Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. That is who we have been. The question now before the Supreme Court is: Is that who we will continue to be? We know that at least one justice of the Supreme Court seems to think that it is okay for the government to tax you $2,000. Just pay the tax, and then you can observe your religious beliefs, even though it keeps you from providing the great health care that you have been providing. I will tell you that this is a seminal point in our history. ObamaCare, that decision broke my heart because I thought so much of Chief Justice John Roberts. Then when you read the decision, the decision is so poorly written, so pitifully reasoned, so hypocritical within the decision itself. Yes, it is a penalty, so we have got jurisdiction, and now that we have got jurisdiction, it is a tax, so it is constitutional. I mean, it is totally at odds with itself. Now, we are to this place. Is a majority of the Supreme Court going to say: Pilgrims, Roger Williams, all of you that brought us to the place where the freest, most successful country in the history of the world, those freedoms that you saw, that you prayed for, they are going away because now, since the government has the power to tax, it will have the power to destroy your religions? As the gentlelady points out, why stop with $2,000? Once the Supreme Court says this government has the power to tax you to observe your religious beliefs, why not $10,000, why not $20,000, why not $50,000?

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, chains can be figuratively applied--figuratively applied when someone taxes because a tax hung around the neck is a burden. It is a chain. It is an albatross. It can be devastating, as some people have found out.

Mr. GOHMERT. Going back to this morning, as I mentioned, I am a member admitted to practice before the Supreme Court. It is a great honor, back when I was a real lawyer. There is seating in front of the bar for the members of the Supreme Court Bar, so those were full. So there is an overflow room where we listened to the audio but obviously don't get to see what is going on. I was just listening to the argument, the oral argument audibly, without the benefit of being able to see which Justice asked which question. I don't know that I will be able to forget the premise of an educated Supreme Court Justice, almost rhetorically, asking: Why don't you just pay the $2,000? She didn't say this, but pay the $2,000 so you can practice your firmly held religious beliefs. That is what her question amounted to.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it is going to be interesting, and this is a bit of a tangent, but because of what the gentlelady has pointed out, this President has indicated he is going to turn over control of the Internet away from where it is now to an international confab that has been champing at the bit to have a chance to control the Internet. They have been hoping desperately that some day they would have something that everybody wanted to use so they could begin taxing it, charging fees to use the Internet. And once they could do that, then the international entity, like the U.N., wouldn't have to go begging to the different countries that make up its membership. They could require taxes and penalties to be paid in order to publish on the Internet, in order to send an email on the Internet. You could rack up taxes, and then they will be a permanent entity from now on once we give control of the Internet over to an international group that will have authority to tax those who want to publish online. So we are talking about the disaster that ObamaCare is, but that is where it is going.

Mr. GOHMERT. I just can't avoid thinking in these terms the conclusion when, ultimately, you follow the logic of at least one of the Supreme Court justices. In essence, what is being implied by the question is if you want to avoid paying to kill a child in the womb, then just pay the tax, and we will allow you to observe your conscience, your firmly held religious beliefs. It is staggering that anybody, any justice on the United States Supreme Court, would have rationalized to the point that--could ever even dream of saying: just pay the fine penalty tax, and then you don't have to pay for killing children in utero.

Mr. GOHMERT. It is protection.

Mr. GOHMERT. If it came down to this, the Federal Government, of course using the IRS under ObamaCare to enforce the law, the Federal Government comes and says, the gentlelady from Minnesota must either pay a $2,000 fine, penalty, tax, whatever they may wish to call it today, or you cannot observe your religious beliefs, what would the gentlelady's reaction be?

Mr. GOHMERT. I yield to the gentlelady. I doubt you were aware that in essence that question was asked: Why don't you just pay that tax?

Mr. GOHMERT. And apparently it is phenomenal insurance. The employees love it.

Mr. GOHMERT. From the government.

Mr. GOHMERT. I would like to ask the gentlelady a question, knowing our American history as well as you do: Can you imagine if King George had sent a decree that said pay a $2,000 penalty or tax and then you can observe your religious beliefs, what would the gentlelady think would be the response of Patrick Henry, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Payne, and all of those people? Thomas Payne was not a very religious man, but he was big on rights.

Mr. GOHMERT. I would say to the gentlelady, I was not aware of the line that was scratched out by James Madison, but obviously if he scratched out ``tolerate'' and added in ``free exercise,'' it was intended to be more than just tolerant. This was a bedrock principle. I know the gentlelady, I doubt there is anybody else in all of Congress or even the Senate that has a master's in tax law, as the gentlelady from Minnesota does, but I know we have both heard during our professional lives that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I don't have the exact words, and I haven't seen the transcript or heard any replay since I was at the Supreme Court building this morning, but to hear a Supreme Court Justice of this country say to the litigants' attorney, in essence: Why don't you just pay the tax, the penalty, and then you can have your religious beliefs? Staggering.

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentlelady brought up something that I don't recall being mentioned during the entire argument. Hobby Lobby, because of their Christian beliefs, not only wants to provide compensation, they want to provide an excellent health care policy. What I don't believe was brought up in the entire oral argument was that the employees can buy supplemental insurance to cover those four drugs that will kill children in utero, and nothing is denying them that opportunity.

Mr. GOHMERT. Certainly.

Mr. GOHMERT. One of the justices--and, again, since we don't have cameras in the courtroom yet, I will be fighting for that in the future, I could only listen to the audio--but one of the justices, again, tried to belittle Paul Clement's comment that they have a choice. The gentlelady has pointed out accurately that you can pay $2,000 or $36,500; but he was indicating that, when you add up, with all the employees they have, the total cost, they either pay $475 million, or they can drop the insurance, leave the employees in a real dilemma to have to go buy ObamaCare insurance that, other than those four contraceptives that bring about abortion, they provide them far better insurance than what ObamaCare requires. So when he said it is either $475 million or $26 million, she was insisting that you could just pay the $2,000 fine and was virtually in unbelief that it actually amounted to $26 million when you add up all the people they would have to pay for. So that was his position before the Supreme Court: to follow our religious beliefs, we either pay $475 million or we pay $26 million.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

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. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), my friend, such time as he may consume. NO MORE Week

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), my new friend. Remembering Retired United States Air Force Colonel Robert Darden ``Pete'' Peterson

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you for those stirring and important words. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), my friend. Mack Pierce