issue. There are some concepts that are out there. The repeal 
amendment, which is proposed by some legal scholars and has been 
proposed by some State organizations, would actually give a tool for 
States to be involved in this discussion because it impacts those 
States. Right now, they simply have to accept what takes place here in 
the rarified air by the Potomac River.
  But, indeed, if we gave the States a tool so if enough States were to 
ban together to say, No, we disagree with this rule, we disagree with 
this regulation, we disagree with this law, we even disagree with this 
Supreme Court decision, the States would have the ability to add a new 
check and a new balance to make sure that the common people of this 
country have some kind of voice in these decisions.
  I think one of the things we should learn from today's decision is 
that we desperately need another check and balance in our process to 
make federalism a realistic and real term, and that means to involve 
the States in giving them some powers to have real decisions, not so 
they have to come to us as they have so far, begging, but so they can 
actually have a say. I think we would be better off as a Nation if we 
did it.
  This decision today, if nothing more, should add a resolve for us to 
solve a political problem politically, to do it here in the Halls of 
Congress, but maybe add another player in this process--the States--so 
they also have a say in this power to tax, which is the power to 
destroy.
  I realize we're coming close to time. I want to give my good friend 
from Georgia the chance of giving the final word on this particular 
issue, and I appreciate his efforts to organize this opportunity to 
talk about what has happened today.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Thank you for your comments tonight and your 
great insight and reflecting back on early documents and early words 
that have been shared.
  Mr. Speaker, as we conclude tonight, I want the American people to 
know that we are resolved to restore the liberty that was lost today 
through the full repeal of ObamaCare. That will be our focus as 
Republicans in the House.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________