[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4992-4995]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             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 4993]]


  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, a surprising twist today: Who says there is 
nothing surprising in Washington? We were told there was potential for 
a bill to come to the floor today to deal with the issue of the SGR, 
sustainable growth rate, or the doc fix, as it is sometimes called.
  There has been some disagreement in our party what would be the best 
way to handle it. We had a bill. It was a 1-year extension, 1 year that 
included some other things that some of the people that are providing 
the care that haven't been properly treated in reimbursement areas we 
are not happy about.
  So it appeared we didn't have--or our leaders may not have had the 
votes, and so it is quite a surprise that was voice-voted. No one asked 
for a recorded vote because normally, see, we trust our leaders that, 
if there is an important bill, that part of the leadership understand, 
someone here, part of the bill will request a recorded vote, and we 
will get a recorded vote, and we will all be able to either vote for or 
vote against.
  Otherwise, we have to keep people here all the time, and it did bring 
back to mind the time that was not so fond back in 2007, 2008, 
sometimes 2009 and 2010, when on the first day back in Washington, 
whether it was a Monday or a Tuesday, the first day, there is 
suspension bills.
  Those are bills that are expected to pass and have two-thirds of the 
body vote for them, naming courthouses, naming Federal buildings, 
recognizing some important person or deed, those type of things.
  They are generally agreed to, and despite all the negativity in 
Washington, those are things that we agreed to constantly; and both 
sides of the aisle worked together getting it accomplished.
  We saw very quickly, after Republicans lost the majority in November 
of 2006, sometimes Republican leadership would agree to allow some 
suspensions to go when it was extremely important. It should never have 
been brought to the floor on suspension, which means it doesn't go 
through subcommittee, it doesn't go through committee.
  It just comes to the floor, without having gone through Rules 
Committee, and that is why it takes two-thirds of a vote, because it 
bypassed the normal procedure.
  There were a handful of us who decided back in 2007, since Republican 
leadership at that time were agreeing to things that we knew our other 
friends in the Republican side, some friends on the Democratic side 
would never vote for, if it was a recorded vote, where everyone had a 
chance to vote--I started flying back early. I know Tom Price did at 
times; Lynn Westmoreland did at times.
  I got to where I was flying back, even if I thought somebody else was 
covering the floor. The reason was to make sure that, since we couldn't 
trust that our leadership would not agree to some bill that we thought 
was hurtful to the country, was hurtful to the Constitution or to our 
constituents, we had to be here to ask for a recorded vote.
  It went unnoticed except by leadership staff on both sides, and it 
got to where, when I came to the floor and would sit here for 3 or 4 
hours, I would have staff come up, usually Democratic staff, since they 
were in the majority, and say: Well, obviously, you are concerned about 
some issue.
  Sometimes, I was just here to observe, to make sure nothing was 
brought to the floor without any notice. Sometimes, there was a 
particular suspension that I felt should have a recorded vote, so I 
would show up, and I would, after the voice vote, request a recorded 
vote.
  That is why staff started coming up and saying: Look, which one are 
you going to demand a recorded vote on or are you going to object to?
  Sometimes, I would get up and speak against the bill. It got to where 
if I had an objection, they knew--because I'd done it between the time 
of the call for a recorded vote--I would go back to my office; I would 
type up a notice on why a bill was not a good bill.
  I would be standing at the door, get a few other people to stand at 
other doors to hand out little fliers to Members of Congress as they 
came to the floor explaining why it wasn't a good bill.
  Sometimes, I won; sometimes, I lost, but all you had to get was one 
more then one-third of the votes to bring down a suspension. So we were 
able to deal with that issue and make sure that, you know, people knew 
if you are going to try to pull that stuff, we are going to have people 
sit here, so that you can't just pass something on a voice vote without 
it being called for a recorded vote.
  I was very surprised today with us in the majority, our own 
leadership in charge, with something as important as the doctor fix 
would be brought to the floor on a voice vote.
  I would have come over earlier, except it was in recess, back in 
session, recess, back in session. I didn't know how long the recesses 
were going to be, but now, I know that I need to get with some other 
Members and make sure we have people on the floor, since we won't be 
sure what our own leadership is going to do.
  That is very unfortunate. It is unfortunate. You need to be able to 
trust your own leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's, on another matter, very important that we 
note that this year's Margaret Sanger Award would go to former Speaker 
Nancy Pelosi.
  I have an article here from American Thinker, dated yesterday. 
Jeannie DeAngelis wrote the article. I won't read the whole article, 
but it points out that any woman willing to call late term abortion 
``sacred ground'' and make false accusations that the opposing 
political party voting for the Protect Life Act would leave pregnant 
women ``dying on the floor'' deserves an award named after eugenicist 
Margaret Sanger.
  Nancy Pelosi will be given the Margaret Sanger Award, which Planned 
Parenthood considers its ``highest honor.''
  Further down, it says:

       A committed socialist, Margaret Sanger once said, ``My own 
     personal feelings drew me toward the individualist anarchist 
     philosophy, but it seemed necessary to approach the idea by 
     way the socialism,'' Sanger said.

                              {time}  1315

  She also said this:

       This is the great day of social planning. We have come to 
     believe in planning the production and distribution of goods. 
     We plan methods of governing cities, States, and the Nation. 
     We plan jobs and leisure time activities and vacations. We 
     plan almost everything, big and little, except families.

  Sanger goes on to say:

       It can scarcely do any harm--and it may do a vast amount of 
     good--to engage in the thoughtful planning of our population, 
     a population with a still larger percentage of happy 
     families.

  An active worker for the Socialist Party, Sanger believed:

       The more radical the ideas, the more conservative you must 
     be in your dress.

  Saul Alinsky said:

       Dresses his crusades in vestments of morality.

  The article says:

       For Margaret Sanger, eugenics was an avenue to improve the 
     human race by discouraging people with genetic defects or 
     undesirable traits--Blacks, immigrants, and poor people--whom 
     she called ``human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning human 
     beings who never should have been born.''

  Further down, it points out another irony, which is that Italian 
American Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi had grandparents named Maria 
and Tommaso, who immigrated to America from Italy. If Margaret Sanger 
had had her eugenic way with Maria Foppiani-Petronilla, Ms. Pelosi 
wouldn't be here, let alone be receiving an award.
  In February of 1919, in the Birth Control Review, Sanger published an 
article entitled, ``Birth Control and Racial Betterment.''
  In 1934, Sanger wrote an article entitled, ``America Needs a Code for 
Babies: Plea for Equal Distribution of Births.'' Ms. Sanger's baby code 
said that people with bad genes, or dysgenic groups, should be given a 
choice between sterilization and segregation. Those who willingly chose 
sterilization should be rewarded by contributing to a superior race.

[[Page 4994]]

  In article 6, Sanger suggested issuing parenthood permits that would 
be valid for no more than one birth.

       Despite being lionized by socialist liberals, Margaret 
     ``every child a wanted child'' Sanger's legacy is one of 
     murder, racism, revulsion for the handicapped, intrinsic 
     disgust for the male gender, and a form of twisted radicalism 
     that viewed God-ordained marriage and the miracle of life 
     with contempt.
       Margaret Sanger's life was committed to curing what she 
     viewed as the ``urgent problem'' of how to ``limit and 
     discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically 
     defective.''

  It should be noted that, in the past, our former Secretary of State, 
Secretary Clinton, received the same Margaret Sanger Award, who 
believed in eugenics, who believed it was a good thing to limit the 
births of races who, perhaps, were too poor, who she thought were 
dysgenic.
  This article from, actually, March 31, 2009, Catholic Online, points 
out:

       A day before receiving the Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America's highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award, U.S. 
     Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid a visit to the 
     basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, leaving a 
     bouquet of white flowers ``on behalf of the American 
     people.''
       When leaving the basilica a half an hour later, Secretary 
     Clinton told some of the Mexicans who were gathered outside 
     to greet her, ``You have a marvelous virgin.''

  The following day, Friday, March 27, Clinton was in Houston to 
receive the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization's 
founder, a noted eugenicist. Secretary Clinton, according to a State 
Department transcript of Secretary Clinton's remarks, said this:

       I admire Margaret Sanger enormously--her courage, her 
     tenacity, her vision. When I think about what she did all 
     those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on 
     attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am 
     really in awe of her.

  Another article points out, from The Weekly Standard, April 15, 2009, 
that Secretary Clinton stands by her praise of eugenicist Margaret 
Sanger.
  Secretary Clinton points out:

       Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when 
     I was told I would receive this award. I admire Margaret 
     Sanger enormously--her courage, her tenacity, her vision.

  It is probably worth looking at exactly what Margaret Sanger stood 
for since she is so admired by our former Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton, who could end up being President, and our former Speaker of 
the House Nancy Pelosi. Let's look at exactly what Margaret Sanger 
said. Here are some quotes from Margaret Sanger.

       The most merciful thing that the large family does to one 
     of its infant members is to kill it.

  That is Margaret Sanger. That is Margaret Sanger, whose name adorns 
an award that was so revered by Secretary Clinton and now by our former 
Speaker Pelosi. It is unbelievable that anybody would be held in high 
esteem who would make that statement:

       The most merciful thing that the large family does to one 
     of its infant members is to kill it.

  For heaven's sake. That is not all. She had plenty more to say.

       We should apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization 
     and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is 
     tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable 
     traits may be transmitted to offspring.

  That was from ``A Plan for Peace,'' from the Birth Control Review in 
April of 1932. The first quote I read was ``Woman and the New Race'' 
from chapter 6, ``The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.''
  Then from ``America Needs a Code for Babies,'' in March of 1934, 
article 1:

       The purpose of the American baby code shall be to provide 
     for a better distribution of babies and to protect society 
     against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

  You see, it is important to note here that what this kind of code 
does is say that we need a governing body that will decide who they 
think is fit and who they think is unfit. Gee, how about that? In 
ObamaCare, we have a panel that will decide. You get a pacemaker. You 
don't get a pacemaker. We know your hip is giving you a lot of pain, 
but you are just not worth a new hip. Do you need a new knee? Ah, we 
have looked at your life, and we have looked at your age. You don't get 
a new knee. You just suffer and die.
  I mean, it is unbelievable that a bill would pass that sets up a 
board that will decide who can get a pacemaker to allow him to live and 
who will not, who will get the lifesaving medication and who will not. 
I don't want an insurance company making that decision, and I don't 
want the government making that decision. I had a bill that would have 
avoided that kind of thing, but of course, it didn't come to the floor 
when Democrats were in the majority. They brought, instead, ObamaCare, 
setting up that board.
  Let's go back to quotes from Margaret Sanger.
  Article 4, from her ``America Needs a Code for Babies,'' says:

       No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child--and no 
     man shall have the right to become a father--without a 
     permit.

  Hey, there is good news. All you have to do is be politically 
ingratiated enough with the government under Margaret Sanger's code and 
they will give you a permit to have a baby, because they will consider 
you fit. Chances are, if you are of an opposing political view of those 
who are handing out the permits, you won't get a permit because you may 
have a child that disagrees with the people handing out the permits.
  It quotes article 6:

       No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one 
     birth.

  This was Margaret Sanger.
  She also said, in 1932, in the April Birth Control Review:

       Give dysgenic groups--that's people with bad genes--in our 
     population their choice of segregation or compulsory 
     sterilization.

  In 1922, she said:

       Birth control must lead, ultimately, to a cleaner race.

  Gee, the Nazis were pretty good about pushing a cleaner race, but 
thank God they were completely wrong about the White superhuman race. I 
always loved that about Jesse Owens. He went there, to the heart of the 
Nazis, and showed them they were wrong about their superhuman race, and 
yet here we have a woman, Margaret Sanger, being held in such great, 
high esteem, who thinks we need a cleaner race, according to her whims.
  Here is another quote from the esteemed Margaret Sanger. This is from 
``The Need for Birth Control in America.'' It is quoted by Angela 
Franks:

       Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. 
     Feeblemindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those 
     who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities, 
     and it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing 
     upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In 
     this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the Earth, this 
     type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direct 
     evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, 
     extirpate by the very roots.

  Here is another quote. This is from ``Family Limitation,'' Margaret 
Sanger's eighth edition, in 1918:

       Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should 
     not have more than two children at most. The average working 
     man can support no more, and the average working woman can 
     take care of no more in decent fashion.

  So that is Margaret Sanger. She is there to tell the world repeatedly 
that we need a government that will restrict the feebleminded or maybe, 
according to her, these disgusting women who work for wages. Ah, we 
can't let them have many children. Yet some have the nerve to say that 
Republicans have a war on women when you look at the heroine of the 
left, and she was for eugenics. She was a racist. She was a classist--a 
divider--who wanted and thought the best thing a large family could do 
was to kill a baby. We consider her a hero?
  Forbid it, Almighty God.
  I know my friends on the other side of the aisle don't have a single 
person on this side of the aisle who want children to go hungry or who 
want children to have a worse life than we have. I know that, but it is 
all about the way of getting there.

                              {time}  1330

  So there are those of us who think the best thing a person could have 
for their own self-respect and their own freedom and their own ability 
to remove themselves from the ties and chains, the strings that come 
with money from the government, is to get them a job. Grow the economy 
so they

[[Page 4995]]

can have a job and the self-respect and the freedom that comes from 
that.
  I know they have the best of intentions on the other side of the 
aisle, but I don't think that you help individuals by paying them not 
to work. Let's get the economy going so they can work and be free from 
all the strings and entanglements that come from handouts from the 
government.
  I would never call somebody on the other side of the aisle a racist 
or a hater of the poor. So it gets a little disgusting when I hear that 
about people on my side of the aisle. We don't want anybody to suffer.
  We have seen the likes of Margaret Sanger who think they know better. 
Get the government in charge, and then we will order people to be 
sterilized. And we will give you money if you will be sterilized. That 
is what government does.
  Strings come with the money. They always do. We need the government 
to give out less money because people need less money because they are 
able to earn it for themselves with all the freedom that means. That is 
what we want for America. That is what the Founders wanted. And that 
makes for a much more free America.
  In that regard, when it comes to freedom, I know the people that 
voted for ObamaCare thought it was going to be a great idea, even 
though most of them had never read it like I did. Because I could see 
it was a threat to all kinds of freedoms, and I could see before the 
vote there were provisions in there that allowed for clinics to get 
Federal money to provide abortion and to have insurance policies that 
would end up providing abortion.
  So I was shocked this week at the Supreme Court. I wasn't in the 
courtroom. I was listening in a side room for members of the Supreme 
Court Bar. I was shocked to hear somebody on the Supreme Court actually 
take the position, Well, just pay the tax and then you can have your 
religious views.
  The power to tax is the power to destroy. Our Founders knew that. 
Taxation helped cause a revolution. And in fairness to the people of 
the District of Columbia, they are the only group who, under the 
Constitution, are not allowed to have a full voting Member of Congress, 
and who are required nonetheless to pay Federal income tax. Puerto 
Rico, Samoa, Mariana Islands, all of those that are territories, under 
the Constitution they are not entitled to a full voting Representative 
and do not pay Federal income tax.
  Franklin made clear during the Revolution that if we do not get to 
elect one member of the parliament, then that parliament has no right 
to put taxes on us. I agree. So when Democrats were in charge, I had a 
bill. They wouldn't bring my bill to the floor. Now the Republicans are 
in the majority. They haven't so far--or our leaders haven't. I think 
it is only fair. They don't get to vote for a full voting Member of the 
House. So in fairness, the way to fix that legislatively is just to do 
for the District of Columbia what we do for Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, 
and the Mariana Islands. You don't pay Federal income tax. That would 
be fair.
  There are all kinds of things that aren't fair. But when it comes to 
intrusions by the government onto religious beliefs, the line cannot be 
drawn so that it excludes religious beliefs and the ability to practice 
them.
  For anyone, especially a Supreme Court Justice, and even someone who 
worked for President Obama as Solicitor General, who said--and I am 
paraphrasing because she didn't say these words--I never did my job 
when it came to ObamaCare. I didn't talk to the administration about 
it. I didn't talk to them about what would help them when it came 
before the Supreme Court. So I didn't do my job as Solicitor General, 
and that is why I am qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
  Unfortunately, the Senate bought that. That is the implied position. 
They bought that. She is on the Supreme Court. She lights into the 
Hobby Lobby attorney immediately. But to come around and say, Just pay 
the tax, then you can have your religious beliefs, you can practice 
your religious beliefs, it is not that expensive--what's next?
  As a judge who has signed death penalty orders, I have struggled with 
that issue. I believe in some cases it is appropriate. I thought it was 
totally appropriate in Jasper, Texas, after three people were convicted 
of dragging an African American behind their truck. Once they had a 
fair trial, fair appeal, properly convicted, I wouldn't have had a 
problem with a law that said the victim's family gets to choose the 
truck and the terrain over which they drag the defendants to their 
deaths.
  When we give the power to decide who gets to practice firmly held 
religious beliefs to a Supreme Court or to a 218-vote majority in the 
House, this Republic and the freedoms it has provided more than any 
Nation in history can't be much longer for the world--not those 
freedoms--not when Congress will stand by and allow those to be taken.
  I think everybody that was here for that vote on ObamaCare knows good 
and well that if the intention of this government had been made clear 
that they were going to force people to go against firmly held Catholic 
beliefs, Christian beliefs, that bill would have never passed. And now 
they seek to enforce what would never have passed if their intentions 
had been made clear--it is before the Supreme Court. And who knows what 
they will do.
  Mr. Speaker, my hopes and prayers are still for ongoing religious 
freedom promised under the First Amendment, and that they will not be 
taken away on our watch. But that kind of depends on the American 
people and the people they put in office and the people they allow to 
serve on the Supreme Court.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________