Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, having been elected in 2004 to come to Congress, I got here and met someone else who was elected to come to Congress at the same time named Luis Fortuno. The Fortunos were a couple of the most wonderful, lovely people I have ever met, and it's a real privilege to have gotten to know them. So my initial feeling is that I would want to support whatever they supported, especially to have a Republican governor in Puerto Rico. The things that he is doing are wonderful. Cutting government, working to reduce spending in Puerto Rico, those are the things that we need leaders to help with in Washington. But we are a people who came into being through a belief in self- determination. And so on initially hearing that Puerto Rico would have a vote that would allow them to decide whether they wanted to be part of the United States as a State, my initial impression was this would be a good thing. But on seeing that it has been divided into two votes and finding that there are three choices in the second vote, I am very concerned. If Puerto Rico wants to be a State, then they should decide to do so unequivocally and tell this body to do so unequivocally. It ought to be one question, ``Do you want to be a State?'' ``Yes'' or ``no.'' And if the answer is loud and clear we do, then that's what we should take up. So regretfully, I will be voting ``no'' on this because I am concerned this is not the way to decide a statehood's future. I will be voting ``no.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. You are exactly right. The last person I heard from is a woman who is losing her job, heartbreaking because there is no need for these people to lose their jobs. We had over 4 million people lose their job since the so-called stimulus was passed. And now we passed a health care bill under the guise of ensuring 30 million more. I'm hearing now this past weekend people that have been told that because ultimately the owner is going to have a choice between $2,000 per employee or paying for the Cadillac health care that the government is going to require, they're going to drop the health insurance. So it seems pretty clear there is going to be a lot more than 30 million people that lose their insurance because of the added taxes that are put in here. Oh, and I love the provision--talk about helping the working poor--if you are not able to afford the level of insurance required by this bill and by the Federal Government--and I guess that's the 15 people that are on this board that are going to make all these great determinations for everybody's health care that the President will appoint--but if you can't afford that level insurance, then we're going to help you. We're going to tax you an additional 2.5 percent on your income, an additional income tax for the working poor that can't--as I had somebody tell me 2 days ago, if I could afford the insurance, I would buy it. I can't. Now I'm going to get hit with an extra income tax on top of that? Because people are leaving, they're finding out. Employers are finding out they are either going to let people go, cut their salaries, cut back the workforce. It is just so unnecessary. And yet this thing got rammed through and real people are now hurting because of the thoughtlessness of this Congress.

Mr. GOHMERT. And of course we know where that all led. Ultimately, it led to the Soviet Union borrowing money, printing money as fast as they could and then ultimately coming to the day of reckoning. And when they realized we can't borrow enough, we can't print enough, and they have to announce we're out of business as a country, all of these states that made up the USSR, they're on their own. We're out of business; we can't borrow enough; we can't print enough. You know, another tragedy out of this health care bill--and not in terms of human suffering, but still a tragedy--was the media and the light that was cast from the media through this bill. Because you think back through the years, both Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents, I don't recall in my lifetime a media being so oblivious to truth. I can't imagine under George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, going on back, I can't imagine the media ever allowing any governmental entity to stand up and say we are going to save $1.3 trillion with this bill starting 11 years from now and going 20 years from now. Obviously, for the next 10 years we're going to cut Medicare $500 billion, and we're going to raise taxes by $500 billion. We're going to do this for 10 years and then that will pay for 6 years of health care. And the mainstream media didn't utter a whimper. I just can't imagine the media letting that go without saying, excuse me, did you say it won't start saving money until 11 years from now when you're gone and out of office? But this is what we've come to; the media just let it go.

Mr. GOHMERT. Already has hurt them.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend yielding. The other alternative to getting hot under the collar is just to have your heart broken. Part of it is anger. When you go through and read these provisions like I'm afraid so many people did not do, you know the impact it is going to have. And yet, you know, AARP got their deal negotiated, you find that in different places, the big pharmaceuticals got their deal negotiated, the insurance companies got something in there in a number of places. You got Plaintiffs Bar got some things negotiated. And you think, who in the world was negotiating for the people of America? Everybody else was getting their deals, unions got their deals, but when you read through this, you knew who it was going to hurt. On the one hand, we had people across the aisle saying they're going to help the working poor. If you read the bill, you knew what it was going to do. You can't increase that amount of taxes, just as my friend from Missouri was talking about, you can't increase taxes like that and not cause some people to lose jobs or have their income cut or have their salaries cut, which means cut income. I've talked to other people who say that because that passed they are winding down their business and people will be out of work at the end. It will take probably 1\1/2\ years, one fellow was telling me last weekend. So you know people are losing their jobs and how devastating that is to lose your job. A career is gone because somebody got overzealous here and passed bills with increased taxes. The working poor didn't get the help they were looking for. If you make 133 percent or less of the poverty level, oh, yeah, those were the people they were going to really help with this. They're going to get ultimately shoved into Medicaid that so many doctors aren't going to take anymore. Walgreen's, I read they weren't going to take any more prescriptions. That's not helping people in America. It doesn't help them to lose their jobs. It just is heartbreaking to see what is happening to people now because of this poorly conceived health care bill. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT. And let me add, if I might, CBO sat on them since last summer and wouldn't even give us a score. Shame on them.

Mr. GOHMERT. Just very quickly, not only should we repeal it completely, but all of these wonderful alternatives we have ought to be in the same bill. Not only are we ripping out this bad bill, but here fixes the system. We've got those bills, we just couldn't get them to the floor. I look forward to getting them to the floor.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding. What was one of the most heartbreaking aspects of this health care bill that was crammed down the throats of Americans, a majority of whom were begging and pleading and demanding not to pass it, but it was the aspect of the increased taxes at a time when we're in a recession. We could not afford increased taxes which was going to bring about an end to more jobs. We couldn't afford what was in the bill which meant that people were going to be laid off. It meant that people were going to have salaries cut. It meant that people were going to lose their health care insurance. Because whoever's staffer or the special interest groups, all those folks that worked on this thing, they knew a number of things. First of all, of course, whoever's staffer in leadership helped draft it made sure the leadership staff was not included in the mandate for Members of Congress and their staffs to have to participate in the Federal program, so they knew they didn't want to be part of it. But then here we are in a recession. It should be all about jobs. It should be about careers and helping people get back employment so that once they have the jobs, they've got employment, they can do the things they used to do that helped drive the economy: go back to the store and pick up something to wear; go back to a restaurant and get something to eat. And then that feeds those that work in the restaurant and the cycle goes on. Instead, we increased taxes $500 billion over 10 years; $50 billion a year average. Employers were telling us in advance of the vote, If you do this, it's going to cost us billions of dollars across the country. We're going to have to either lay people off, we're going to have to cut people's salary, we're going to have to drop their health care insurance. And so in the bill, you've got a provision that if you're considered not a small business, meaning less than 50 workers, then you've got a choice: you either provide the mandated health insurance at the level required or you pay a $2,000 fine. There's a little gimmick in there. You deduct 30 from the number of employees, so if you've got 50, then you deduct 30 and you pay 20 times $2,000, or $40,000, or you buy health insurance for all 50 employees. $40,000, less than a thousand dollars per employee, or health insurance for 50. Well, it's a no-brainer. So many businesses with the added taxes that are in this bill are already saying, We've got to make cuts somewhere. If we can get away with only paying $40,000 instead of paying many times that for health insurance for our 50 employees, that's what we're going to have to do so we can keep them employed. That doesn't insure the 30 million that we were told was the whole purpose of this bill. In fact, it will ultimately throw more than that off of their own health insurance. ``If you like your health insurance, you'll keep it.'' People all across America heard that over and over. Apparently it simply was not true. The only question is, did the person making those statements know that they were not true when they were made? Or did it become a matter of convenience to strip everybody's health insurance at a later date? Either way, it was grossly unfair to all the people who did like their health insurance. Reforms needed to be made, there's no question. We all agree on that. We could have worked together to provide those reforms. Instead, we had a monstrosity of a bill that simply got crammed down everybody's throat. That is what's most troubling. I've already gotten the calls, I've gotten emails, I'm hearing people say they've been laid off, a family member has been laid off, they've been told they're going to have to cut their salaries. Why? Because we rushed this health care bill and rammed it through without most of the people in this body bothering to read it. I read all I could in the short period of time and I read enough to know that this is a disaster for America. But if you're into government controlling everything, then you've got to love it, because it's sure going to have more government: 17,000 more IRS agents monitoring everybody monthly to make sure they're complying with the insurance requirements. How amazing, though. We hear from our friends across the aisle, We're concerned about the hardworking poor in America. Well, guess what: If you make under 133 percent of the poverty level when this disaster kicks in in 2013, 2014, you're not going to have a choice. When you need health care, you're going to be thrown into Medicaid. I heard that Walgreens said they're not going to take any more Medicaid prescriptions. Doctors are saying we can't make enough money to pay for the care, much less make a profit, so they're not taking Medicaid. What a disaster for America. This needs our attention. But the heartbreaking aspect I keep coming back to is, people didn't have to lose their job, lose their insurance. Businesses didn't have to pay this much more tax. But we rushed it through. And I come back to a quote by George Washington, who said, ``Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.'' When this government was designed by our Founders, it was never intended to be the master of people. The people were meant to be the masters of this government; and this bill has thrown that all out of whack just as George Washington and so many of our Founders anticipated, and it requires the actions of Americans running to the sound of legislation to help prevent any more from this fearful master, as George Washington put it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, we do have the danger of Iran about to go nuclear at the same time, as you all have pointed out, that our President cancelled what took so long and took such great effort by so many, including our friends in Poland, to establish this missile defense that was going to be built. That got cancelled. That was going to help protect us. That was going to help protect our allies. I just want to read here some of the comments that have been made. President Barack Obama said on November 7, 2008, ``Let me repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable.'' He said on October 20, 2009, that the bond between the United States and Israel is much more than a strategic alliance. And then you look at what Ahmadinejad has said. He said in 2005, quote, ``God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.'' He also said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. He said, ``Like it or not, Israel is heading toward annihilation.'' He also said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.'' It has started. And we are disarming unilaterally while Iran--we are talking about maybe some sanctions, like maybe that will work as well as it did against Iraq? It didn't work because people cheated. Russia and China have said, hey, we're making a lot of money selling to these folks right now. We're not sure we're getting on board with this. And all the while those centrifuges are just a spinnin'. They are spinnin' while we're all here talking. And we're coming closer to the day when Ahmadinejad will be able to try to keep his promise, all while we are disarming. It makes no sense. We took an oath to provide for the common defense. It is high time we did that.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. That was what we were fixing to do. It's now done, and so are so many American jobs because of what we have passed this week. There's a line from a movie, ``Broadcast News,'' where Holly Hunter is telling an executive that he's making a wrong decision. And he says, in essence, It must be wonderful to always know what should happen. She says, basically, No, it's horrible. The fact is, it must be wonderful for those who don't realize the human suffering that's going to come out of this bill--the people that lose their jobs, who don't realize that down the road we are going to devastate this thing that we used to call the free market system as government approaches taking control and, in some cases, ownership of 50 percent or so of the American economy. Who would have thought? When you can see where this goes, it's horrible, just like she said. It's horrible. Community health centers have done wonderful jobs. They have helped so many people that needed it, but now they're being appropriated money that can be used for abortions. And there's nothing that can stop that; certainly not a flimsy Executive order that cannot impound money that's dedicated for something else. Besides that, an Executive order can also be changed on a whim. It happens all the time. So, as I struggled and thought about how did we get to this point in history, because there was a time if you went against the will of the State and you went against what you were sent up here to do, and that is serve and defend the Constitution, then your legislature, your State legislature that elected you, could yank you back. Because there's an amendment, number nine, that says: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it's reserved to the State and the people. It's probably the most violated provision in the Constitution. As some Justices have pointed out in speeches before, in 1913, we had the 17th Amendment. Because, apparently, some State legislatures had actually abused that system, sending State individuals up here to be U.S. Senators with an agenda that wasn't necessarily helpful to the country. So the 17th Amendment changed the ability of the State legislature to select a U.S. Senator, and it became a popular vote. All week as I have talked about Article V of the Constitution, I've been very careful not to ever say that we should repeal the 17th Amendment, because I'm not sure that's a good idea. It needs more study, more looking. It needs the collective concentration of 50 States' best thinkers. We have heard other potential solutions to what happened when the elimination occurred of the only real check to this body and the Senate body usurping rights reserved to the States and the people. Once that was eliminated, then you began to have real unfunded mandates. States come up with money and do this. States come up with money and do that. It was not supposed to be that way. This Federal Government was never supposed to be able to dictate unfunded mandates to States. It was never supposed to be allowed to usurp authority reserved to the States and the people by the 10th Amendment. But that's what has occurred because there was no check and balance to do that. You've got the Supreme Court, but they are appointed by the highest elected Federal official, the President. They're confirmed by high U.S. Federal elected officials. So why would anybody think they would be out to protect the rights reserved to the States and the people? They should. It's what the Constitution said. They have an obligation to uphold the Constitution. They should. But that's not what has been occurring. So what hit me was article V because I really believe, you know, that God can work things together for good. And through such a terrible thing, like this health care bill that's going to cause so many people to lose their jobs, many people to have their pay reduced, many people to not have the insurance they had before. We're already hearing tons of employers saying, Well, in this bill, it's actually cheaper for us to drop the health care insurance we're providing, let them go get the lesser government insurance, the Federal insurance exchange federal program, and we save money even though we're having to pay this extra tax. Well, somebody that designed this bill knew that would happen, and that's what they intended to do, drive them away from their better private insurance to the government's awaiting coverage. Did anybody really know all that was in here? Perhaps somebody did. I mean, in the bill, the staff of the leadership of the House and Senate were exempted so they don't have to participate. They can keep the good insurance they have right now, where all the rest of us in Congress on our staffs, we have to go under the Federal insurance exchange program. And ultimately, I lose what I think is the greatest hope for getting us off the road to socialized medicine because that's just the next step. This was the first. That's the next, just like President Obama--then- Senator Obama laid out previously when he was running for the Presidency. This is the first step. Then you have the transition into the single payer, the socialized medicine. It's where it goes. So how do you go about stopping that? What in the world really good could come from such a bad bill where pharmaceutical companies--man, they're going to get rich out of this thing. Yeah, they're going to get back some billions. But my HSA, for the short time I may be able to keep it, for a little longer, I can't buy my hay fever pills for under $3 anymore with my HSA. I'll have to buy prescription drugs, which will help the pharmaceutical companies. Good job. And I remember the President saying, We're going to televise our debates on C-SPAN so you can see who's really looking out for the pharmaceuticals and who's looking out for the people. Well, you know what, it turns out we didn't need C-SPAN after all. When we read the bill and we see the sweetheart bills that were done for pharmaceutical companies, the massive number of new clients initially--until we go to a full government takeover, a short-sight on the part of insurance companies that bought in. But they're going to have a bunch more money. AARP, they're going to sell a lot more insurance because provisions in there are going to allow them to kill Medicare Advantage. So that means AARP, they don't care that they've lost so many members because they're going to make a lot more than that in the insurance that they'll get to sell. The plaintiffs' bar got a deal in here. There are just all kinds of deals for everybody. So we found out who's looking out for the little guy. It was nobody that was in those negotiations. But somebody was sure looking out for the pharmaceuticals. And since there wasn't any Republican in any of those negotiations where the deals were cut, we know there was nobody there looking out for the little guy. They were looking out for the pharmaceuticals, the big companies, the unions, plaintiffs' lawyers. They just came out great. Happy Easter. Somebody laid an egg. We look at article V. This is what it came back to. You look at article V. This may be the real good that could come out of the disaster that's gone on here lately and the abuses of the process, it seems. Article V has been used many times for the first part that says, ``Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.'' That's been used many times. And once they propose those amendments, passed by two-thirds of the House and the Senate, then it took three-fourths of the States to ratify. But here is the part that has not been used--I can't find that it's ever been used. It almost was for the repeal of the prohibition, but when the Congress saw that the States were about to get to 34, which is two-thirds or--there weren't that many then. When the States were about to get to two-thirds, then Congress acted quickly, jumped in, had two-thirds of the House and Senate and had a repeal of the prohibition. But here's the part, that Congress ``on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths.'' So the thing is, the legislatures, two-thirds of the States' legislatures can apply and say, Congress, we want a convention--not a Constitutional convention; it's not a Constitutional convention. That's what occurred in 1787. This is an amendment convention. That's what is called for. Not a rewrite of the Constitution. An amendment convention. And I know there are differences among some constitutional scholars who say, Well, Congress can actually limit the amendment convention, okay? You have asked for an amendment convention. Perhaps the States could say, We want a convention to fix the lack of checks and balances between the Federal Government and the State government. I think you could limit it to that. You know, just like the Constitution provides for impeachment, it doesn't provide the rules of procedure, right? You can't have a trial in the Senate for impeachment without promulgating rules of procedure. But the Supreme Court, as always, appropriately kept hands off when it comes to rules of procedure. You know, that's your guys' business in the legislature when it comes to setting up rules of procedure for impeachment. You decide how you're going to run the trial, and then we can review the overall result. Well, I think that's possible as well with an amendment convention. And think about it too. Even if those who say, Well, they could do amendments that might just rewrite most of the Constitution, think about it. It requires three-fourths of the States to ratify it. You're not going to have three-fourths of the States ratify, rewrite a Constitution. I mean, we may do some crazy things in this Congress, like we've done in the last week, but we're not going to rewrite the greatest document governing mankind in the history of the world. But it does need tweaking from time to time. And it's awfully tough for a Federal Government to see when it's being at its worst, most abusive of States' rights, and rein them in. But that's why there's this balance. That's the genius of this document. We can come in and fix when something gets abused too much. It's why the 17th Amendment came into being. But I have not once ever proposed that we eliminate the ability of the people of any State to elect a U.S. Senate, and yet that was a headline in one paper that that's what I was proposing because there were liberal blogs that were going nuts. They seem to do that from time to time without regard for the truth. But if you look at what I've said, it's very simple. We have got to put back some kind of check or balance on this runaway abuse of States' rights. Now I know there's some people in Texas or some other States that say, Well, we just need to secede. Give me a break. We do not need to secede. There is strength and power when we are the United States of America, and that's what we need to stay. But we need to get back to the common sense of the Founders that gave us the opportunity to have such a great country. I have article V blown up here. Here is article V from the Constitution. The Congress--skip to the second part after the ``or,'' the disjunctive, on the application of legislatures, two-thirds of the several States--that's what we're talking about--``shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments''--not a rewrite of the Constitution, because that's not going to happen, and it wouldn't be ratified. So get real. I know there are some who say, We're headed for a cliff. We're going to fall into the abyss. We have got to do something, and I think they're right. Proposing a budget with $1.5 trillion deficit this year? Man, my first year here I was hearing all the screams and hollering about how abusive a $160 billion deficit was, how mean spirited could George W. Bush be. And by the way, I really appreciate the sensitivity of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We shouldn't be making death threats. I've had plenty of those as a judge. I know what that's like. It never bothered me until they started threatening my family. But I know what that's like. I know what it's like to be abused, as I was out here on Saturday, because of my position on the hate crimes bill. I don't go running to the media about it. But I appreciate the fact that we should all be able to agree there is no place for bigotry, there's no place for racism. We should be able to disagree without being extremely disagreeable. We can disagree, that is important. Unless one person in this body has a 100 percent lock on God's truth, all the time, we really ought to listen to each other. And yet today we had 10 minutes, 5 minutes on either side, to debate the reconciliation, so-called misnomer regarding the health care plan. We've got to get back to some sanity before we ruin this place. Now, I know some people get scared when you talk about amending the Constitution and letting the States have a convention to propose an amendment. But that could be the thing that gets us back on track so this body and down the Hall can't continue to run up a $1.5 trillion deficit a year. I mean, good night. Ten times what I heard Bush getting beat up for? Give me a break. Goodness. We've got to get back to some fiscal sanity. I think this could do it. I think it could rein things in, get the check and balance in place so that we could look back one day and say, as bad as this was, as upset as most of Americans have been about this abusive process by which this disastrous health care ``deform'' bill was passed, it led to a greater good if we amend the Constitution, we preserve the check and balance so that this body and the Senate can't come together and a majority in the House or Senate, cram a bad bill down the minority's throat, say, tough, even though, in this case, you represent the will of the vast majority of the people in America, we don't care. We're smarter than you. We're going to do this anyway. You wouldn't be able to do it. One proposal is an amendment that might allow the States within, say, 30 days, 45 days, something like that, after a bill that affected the States could come back in and three-fourths could vote to veto the bill and that would veto the bill. End of it. It's dead and it couldn't be overridden by the House and Senate. That would put a check and balance in place. Some, and I'm not sure I like this idea, but it may have possibilities if the right restraints were put on--some have said, well, we don't want to go back to the legislatures selecting, in some back-room deal, a U.S. Senator, because that just seems kind of tawdry. But perhaps, if a Senator was hurting their State, you could set some kind of recall system up so the State could recall a Senator that got too far afield and too far beyond the Constitution itself. There are all kinds of proposals. This country is composed of brilliant people who could come together and make something very, very special. That's how we were founded. We were founded as a special country. Going back to an act that had never occurred in the history of mankind, and I doubt will ever occur in the history of mankind again, and that was, in 1783, it's depicted in a huge painting down the Hall in the rotunda, of George Washington with his hand outstretched, as he tendered his resignation. He said, in effect, I did what you asked. I've won the revolution. Now I'm going home. Nobody had ever done that in the history of mankind. Never. When King George III was told that George Washington was going to, after having defeated the British, resign and go home, he just didn't believe it. He said, nobody would do that. In fact, he said if Washington were to do that, he would be the greatest man alive. He probably was. Nobody had ever done it before or done it since. At times, when the military, when the Articles of Confederation were falling apart, they were calling upon Washington, please, we'll let you be King if you'll just come rule. The country's falling apart. He wouldn't do it. But Washington, in tendering that resignation, ended it with something very special. He ended it with what appears to be a prayer. The whole resignation was so moving that it was printed and distributed all over the country. They loved George Washington. His resignation, at the end, and I quote, toward the end, said, ``I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the state over which you preside in His holy protection. He'd incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field. And, finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and specific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the divine author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy Nation. Then he signed it by saying, I have the honor to be with great respect and esteem, Your Excellency's most obedient and very humble servant, George Washington. That's how we get started. That kind of humility, that kind of selflessness. And yet we just passed a bill that exempts the leader's staff, White House, White House staff, except the President says he's going to go under it. But what happened to that kind of humility and selflessness by those in government? Well, I know what it is to sleep on an air mattress three or four nights a week for the honor of getting to serve here, and it's nothing compared to what those valiant Founders and those who fought over the years for our freedoms have given up. So article V, that's a possibility. Maybe that gets back some sanity. Maybe it does. What have we got to lose? We can't keep running up this kind of debt. We can't; we will lose this Nation. You know, you think it can't happen. Look at Greece, the way they're struggling. Go back to the Soviet Union. They spent so much in Afghanistan, so much on missile defense. They couldn't borrow enough, they couldn't print enough, and they finally had to announce, We're broke. China wasn't buying their debt. They couldn't get anybody to buy enough debt, loan them enough money. They couldn't print it fast enough so they went out of business. It happens. There is no nation in the history of the world that has ever gone on indefinitely. Every nation comes to an end. It is up to the vigilance of those in government of that country to ensure that future generations are protected. I have the liberties and freedoms I do in this country, all of us here do, not because of something we did. I didn't deserve to be born here and have this kind of liberty. It was because of the generations that went before us, generations of people like George Washington and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock. So many of these guys that just were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor. I have been blessed because of their faithfulness in those prior generations. You want to read a beautiful theological monologue, read Lincoln's second inaugural address as he struggled to deal with how a just God could allow the kind of suffering that had gone on, and he deals with it beautifully. In that second inaugural that's inscribed on the north wall inside the Lincoln Memorial, trying to deal with how this could happen, he said, you know, we all read the same Bible, we all pray to the same God, yet the prayers of both could not be answered. He struggled and he came through and he recognized that a wonderful God has blessed this country. You go back to the speech of Benjamin Franklin, to the Constitutional Convention, when he said, ``In the beginning contest with Great Britain when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.'' By the way, that's not the words of a deist. ``To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.''' Franklin went on and said, ``I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.'' I want to finish, Madam Speaker, tonight with a radio address that was given on April 2, 1983, by Ronald Reagan. He has been talked about so much lately, and it seemed appropriate on this occasion as we wrap up before we recess and go home and see what our constituents have to say about us. He said: ``This week as American families draw together in worship, we join with millions upon millions of others around the world also celebrating the traditions of their faiths. During these days, at least, regardless of nationality, religion, or race, we are united by faith in God and the barriers between us seem less significant. ``Observing the rites of Passover and Easter, we're linked in time to the ancient origins of our values and to the unborn generations who will still celebrate them long after we're gone. As Paul explained in his Epistle to the Ephesians, `He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. So then you were no longer strangers and aliens, but you were fellow citizens of God's household.' ``This is a time of hope and peace, when our spirits are filled and lifted. It's a time when we give thanks for our blessings--chief among them, freedom, peace, and the promise of eternal life. ``This week Jewish families and friends have been celebrating Passover, a tradition rich in symbolism and meaning. Its observance reminds all of us that the struggle for freedom and the battle against oppression waged by Jews since ancient times is one shared by people everywhere. And Christians have been commemorating the last momentous days leading to the crucifixion of Jesus 1,950 years ago. Tomorrow, as morning spreads around the planet, we will celebrate the triumph of life over death, the resurrection of Jesus. Both observances tell of sacrifice and pain but also of hope and triumph. ``As we look around us today, we still find human pain and suffering, but we also see it answered with individual courage and spirit, strengthened by faith. For example, the brave Polish people, despite the oppression of a godless tyranny, still cling to their faith and their belief in freedom. Shortly after Palm Sunday mass this week, Lech Walesa faced a cheering crowd of workers outside a Gdansk church. He held up his hand in a sign of victory and predicted, `The time will come when we will win.' ``Recently, an East German professor, his wife, and two daughters climbed into a 7-foot rowboat and crossed the freezing, wind-whipped Baltic to escape from tyranny. Arriving in West Germany after a harrowing 7-hour, 31-mile journey past East German border patrols, the man said he and his family had risked everything so that the children would have the chance to grow up in freedom. ``In Central America, Communist-inspired revolution still spreads terror and instability, but it's no match for the much greater force of faith that runs so deep among the people. We saw this during Pope John Paul II's recent visit there. As he conducted a mass in Nicaragua, state police jeered and led organized heckling by Sandinista supporters. But the Pope lifted a crucifix above his head and waved it at the crowd before him, then turned and symbolically held it up before the massive painting of Sandinista soldiers that loomed behind. The symbol of good prevailed. In contrast, everywhere else the Holy Father went in the region, spreading a message that only love can build, he was met by throngs of enthusiastic believers, eager for Papal guidance and blessing. ``In this Easter season when so many of our young men and women in the Armed Forces are stationed so very far from their homes, I can't resist recounting at least one example of their sacrifice and heroism. Every day I receive reports that would make you very proud, and today I would like to share just one with you. ``While the San Diego-based USS Hoel was steaming toward Melbourne, Australia, on Ash Wednesday, its crew heard of terrible brush fires sweeping two Australian states. More than 70 people were killed and the destruction was great. Well, the crew of this American ship raised $4,000 from their pockets to help, but they felt that it wasn't enough. So, leaving only a skeleton crew aboard, the 100 American sailors gave up a day's shore leave, rolled up their sleeves, and set to work rebuilding a ruined community on the opposite end of the Earth. Just Americans being Americans, but something for all of us to be proud of. ``Stories like these--of men and women around the world who love God and freedom--bear a message of world hope and brotherhood like the rites of Passover and Easter that we celebrate this weekend. ``A grade school class in Somerville, Massachusetts, recently wrote me to say, `We studied about countries and found out that each country in our world is beautiful and we need each other. People may look a little different but we're still people who need the same things.' They said, `We want peace. We want to take care of one another. We want to be able to get along with one another. We want to be able to share. We want freedom and justice. We want to be friends. We want no wars. We want to be able to talk to one another. We want to be able to travel around the world without fear.' ``They then asked, `Do you think that we can have these things one day?' Well, I do,'' Reagan said. ``I really do. Nearly 2,000 years after the coming of the Prince of Peace, such simple wishes may still seem far from fulfillment. But we can achieve them. We must never stop trying. ``The generations of Americans now growing up in schools across our country can make sure the United States will remain a force for good, the champion of peace and freedom as their parents and grandparents before them have done. And if we live our lives and dedicate our country to truth, to love, and to God, we will be a part of something much stronger and much more enduring than any negative power here on Earth. That's why this weekend is a celebration and why there is hope for us all. ``Thanks for listening, and God bless you.'' That was Ronald Reagan, 1983. There is wisdom among the States. It all doesn't reside here in Washington, D.C. It can be found in brilliance, in schools, in workplaces, in coffee klatches, in places all over this God blessed country. Let's trust them. If we have 34 States say, and next January would be a good time to work toward them and have momentum toward January of 2011 and in January of 2011, 34 States say, you know what, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Leader of the Senate, it's time to have an amendment to the Constitution to preserve the rights reserved to the States under the 9th and 10th amendment and the genius of this country as it has come together through the different amendments to ensure the rights and to ensure the ongoing of this blessed country can go on. That is the message I leave with you as I yield back, Madam Speaker.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 257, 111th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it is always and ever an honor to get to speak in this body. It touches the soul when you think about the freedoms that have been afforded to people in so many places that have been discussed right here on this floor. Apparently, this is the last that we will be addressing the House before we break for what's considered the Easter break, and so it's time to pause for a moment and think about what we have been doing. We just passed the most incredible bill, not in a good way, that most Americans, a much bigger majority of Americans than voted for President Obama, had made clear that they did not want passed. We didn't pay attention to them. I say, ``we,'' collectively. I thought it was a big mistake, especially the more I read. For example, this body, our friends across the aisle, pride themselves, they constantly talk about helping the little guy. Well, how about the little guy who is working, working, trying to get by. He doesn't make all that much, he doesn't make all that much, but they make just under 133 percent of the poverty level. That means under the bill that has now been signed into law, that person, that person's family, are eligible for Medicaid, which means under this law that person, their family, will have to do one of two things, and this begins in about 3 or so years. They will either go on Medicare, which has got to be scary for them because, you know, Walgreens came out--I read somewhere that they were not going to be accepting Medicaid to pay for prescription drugs. Doctors all over the country have complained that Medicaid does not pay them for their own out-of-pocket expenses so they can no longer accept it. So doctors across the country are saying we are not going to take Medicaid. Under this bill that has been passed, signed into law, even with the so-called reconciliation, what a misnomer. That poor working man, woman, family, they either go on Medicaid, with more and more people refusing to accept it, or get nothing in the way of insurance. If their employer is providing it, they cannot accept it. They have to say, I am not allowed, under this punitive so-called health care bill, to accept the wonderful insurance that you have been providing. The law now says I take Medicaid or I take nothing. There is no in between. So much for helping the working poor. And, heaven forbid, if you are working as hard as you can and you are not quite making enough to buy the level of health care that will now be mandated by the Federal Government. Well, we are going to help you. We are going to pop you with a fee or tax to teach you a lesson. That makes no sense. That just makes no sense. So you have 14 States, as I last heard, who have said, We are filing suit. We are going to do what we can to stop it. Twenty-five other States that are looking into it, looking at whether they should pass a bill in their State to nullify or stop it or say we are not going to take it, see what they should do. For the State of Texas, for example, we have been frugal. Our State leaders have done an admirable job. We have got, I think, $8 billion or $9 billion in reserve for a rainy day. You have States like California that are in the tank. You have other States that are just barely hanging in there. Well, I know it's Easter time, but it's time to say, Merry Christmas. You States, guess what you just got. You just got billions of dollars that you are going to have to pay in Medicaid in this bill. Now, what we have done, since the country is about broke and we are selling bonds, printing money to try to keep from announcing that we are broke, we have decided, You know what? To try to keep Ben Nelson from looking bad, we're just going to pay all of the State portion of the Medicaid expense for a while, for a few years, and then you are going to have it. And the States will not be prepared for it. You know, when Art Laffer was the economic adviser for President Reagan, he advised him when Reagan asked, How do we get out of double- digit inflation? They had way over 10 percent inflation, double-digit inflation; they had over double-digit employment, worse than it is now, coming out of the Carter years. There was double-digit interest rates. My wife and I, our first home we bought just off of post there at Fort Benning when I was in the Army and we had a 12\3/4\ loan and some people were envious that we had such a low interest loan. Interest rates, some have told me they had 15 percent, 18 percent, just crazy. It was an economy that was a disaster. So Reagan asked Art Laffer, What do we do to come out of this terrible economic mess? And Laffer said, You have got to cut taxes by 30 percent. That's how you stimulate the economy. Well, the Democratic-controlled Congress at that time refused to do an automatic 30 percent tax cut the first year, 1981, so they phased it in, 5 percent the first year, 10 percent the second year, 15 percent the third year. As time went on, Art Laffer became prophetic, because when President Reagan had called him, President Reagan said, Great news, Art. We've got the 30 percent tax cut, just what you asked. And he said, Well, that's great. And he said, Well, you ought to be ecstatic. This was your idea. He said, Well, I am happy. Fine. He says, Why aren't you happy? He said words to the effect that, Look, I understand you are going to phase this in over 3 years: a 5 percent cut the first year, 10 percent cut the second year, 15 percent cut the third year. And President Reagan said, Well, that's right. The Democratic-controlled Congress said that's the only way they would do it. They weren't going to give us a 30 percent tax cut the first year. And Art said, Well, Mr. President, let me put it to you this way. If you are going to buy something from the store and you heard they had a 5 percent sale this month, 10 percent sale next month, 15 percent sale the third month, when would you go buy it? And President Reagan responded after a pause, Are we going to have a bad couple of years, Art? He said, Exactly. And that's exactly what happened because they did not cut taxes 30 percent off the bat. But once the 30 percent taxes kicked in, the economy turned around in such a dramatic and short period of time that President Reagan was elected to a second term, when in 1982 people didn't think that was going to be happening; but it did because he cut taxes. Well, let's look at what the economic forecast is for the United States. We know that, come January of next year, we are going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. The biggest tax increase in the history of the country. Now, we know that when the Republicans had the majority, they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, and so they were pushing and pushing trying to get the tax cuts to be permanent. But they didn't have the 60 votes in the Senate. The only way they could get it passed because of the Democratic obstruction was to agree to have the tax cuts go away at the end of 2010. I wasn't here. It was a year or so before I got here, but I personally believe they should have pushed, they should have gotten it done, they should have made sure those tax cuts were permanent so that nobody could come in here and have what we are going to have the end of this year, the biggest tax increase in the whole American history without even having a vote, just letting the tax cuts expire. Well, since we know capital gains rates are going to shoot up, we know the marginal rates income tax are going to shoot up, we know that the estate tax is going to go from zero, shoot back up to 55 percent. Talk about socialist. The estate tax, the death tax says: you've accumulated too much and you don't deserve it, so we are going to give you a little exemption and then we are going to take over half of everything else you have accumulated through the blood, sweat, and tears of you and your family. That just doesn't seem right. It seems like some law that you would find in the old Soviet Union before they went broke because it does so much to discourage a family business or a family farm. But that's what is coming. And now, on top of that, we have just had, as somebody said, the mother of all unfunded mandates on the States. Texas has done so well; it is going to have to come up with $25 billion under this bill over the next 10 years. So much for the money they had saved and tried to make sure was there for the rainy day. Here came a flood, and not from nature, not from nature's God, but from the hand of the President signing a bill that was rammed through against the will of the American people, through this House and through the body at the end of the Hall. Can you think of a worse time to increase taxes? You know, we heard from Caterpillar this week; $100 million it's going to cost them just this year. You wonder, well, why did they make that announcement? If you are a corporation and you know there is bad news coming, then you have got to get it out there; otherwise, somebody may come after you and say you artificially inflated your stock prices by keeping bad news secret. So we find out. I believe we saw John Deere may lose $150 million this year. I mean, devastating these businesses. Well, perhaps there are people here in this body or down the Hall that thought Caterpillar, John Deere, these other companies just had too many employees, so they said it's time to go ahead and lay more people off. Let's put them on unemployment, let's extend unemployment, let's have more and more people without a job. Because that is what has happened. I know I am being sarcastic. I know people across the aisle and down the Hall do not want to see more people lose their jobs. I understand that. But that is the effect of what is happening by the senseless stuff we are passing the last week, the last two weeks. And now we are going to take up cap-and-trade. As our friend, former Chairman Dingell, had said, It's not just a tax, it's a big tax. That's exactly what cap- and-trade is. It's heartbreaking. People are going to lose their jobs right here around Easter time because of the senseless, hardheaded acts of this body and the one down the Hall: we don't care if the country doesn't want it; we don't care that the States can't afford it. We don't care that you couldn't pass the same bill right now through the Senate or through the House the way it was sent down here. We don't care. We are just going to pass it. We're just going to pass it. It's unbelievable. Just unbelievable. We had friends here who thought that the Executive order would prevent and stabilize things so that you couldn't pry Federal money from people's hands; take their money, make it Federal money, and pay for abortions. But there are at least three ways under this bill that that's going to happen. Terribly unfortunate. It was amazing, because it was as if someone was trying to trick America so you couldn't tell what was going to happen with abortion. Because I don't have the bill with me. I've got my copy back there in the cloakroom, but I've been through it. And you look, and at page 119, subparagraph B(i) it says, basically, you can't fund abortion with Federal tax dollars. If you had done a word search for ``abortion,'' you would not see page 122 come up, just three pages over. It wouldn't come up because ``abortion'' is not in that paragraph. What it says is that people are required to make available health insurance policies that will cover abortions, but it doesn't say abortions. It says cover what is mentioned in B(i), that subparagraph, which is abortion. So you won't find it if you're doing a word search for ``abortion.'' Sure enough, that's what's required. And then--I'm sure it's just out of ignorance--people didn't know what the Hyde amendment really did. It prevented appropriations through the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill from being used for abortion. But some people were bound to know. They're just bound to know. Somebody's staff. Somebody. Surely it just can't be me. There are bound to have been people who knew that this bill appropriated money. That money was appropriated, therefore, outside the Labor and HHS appropriations bill. Therefore, the Hyde amendment did not apply to it. For those of us that know something about Executive orders, we know that an Executive order cannot be used--for one thing, you can't use to legislate. Another thing, you cannot use an Executive order to impound money that's appropriated in a bill that the House and Senate had passed. Number three, you can't use it for a line item veto to strike something you don't like. There's money in the bill for community health centers.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, you know, we have seen for some time the Federal Government, since 1913, usurping States' rights. This Federal Government, this Congress, the House and Senate with the complicity of both Republican and Democratic Presidents, sending to the States unfunded mandates demanding that they come up with millions and billions of dollars that they didn't have, just out of the blue. We've now come up with one that many States believe will bankrupt them. How did we get here? Well, in 1913 the constitutionally sanctioned process of electing Senators was changed by the 17th Amendment. That was put in the Constitution after great debate, and what it required was that the State legislatures, the States select--not the overall population of the State--but the State legislatures would select the U.S. Senators. That was a check and balance on the Federal Government's usurpation of States' rights because if any U.S. Senator came up here and voted such an unfunded mandate upon the State, he was going to quickly be recalled, as has happened before. But the appeal--and I don't know how I would have voted on the 17th Amendment because it sounds so good. You know what, we ought to let all the people in the State elect our U.S. Senator. And once that was done, once that amendment was passed, there was no further check on States' rights and the protections afforded in the 9th and 10th Amendments that reserved all power not specifically enumerated, as it says here, in the 10th Amendment: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Both Republicans and Democrats have violated that concept. And what could the States do about it? After 1913, they had no power to do anything about it. They didn't have an Army as big as the United States, and we didn't want secession again. We didn't want another civil war. It should be done legislatively and diplomatically and within legislative bodies, however they were called, and within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. Well, the Constitution, when it was drafted, addressed that point, and it's very clear. And perhaps it took a government to run away, as one State representative or Governor said, The mother of all unfunded mandates. The States--there are 39 of them that have so far said, We're not going to take this anymore. We're going to do something, whether it's going to be legislative, litigation, whatever. We're going to stop this. But the truth is, it may take years to get through the courts to the Supreme Court. It may take years. So here's the solution: it was in the Constitution all along. It's called article V of the United States Constitution. Now we know that article V has been used many times by this first line, ``The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary''--we know that's been used many times. The House and Senate agree we need an amendment, and so they call for the amendment to be produced. But something--I haven't been able to find it. It's been done before, but it can be. It's there. But here it is: ``Or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States shall''--it means Congress shall, Congress shall, that it's not any choice that Congress has. If two-thirds of the States apply and say, We want a convention--not a Constitutional Convention because this can be restricted by the Congress--but an amendment--one amendment would be all that was necessary to return a check and balance on the Federal Government, give the States what the 9th and 10th Amendments reserved to them. Two- thirds of the States make application, Congress shall call in a convention for proposing amendments--not rewriting the Constitution. And this is a procedural issue that the Supreme Court has always said, with regard to procedural issues, That's political. It's procedural. Congress, you do it however you want to. We're not touching that. We're not going to issue a decision. That's what this should be. This is how we return control and some sense of order to the States.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this government takeover of health care in this so-called health care bill.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I would ask my colleagues across the aisle--sometimes I raise my voice. I'm not going to do this, so I need you to listen. I'm very sincere. I know that there are some wonderful-hearted people that have been standing against this bill from a pro-life position. They're good hearts. But they've been sold a bill of goods. You don't have to believe me. I had an incredible non-reversal rate as a judge and chief justice; as a lawyer very successful. But let me tell you, there are people waiting to get the executive order struck down the moment it is signed. You needed to hear from somebody who understands your heart and understands where you're coming from. The executive order won't work. Then in the end, your standout will have been for nothing. Please take another look at it. This is the wrong thing to have your vote swayed by. You can't say you weren't warned.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. The first thing that kicks in are taxes. They kick in immediately. And I know you've dealt with the grass roots. You've been part of the local communities and business community, and the gentleman knows what it is to make a bottom line. Right now in this economy, can you envision what happens with additional taxes, say an additional 8 percent payroll tax on some of the people you've been hearing from and talking to? And I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield for a question? You know, the President has been promising Members on the other side, if you will just pass this bill--Speaker Pelosi has been promising people on the other side, if you will just pass this bill, then between now and November, there are going to be things in this bill that kick in that are going to make America love you and want to vote for you in November. And I was just curious if the gentleman knows what the biggest thing is that kicks in immediately in this bill between now and election time.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Georgia so much. We have also been joined by another Member of Congress, he just has been doing an amazing job, really so powerful. He knows the President firsthand, having debated him back in Illinois in the legislature there. Has great insight himself. I would like to yield such time as the gentleman from Illinois may use.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Illinois so very much. And, you know, I've been talking to people all over my district, and of course today with tens of thousands of people going through the crowds and hearing from people, talking to people, it has been staggering. But I had a conversation last night before I came to the floor with a gentleman in a small business. He has under 20 employees, but he was saying, In my 25 years in this business, I have never been so on the bubble as I am right now. I'm hanging on by my fingernails. You put a 2 percent tax on me, much less an 8 percent payroll tax on me, I'm done. I'm out of business, and everybody that works for me is out of business. And when the number one concern in America is the economy, jobs, and really not just jobs, but careers--we're destroying careers here. They said, Well, people want jobs. No. They need careers. We're destroying them right and left. Here's an article this week about Caterpillar. They wrote to the President. They said, Please, don't do this. This will cost us a hundred million dollars in the first year. How do you think a company that is in--you know, they're doing okay. They're the world's largest manufacturer of construction equipment, but they have said they're barely hanging on. The President went to Caterpillar and said they're barely hanging on; we're going to help them. How is helping them putting another hundred million dollar burden on them? That may drive Caterpillar overseas like we have done to so many businesses. But I'm telling you, my heart breaks for these businesspeople who love their employees that have been with them for a long time, and we're hearing, I don't want to lose my employees. I'm either going to have to close down, have my employees take dramatic pay cuts at a time they sure can't afford it, or I'm out of business. Those are the choices I got. I appreciate my friend, Dr. Burgess, a medical doctor, being here with probably more experience in reviewing the alternatives in health care. I would like to yield him such time as he may use.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend, Dr. Burgess. And I can assure my friend that it was not indulgence. It is a pleasure and honor to hear someone so knowledgeable about this very issue that is supposedly being brought to a vote tomorrow. This is big. And if people had heard the President talk back in 2007 and going into this campaign for President in 2008, he made very clear, he has made it very clear that he would sign a bill like this that would be the first step towards socialized medicine. He said this will be the first step. Canada didn't get there in just one step. You need this step, and then you can transition into full--what is really socialized medicine. And in his speech today, to encourage Democrats to get on board, he said these words: ``This is the single most important step that we have taken on health care since Medicare.'' Absolutely. Absolutely it is. And that is the step he was talking about 2 years ago, that this is the first step, and then we move into full socialized medicine where the Federal Government controls everything about your health care. It is a huge step. It is a devastating step. And so you have to think that if there are those Democrats that are still trying to decide between ``yes'' and ``no,'' you really should think, what is--the President is saying all this good stuff will happen between now and November. Well, there may be a credit here or there, but when my friends that have talked to me about being so close between closing their business, being out of business, and hiring another employee and moving forward, when they get hit with an 8 percent payroll tax and have to go out of business and lay off everybody, or stay in business at a dramatically reduced level and lay off individuals, cut salaries, and those people can't pay their bills and then we lose more mortgages, I don't think people are going to be in a good mood come November. Now, I know Art Laffer has said--and he is such a brilliant economist--that it is possible that the economy could start improving for one reason, and that is that next January the biggest tax increase in American history will hit, and it will absolutely devastate the economy. So it could be that toward the end of the year, as people start moving to get ready for the massive increase in capital gains and all of the income tax rates that go up, that it may look right before the election like we are starting to have a recovery. Maybe so. But, on the other hand, when you start adding all these taxes now, that changes the equation. And how our Democratic friends and CBO can tell people with a straight face this pays for itself, when you have got 10 years of income to pay for 6 or 7 years of health care. And then we are told, Yeah, but in the second 10 years it really starts to pay for itself. That has never happened. Do you think Congress is going to sit back and do nothing for the next 20 years and just wait and see for 20 years if things fix themselves? The Soviet Union didn't get that chance. When they started spending money like this first on the Afghan war and then on the missile defense system, they ran out of money. Nobody would loan them money. They couldn't print it fast enough. They went out of business. When the President said in his comments these words: ``For example, instead of having five tests when you go to the doctor, you just get one.'' He was being very truthful. Thank God, my mother had many tests over a period of 6 days before they found her brain tumor and she didn't just have one. I do appreciate the President saying in his speech today the words that, ultimately, the truth will come out. I believe he is right, and it will be devastating for those who were pushing through this government control. And toward the end of his--well, actually there was a lot more speech, but I will just finish with one other mention regarding the President's speech. He says, ``Now, I cannot guarantee that this is good politics.'' That is very true. You vote for this. I know some people may have districts where they are used to having everything given to them, entitlement districts, and they will need to vote for it because they are used to entitlements. But elsewhere, it is not going to be good politics, and you are looking at the end of some political careers here, unless the President has agreed to give them jobs when they lose their seat. But you know, this deal with Caterpillar, they are saying they are going to lose $100 million in the first year. I have heard about States, like one Goodyear plant in Alabama where the State and local came together and offered $51 million just to keep the people there and keep the plant open. This bill is going to cost them $100 million, cost Caterpillar $100 million. We are going to charge them $100 million. Do you think companies are going to be able to stay long like that? And I just want to finish up in my time tonight going back in history, just to remind people before this terrible vote tomorrow. Hopefully, the American people will prevail, people will lose their nerve to force this economy and the health care off a cliff, and then we can come back and we can work together. We can provide real solutions. We have got lots of good ideas. Just let us work together with you to do that, instead of having the President say, as he did at our retreat, I have read all your bills. You know, there is a thing or two. But I have read them. He had not read our bills. He has not read all our bills. We have got lots of things that could be considered. But you go back to the founding of this country. In 1783, the Articles of Confederation didn't work. They were too loosely woven, no common currency, a lot of problems, so it was falling apart. In 1787, we had the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. They talked George Washington into coming back and presiding. He had done what no man had ever done in the history of the world before or since: he led a revolutionary military, won the Revolution, resigned, and went home. He said: I did what you asked. Well, in 1787 they are telling him: if you don't come back and preside, the 13 States are not going to come back. We are done. The country is over. But all 13 States have agreed to come back if you will promise to preside over the Constitutional Convention. I mean, what a testimonial for a man--a man of integrity--that he was so beloved. If he would come back, they would come back. They won't come back for anybody else. They knew he was a man who could walk away with power and never look back, because he had done it. The Convention goes on in Philadelphia. They put blankets over the windows to keep people from looking in and people being distracted looking out, and there was bickering and arguing. It went on and on for nearly 5 weeks. At that point, Benjamin Franklin was 80 years old. He was a little over 2 years away from meeting his Maker, meeting his Judge, meeting his Creator. Yes, he had sowed some wild oats in his life, and some people thought he was a deist. That's someone who believes God created things or something happened to create things and then that being has stepped back and never done anything, basically. Well, what some people call a deist today was recognized. He knew he was a couple years more away from meeting his Maker. Witty and brilliant as ever, he stood up and said these words--well, he started by saying, We've been meeting for nearly 5 weeks. We've accomplished basically nothing. We have more noes than ayes on these votes. Then I want to use his exact words taken down by James Madison. ``In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not once hitherto thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate understanding? In the beginning contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.'' Benjamin Franklin went on. He said, ``All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind of providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?'' Ben Franklin then went on and said, ``I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing, that `except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' Firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. ``We shall be divided by our little partial local interest; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. ``I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in the assembly every morning before we proceed to business.'' After that, seconded by Mr. Sherman, it was unanimously adopted, and, from then to today, we have prayer to begin our sessions in here. But, oh, if we could ever come back together as a group and, as the very first Congress did, join and pray together as they did on their knees and come together. As one wrote to his wife, It was such a moving, powerful prayer time, even the surly old Quakers had tears in their eyes. This is an important time. I thank God for those who have come and made their voices known this weekend. I thank God for the blessings with which we have been enriched, and I hope that people across America will pray to that same God Ben Franklin referred to and that he will move in the hearts of people in Congress that they will do the thing that will bring us together and create a stronger Nation that can survive for another 200 years. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor any time to come speak, to have the privilege of speaking on the House floor. It's been a long day. It's been a long week. I fear there will be longer days, weeks, and years in the future if tomorrow this bill passes, because some of us have seen socialized medicine firsthand. As an exchange student in the Soviet Union, I have seen it back in 1973. I know where this all goes. I've seen where this plays out. And I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle believe their motivation is the highest and the best. I understand that. I understand our friends that are pushing for government control of health care honestly believe the country will be better off if they can only get all health care, health insurance under the control of the Federal Government, and everyone is better off. I know they believe that, and I know they believe that they are acting in everyone's best interest in pushing for this, but that is not the basis for the founding of this country. And for anyone that has read ``The 5,000 Year Leap,'' I was a history major, I pride myself on being a bit of a historian, and that book gave me an interesting perspective because for nearly 5,000 years when settlers came to a new area and settled down there, they came with basically the same tools. They tried to grow crops and live off the land; and for 5,000 years, there wasn't a whole lot of change. And then came this incredible experiment brought by people who, like the Pilgrims, came from Holland to England and then to America, people who came to get away from persecution as Christians. And they came here, and after that first horrible winter when the Pilgrims decided to try a new idea and give everybody private property and I live off what you grow, and you can sell or trade what you have left, and this private property concept began to grow and flourish, and free enterprise took over; and in just a few short years, relatively speaking in history, this country advanced more than the whole human race did in 5,000, just in a couple of hundred years. And it was the entrepreneurial spirit was given a chance to just grow and flourish. You see what happens when the government takes over health care. In those countries, they meant well. They thought this will be so much better, we will give government-type control choice, and it will be better for everybody. And then you come back to the statistics and we have been told so often that gee, Canada, Europe and England, their health care is so much better than ours. But you compare cancer rates, if you have cancer, you want to be in the United States because your odds of survival are so much better. Why? Because there is liberty and entrepreneurial spirit. There is more ability to take off and develop new things, more research and development right here in this country because of the basis on which we were founded. My dad was found to have prostate cancer back in the 1990s, and thank God he is still here. I lost my mother in 1991. But if you are found to have prostate cancer in America, you have a 92 percent chance of survival. If my dad had prostate cancer in England, he has a 50/50 chance of living. I know where I would want my father to live. Now there have been some horror stories that make all of us mad. The example of the lady who was denied coverage when the insurance company knew they should have had coverage, knew they should have provided it and they even had their own internal doctor say, yes, she is covered and you should provide the coverage or she will lose her baby, and they refused to provide coverage and she lost her baby and it went to the Supreme Court. And they said no because the Federal Government passed something called ERISA, and under that law, which is where her policy is, you can't sue for denial of coverage. There is a provision in here, and I am wondering if that is part of the deal that talked insurance companies, some of them, into buying into this monstrosity. I wonder. But there are coverages that will be covered under ERISA that may not have been covered under ERISA otherwise. As a former judge, those are cases that they filed in State district court. Immediately, the insurance lawyer comes and files for removal, they go to Federal court, and then they get dismissed. You can't sue them under ERISA for denial of coverage. So maybe that was one of the bargaining points for the insurance companies to sign on. I have seen some of the things that got the pharmaceutical companies to sign on because they were going to force people to buy prescription drugs that they could otherwise buy over-the-counter generic. I have seen those deals. It has been an extraordinary day. My friend referred to perhaps 20,000. If you look at the area that was filled with people today, and I have heard the park estimates that area, when it is full, is at least 80,000, and that is what it appeared to me to be. It was an amazing day. People want their liberty. They don't want the government to control their health care records. They don't want the IRS to be the extension of the government of the health care that is going to tell them what they can and can't do. And of course the big news of the week was when we learned that CBO said it was going to cost around $10 billion to hire around 17,000 new IRS agents because those are the agents that are going to monitor everyone to make sure you are doing exactly what the government in this monstrous bill is telling them to do. I don't want this. When you look at the survival rates, whether it is cancer or heart disease, it is better here. You have a heart problem, you go have heart surgery, and they can't turn you down because you don't have insurance. I had a gentleman in east Texas from Canada tell me his father died because he lived in Canada and under the Canadian system, when he was found to need a bypass, they put him on a list where he stayed for 2 years because the Canadian system they had bureaucrats, under their bill, about like this, that moved people in front of him on the list and he died waiting to get his bypass. You don't wait 2 years to get a bypass in the United States. But there have been abuses. We need to deal with those. We can fix those. I have a health care bill that I filed, and I have got this amended version. I have been trying to get my health care bill scored since last summer. I think so much of Newt Gingrich. He said, Man, you have got to get that scored. That ought to score well, and it could change the whole debate on health care reform because there are a lot of free market ideas that put insurance companies out from between us and our doctors. It tells seniors, you can have your Medicare and your Medicaid if you want them; or, and it is going to be cheaper for the government, we will give you $3,500 cash in your own debit card account, HSA account, health savings account, you control it with a debit card, and we will buy you private insurance to cover everything above that. There are all kinds of good ideas. I see friends on the floor here that have brought some fantastic ideas. No one has done more in working to reform health care than Dr. Michael Burgess over here, but those ideas have been shut out. I would like to recognize my friend from Georgia who was a member of the legislature in Georgia. He has dealt with these issues. He has been in the debate on these issues and heard hearings on these issues. I would like to yield to him.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank you and I appreciate the insightful words from the gentleman from Iowa, the gentlelady from Minnesota. One of our friends commented earlier tonight that America is a Nation of entrepreneurs. Thank God, it used to be. Thank God, it could be again. But with the oppressiveness that the Federal Government has put on entrepreneurs and people who would do well and start businesses, they are making it next to impossible, because an entrepreneur needs capital. Normally, they have to borrow capital. This Federal Government is sucking the capital out of the country and not leaving anything for entrepreneurs to borrow capital. So I hear people every day I'm back in the district saying, I can't get loans like I need to keep my business going. I sure can't add anybody on--not that I could right now. I'm hearing over and over they're just trying to hang on, hoping the health care gets defeated, the cap-and-trade bill gets defeated. You look at what is being done, just the atrociousness of the things that are in these bills. You look at what this bill effectively does. This monstrosity here, this is the Senate bill. It's not the House bill. And when you base a bill starting with a lie, that's not a good place to start. But on the front page of this Senate bill it starts with a lie. The Constitution, heaven forbid that anybody should refer back to it, the Constitution indicates that all revenue-generating bills must begin in the House. Well, the Senate didn't like the House bill. So they knew there was too much they wanted to do different in their bill. So what they did, they took--and it's on the front of the Senate bill. As it says: In the Senate of the United States, December 24, 2009, as they did it on Christmas Eve. What a sad thing to do on Christmas Eve. Resolved, that the bill from the House of Representatives, H.R. 3590, entitled: An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees and for such other purposes, do pass with the following amendments. That's how this starts. That's how this atrocious health care bill that usurps, sucks the capital out of the country, it sucks the authority out of the States, it mandates oppressiveness upon people who would be entrepreneurs. And it starts with a lie. And now we're told we're going to have a rule. Normally, a rule, anyone can ask--well, if no one objects, then we do not read the bill. But if there's any objection, then they have to read the entire bill. The rule, as I understand it, deems that there can be no reading of the bill; that it's already been read. It is deeming that the bill has been read. Not only that, once the procedural rule of how many minutes for debate and those kind of things is passed, then the bill--they will be deeming the bill passed. It's atrocious. But I looked at this quote that I carry with me most of the time. I have a number of quotes that I carry in my suit pocket. And this one is from George Washington, when he said, Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. And so as we have looked at this, and I know my friends from Iowa and Minnesota remember President Obama going to the Caterpillar headquarters. Caterpillar is the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer--the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer. And it's in the news today that Caterpillar has sent a letter to the President, Speaker Pelosi, and other leaders, urging lawmakers to vote against the plan ``because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees, and retirees.'' The article here, this is from Chicago Breaking Business. Boy, is that true, Chicago Breaking Business, and business is about to be broke here. This is a quote from the letter, We can ill afford cost increases that places us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors. It says, We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we have raised throughout the year. The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent or more than a $100 million dollars just in the first year. This is just incredible the Federal Government would do this to our largest manufacturer of construction equipment. I mean they have done so much to drive our businesses overseas. ``Bye-bye jobs.'' This is another reason economists have told us that if this bill passes, signed into law on Sunday, 5 million jobs will be gone. The article notes that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and value of health care, but unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House or Senate nor the President's proposal meets these goals. It's going to bankrupt this company. They're going to have to go overseas. All these wonderful American workers that are doing such a great job will see their jobs go overseas. And it brought me back to what my friends know, and I know my friend from Iowa and I have spent a great deal of time going back through the original Declaration of Independence. And if I could, just briefly, I would like to touch on a few things in that and see if instead of King George III, if this doesn't fit what the Federal Government is doing to the States and the people. And keep in mind the Ninth Amendment says, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. They did not intend for the Federal Government to have all this power. They knew that most power would be retained by the people. And the 10th Amendment says, The powers not delegated, specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. With that in mind, remember the Declaration of Independence says governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. They point out that the history of the present King of Great Britain--in our case, the Federal Government--is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations. We see them every day in this body, usurpations of the States and the people's rights. But the Declaration says, All having in direct object the establishment of absolute tyranny over the States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. And one of the things it said is about the King-- think about our Federal Government: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation until his assent should be obtained. And when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. We have heard from nearly 40 States who say, You can't do this to us. You're usurping the powers reserved under the Constitution to the States and the people. You're taking those away. We're ready to file a lawsuit as soon as you pass this unholy bill come Sunday. Sunday, the Lord's day, we're going to pass an unholy bill like this, when the vast majority of the States, over two-thirds of the States, are saying this is wrong. You're usurping our power. You can't do this. It's what they said in the Declaration. Goodness. And the Declaration goes on, He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Well, how about that? A new article today that happened to be in the paper talking about just that very thing. Isn't it interesting? This is in the news today--yesterday, I'm sorry--from the Hill. It says, Assuming this bill becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need around $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform or, as the Declaration of Independence called it, to harass our people and eat out of their substance. They're going to take tax dollars in order to create 17,000 new IRS agents to go out and harass the people and eat out of their substance. The Declaration goes on: He has combined with others to subject us to jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, given his assent to their acts of portended legislation. We see that in things that this White House is proposing; that we're going to give Interpol, a foreign intelligence group, the same rights our own intelligence people have in this country. And another point. We're suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. It goes on: In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of free people. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. For support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Man, the power in there. The power in that. And out from that, John Adams wrote this letter to Abigail. On July 4th he wrote her, and he said at the end, You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I'm not. I'm well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration and to support and defend these States, yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, which I trust in God. Anyway, these are powerful things, and these are on our shoulders to protect the States and the people's rights and not to continue to usurp what was so graciously entrusted to us and to make sure the States had us protected. I thank my friend, and I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard that by standing in the way of this fictitious health care, so-called reform bill, we're killing people. Here's a chart that tells you who dies. If you have prostate cancer, you want to be in the United States under our system right now. You've got a 91 percent chance of survival. If you're in England, 51 percent chance of survival. You want to talk about killing people? This will kill people--not because you're denied coverage, but because you're put on a list and you die waiting for protection. I'm not standing with the insurance companies. We have insurance companies that are endorsing this bill. They're standing with the Democrats. Big pharmaceutical companies are standing with the Democrats. Who's standing with who? We're standing with the people that want health care that's affordable, that they control. We want the government and insurance companies both out from between patients and doctors.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the misstatements that have been made. I am also tired of the partisan bickering. I came in thinking that the Democrats who said, We want to work together, were serious. We have been locked out of every single discussion except when the President came to preach to us, and he misrepresented it. Not intentionally, not lying, perhaps somebody who gave him the information was, but he wasn't. This bill that we're going to vote on starts with a lie. It says, This is an act that will modify first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and other purposes. It started with deceit. Telling people they are going to have insurance, man, if that's true, if we can save money by adding 30 million people to our rolls, we need to go insure everybody in China and then we will be done with the deficit. This bill is a disaster. Seventy-plus percent of the American people want us to throw it out and start over. Let's listen to the people.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I do appreciate my friend across the aisle earlier saying that all lies and distortion must stop, and I am glad that he has finally agreed with us on that proposition. It is important, because, for one thing, people have been misled about what this bill does and doesn't do. I heard one of my friends across the aisle yesterday saying, Gee, great news. I've got 25 names of religious leaders who are pro-life who have now taken a look, and they've said this is okay. As a pro-life person, I don't believe this changes existing law. They look at page 119, and they see under subparagraph capital B, little I: Abortions for which public funding is prohibited. The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, and based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved. So they look at that and say, Oh, okay, that doesn't change existing law. That's great. And they don't look over to page 124 that says, Under this bill you have to provide insurance policies that will actually cover--it says here--there is at least one plan that provides coverage of services described in clause little I of subparagraph B. That's the one that says you can't use Federal funds to pay for abortion. And a few pages over it says you have to provide these policies that will fund abortions from the paragraph we said we won't fund. That's the kind of gamesmanship that's in here, and people will suffer as a result. That's just a small example. Now we hear over and over that you guys are killing people by not letting them have this plan that we've got for them. Well, we heard the President say in 2007, Gee, the first step will be--this bill is actually what we're talking about passing here. That will be the first step, and then there will be the transition basically into full socialized medicine. He said Canada had to start with this kind of bill and then go to the full socialized medicine. Well, let's look at what they did. Here you find out that if you want to die quicker from cancer than any other country, don't come to the United States because you'll live longer here. Folks, that's just not right. I have a bill that does the things that we're talking about, and Newt Gingrich told me back in June, Man, that will revolutionize the discussion of health care. I've been trying since June to get that scored, and I can't get it scored. I'm shut out. Oh, yeah, they're objective. They'll snap their fingers. They'll get you a CBO score the next day, but not for this Republican, even with the support of all the people they said I needed to get it scored. Let's get fair for a change.