[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5411-5414]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               OBAMACARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I want to thank my friends, Mr. Speaker, who are both 
from Pennsylvania, for their superb comments. They are so right on 
everything they have said.
  In following up on those comments, there was an article today from 
The Washington Free Beacon: ``Employers Say ObamaCare Will Cost Them 
$5,000 More Per Employee.'' How much more can businesses absorb?
  Actually, in the last month, we have been finding out about more 
groups that are getting money from a health care program informally 
called ``ObamaCare,'' because it is so hard to call it ``affordable'' 
when it is not. They are groups that are getting money from the Federal 
Government that, it sounds like, are using it more as an opportunity to 
register voters as Democrats when that money could be used to get a 
pacemaker or to get a mammogram or to replace a knee for some 85-year-
old widow who could really use a new knee or a new hip. Yet millions 
and millions of dollars are being paid to groups to go out and find 
people and to do all they can to get them signed up so they can say 
they had 7 million people sign up. They sign them up all over the 
country, using millions and millions of dollars that should have been 
for health care, yet they are using it to try to recruit votes for the 
Democratic Party. Millions and millions and millions of dollars are 
being spent on hiring big names that young people will recognize to go 
on television, to go on radio to try and talk people into signing up 
for health care to pay for the health care of others--because they hope 
they are in good health and won't need it--and that will fund all of 
the millions and millions of dollars that they are paying to 
celebrities to convince them to buy ObamaCare.
  We know that insurance companies cannot run like the Federal 
Government and, certainly, not like the executive branch. They can't 
just announce 7 million people have bought a product if they have not 
bought it. I haven't seen any insurance companies come out and say, Do 
you know what? We have had 1.5 million of these or we have had 3 
million of these 7 million. Insurance companies have to know who has 
paid for their services, who has paid for their products. They can't 
just go along and announce to the IRS, We had 7 million people who 
bought our products. We don't know who paid for them. We will probably 
not know for a year or so. We don't know, but 7.1 million have bought 
our products, but you are going to have to give us a pass for a year or 
two until we find out who actually paid for it, and then we will 
eventually get around to telling you how much we owe you in income tax 
from all of the people who bought or who didn't buy our insurance. They 
can't work like that, because the IRS will not let them work like that. 
The insurance companies have to know how much money has come through 
their doors. They have to account for it. They can't get into this 
magical math that the executive branch gets into that 7.1 million have 
paid for ObamaCare and count that as some kind of glorious thing.
  We were told there were over 30 million people who didn't have health 
care and that that was the whole reason health care, itself, had to be 
turned upside down. Cancer patients had to be turned away from their 
cancer treatment providers. Of the people who had the doctors they 
wanted, who were doing great things for their health--keeping them 
alive--oh, they had to lose them because we had over 30 million who 
didn't have health insurance. Then we were told, of the 7.1 million or 
so who may have acquired health insurance under ObamaCare, there is

[[Page 5412]]

only a small fraction of them who were people who didn't have 
insurance, part of the 30 or so million who didn't have insurance.
  If you are going to cut off people's cancer treatments and if you are 
going to cut off their ability to get the health care they need--cut 
off their ability to go to the cancer hospitals they have been going to 
for treatment--if you are going to basically bring people's lives to an 
early end because we have got to help those 30 million or so who don't 
have insurance, then wouldn't you want to get the 30 million signed up? 
Why are you happy that it is only, maybe, 1 million or 2 million or 
many fewer who didn't have insurance who have signed up? If it is a 
fraction of the 7 million who have actually paid, and if it is an even 
smaller part of the fraction who paid who didn't have health insurance 
before and who were part of the 30-plus million, then how is that a 
good thing?
  Why did every Democrat in the House and in the Senate who thought it 
was such a good idea without a single Republican's input--we didn't get 
to have any input in ObamaCare. They shoved it through this body and 
down the throats of the American people. They shoved it through the 
Senate, and they had to do it quickly before Scott Brown ended up in 
office, in having that seat. Tragically, they shoved it through without 
any bipartisan assistance, so nearly half of Americans were not 
represented in the creation of that bill.

                              {time}  1745

  It wasn't done on C-SPAN, as the candidate for President, Senator 
Obama, had promised. It was done in back rooms at the White House, 
here. Who knows where. We don't even know who was present.
  We know there were some union leaders that met with the President 
about it, without anybody there to record what was said. We know that 
they ended up wanting every health care worker eventually to be a union 
member because their numbers have declined everywhere except in the 
area of government workers, where Franklin Roosevelt said we should 
never even have government unions.
  So if the 30-plus million who purportedly didn't have health 
insurance were the real important reason we had to turn health care 
upside down, that we had to cut $716 billion from Medicare, so seniors 
are not going to be able to get care they would have before ObamaCare 
was passed, if we had to turn away seniors from health care they need 
just for those 30-plus million that don't have insurance, then why 
should we be happy that maybe only one-thirtieth or so of that has 
signed up for insurance?
  In the 4 years since ObamaCare passed, the best they could do is sign 
up 1 million of the 30 or so million that didn't have insurance. That 
is a good thing?
  Most Americans are ready to have some real reform, like having 
competition. If you need an MRI, you shouldn't have to do like one of 
the people in my office who was in Boston and under RomneyCare at the 
time.
  The President said they modeled ObamaCare after RomneyCare. She was 
in a car wreck and couldn't get an MRI for a month or so after the 
wreck, so she had to fly back to Texas and get an MRI to find out she 
had broken bones.
  This is the kind of care we are heading to. You get put on a list. 
This is what happens in England and Canada, and that is coming to a 
health care provider near you. You will get on the list. Why? Because 
we are told 30 million people didn't have health insurance.
  Well, real reform would have made sure not that everybody had 
insurance, but that they had health care that was affordable and that 
they could get all the health care they needed and that it was 
affordable.
  In some cases, it would have been a whole lot cheaper than having 
insurance. Also, having catastrophic insurance for the things you can't 
afford. Those were some reforms that we wanted to make.
  Most of us were okay with fixing a problem called preexisting 
conditions, which had allowed some insurance companies to really screw 
over people unfairly. We offered to address that in a bipartisan 
manner, but the Democrats didn't want our input.
  They said they didn't need it. They had the votes without it. They 
didn't care what we wanted. They didn't care what our constituents 
thought was a good idea. So we got ObamaCare, and it is wreaking havoc 
across the country. It is time to repeal it.
  So we are told that, under this administration and under those two 
glorious years when the Democrats had the White House, the House, and 
the Senate, full control of all the powers here in Washington--and what 
did they put in motion in 2009 with control of the House, the Senate, 
and the White House?
  Well, now, we find out--the President admitted this last September. 
It didn't get much press at all, if any, from the mainstream because, 
of course, they got the President elected, and so they have got to 
cover for him. We understand that.
  But this is staggering. It has never ever happened before in American 
history. When the President, the Democratic House, and the Democratic 
Senate put these things in motion, 95 percent of all of the income made 
in America went to the top 1 percent of Americans. The top 1 percent of 
income earners in America got 95 percent of the income. Wow.
  We talk about how we have really got to help the poor and we have 
really got to help the middle class, and then we find out the actions 
of this Democratic-controlled House, Democratic-controlled Senate, and 
Democratic-controlled White House put in motion the mechanics to ensure 
that 95 percent of all the income for those years--2009 until it was 
admitted last September--went to the top 1 percent income earners. 
Staggering.
  Why isn't there more in the mainstream about it? They love to go 
after the wealthy. Well, because these wealthy are about 70 or 80 
percent of the people on Wall Street who donate to Democrats over 
Republicans. People don't get that. It is shocking.
  But it is about 4 to 1 that donations from executives and their 
spouses on Wall Street go to Democratic candidates.
  It is shocking, I know, for some people to come to the realization 
that most of the wealthiest people in America are Democrats, and they 
are ready to pull up the ladder behind them. They are thrilled to have 
a President that will talk about the fat cats.
  They don't mind being called fat cats, when they are making 95 
percent of all the income in America, they have got a President that 
talks about the poor and the middle class, and the ones he has helped 
like nobody else are the ultrawealthy in America.
  At some point, people are going to figure this out. At some point, 
the middle class and the poor are going to say: You know what? I have 
been supporting Democrats all these years, and now, 95 percent of all 
the income is going to the top 1 percent. How is that a good thing? Why 
should I keep supporting the party that is sending 95 percent of the 
income to the top 1 percent and the Wall Street fat cats have gotten 
richer than they ever have in their lives?
  I don't mind people getting wealthy, but not at the expense of the 
whole country, and you look at the separation of the wealthy and the 
middle class. It has never been so dramatically far apart as it is now 
under this President, with what was set in motion with ObamaCare and 
all these things that this administration has done.
  Crony capitalism has been amazing. How? You can pay over $600 billion 
to your buddies that you have known for years to create a Web site. Oh, 
they forgot to do security. That is going to cost people billions of 
dollars to try to save their own identity information that has now been 
out there on an insecure Web site.
  You have a Web site that keeps breaking down. Why? Because crony 
capitalism kicked in and people that are buddies got the contract.
  It is just like British Petroleum should have never been allowed to 
continue drilling in the Gulf of Mexico,

[[Page 5413]]

but they were buddies with the administration. At the time the 
Deepwater Horizon blew out, I read that they had people from BP talking 
to John Kerry about coming out in support of cap-and-trade, so they 
didn't want to shut them down.
  They had hundreds and hundreds of egregious safety violations, 
compared to others like Exxon and Shell. I think they had one or two or 
none.
  Well, they should never have been allowed to operate. Why? Because 
crony capitalism is alive and well in this administration and with 
Democrats in control. Yes, we will let them keep operating. Never mind 
they are the unsafe drillers in the Gulf of Mexico. That is okay 
because they are on our side.
  America is sick of cronyism. They are sick of favoritism. We don't 
begrudge anybody getting wealthy, but what we begrudge is gaming the 
system so the middle class and the poor have no chance because the 
ladder has been pulled up behind ultrawealthy Democrats by a Democratic 
administration, and it continues.
  So employers are saying ObamaCare will cost them $5,000 more per 
employee. This has got to stop. We have got to repeal ObamaCare and 
have true health care reform. I know some people say: well, you don't 
have any ideas.
  Are you kidding? The last I saw, there were about 80 different 
bills--ideas for reform; and what I really want to see us do is, once 
we get ObamaCare repealed, let's have the full debate. Let's have it on 
C-SPAN.
  Like Candidate Obama said, let's let America see who is really 
standing up for them and who is cutting those sweetheart deals with 
unions, who is cutting the sweetheart deals with AARP, the big 
pharmaceuticals, the AMA, the AHA; who is cutting those big deals 
behind the scenes in private rooms, so that mainstream America sees 95 
percent of the income going to 1 percent, the most wealthy?
  Let them see that. I welcome that. We have got to repeal ObamaCare. 
We have got to.
  There is a book Glenn Beck had pointed out a week or so ago. I had 
not seen it before. It was copyrighted originally in 1942. The Library 
of Congress has this book. It is ``The Road We Are Traveling.'' It is 
interesting.
  He basically talks about the ways that socialism and communism have 
failed. Really, socialism and communism are bad words, so you don't 
want to call it that. We know now it is called progressivism.
  Here, at page 95, he talks about:

       In war and peace, boom and depression, the march towards 
     centralized, collective controls has continued. Planning has 
     often been identified with socialism. Yet orthodox socialists 
     themselves are far from pleased with the collectivism 
     practiced in Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and they 
     look with grave suspicion on the New Deal. Something has 
     appeared which nobody anticipated, nobody wanted, and nobody 
     really understands.

  This was written in 1942.

       Mr. James Burnham has called it the ``managerial 
     revolution,'' in the first intelligent attempt to understand 
     it which I have seen. Many more studies will be needed before 
     the mystery is cleared up. We have something called ``X,'' 
     which is displacing the system of free enterprise, all over 
     the world. If we do not know yet what to call it, we can at 
     least describe its major characteristics. They include, in 
     most countries, free enterprise into ``X.''

  He goes on and lists these things. Again, this is 1942. It is 
interesting.
  You can still find on the Internet, Mr. Speaker, a presentation about 
President Obama from, obviously, a supportive Obama group, called ``The 
Road We've Traveled.'' It appears to be a clear takeoff from ``The Road 
We Are Traveling'' that was written in 1942.
  But here is what is described as this new progressive ideal that we 
are moving toward that he was excited about in 1942 under President 
Roosevelt and these characteristics of what they call X because they 
know socialism and communism doesn't go over well. Progressivism sounds 
a lot better.

                              {time}  1800

  But here is this X, a strong centralized government, an executive arm 
growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. In some 
countries, power is consolidated in a dictator issuing decrees.
  Well, we have certainly seen, Mr. Speaker, the legislative and 
judicial arms compromised in this trilateral government, which the 
executive arm has even said, and got a standing ovation in here, 
basically, that he will usurp legislative power if we don't use it. It 
turns out that was an aim that was set out for progressives, 
socialists, X, as he called it, back in 1942.
  He goes on, these are the other things that we are trying to shoot 
for, according to him: control of banking, credit, and security 
exchanges by the government.
  Well, we know under the Democrat control of the House and the Senate 
and the White House, the Federal Government took control of all student 
loans. What a great thing.
  Thank God that my kids, we were able to get student loans for them 
before I had to go begging to a Democratic administration, because it 
isn't difficult to figure out how easily corruptible it is when the 
government controls who gets to get a college loan and who doesn't.
  So this was set out as what they were shooting for back in 1942. He 
says also:

       The underwriting of employment by the government, either 
     through armaments or public works.
       The underwriting of Social Security by the government, old-
     age pensions, mothers' pensions, unemployment insurance and 
     the like.

  Well, we have seen that all come to pass since 1942, just as this 
Progressive had hoped.

       The underwriting of food, housing, medical care, by the 
     government. The United States is already experimenting with 
     providing these essentials. Other nations are far along the 
     road.

  This Progressive says he is also shooting for:

       The use of deficit spending technique to finance these 
     underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-
     time sanctity.
       The control of foreign trade by the government, with 
     increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.
       The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis 
     on self-sufficiency.

  We have seen the government, with every passing month, take more and 
more control of natural resources. And since Texas is doing so well, 
producing more oil, more natural gas than ever, basically, the Federal 
Government is, in effect, declaring war on Texas. Economically, they 
have sicced the EPA after Texas. They want to do everything they can to 
destroy any private resource production.
  It just sounds like somebody has had this book, and that the book, 
``The Road We Are Traveling,'' fits right nicely in the road the 
President's supporters say he has traveled or we have traveled.
  This goal's progressive--they call it X in the book, but clearly it 
is the progressive. They want control of transportation, railway, 
highway, airway, waterway. Well, that has progressed right nicely since 
1942. They want control of all agriculture production. Well, we have 
certainly seen that take effect as well; control of labor 
organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.
  Now, that is something we haven't seen, but there really hasn't been 
a need, because when the President, as this President did, issues an 
executive order that even the IRS cannot enact policies until they have 
a private meeting with the head of the labor union to work things out 
behind private doors and it can't be recorded and nobody can know what 
they discuss, there is really not much reason for strikes. When top 
labor union heads sit down with the President in a private meeting 
about health care before they come out with ObamaCare and nobody gets 
to know what was said and done, why do you need strikes? The heads of 
the labor unions are working hand-in-hand with the executive branch.
  In this book, X, which clearly is progressivism, shoots for:

       The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps 
     devoted to health, discipline, community service and 
     ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC 
     camps have just inaugurated military drill.

  Well, it is also interesting that in ObamaCare, in my copy, at the 
beginning of Page 1312, it talked about--or section 1312, but it talked 
about the new President's Officer and Noncommissioned Officer Corps, 
created under a health care bill for international health emergency or 
national

[[Page 5414]]

emergencies, and they can be called up involuntarily at the present. So 
it sounds like that fits right into what was sought as the road to 
travel.
  Then here is another:

       Heavy taxation, with especial emphasis on the estates and 
     incomes of the rich.

  Well, we have certainly heard that enough.
  He goes on and says:

       Not much ``taking over'' of property or industries in the 
     old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control 
     without ownership. It is interesting to recall that the same 
     formula is used by the management of great corporations in 
     depriving stockholders of power.

  And last:

       The state control of communications and propaganda.

  We have certainly seen that take effect since 1942. And we have 
people in the House and Senate, my Democratic friends--some of my 
Democratic friends--that want even more control through the FCC and 
other government entities to control people's thoughts and what they 
can put out on the air. Let the government control all of that. It 
really is outrageous what is happening.
  In any event, it appears that ``The Road We Are Traveling,'' written 
in 1942, by Stuart Chase, setting out what he called X, because 
socialism, communism were not as popular, are the road that we have 
traveled. It is time to give the people their power back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________