[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4742-4745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for the remainder of the time until 10 p.m.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my 
friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I also want to thank 
the gentlelady from Missouri for organizing the previous hour's 
discussion on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the people of faith at companies 
like Hobby Lobby and Pennsylvania's Conestoga Wood. These companies 
want to provide health insurance for their workers, and they should be 
able to do that without violating their deeply held religious and moral 
convictions.
  It is simply unacceptable that President Obama's health care law 
requires people of faith to violate their conscience rights. This 
happens when regulations issued pursuant to the law forces them to pay 
for services such as abortifacient drugs when they provide health 
insurance for their employees.
  The hostility in the President's health care law towards people of 
faith is made clear when you consider the penalty scheme in the law. If 
these family-owned businesses do not comply with the mandate, they 
could be fined $100 per day per employee. That amounts to $36,500 per 
year per employee, even if the health insurance provided is of 
excellent quality.
  Compare that with the $2,000 fine per year per employee if they 
stopped offering insurance altogether.
  How is that fair, just, or respectful of their beliefs?
  This poster, Mr. Speaker, is striking. This discrepancy is simply 
indefensible. Looking at these numbers, you would think that this 
administration thinks that it is more important for an employer to 
provide abortifacient drug coverage than it is to provide comprehensive 
health insurance coverage that would cover items such as cancer 
treatment.
  As the Supreme Court considers this case tomorrow and hears oral 
arguments, I join men and women of faith from western Pennsylvania and 
across the country in defending conscience rights and religious 
liberty, and standing with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania very much. They are 
very, very good points.
  Also along the lines my friend was talking about, some of us were 
here when our fine President stood at that podium and spoke to all of 
us here and he said in his speech that in his bill there would be no 
funding of abortion. We all heard that. In fact, there was such an 
involuntary response of Joe Wilson to categorize that statement. From 
the bill, we had seen from the Democrats it was clear there was going 
to be money forced out of taxpayers' hands and forced to fund abortion, 
and we now know that is true.
  Most of the time, the decent thing to do, if you find out that 
something you said was simply not true, the decent thing to do is to 
step up and say, You know what? Joe Wilson, you were right, but it was 
unintentional. I didn't mean to misrepresent anything. So I want to set 
this straight.
  Instead, it is like this administration has doubled down and said not 
only is the government funding it, but you are going to have to fund 
abortion for your employees, and it doesn't matter that you have firmly 
held religious convictions against it.
  I just wanted to mention to my colleagues that before I came to the 
floor to hear the wonderful work that our friend Mrs. Hartzler has been 
doing--is she from the ``Show Me'' State or what--I walked by where 
Roger Williams' statue has always been since I have been here. 
Apparently, they have moved statues, because he is not there. It has 
been in the last week I know they have moved Roger Williams.
  Roger Williams was born in England between 1603 and 1606. He grew up 
a member of a privileged class. He received a liberal arts education 
from Sir Edward Coke.
  This is from the Capitol Web site.
  He abandoned the study of law to become a priest in the Church of 
England. He was interested in the Puritan movement and the newly 
established Massachusetts Bay Colony. He was warmly welcomed to the New 
World by Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop. He arrived in Boston.
  Williams was an adamant separatist. He accepted a post as an 
assistant pastor in Salem, reputedly a friendly place. However, his 
teachings were deemed radical, and he was banished from Massachusetts 
Bay Colony in 1635. He founded the colony of Rhode Island in 1636.
  I know each State gets to choose which two statues you want to have. 
I look forward to him coming back. I am sure that they would never have 
permanently removed the statue of the founder of Rhode Island. There is 
nobody I can think of more appropriate.
  I just thought it probably is appropriate that a man that staked his 
entire life on religious freedom would not have his statue here to 
figuratively witness what has gone on and what has passed in this 
Capitol.
  To talk about this issue further, I want to yield to my friend from 
Georgia, Doug Collins.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding. I also thank the gentlewoman from Missouri, who started our 
night off. I think there has been a lot said as we go forward in 
bringing this important matter.
  I want to take just a little bit of a different tack as we talk about 
the issues of tonight.

[[Page 4743]]

  I believe we are blessed to live in a time when medical research and 
technology have allowed us to extend and improve human life in ways we 
never thought possible, and the truth of this matter is that why we are 
standing here tonight is about life. It is about an understanding of 
life, and it is about the life not only of the unborn, but also those 
born, and the right to express the life that is given to them.
  From the moment of conception, each individual has unique DNA that 
dictates his or her gender, eye color, blood type, and countless other 
specifications. Even from his or her earliest moments, a child in the 
womb has the ability to respond to his or her environment, as well as 
adapt to that environment.
  These scientific facts are amazing, but I have an even deeper 
motivation for protecting human life because I believe life is a gift 
from God. I believe that that gift from God is also expressed and was 
expressed by the Founders when they said that they would stand up for 
the right to express our religious liberties. As Roger Williams was 
just spoken of, that right to say: This is what I believe, and this is 
why I am in this country.
  And that is what we are talking about here. It is not only life at 
birth and in the womb, but it is life expressed outside of that and the 
God-given, I believe, rights that are expressed in our Constitution.
  So for me, I not only understand that life begins at conception, but 
life continues all through until natural death. That natural life here 
in America is expressed in ways that we can contribute our life to 
others. How we express it should not be taken away.
  Unfortunately, this administration is too preoccupied with its own 
ideological commitment to its definition of good health insurance to 
care about other points of view. That is why it continues spending so 
much time and energy and, by the way, taxpayer resources trying to 
silence those who do not share its view of the contraceptive mandate.
  Just a few months ago, I stood on the floor of this House and thought 
I would never have come to the House of Representatives and ever 
determined that it would have been non-essential to have religious 
liberty protected on the floor of this House or in this country.

                              {time}  2145

  That is just an amazing thought to me, that we would even have to 
think about that; but under the President's nonsensical policies that 
was just expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, businessowners 
would face fines of $36,500 for each employer every year they were 
offered health insurance consistent with their religious convictions.
  On the other hand, they could just quit offering health care 
altogether and only pay $2,000.
  Tell me what the priorities of this administration are, and I will 
show you the money. I have always said: you want to see the priorities 
of somebody in life, look at their checkbook, and look at their 
calendar.
  This administration's priorities are found in their checkbook, and 
they are found in their calendar because that is what they want to 
punish us for, and they have got a timeline to do it, and they said now 
is the time.
  That is the argument to be made by the Supreme Court tomorrow, the 
argument you want to step forward with Hobby Lobby and others, that 
when they step forth before those Justices tomorrow, they say here is 
the priority of this country.
  The priority of this country should be that it protects religious 
liberties, it protects what is found in the Constitution, it protects 
those liberties upon which we were founded and not an ideological 
agenda driven by points it made by hurting others.
  I agree with my friend from Texas. I was always taught that, when you 
make a mistake, just say: look, I made a mistake.
  But that is not what this administration wants to do. They want to 
continue to beat an ideological driven policy. They went to continue to 
beat down and say: this is what we believe, and you will believe like 
us because we are not so sure that the essentials of the Constitution 
are essential anymore.
  It is time that I hope tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, that the argument made 
before the highest court in the land is that there is a right to 
protect life, that there is a right, even better, to have religious 
liberty protected; and that, when I get up and I go in or I have my 
business, that those rights aren't checked at the door, and that, when 
you look at priorities of this country--when, God forbid, they look 
back a number of years from now and they say: I hope they stood up for 
the rights that the Constitutional Founders founded.
  And when they do that, then they will see our priorities. They will 
see the ones on this floor tonight, and they will say what is priority 
is what we spend on and what we plan on.
  For this administration, it is obvious that theirs is an ideological 
driven agenda that says the Constitution only when it is convenient, 
and I will only pay for it, but I will punish you if you don't.
  Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It is time to change it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Georgia so very much. I need to 
come to where he preaches some time and get some more of that good 
preaching. That was outstanding; and I know, as a servant to the 
country in Congress and our military, as he is, as well as a servant of 
Christ, what a powerful message.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware--I wasn't until today--
in past times, when there was oral arguments in which Members of 
Congress were interested, we could call over to the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court, and they normally just make one bench--sometimes more--
but at least one pew there available for Members of Congress, either as 
the Speaker would allocate or first come.
  But anyway, the Marshal of the Supreme Court, Pamela Talkin, has 
decided that, though it has always been reciprocity in the past, we 
invite the Supreme Court to come and watch speeches they may care to, 
reciprocity between the House and Senate, the Marshal, Pamela Talkin, 
perhaps she got guidance from one of the Justices or the Chief Justice, 
but Members of Congress are not going to have a reserved spot, which is 
interesting. We are supposed to oversee that Court, just as they 
oversee the Congress.
  So as of today, I am going to be the most outspoken supporter of 
getting cameras in the Supreme Court. I think it is time. If they are 
going to do something untoward, we need to have people be able to see 
it.
  As Members of Congress, if we are funding them, we need to be able to 
see what they are doing in there with our own eyes, so we need to get 
cameras in there, and we can thank Pamela Talkin for that.
  At this time, I yield to my dear friend from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and also 
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for putting this time 
together tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Hobby Lobby Stores and 
Conestoga Wood Specialties as they take a stand for religious freedom 
against the unconstitutional coercive ObamaCare HHS mandate.
  All Americans, including family businessowners, should have the 
freedom to live and work according to their religious values without 
fear of the government punishing them for doing so.
  This issue of religious liberty is not limited to these two 
employers. Many family-owned small businesses and nonprofits across 
this country have expressed grave concern about this mandate from the 
Obama administration. It forces them to violate their deeply-held 
religious beliefs or face crippling penalties.
  In my home State of Colorado, Hercules Industries, founded in 1962 by 
William Newland, a family-owned heating, ventilation, and cooling 
manufacturer with locations all over Colorado, including Colorado 
Springs, has been forced into this legal dilemma as well.
  As devout Catholics, the Newland family has always worked to run 
their companies in a way that reflects their

[[Page 4744]]

sincerely-held religious convictions. This is why, when the Obama 
administration issued this mandate to force them to violate those 
beliefs and provide coverage of potentially life-terminating drugs and 
devices, they had to file a lawsuit to protect their religious 
freedoms.
  Hercules Industries already provides generous health insurance for 
their employees through a self-insured group plan. With 265 full-time 
employees throughout its various locations, Hercules could be facing 
over $9 million in government fines each year.
  This comes if they refuse to violate their deeply-held religious 
convictions and if they don't comply with the Obama mandate to provide 
drugs to their employees that the Newland family believes can end human 
life.
  What an unbearable choice the Obama administration has burdened them 
with. Not only is the HHS mandate an attack on religious liberty, it 
also puts into jeopardy jobs and health care of millions of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I support businesses like Hercules Industries, Hobby 
Lobby. And Conestoga Wood Specialties because of their principled stand 
against this oppressive mandate. Religious freedom is a foundational 
component of American greatness. It is of utmost importance that we do 
everything we can to defend it.
  I look forward to the Supreme Court's decision, and I hope and I pray 
that this will be a positive precedent for future religious freedom 
cases.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Colorado so very much. We have 
done much together in our time here, and I am grateful for his service.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Yoho), for 
such time as he may use.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman from Texas, along with the 
gentlewoman from Missouri, for starting this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today--or tonight--not only in firm opposition to 
the Affordable Care Act, but also to the Affordable Care Act's 
religious mandate.
  I would like to take you back to March of 2009, when a one-sided 
government passed a bill, and they said that we have to pass it to see 
what is in it, we have to pass it to see how it is going to work. I 
think what we are seeing today is evidence of that, and we are just 
seeing the tip of the iceberg.
  In accordance to this terrible law, HHS issued rules that health care 
plans must include all FDA-approved contraceptives, including drugs 
that can terminate a human embryo and sterilization services.
  The HHS mandate only contains an exemption for churches, but not for 
religious nonprofits or businesses run by people of faith who are 
morally opposed to such practices.
  The HHS mandate puts jobs and the health care of millions of 
Americans at risk. It forces people who stand up for their conscience 
to choose between paying crippling fines and dropping health care 
coverage altogether for their employees, as you have seen expressed 
over and over again tonight; yet it excludes some people of certain 
faiths, the Muslim faith or the Amish faith, because participating in 
group health insurance is a form of gambling and that is against their 
religious beliefs, but yet it won't exclude people who are morally 
opposed against this.
  The First Amendment was put in place for a reason, to protect 
religions beliefs from being attacked by the Federal Government. The 
ACA, or ObamaCare, completely disregards this and attacks the freedom 
of America's conscience.
  We are a nation of free individuals who should not have to forsake 
our religious beliefs and rights of conscience in order to adhere to 
legislation that was quickly passed into law before all the disastrous 
effects could be considered.
  We, as Americans, must take this opportunity to stand up to the 
Federal Government and to protect our First Amendment. I would like to 
caution all of my colleagues and the American people that the more we 
allow the Federal Government to do for us, the less freedoms we, as 
Americans, enjoy.
  For me, I will stand with the First Amendment, the Constitution, and 
with the American people and stand for freedom and liberty.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Florida for those strong words.
  We had strong words from the Vatican Chief Justice, as reported by 
CBS today. They quoted him, the Vatican Chief Justice, as saying:

       It is true that the policies of the President of the United 
     States have become progressively more hostile toward 
     Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally 
     secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life, 
     antifamily policies.

  I know he professed Christianity, so I don't necessarily agree with 
all of those statements; but how profound when the Vatican Chief 
Justice feels compelled to make that kind of statement.
  Mr. Speaker, for the remainder of our time, I yield to my dear friend 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).
  I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for your 
leadership in bringing to light an incredibly important issue that is 
going to be debated right across the street from where we stand today 
in the House over at the Supreme Court.
  The Hobby Lobby case deals with so much more than just one company, 
but it really deals with one of the fundamental rights that has been 
laid out in our Constitution, and that is the right of religious 
freedom.
  What does that right really mean? Just how much ability does the 
Federal Government have to impede upon that right, especially when we 
talk about the right of a President--in this case, Barack Obama--to put 
out an edict that would literally take away that right to religious 
freedom from millions of Americans that enjoy it today and have enjoyed 
it since the beginning of our country?
  If you will look at the rostrum right above the Speaker, it says, 
``In God We Trust.'' A lot of people across the country would be 
surprised because there are school boards, there are other governmental 
bodies that right now have threats against them if they try to pray 
before any kind of governmental service.
  In schools--in many schools across our country today, that right of 
religious expression is being challenged by groups every single day, 
and they threaten different groups, schools, other governmental 
organizations; yet, here in the House Chamber, we pray at the beginning 
and the start of every session every day.
  We have ``In God We Trust'' emblazoned right above the Speaker's 
rostrum, and it is there for a reason.
  It is because our Founding Fathers, when they created this Nation, 
they didn't say these were rights, the rights that they laid out in the 
Constitution. These were not rights that were given by men. These were 
rights that were granted through men from God.
  Don't take my word for it. These were the writings of our Founding 
Fathers. They acknowledged God. They praised God. They talked about the 
great blessings of liberty given to us by God.
  Yes, our Founding Fathers said that. This isn't some rightwing nut in 
the Tea Party. Thomas Jefferson may have been considered one of those 
rightwing nuts, using the definitions of some of the liberals running 
around this town today.
  But if you look at what this President is doing right now, trying to 
trample on those religious freedoms, the Hobby Lobby case is the 
epitome of where those tramplings of those rights converge, to our job 
creators.
  This is a business that wants to just run and provide services to 
people all across this country, a few locations in my district. My wife 
likes going to Hobby Lobby.
  They shouldn't have to be faced with a dilemma every time they cut 
their paychecks to their employees of whether or not they are going to 
violate their own religious freedoms just to continue operating as a 
business in this country.
  Nobody should be faced with the threat of our government taking away

[[Page 4745]]

their religious freedoms just to be able to operate as a business; and 
yet, that is what is happening right now with the President's mandate 
through his own health care law.
  It is not just limited to businesses, Mr. Speaker. If you look at 
what is also happening, you know, the President loves talking about a 
war on women. This President loves dividing this country anywhere he 
gets the opportunity for political gain to try to divide Americans 
against each other. How shameless that is.
  Where is the President's war on women when it relates to religious 
freedom?
  It is against people like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic 
order of nuns that is just trying to do good for people. They are 
forced to sue the Federal Government because this President, Barack 
Obama, wants to make Little Sisters of the Poor pay for abortion-
inducing drugs as part of their condition of providing health care. 
Otherwise, they are in violation of the law.
  What law, Mr. Speaker, would force Catholic nuns to pay for abortion-
inducing drugs just to comply with health care laws?
  That is what is at stake here. That is why it is so important, this 
debate that is going to happen across the street, and that is why it is 
so important that we all come together to stand up against this kind of 
oppression of religious freedom.
  It wasn't the tenth of all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. It 
was the First Amendment that guaranteed religious freedom. That is what 
we stand here in support of tonight.
  I sure hope the Supreme Court hears those arguments as well and 
recognizes not just what we are talking about tonight, but what our 
Founding Fathers laid out as one of the basic fundamental tenets of our 
Nation's constitutional guarantee, and that is the right of religious 
freedom.
  I appreciate all of my colleagues standing up in support of it, as we 
all do; and hopefully, the Supreme Court hears those pleas and rules 
the right way.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you so much.
  Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to the gentlelady from Missouri for 
calling so many Members and leading this in this time.
  Mr. Speaker, just closing with one line from Benjamin Franklin:

       Without God's concurring aid, we will succeed in our 
     political building no better than the builders of Babel 
     confounded by our local partial interests and becoming a 
     byword down through the ages.

  Mr. Speaker, we pray for his wisdom for the Supreme Court. I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________