[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16420-16422]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      OBAMACARE ORIGINATION CLAUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Franks) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Supreme Court 
narrowly and specifically upheld the individual mandate at the heart of 
ObamaCare under Congress' general taxing power. The Court specifically 
noted:

       Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax 
     on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply 
     with the other requirements in the Constitution.

  Let me read that again, Mr. Speaker:

       Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax 
     on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply 
     with the other requirements in the Constitution.

  In short, ObamaCare was upheld as a tax. The Supreme Court did not 
and has not yet considered a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's 
taxing provisions on the grounds that it violated the Origination 
Clause in the United States Constitution, and it most certainly did 
exactly that. The Origination Clause is found in article I, section VII 
of the Constitution, and it states:

       All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House 
     of Representatives.

  In creating ObamaCare, Senator Harry Reid took an entirely unrelated 
bill, H.R. 3590, containing just 714 words that did not raise taxes, 
and then stripped it of everything but its bill number. He then put the 
400,000-word ObamaCare that raised taxes in 17 different places into 
its empty shell. Through this bit of legislative trickery, Mr. Reid 
claims that ObamaCare originated in the House, when, in fact, every 
last provision of ObamaCare, including the largest tax increase in 
American history, all came from the Senate.
  This sort of procedure absolutely ignores and vacates the Founders' 
intent, and it renders the Origination Clause of our Constitution 
completely meaningless. If it is allowed to stand, the Origination 
Clause in the Constitution is a dead letter.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a small or marginal issue. The principle 
behind the Origination Clause was the moral justification for our 
entire War of Independence. Its importance was expressed through the 
Virginia House of Burgesses, the Stamp Act Congress, and the First 
Continental Congress, all of whom petitioned the Crown and the 
Parliament in England for redress of their tax grievances. It was with 
these realities in mind that the Origination Clause of our Constitution 
was written, and without it at the core of the Great Compromise of 
1787, the 13 original States would have never agreed to ratify the 
Constitution.
  When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they knew it was 
vital for the power to raise and levy

[[Page 16421]]

taxes to originate in the people's House, whose Members are closest to 
the electorate with 2-year terms, rather than in the Senate, whose 
members sit unchallenged for 6-year terms and who do not proportionally 
represent the American population and who already enjoy their own 
unique and separate Senate powers intentionally divided by the Framers 
between the two Chambers.
  If we as Members of the House of Representatives, who took a solemn 
oath to support and defend the Constitution, including its Origination 
Clause, fail to assert this right and responsibility as the immediate 
Representatives of the people and those most accountable to them, we 
dishonor the Founders' memory, and we fundamentally abrogate our sworn 
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from 
all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  This fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit will hear an appeal in the case of Sissel v. HHS as to whether 
ObamaCare violates the Origination Clause of the Constitution. I would 
urge my colleagues to sign on to H. Res. 153 and to join me in an 
amicus brief, along with currently 31 other Members of Congress, that I 
will be filing with the court. This brief expresses our collective 
conviction that the passage of ObamaCare was and is unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was the largest tax increase in American 
history. The United States Supreme Court specifically and officially 
ruled it a tax. Consequently, under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the 
House and the Senate, in passing it in the manner that they did, 
categorically violated the Origination Clause, without which the U.S. 
Constitution never would have been born in the first place.
  It is now the duty of the judiciary to strike down ObamaCare as a 
clear violation of the Origination Clause.

                              {time}  2100

  By following this amicus brief, we hope the judiciary will seize on 
the opportunity to support and defend the origination clause of the 
United States Constitution. If the judiciary does not strike down 
ObamaCare as an unconditional Senate-originated tax, Mr. Speaker, it 
would allow the Obama administration to blow yet another huge hole into 
the constitutional fabric of this noble Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster once said:

       Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the 
     Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and 
     what has happened once in 6,000 years, may never happen 
     again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American 
     Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout 
     the world.


                   U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to 
another subject.
  Mr. Speaker, the greatest security threat in the world today is that 
of a nuclear-armed Iran. Now, Iran is once again the news of the 
moment. As talks between the United States and Iran have begun, 
American leaders given the charge to protect America's national 
security must not be charmed by wolves in sheep's clothing.
  When innocent Syrian civilians were mercilessly attacked by chemical 
weapons, the Obama administration was caught on its heels in a foreign 
policy quandary. America was reminded again that the United States must 
always be vigilant and embrace an international relations framework 
which enables proactive engagement rather than merely reactionary, 
crisis response.
  Mr. Speaker, I desperately hope that these discussions will proceed 
in the context of the grave reality the human family will face if 
nuclear weapons fall into the hands of jihadists in Iran.
  To use the slightly altered words of our Secretary of State, Mr. 
Speaker: In a world of terrorists and extremists, we ignore these risks 
at our peril. We simply cannot afford to have nuclear weapons become 
the IED or car bomb of tomorrow. Neither our country, nor our 
conscience, can bear the costs of inaction.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act is: an action 
that will reinforce the prohibition against illegal nuclear weapons 
development. We are talking about actions that will degrade Iran's 
capacity to use these weapons and ensure that they do not proliferate.
  With this authorization, the President will simply have the power to 
make sure that the United States of America means what we say.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, actually, the words I have just quoted are really 
just the essential words of Secretary Kerry's recent justification for 
wanting to attack Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria. However, I changed 
the quote a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Whenever he said ``Syria,'' I 
inserted ``Iran,'' and whenever he said ``chemical weapons,'' I 
inserted ``nuclear weapons,'' Mr. Speaker. If this line of reasoning of 
the administration chooses to stand behind this, then we simply cannot 
refute the parallel argument related to a nuclear Iran which poses an 
exponentially greater threat in terms of our security to the United 
States of America.
  Secretary Kerry asserted that Mr. Obama ``means what he says.'' But, 
Mr. Speaker, if the world truly believed that this President means what 
he says, the chemical weapons crisis in Syria would never have occurred 
in the first place.
  Secretary Kerry said of the Syrian crisis that North Korea and Iran 
were closely watching our actions. However, Mr. Speaker, the converse 
is actually far more accurate: Syria has been closely watching Mr. 
Obama's inaction toward North Korea and Iran since he became President; 
and, consequently, Assad felt he could use chemical weapons on innocent 
men, women, and children with impunity. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the 
entire world now sees the U.S. under this President as all talk.
  However, in this monumentally important issue of preventing Iran from 
gaining nuclear weapons, our critical diplomatic policies must be 
backed by our unmovable will to back them up by all means necessary.
  The popular narrative of the Obama administration is to embrace 
Iran's openness and reward their willingness to negotiate, Mr. Speaker. 
But, Mr. Speaker, we know United Nations resolutions, IAEA 
declarations, and diplomatic efforts, including 10 rounds of 
negotiations toward this regime, have produced absolutely no fruit at 
all. Decades have passed without a single concession from this, the 
world's leading sponsor of terror.
  In 2005, we saw North Korea, another rogue nation, petition for 
``talks'' about ending their nuclear weapons program, and demanding 
U.S. concessions. How did they hold up that end of that bargain? They 
conducted three flagrant nuclear weapons tests. This, in spite of the 
fact that North Korea has been sanctioned, in terms of economic 
sanctions, into the virtual starvation of their people for now a half 
century.
  Mr. Speaker, Iran is closer than ever before and racing toward a full 
nuclear weapons capability. The Iranian Government's intentions, 
actions, and capacity to develop nuclear weapons capability and sponsor 
international terrorism are terrifyingly clear. The time to regain our 
credibility with both our allies and foes alike in this region is now, 
before the situation devolves into a Syria-like situation, frantically 
searching for solutions after the crisis has already begun.
  To that end, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the U.S.-Iran Nuclear 
Negotiations Act, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill along 
with 25 other Members of Congress who are now signed on. The U.S.-Iran 
Nuclear Negotiations Act will strengthen the United States negotiating 
position in the upcoming talks with Iran, and it will outline vital 
congressional priorities on any nuclear negotiations with Iran.
  Mr. Speaker, a bad deal with Iran which does not definitively prevent 
a weapons-capable Iran is worse than no deal at all. I am afraid that 
is exactly where this administration may take us.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not let it happen.

[[Page 16422]]

  Whatever the cost is to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, it will pale in 
significance compared to the cost to our children and the entire human 
family of allowing the jihadist regime in Iran to gain nuclear weapons.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a thought I would like to repeat.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States 
narrowly, but specifically, upheld the individual mandate at the heart 
of ObamaCare under Congress' general taxing power. The court noted 
specifically that ``even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose 
a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with 
other requirements in the Constitution.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to read that one more time: ``Even if the 
taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health 
insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the 
Constitution.''
  In short, Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was upheld as a tax. The Supreme 
Court did not, and has not yet, considered a challenge to the 
Affordable Care Act's taxing provisions on the grounds that it violated 
the origination clause in the United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, 
it most certainly did exactly that.
  Mr. Speaker, the origination clause is found in article I, section 7 
of the Constitution, and it states:

       All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House 
     of Representatives.

  In creating ObamaCare, Senator Harry Reid took an entirely unrelated 
bill, H.R. 3590, containing just 714 words that did not raise taxes, 
and then he stripped it of everything but its bill number. He then put 
the 400,000-word ObamaCare that raised taxes in 17 different places 
into this empty shell bill.
  Through this bit of legislative trickery, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reid 
claims that ObamaCare originated in the House when, in fact, every last 
provision of ObamaCare, including the largest tax increase in American 
history, all came from the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, this sort of procedure absolutely ignores and vacates 
the Founders' intent, and it renders the origination clause of our 
Constitution completely meaningless. If it is allowed to stand, the 
origination clause in the Constitution is a dead letter, Mr. Speaker.
  This is not a small or marginal issue. The principle behind the 
origination clause was the moral justification for our entire War of 
Independence. Its importance was expressed through the Virginia House 
of Burgesses, the Stamp Act Congress, and the First Continental 
Congress, all of which petitioned the Crown and Parliament in England 
for redress of their tax grievances.
  It was with these realities in mind that the origination clause of 
our Constitution was written. Without it at the core of the great 
compromise of 1787, the 13 original States would never have agreed to 
ratify the Constitution of the United States.
  It is not a small issue, Mr. Speaker. When our Founding Fathers wrote 
the Constitution, they knew it was vital for the power to raise and 
levy taxes to originate in the people's House whose Members are closest 
to the electorate with 2-year terms, rather than the Senate whose 
Members sit unchallenged for 6-year terms and who do not 
proportionately represent the American population and who already enjoy 
their own unique and separate Senate powers intentionally divided by 
the Framers between the two Chambers.
  If we, as Members of the House of Representatives, who took a solemn 
oath to support and defend the Constitution, including its origination 
clause, fail to assert this right and this responsibility as immediate 
representatives of the people and those most accountable to them, Mr. 
Speaker, we dishonor the Founders' memory and we fundamentally abrogate 
our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States from all enemies foreign and domestic.
  Mr. Speaker, this fall the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit will hear an appeal in the case of Sissel 
v. HHS as to whether ObamaCare violates the origination clause of the 
Constitution.
  I would urge my colleagues to sign on to H. Res. 153 and to join me 
in an amicus brief that I will be filing with the court along with 
currently 31 other Members of Congress. This brief expresses our 
collective conviction that the passage of ObamaCare was and is 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare was the largest tax increase in the history of 
the United States of America. The United States Supreme Court 
specifically and officially ruled it a tax. Consequently, under Nancy 
Pelosi and Harry Reid, the House and the Senate in passing it in the 
manner that they did categorically violated the origination clause 
without which the U.S. Constitution never would have been born in the 
first place.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now the duty of the judiciary to strike down 
ObamaCare as a clear violation of the origination clause.
  By filing this amicus brief, we hope the judiciary will seize on the 
opportunity to support and defend the origination clause of this our 
United States Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, if the judiciary does not strike down ObamaCare as an 
unconstitutional Senate-originated tax, it would, Mr. Speaker, allow 
the Obama administration to blow yet another huge hole in the 
constitutional fabric of this noble Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster said something that I think applies so 
profoundly here. He said:

       Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the 
     Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and 
     what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. 
     Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution 
     should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.

  Mr. Speaker, we must defend this Constitution. We must as the House 
of Representatives do our part to uphold those privileges and 
responsibilities we have been given by the Constitution, and I hope we 
do it, sir.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________