[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11091-11094]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 11092]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 11093]]

  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 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.

[[Page 11094]]

       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.

                          ____________________