[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10873-10879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THE WEEK IN REVIEW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

[[Page 10874]]


  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  At this time, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to 
my good friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).


                 Honoring Lieutenant Colonel Todd Clark

  Mr. FLORES. I thank Mr. Gohmert for yielding to me for a very special 
few minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, on June 8, America lost Army Lieutenant Colonel Todd 
Clark in the war on terror. Lieutenant Colonel Clark was killed in 
action during an attack at an Army base in Afghanistan.
  Lieutenant Colonel Todd Clark was a native of New York, and he 
attended college in Texas. His father, Jack, was also an Army colonel. 
Todd was in Junior ROTC while in high school, and, upon graduation, he 
attended Texas A&M University, where he joined Company B-2 of the Corps 
of Cadets.
  At the time of his tragic death, he was a brigade level advisor for 
the 10th Mountain Division. During his Army career, he would serve on 
five separate deployments in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. 
During his 17 years of service to our country, Lieutenant Colonel Clark 
earned many awards and decorations, including the following:
  Three Bronze Star Medals; the Purple Heart; two Meritorious Service 
Medals; the Army Commendation with combat distinguishing device ``V''; 
four Army Commendation Medals; three Army Achievement Medals; the Army 
Reserve Components Achievement Medal; the National Defense Service 
Medal with Bronze Service Star; the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; 
the Kosovo Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star; two Afghanistan 
Campaign Medals with Bronze Service Star; four Iraq Campaign Medals 
with Bronze Service Star; the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary 
Medal; the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; the Korea Defense 
Service Medal; the Army Service Ribbon; three Overseas Service Ribbons; 
the NATO Medal--Kosovo; the NATO Medal--Combat Action Badge; and the 
Basic Parachutist Badge.

                              {time}  1140

  At the conclusion of his current tour, Lieutenant Colonel Clark's 
next assignment was to come back to Texas. He was thrilled to be chosen 
to be the executive officer, or essentially the second-in-command, of 
the Corps of Cadets' ROTC program at his alma mater, Texas A&M 
University.
  On Friday, June 21, Lieutenant Colonel Todd Clark was laid to rest at 
the Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery in San Antonio, Texas.
  Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of 
Lieutenant Colonel Clark. He will forever be remembered as an 
outstanding soldier, husband, and father. We thank him and his family 
for their service and sacrifice for our country.
  His sacrifice reflects the words of Jesus in John 15:13, where Jesus 
said:

       Greater love hath no man than this, that a man will lay 
     down his life for his friends.

  I ask that everyone remember to pray often for our country during 
these difficult times. Please pray for our military men and women who 
protect us from threats abroad, and please pray for our first 
responders who protect us from threats here at home.
  God bless our military men and women and God bless America.
  And I thank my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Flores.
  Colonel Clark was a great American. He was a great Aggie. He was just 
a great man. And I appreciate that tribute to him.
  Now, my friend from Texas from the Houston area wished to do a 1-
minute, so I will yield to my friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for 
such time as she may consume.


                           Voting Rights Act

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank my colleague from Texas publicly for 
his commitment to the United States military and certainly for work 
that we collaborated on to work with a young soldier. We are always 
interested in making sure that our soldiers and their families have 
justice and access to justice. So thank you, Congressman, for your 
leadership on that issue.
  And let me thank you for the brief time that I will utilize today and 
to indicate that I am so proud to be an American. I wish America, as we 
celebrate our birthday, that we become even more unified, more grateful 
of the red, white, and blue, and to take that day even to acknowledge 
our public servants, first responders, to acknowledge the men and women 
who serve in government, local governments, to those who serve in the 
United States Government and take every day and opportunity to 
celebrate those who are in uniform on this soil or places beyond. Let 
us congratulate them.
  That causes me to indicate that the Voting Rights Act was a part of 
America. Many people are not aware that this Congress, with 398 votes-
plus in the House and 98 votes in the Senate, reauthorized a bill that 
really means the right to vote for everyone. We take our instruction 
from the Supreme Court seriously, and what we will intend to do is seek 
a bipartisan effort to strengthen and to ensure that no vote is denied.
  I do express great disappointment in the immediacy of the 
implementation of the Texas voter ID law and pray for the spiritual 
community to come together and pray for this Congress, of which we will 
do on this coming Sunday, June 30. We will pray for the Congress in 
Houston. And I ask that we pray across America that we will have the 
opportunity to do this very challenging effort together. The question 
of voting rights is not one of color; it is one of the freedom of this 
Nation.
  I also want to add the recognition that all marriages are equal and 
free, and we ask that those who have been so positively impacted by the 
decision that the Supreme Court issued on DOMA likewise will continue 
to now recognize their freedom to find that marriage is in respect to 
all.
  Let me conclude by raising this question so that you can see the 
reality of what the Voting Rights Act stands for. An immediate casualty 
of the elimination of the Voting Rights Act of 1965--when I say that, 
it's enforcement provision 4--was the closing of the last African 
American majority-minority school district, 50 years of history, 
teachers and workers and police officers and students who graduated and 
came back to contribute. The North Forest Independent School District, 
on the very day that the Supreme Court decision was rendered, had been 
in court ready to be protected by the Voting Rights Act, but now seven 
trustees of which this community voted for and cherished were 
eliminated on that Tuesday because of the undermining of the Voting 
Rights Act.
  As a human factor, students who love teachers, teachers who love 
students, teachers were fired, doors were locked, administrators were 
thrown out, through no fault of their own. They had progress. They had, 
as many of us have had, years of some unfortunate history, but look at 
them now, because of the unfortunate history, the whole district, the 
community, the homes, the people who invested in this school district. 
Now, as I leave this podium to my good friend, I have to say that 
schoolteachers and others who are cut off from any form of health care, 
individuals who are on dialysis, kidney issues, of course, if they have 
diabetes, they are shut off, doors locked, papers thrown out, no 
ability to give recommendations for teachers. What a dastardly 
circumstance.
  I'm prayerful that I can go to the commissioner of education to ask 
for a pause so that these individuals can continue their health 
insurance, so that mothers and fathers can get their students in 
regular order into another school system and so that we can find common 
ground just out of our own humanity.
  I am prayerful as I leave this podium that one America will 
commemorate its great holiday together on July 4, and that when we come 
back, this Congress will expeditiously move to restore an anchor in the 
name of John Lewis, who shed his blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, who 
has continued to be a peacemaker in this Congress, that we reauthorize 
this wonderful legislative initiative so that incidents like North 
Forest Independent

[[Page 10875]]

School District and others that have fallen victim to now this 
nonenforceability of the Voting Rights Act can be restored and we come 
together as a great and wonderful Nation.
  With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, and I was 
quite impressed and pleased to work with Ms. Jackson Lee in our effort 
in helping one of our servicemen.
  Some people around the country say, Why can't people get along on 
both sides of the aisle? When we disagree on issues, we say that. But 
when we work together, because of our common goal to make the country 
better and to help those who have been unfairly treated, we work 
together. It's a pleasure to do so. So I thank my friend from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee).
  I would like to comment today on the good that the Voting Rights Act 
did. Back in the 1960s there was racial disparity. There were far too 
many African Americans who percentagewise were not voting when compared 
with the majority of Euro White Americans, and something needed to be 
done.
  The Supreme Court said, because there has been such impropriety, then 
we will allow this punitive measure to try to force things into being 
right to where there's not racial disparity, racial discrimination in 
preventing people of minority races from getting to the polls and being 
able to vote. Over 45 years later, it has worked. As the Supreme Court 
pointed out, of the original six States, five of those States have less 
racial disparity in voting than the whole rest of the country. That's 
great progress.
  But over those four to five decades of time, things change. The 
Voting Rights Act, as I pointed out to my friend and fellow Republican, 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, Mr. Sensenbrenner, 
who had worked so hard to have it extended previously and was working 
on the reauthorization or the reextension--and to my friend across the 
aisle that I have great respect for--we have wonderful conversations--
Mr. John Conyers--as I pointed out, you have a problem with equal 
protection in this extension.

                              {time}  1150

  You are punishing States who have cleaned up their act. Now, I don't 
know of anybody--anybody--in any of those States who was forced under 
the 40-plus-year-old formula to be punished who had anybody in their 
government who was there when racial inequality and discrimination was 
going on, who's still there. So this act that's done great good refused 
to acknowledge that good had been done. And even though things had 
changed and we had gone from Southern States having racial 
discrimination to now having those Southern States that had less racial 
disparity, and in fact in numerous cases had more African American 
turnout than they had white turnout percentage-wise, so things had 
corrected themselves. I would submit that it won't totally be corrected 
until we have a much higher percentage of all Americans who are 
eligible to vote coming out and voting. That's what's supposed to 
happen.
  Anyway, things have changed, and now the most discriminatory State in 
the Union, ironically, has become Massachusetts. Even Wisconsin has a 
district with significant racial disparity, indicating a potential for 
discrimination in that area; and perhaps Massachusetts should be an 
area that we focus on for trying to eliminate the racial discrimination 
there. Let's look at the numbers and see where racial disparity exists, 
determine what the reason is. And if there's racial discrimination, we 
need to address that because as we've seen, the Voting Rights Act has 
actually done a great good.
  So it's a work in progress. I don't know how many of the two Senators 
and Representatives from Massachusetts would be willing to join with me 
to put--to agree to put Massachusetts under the punitive section 5, but 
I'm certainly willing to go along and do that so that Massachusetts can 
benefit and get rid of racial discrimination and work toward the day 
when their racial disparity is back in line with where it should be. 
It's normally been a forward-thinking State, so it's very sad that it's 
regressed in that regard. But certainly we can work together on helping 
improve Massachusetts to the point that, say, Texas is now. I know they 
would like to be. I know that there are people in Massachusetts that do 
not want to be the most racially discriminating State, so I'm sure it 
shouldn't be that difficult a thing to accomplish. So there should be a 
tribute to the Voting Rights Act.
  I happen to represent east Texas. Nacogdoches' paper, after the vote 
on the Voting Rights Act, had unfairly said I was a throwback to 
Democrats in the fifties because they had not bothered to read my floor 
speeches to see my own Gohmert amendment that would have required a 
formula that would apply across the country so the act would apply to 
everywhere in the country. That was the fair thing to do. I would have 
voted for the amendment if we had been able to get the Gohmert 
amendment in, but it was not accepted. So I knew the act would have to 
go down.
  Anyway, the great thing about being in east Texas, most people there 
are quite fair. And when it was pointed out to the Nacogdoches paper 
back then, my speech and my amendment, then they did a retraction and 
corrected themselves. That's the great thing about America.
  Now, I'm not expecting the AP to do a correction and the 
misrepresentation of things I said this week. In fact, I'm quite 
tickled that after the AP experienced the full force of the executive 
branch coming after them, grabbing their records, grabbing phone 
records from up here in the area in which the reporters work and make 
calls to Congressmen and other things, what a violation, what an 
atrocious violation of the AP's rights. And I'm glad the AP doesn't 
feel like they owe me any obligation in being more accurate in their 
reporting of me. This is America. The AP is totally free to mess up 
stories as they wish, totally free to slant stories as they want to. 
That's their prerogative. That's the great thing about America. But I 
hope that they'll start being a little more vigilant about the abuses 
by this administration since now they've been the victim of such 
abuses. We'll see. But, hopefully, they won't continue to be so 
defensive for the administration and be a little more objective in 
their reporting.
  I did want to address the Windsor decision regarding the Defense of 
Marriage Act because as a former prosecutor, a former judge--I've been 
a litigator and a former chief justice--I read these opinions with 
interest and look for the reasoning, look for the consistency in the 
citation of the facts, the recitation to prior law, prior precedent, 
and the reasoning of the Court. And as I read through this Windsor 
decision regarding Defense of Marriage Act, I was very concerned as I 
read through, they go through here in the majority opinion, Justice 
Kennedy wrote, and they've got about 12 pages here where they're 
talking about, most of the discussion is about standing, because under 
this case, the administration refused to do their job. They refused to 
have the Department of Justice defend the law, and it shouldn't be any 
surprise.
  We have the President goes out, including here recently, and says: I 
don't like the law that Congress passed and prior Presidents have 
signed, so here's the new law. As recently as the last few days, he 
didn't like the law as it stands on carbon issues. So as any good 
monarch would do, he just came up with a new law and espoused that. 
Unfortunately, it's not appropriate and the Constitution has the 
wherewithal to stop this kind of overreach and unconstitutional 
activity by a President that just refuses to enforce laws in being, 
creates new laws out of whole cloth while ignoring the laws that are in 
place. That's a problem.
  The Founders recognize that it's possible some day, some President, 
some administration could do that; and if they do, then the Congress 
has the powers of the purse, and they can step up and say you're 
abusing the Constitution, you're abusing people's rights. And, 
therefore, we as a House and Senate refuse to fund any department that 
is acting extra-constitutionally. We have the power to do that.

[[Page 10876]]

  I have people here in my party, the majority party in the House say: 
You know, we've no leverage. Are you kidding? There is nobody in this 
entire government in the whole executive branch that can get paid, that 
can have any money to do their job unless we vote to allow them to have 
money from the Treasury.

                              {time}  1200

  They can't get it. We have that authority. And if we wanted to take a 
hard line when the Justice Department is refusing to investigate 
matters properly, they're covering up matters, they come to Congress 
and misrepresent things, we have the power to stop them from continuing 
such abuses.
  When they, potentially, commit a fraud on the Court and say somebody 
is a criminal, like James Rosen, and they swear to that before a judge, 
and swear that he's a flight risk, when apparently they knew all along 
he wasn't, and now they say, no, no, no, they were never going to 
prosecute, we have the power to stop that kind of stuff.
  We have the power to stop the abuses of going after the AP or Rosen, 
or any reporters inappropriately abusing and breaching the freedom of 
the press.
  I saw my friend, Mr. Nadler, walk across the back. We have disagreed 
on so many things, but I have come to appreciate very much his position 
on the need to hold every administration accountable, and I'm hoping 
that we're going to be able to work out some legislation that reins in 
the abuses.
  Yes, I know that an administration needs to monitor some things, but 
I'm quite concerned about the extent to which this administration has 
moved even farther than the prior administration in monitoring people. 
I mean, basically, in such an incredibly Orwellian fashion, it's a 
little scary to those of us that have watched this happen. So I'm 
hoping we'll be able to work together.
  But when you look at this opinion and you see, well, gee, the 
administration is refusing to defend a law that was duly passed, signed 
into law by President Clinton, it's a problem. Somebody has to defend 
the law.
  And I was grateful that the Supreme Court, after they analyzed this 
and got over around page 12 or so, and say, that similarly, with 
respect to the legislative power--this is on page 12 of the majority 
opinion--when Congress has passed a statute and a President has signed 
it, it poses grave challenges to the separation of powers for the 
executive, at a particular moment, to be able to nullify Congress' 
enactment, solely on its own initiative, and without any determination 
from a court.
  Of course, then they go through and say, on page 13, they refer to 
the bilateral legislative group that decided to defend the Defense of 
Marriage Act when the administration refused to do the job that was 
required constitutionally, they refused to defend it, as they have 
other laws that have been duly passed and signed.
  But the Court says, in part--which is one of immediate importance to 
the Federal Government and to hundreds of thousands of persons--well, 
they have no basis in fact to make that reference; but, as we've seen, 
particularly in recent years, the Court has strayed off into areas 
where they do not have facts to justify their opinions, and they make 
bad decisions, as they did in the horrendous Dred Scott case.
  It happens, when the Court becomes the fact-finder, the, basically, 
judge, jury and executioner. I mean, they just seem to want to do it 
all and make references to facts that are not before the Court. And, in 
fact, they say these circumstances support the Court's decision to 
proceed on the merits.
  So the Court's saying, okay, the administration refuses to do their 
constitutional job to defend duly passed and signed legislation, so the 
Members of Congress that passed this law, that pushed it through and 
voted for it, in essence, they will have standing to defend it.
  So it took them a long time to get here, clear over to 13, but they 
eventually say, okay, we will recognize that, since these people passed 
the law, they pushed it through, it's their group that got it passed 
and made it into a law. We'll recognize that they have a legitimate 
standing to come before this Court and defend the law.
  And now, basically, the Court says, now that we've found that the 
people that passed this law have a right to defend it, significant 
enough that they have standing, that gives us jurisdiction, as a 
Supreme Court; and so now we will proceed on the merits.
  So then they go through and they analyze, and I had some trouble with 
some of their representations. You know, King Solomon, many, including 
me, believe, was the wisest man who ever lived. Of course, then he had 
too many wives, and that always messes up anybody's wisdom, but he was 
wise at the time he said there is nothing new under the Sun.
  Well, the Supreme Court, apparently, at least the new holy quintet, 
believes they're wiser than Solomon, even though they show some 
ignorance. They say here, page 13, for marriage between a man and a 
woman, no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the 
very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout 
the history of civilization.
  Now, parenthetically, I'd like to insert that shows some wisdom that 
they would make that comment. And throughout the history of mankind, 
though many won't acknowledge it, marriage between a man and a woman 
coming together, or as the Bible says, a man will leave his mother and 
a woman leave her home and the two will come together and be one 
person, one flesh, that's been recognized as a good, healthy building 
block for a society. And that's been recognized throughout the history 
of the United States as a good, healthy building block.
  And what some seem to not recognize, even though they acknowledge 
they believe in evolution and how a species evolves by having better 
and more adaptable offspring, and the strongest produce more and better 
offspring that evolve the species to a higher level, interestingly, 
throughout the history of mankind, it, apparently, was not the joinder 
of a man and a man or a woman and a woman that was able to produce a 
better and more evolved species.
  From best we can tell, you still need a sperm from a man, an egg from 
a woman. Even if you say, well, yeah, we can clone, if you don't have 
something that was created by the joinder of something from a man and 
something from a woman, then you have nothing to clone. So as smart as 
we think we are, it still comes back to what the Bible says as the two 
people becoming one person, one flesh.
  Anyway, the Court says, and I quote:

       That belief for many who long have held it, became even 
     more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, 
     however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new 
     insight.

  There is nothing new under the Sun. This kind of assertion has been 
made, and it's often found toward the end of great civilizations. It 
doesn't bring about the end of the civilization; but it's often found 
at the end of a great civilization as, basically, a mile marker that a 
civilization passes on the way to the dustbin of history.
  No nation lasts forever. None does. This country won't. But it's my 
hope and prayer that we can at least double the length of the short 
time that this country has existed, since 1775, when the war started, 
the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
  So, anyway, the Supreme Court says, talks about this new perspective 
and new insight. And then they say this:

       The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples 
     which, for centuries, had been deemed both necessary and 
     fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other 
     States as an unjust exclusion.

  And they go on and they mention, you know, there are 11 States that 
had adopted this. There are not 11 States that have had the entire 
State vote to recognize marriage between two men or two women.
  But once you move marriage beyond the scope of a man and a woman, you 
really don't end up with a good place to put a limit, because now that 
the Court has pushed this boundary out there and eliminated it, then--I 
think polygamy is wrong, bigamy is wrong. And it's a crime in many 
places. But how will

[[Page 10877]]

that be justifiable, even though I believe it's wrong, how will that be 
justifiable, now that the Court has removed this?

                              {time}  1210

  There's some that believe polygamy is the way to go. I do not think 
it's healthy, overall, for a society, and I certainly don't think it 
helped Solomon. I think it helped him lose his wisdom.
  But the Court goes on and says this at page 16. And its operation is 
directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York and 11 other 
States have sought to protect. Again, that's not 11 or 12 States that 
have had the entire State vote on what marriage is. Most of those have 
been legislatures. And in some States where legislatures have said one 
thing, the people have come from the whole State and said, You're not 
representing our interests, and we're a government of the people, by 
the people, and for the people, and therefore we're correcting you and 
fixing the law.
  The Court said, at page 17:

       The definition of marriage is the foundation of the States' 
     broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic 
     relations with respect to the protection of offspring, 
     property interests, and the enforcement of marital 
     responsibilities. The States, at the time of the adoption of 
     the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of 
     marriage and divorce, and the Constitution delegated no 
     authority to the Government of the United States on the 
     subject of marriage and divorce.

  So if you've read plenty of opinions and you read that at page 17, 
you realize this Court is about to do what, for many of us, is 
unthinkable--become a holy quintet, the five Justices--and basically 
try to rewrite the laws of nature and nature's God, as most of the 
Founders believed.
  But as I read that--and I had not read the Proposition 8 case from 
the Supreme Court regarding California's law--I thought, well, I don't 
like where this is going, but based on this reasoning, I know the 
Supreme Court will have to be intellectually honest and consistent 
enough that since they've said Members of Congress that passed a law 
have standing to defend that law, when the Attorney General and the 
executive branch doesn't, they'll have to uphold the standing of the 
group in California who pushed through and voted for and passed--just 
as Congress does the laws here--through referendum, the law in 
California, saying that marriage was between a man and a woman.
  And when I read this, I said, Oh, this doesn't sound good for the 
Defense of Marriage Act by the Federal Congress because they're saying 
it's only the States that can decide what marriage is. And these 11, 12 
States have decided for themselves what it is, and so the Federal 
Government doesn't have any power to say what it is. I still contend 
the Federal Government does have a nexus and power to say what it is 
for purposes of certain Federal benefits, but the Court, as the new 
holy quintet, saw otherwise.
  They go on to say in this opinion that which shows that the holy 
quintet was either totally dishonest or totally inconsistent--totally 
ignorant, actually--when they make this statement. This is page 22. 
``The principal purpose''--talking about the Defense of Marriage Act--
``is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental 
efficiency.''
  And that's a lie. And anybody who will be intellectually honest will 
have to understand that is a lie by the new holy quintet at the Supreme 
Court.
  The principal purpose was to protect the greatest foundational 
building block of any society since the dawn of mankind: the home, 
where a mother and father are there; a home, where the species has 
offspring and they're nurtured by a mother and father.
  Now, certainly, I saw it in the Soviet Union back in the seventies 
when I was there as an exchange student. I was shocked. I was actually 
mortified, because at these day care centers they were saying, yes, the 
children are the government's. They're the state's. Seems like I saw 
that on MSNBC recently. They're the state's. And the parents are only 
the brief caregivers, so long as the state allows them to take care of 
the state's children. But if they ever say anything inappropriate that 
the state finds out about, they'll yank the children out and put them 
with somebody more deserving.
  I was mortified because, even in the seventies, I realized as a young 
person that, wow, the family is so important. Some of our greatest 
people have come from single-parent homes, and that will also continue. 
Thank God, since we've now passed over 40 percent, heading towards 50 
percent, of individuals being born today to a single-parent home. But 
that's not, statistically, the most secure and the best home, generally 
speaking, for a child to grow up in. Obviously, there are exceptions. 
You have abusive parents. You have parents that I sent to prison who 
were an aberration. That can happen in anybody's home. So I sent them 
to prison for committing crimes. Well, obviously, a two-parent home, 
where one of them is committing crimes, is not healthy to a child.
  But overall, for the history of this country, the States, Members of 
Congress, the original Founders, they would never have dreamed we would 
get to a point where the judiciary, the unelected branch--the only 
unelected branch--would say, We're going to rewrite the laws of nature 
and nature's God. But that's, in essence, what they say.
  At page 25, the Court says that:

       The Federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose 
     overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure 
     those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect 
     in personhood and dignity.

  That's a tragic decision, and it's heartbreaking that it will help to 
generate society as we move forward with fewer and fewer people paying 
income tax, as this society becomes more and more narcissistic, more 
focused on ourselves. How else can you explain one generation saying 
this generation is so valuable that we are going to force future 
generations, some who have not even been born, to pay for our 
narcissism and to be engorging ourselves on the money of future 
generations?
  We're the first in American history that's ever been so self-
absorbed, and it's heartbreaking. We've got to change this. All the 
generations before had a majority of that generation that would 
sacrifice whatever we have to so that our children will have a better 
Nation than we have. I've been the beneficiary of that, and I will work 
until I take my dying breath to try to change the direction we're 
headed, toward national bankruptcy, both financially and morally. But 
this is a disingenuous opinion, and either the Court realizes it, which 
makes it dishonest, or they don't realize it, and it makes them very 
ignorant.
  So, nonetheless, when I finished reading that majority opinion, I 
knew that surely, as bad as that opinion is, incorporating things that 
simply aren't true, disingenuous, when they take up the Proposition 8 
case from California, number one, they'll have to say that the people 
that pushed through the law and passed it have standing to defend the 
law that they pushed through and passed and voted for themselves by 
referendum, just as the Members of Congress were allowed to have 
standing to defend the bill.
  In California's case, the executive branch, their attorney general, 
refused to defend the law that was passed by a majority of the 
Californians. And so I thought, okay, that will be an easy one for the 
Supreme Court. They can just reference the Windsor case, as these 
people have the right, they have standing; therefore, we have 
jurisdiction to take up the merits of the case.

                              {time}  1220

  They could cite Windsor, the DOMA case, for the proposition, as they 
say in the DOMA case, that the States have a right to determine what 
marriage will be in their State.
  Here's the amazing part: for people, many of whom have educations 
from Ivy League institutions--I'm not sure, they may all come from Ivy 
League institutions--sounds like we need some diversity on the Court, 
though, if that's the case. They hold that the people that passed the 
law in California, voted for the law in California do not have standing 
to defend the law, so

[[Page 10878]]

we're not even going to take up the issue that we said clearly, in the 
case we just decided on DOMA, that only the States have a right to 
decide what marriage is within their States. So they kick it back to a 
lower court to dismiss.
  It is tragic when people who are supposed to be our best educated 
have such false reasoning based on a fiction that the law saying 
marriage is a man and a woman has no other purpose--the primary purpose 
at least being to create inequality. That is tragic. It does not bode 
well for this Nation when the only unelected branch decides that they 
will rewrite the laws of nature and nature's God.
  And why do I mention that is because those are terms that the 
Founders used. When my pastor, David Dykes, was up here with his wife, 
Cindy, it was the first time I had gone over to the State Department. I 
mean, I majored in history; I loved history. I owed the Army 4 years 
for my scholarship at A&M, and I enjoyed history so I majored in it.
  I knew all about the Revolution, the Treaty of Paris, but I never 
actually looked at the Treaty of Paris or a copy of it. Under glass in 
the State Department building they have an incredible copy of the 
original Treaty of Paris of 1783. And I was shocked by the big bold 
letters that start the Treaty of Paris. I had to think about why would 
they start with those words.
  Then you put yourself back in the place of the Founders, those who 
were negotiating with the British Government in Paris to force them to 
recognize that the United States of America was a free and independent 
country, totally free of Great Britain, and totally independent to do 
what it wished as its own sovereign Nation. So they had to get 
representatives from Great Britain to sign that. Well, what would keep 
them from just breaking their oath? I mean, we see it here among 
politicians. They'll swear one thing and then they'll go do something 
else. What would keep the representatives of Great Britain from doing 
the same thing?
  And the Founders wanted something so profound under which they would 
make the Great Britain diplomats sign that they would be afraid to ever 
break that oath. So I thought about it. Well, what in the world would I 
put in the document to make them sign under? I don't think having a 
notary is going to quite do the trick, especially if it's an American 
notary. They'd say, well, it wasn't a British notary.
  So what would you do? What would you put in the document to make them 
swear under? That's where they came up with the first words of the 
Treaty of Paris that for the first time truly recognized the 
independence of the United States by Great Britain. France had already 
recognized us, but this was the one we had been in revolts with and war 
with. So the first words, the biggest, boldest words in all the Treaty 
of Paris were these:

       In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.

  Now, they knew, both the British and the Americans, that the Trinity 
represented the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. They put that as the 
biggest words in there:

       In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity.

  They figured if the British will sign this document with those in big 
bold letters, they will not want to face their Judge some day if they 
break that oath.
  It's the very reason that John Quincy Adams--a great advocate for 
abolition, the only man in American history who had been elected 
President, 1824, defeated in 1828, he decides God's calling him to 
bring an end to slavery, like William Wilberforce was trying to do in 
England. So he did the unthinkable. After he was President, he ran to 
be a Representative in the House of Representatives of the U.S. 
Congress and was elected. And he indicated to someone that he was 
prouder being elected to Congress after being President than he was 
being elected President, which seems a little strange. But if you think 
about it, it means after he was elected President, his neighbors still 
liked him. So that was a big deal.
  But over and over he preached sermons on the evils of slavery just 
down the Hall here. But in the Amistad case that came before the 
Supreme Court, down in what we call the Old Supreme Court Chamber 
downstairs, he argued before the Supreme Court--and you can find his 
whole argument online. Fortunately, they didn't put two-plus days of 
oral argument in the movie Amistad--Anthony Hopkins, a good Longview, 
Texas guy named Matthew McConaughey, he argued the case. And you find 
at the end of his argument--and I don't have it committed verbatim, but 
basically he goes through asking, Where is Justice so-and-so and Chief 
Justice John Marshall? Where is the solicitor who last argued the case 
against me when I was here before? Even the judge that started this 
case, he had died one night during the days of oral arguments. He ends 
up concluding, basically, they've gone to meet their Judge. And the 
most important question that they were asked is will they hear: Well 
done, good and faithful servant?
  Now, if I had had a lawyer argue that before me in the court of 
appeals or the district bench, I mean, I had gotten the message, you 
got a lawyer there saying if you don't decide for me, you're going to 
have to face God Almighty some day, and he's going to judge you and 
he's going to come down on you if you don't do the right thing in this 
case. I might not have appreciated it, but the Court found 
appropriately for John Quincy Adams' side of the case. And those free 
Africans were allowed to leave as free Africans, as they should have 
been.
  So back then, the lead abolitionist, he knew, he believed with all 
his heart some day people are going to meet their maker, He's going to 
be their Judge. I might have enjoyed if John Quincy Adams were able to 
come back as Lazarus did, when Jesus raised him, and go before the 
Supreme Court and say, let me tell you, I've been there. You are going 
to go before your Judge some day. And you better not pretend to be God 
himself because you're going to meet God himself some day. But this 
Supreme Court did not have that benefit, so the holy quintet decided to 
rewrite the law.
  Now, I want to touch on briefly a law that was just passed down in 
the Senate. I really appreciated my good friend Senator Ted Cruz's 
statement down the Hall. I'm quoting from his statement:

       Unfortunately, all of the concerns that have been 
     repeatedly raised about this bill remain; it repeats the 
     mistakes of the 1986 immigration bill; it grants amnesty 
     first; it won't secure the border; and it doesn't fix our 
     broken legal immigration system.
       This bill doesn't solve the problems because the process it 
     went through was fatally flawed--it was written behind closed 
     doors with special interests; in the Judiciary Committee, the 
     Gang of Eight Democrats blocked all substantive amendments 
     because of a previously cooked deal; and on the Senate floor, 
     the majority blocked any attempts to fix the bill.

  Further, in conjunction with ObamaCare, the Gang of Eight bill 
creates a tax penalty on employers--effectively, up to $5,000--for 
hiring U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. But that penalty does not 
apply to those with RPI--which is registered provisional immigrant--
status, giving a powerful incentive for job creators to hire illegal 
immigrants instead of U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. That is 
indefensible.

                              {time}  1230

  Ted says:

       I filed an amendment to fix this defect but was blocked by 
     Senate Democrats from receiving a vote on that solution. 
     Sadly, this bill won't fix the problem with our immigration 
     system and will only encourage more illegal immigration and 
     human suffering.

  Quite tragic. Quite tragic.
  Senator Cruz explains it well.
  Dr. Tom Coburn, a good friend--hopefully, he would acknowledge that--
from Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn said this--I won't read the whole 
statement, there's not adequate time, but a wonderful statement he 
summarizes very well. He said:

       It is a $48 billion border stimulus package that grants 
     amnesty to politicians who want to say they are securing the 
     border when, in fact, they are not.

  Further he quotes Reagan. He said Reagan said:


[[Page 10879]]

       It was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than 
     oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of 
     all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports 
     that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to 
     be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to 
     anyone with the will and the heart to get here.
       ``Walls with doors'' is an immigration policy that can 
     unite our Nation. But today, Democrats sound like they want 
     only doors; Republicans want only walls. The truth is we have 
     neither. We have chaos.

  Well said.
  But the Republicans I know want doors. We want immigration. We want 
the fresh water flowing into this incredible lake. It's a healthy good 
thing.
  I love the fact that, generally speaking, most Hispanics I know have 
a faith in God, a devotion to their family, and a hard work ethic. 
That's what I think made America great. It's a great thing. We need 
more of that. That's a good thing.
  But it has to be done legally, and it is heartbreaking that this got 
pushed through the Senate to what many of us believe will be the 
detriment of this country.
  In The Weekly Standard, John McCormack wrote an article that five 
Senators who support the immigration bill don't know the answer to a 
key question about it. A great article there in The Weekly Standard.
  There are plenty of good articles if our friends down the hall had 
bothered to read them. Eagle Forum has a great article, a great 
newsletter, on the Gang of Eight and what they've done to America.
  What my friend Ted Cruz was pointing out, under ObamaCare, there is a 
penalty that could be $3,000 per employee. For those over 50 you deduct 
30. It's a formula. But basically, in most cases it's a $2,000 penalty 
for any employer that has over 50 employees that does not provide the 
level of health care that is required under ObamaCare. So Ted Cruz 
makes a point I haven't heard anybody else make--it's an excellent 
point: that under ObamaCare, if you're an employer and you've got 1,000 
people working for you, certainly you're under ObamaCare, so you're 
going to pay a tax of $2,000 per person on your employees if you don't 
give them the highest level required of health insurance, so they will 
end up being under ObamaCare.
  Well, businesses compete to stay in business. If someone else has a 
lower overhead, then they have to try to get down to that level of 
overhead.
  Under the Senate bill, they create these registered provisional 
immigrants. By that law, the registered provisional immigrants are not 
under ObamaCare. So if an employer that has, say, 1,000 employees wants 
to save $200,000 or so, that employer can fire all of the American 
citizens and all the legal immigrants that he has working in that 
manufacturing plant and hire the RPIs, the registered provisional 
immigrants. Then that employer doesn't have to provide them health 
care, and he doesn't have to pay the $2,000 fine per employee and save 
a couple hundred thousand. If you have 10,000 employees, then you would 
save a couple million dollars.
  It is really profound the detrimental effect it will have on legal 
immigrants and American citizens.
  I see that my dear friend from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) is here.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I was watching in my office what the 
gentleman from Texas was saying, and I was moved so profoundly because 
this week changed history. It changed history with the definition of 
America and the United States, but it also changed our constitutional 
Republic.
  When the Supreme Court of the United States denied equal protection 
rights to every American by taking away our ability to elect our 
representatives, have them give voice to what our opinion is, and then 
the Supreme Court decides to substitute their morality for that of the 
people's duly elected people, as they did also in California, now we're 
looking at a supreme betrayal. Not only did the Supreme Court betray us 
on the issue of marriage, we've been betrayed by the Senate and also by 
Republicans in the Senate. We have a fake border security bill that is 
about to give amnesty to millions and millions of illegal immigrants, 
and we are about to see that bill now come to the House of 
Representatives.
  People are very worried about what they've seen happen this week. One 
woman was crying to me this morning, saying that, Michele, our country 
is falling down around our eyes. So what I told her what we need to do 
is we need to pray, we need to pray, we need to confess our sins as a 
Nation, and we need to pray and ask God for his holy intervention and 
for his forgiveness.
  We are not over as a Nation, there is a future, there is a hope. But 
we need to recognize that this week was historic and, Mr. Speaker, the 
words of Mr. Gohmert were exactly right. This is a very, very important 
decision. It went at kicking out the fundamental building block of this 
Nation, which is the family. The hub of the family is the marriage 
between a mom and a dad. That was hurt this week by the Supreme Court. 
Now we are looking at violating the fundamental rule of law by 
legalizing millions of illegal immigrants with this fake border 
security bill that will never ever come into place.
  The gentleman has said it well, he said it very well. I want to come 
up and thank him and congratulate him for his remarks. But to let the 
American people know there is a future, there is a hope, and we're 
going to continue to fight here in the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________