Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. That is indeed my understanding.

Mr. GOHMERT. A judge, and was briefly chief justice of an intermediary court filling an unexpired term. And that is my understanding. But I also know the gentleman from California was the highest ranking legal officer in the State of California and very articulately has set out his, as well as my, understanding. But I am curious as to the gentleman's opinion of whether or not this really meets constitutional muster. Nobody knows what the Supreme Court would do. Some project maybe 5 or 6 years before it got there, since we were unsuccessful in getting any fast track in the House version or the Senate version.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentlemen. My time has expired.

Mr. GOHMERT. That is such a great point. I was talking with some of my constituents this past weekend who are scared to death this thing is going to pass. Some of them work for lower wages, and they are on their spouse's insurance with their employer. There are companies that exist only because they are able to hire people who don't need health insurance, and so they are able to hire them without providing health insurance. Under the bill, they are going to get hit with an 8 percent tax. And I'm hearing employers say, we can't pay the 8 percent tax. They've either got to take an 8 percent cut or lay people off. There's been one estimate confirmed by a number of people that if this bill passes, if this bill becomes law at the worst time conceivable, more Americans out of work than ever in history, it will put 5\1/2\ million people out of work. This is incredible. I have heard friends across the aisle talk about how important it is to help the working poor, the lower middle class, that is who we really want to help. Under the bill, if they can't afford the mandated type of insurance, then they are going to get hit with an additional tax, the very people that can't afford it. In addition to that, they are going to be hit with other taxes to help pay for this bill. It is not a friend of the working poor in America. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GOHMERT. That they can't get on any other bill itself. It makes no sense.

Mr. GOHMERT. That is exactly right.

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is exactly right. And I want to emphasize how important the Stupak language was. We did hear our friends across the aisle say, look, there is no money that will be allowed under the House bill for abortion. And I know they believe that when they said it or they really wouldn't have said it. The trouble is one of the problems in this body is we have ended up having such massive bills come so fast that people do not read the bills, because on page 110 of the very bill that was under debate that the Stupak amendment was to address, this is page 110, subsection 4b, the subsection titled, ``Abortions For Which Public Funding is Allowed,'' then it goes on to say the services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, and then it goes and sets out conditions. The point is they hadn't read that bill or they would never have gotten up and said, there is no money in this bill for Federal tax dollars for abortion. It was there, and it is there if you don't have the Stupak amendment.

Mr. GOHMERT. We have a friend from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. Do you have anything to add on that point?

Mr. GOHMERT. I want to yield more time to my friend from California.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman for the question. It's a great question because we know when Scott Brown was elected, he said, I'm the 41st vote against this. There are not 60 votes to do what they are saying, which as you're pointing out, the Stupak amendment--if our pro- life friends across the aisle were to get talked into voting for the Senate bill as is, on the promise that, oh, gee, we will bring that amendment up, and we are sure it will pass--I just don't see how anybody can make that claim because it has already been made clear at the other end of the Hall that they are not getting 60 votes to do it.

Mr. GOHMERT. No, they don't. And there is no reason to believe that anything could happen other than what we've already seen. They're not going to have 60 votes to do it, which is why they are trying to do it on a reconciliation gimmick.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it is hard to know; but I believe if the Speaker tells Bart Stupak, we are going to get the amendment, your Stupak amendment passed in the House through reconciliation, we'll get it done, and we should get it done in the Senate, I'm sure if she tells him that she will get it done in the House, then she probably will. But there is no way on this Earth that she can guarantee what will happen in the Senate because it's not going to happen.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. What you're talking about is exactly what Thomas Jefferson talked about when he said the natural course of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain. And I thought Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal made a great point this morning, in talking with him, when he said, people inherently know in America that if you add 30 million people to the same health care coverage you're not going to save money. If you were to save money by adding 30 million people to our health insurance or Medicare, then, as he said, we might as well say, you know what? We'll insure everybody in China, and that will get us out of the deficit. It's not true; it doesn't work. We've got to be practical and stop government from taking over where liberty is yielding.

Mr. GOHMERT. That's actually a lot cheaper than what we're doing now. It would save money. But let me just say this: I know a lot of people kowtow to CBO. Let me tell you that in this Congress--and the director has called me and said, Oh, we are very objective. And I know they do the best they can to being objective. But I'm telling you, since he got woodshedded at the White House, let me tell you, there have been I believe it's been 56 health care bills that have been scored by CBO. We have about 70 bills from Republican Study Committee members to reform health care. Seventy bills, they are bills. And you know how many we have gotten scored on the Republican side? Six, six bills. I have been begging and writing all kinds of ways. I have had ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, Joe Barton, request my bill be scored. I've had Dave Camp when they said, Well, you don't have the Joint Commission ranking member. Well, then, Dave Camp requested. I can't get it scored. And I realize by making a big deal about CBO not scoring Republican plans, that they may say, Oh, Gohmert, we'll take your bill, and we'll score it, and you're not going to like the way it comes out. I realize that's a risk. But I'm telling you, it has been so abusive that CBO has done virtually nothing. About a tenth of the Republican bills that they have scored are Democratic bills. And if they want to bring some equity to this and some objectiveness, it is time CBO started scoring Republican bills and not just Democratic bills. I had to get that out.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it's because it's not friendly. I was privileged back in 1973 for the summer to be an exchange student in the Soviet Union. I saw socialized medicine firsthand, and that's where this is going. It's socialized medicine where the government controls it. I don't want the insurance companies between me and my doctor, and that means I also don't want any of that just massive amount of government between me and my doctor, but that's where this takes us. And you wonder, Why would a group risk losing the majority in Congress to pass a bill like this when they know what's at stake politically? And the answer is, it puts in place so much government that once it's in place, it won't matter which party is in the majority. It's kind of like the Department of Education or other things that are not enumerated powers in the Constitution. Once it's there, you can't do anything about it. The school districts lose billions of dollars over the years that have been usurped by just a bureaucracy in Washington. It's going to happen with health care. And just quickly, let me tell you, what inspired me to get with professionals, health care professionals, economists to come up with a solution was, when I saw that if you added together the amount of money we spend on Medicare and Medicaid and divide that by the total number of households in all of the United States, it's an average of over $10,000 from every household in America to fund Medicare and Medicaid. When I saw that, I was thinking, My goodness, all that government, all that we're paying for, we're better off if we said to every household that has people on Medicare or Medicaid or even SCHIP, here's $3,500 cash from the Federal Government in a health savings account you control with a debit card, and we will buy you private insurance that's catastrophic care to cover everything above that. You don't have to buy any more supplemental coverage or wraparound coverage. And I know that scares AARP because they made a lot of money off of that supplemental insurance. But this will help seniors. You give them a choice. You want to keep having Medicare, you want to keep having Medicaid, or do you want us to give you cash you control and get the insurance company and the government out between you and your doctor? And I think people, when you give them that voluntary choice, they will make the choices that will save us from bankruptcy that Medicare is driving us to. I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT. And as we understand now, in 2005, Senator Obama was moving forward, campaigning, moving toward a Presidential run. But I tell you, it just blessed my heart to hear President Obama say in the summit at the Blair House, when he said to Senator McCain, We're not campaigning any more. I said, Hallelujah. The President's going to stop campaigning. I tell you, that was such good news to me because that means the President's going to quit campaigning and just try to govern. If he were to going to campaign, he would probably have gone off to who knows where--Missouri or somewhere today--and given another speech. The fact that we're not campaigning anymore means he's back here trying to figure out how we can reform health care without cramming it down the throats of 60 to 70 percent of Americans that don't want this bad medicine that's about to be rammed down their throat.

Mr. GOHMERT. That's right.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I think there's actually great wisdom in what President Obama said that's on the chart right behind you, and that is, Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt. The President called that exactly right. I need to ask my friend, I can't see the date there. Was that last week that he said that? When was that?

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, looking at the chart you have there that has the quote on it about reconciliation, it brings us back to what is being discussed. The reporters all out here in the hall have been there for much of the night, and they are starting to go away because apparently they think there is not going to be any agreement. But what people need to understand is what is being pushed here called reconciliation. What a misnomer. Reconcile? That is not what happens. The Senate has passed a bill, and they are not going to get 60 votes to do a new bill, so they are trying to push the House into passing exactly what the Senate did. But we have got fine, upstanding pro- lifers like Bart Stupak and a dozen others, and they say if you are going to have a bill that pries tax money out of the hands of people who believe with all their heart, as I do, that it is immoral to kill unborn children, and you are going to take their money and use it to do that, then we can't vote for this bill. So what we hear being discussed is, Well, if you will just vote for the Senate bill that allows the government to take away taxpayer money and use it for abortions, then we may be able to get you an amendment to come back. It has to be signed into law, has to become law before you can amend it, but then we may be able to amend that to then put in the Stupak language that prevents tax dollars from being used for abortion. But the thing that our colleagues have to understand is please don't get roped into that. The Speaker knows how the process works. But if it becomes law and the bill provides for the funding of abortion, you may or may not get the amendment passed. It may pass through the House, but then the Senate has to pass it, and there is no way anyone in the House can guarantee what the Senate will do. Then the people who everybody, well-intentioned, no intention to deceive, but anyway, the bottom line is they end up not getting what they are promised, not because of deception. It just doesn't happen.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in tribute to Charlie Wilson. He was a constituent of mine. He was an inspiration to me. For those that don't know, he was born in Trinity, Texas, and had education at Sam Houston State University, but he also attended the U.S. Naval Academy. He loved this country. He was willing to lay down his life for this country. Between 1956 and 1960, Charlie Wilson served in the United States Navy, obtained the rank of lieutenant, and the man knew about defending America. It was a part of his heart and soul and was something he carried with him throughout his life. His political career began in 1960 when he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives. And as my friend Mr. Edwards mentioned, the official version is that it began in 1960 when he was elected to the House of Representatives in Texas, but actually, it did begin when his neighbor poisoned his dog, and Charlie got so active as a young high school kid that he started taking people to the polls to make sure there were enough people to defeat the man that poisoned his dog. That was really his start in politics. But he saw what one person could do if they were determined enough and sincere enough and gave it their all. But to give a little more of his history, he served in the Texas House of Representatives for 6 years and was then elected to the Texas Senate in 1960. Then in 1972, the Second Congressional District of Texas elected Charlie to the U.S. House of Representatives. And it wasn't until 1996 that he decided not to run again. The slogan that he used throughout his campaign--it really pretty well summarized the man, ``Wilson gets it done,'' and Charlie did. He is from what some people call the Bible Belt, and what I've heard from constituents many times is, Yes, we knew about Charlie's issues, but the thing about Charlie, he was always honest about them. And I will never forget when we were naming the VA clinic for the man who is the reason it's in Lufkin, Texas. The VA Secretary came and he spoke, and then I had the honor of introducing Charlie, and Charlie got up and he was really emotional. He told the crowd there--there was a huge crowd there that assembled in his honor there at the civic center--and he said very emotionally, I love you people. Sixteen times you overlooked my personal indiscretions and allowed me to represent you. Now, there are not many politicians that would stand up and say, You overlooked my personal indiscretions 16 times and let me represent you, but Charlie did. That was Charlie, and he made no bones about who he was or what he was. And in fact, when Tip O'Neill had put him on the Ethics Committee and a reporter said, Well, what are you doing on the Ethics Committee? He responded a famous quote: ``Well, I love women, and I love whiskey, and we deserve to be represented on that committee too.'' He made no bones about it. His constituents loved him. He was always honest about things, and that goes so far, and everyone should take notice of that fact, that America loves people who are honest with them. He took care of his seniors. I heard that over and over. You know, Charlie Wilson took care of those who couldn't take care of themselves. And it was one of the reasons that people loved him in east Texas, and it's one of the things that inspires me, having seen what he did. You know, here I was a Republican, he was a Democrat. He always made time if I had questions: What do you think about Afghanistan? Because nobody knew more about Afghanistan than Charlie. He always had sage advice, and I really appreciated that. And I would like to also quote Jim Turner that followed Charlie in Congress. Jim described him as a dedicated public servant who fought hard for the people of his district. And I would just like to also pay tribute--and I know that Barbara, his widow, is still mourning his loss and will for a long time to come. Barbara Wilson made a difference in Charlie's life. Barbara sustained and prolonged Charlie's life. He loved her. He loved her family. They loved him. And she made a difference in his life, just as he made a difference in this country. Just as Charlie showed what one man can do when he puts his mind to it, this body ought to always be inspired by the memory of the great, late Charlie Wilson.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. GOHMERT. That is absolutely correct. And we just have a few minutes left, let me finish the 10 here. Number six, ``Protect taxpayers from funding of abortion or abortion coverage.'' And one might wonder, well, is the President really on board with that? He has said it more than once. He said it standing right there at that podium right behind the gentleman from Missouri that no abortions would be funded by Federal tax dollars. Well, this is just getting him to agree, if he would, to what he said was the real case. Number seven, ``Reject all new mandates on patients, employers, individuals or States.'' Now, the President, in his speech today, said we want to loosen all the controls on insurance. No, we want to loosen the controls on patients; that's what we want to loosen. Patients need more control, not the insurance companies and not the government. And then eight, ``Prohibit expansion of taxpayer-funded health care to those unlawfully present in the United States.'' One of the things in my bill, if you're going to get a visa to come into this country, then you will do--and some countries already require it--then you have to show that you will have health care insurance coverage while you're in this country or you don't get a visa. And if your health care insurance expires while you're here, the visa does too--you've gotta go. It also provides that since we've been told there are probably 1.5 billion people in the world that would love to emigrate to the United States--and that would destroy this country because we can't handle that many immigrants, even temporarily. We can't let people bankrupt this country, and therefore, another provision in my bill says, if you're illegally in this country and you present for health care--we believe in following the law, the courts have said it, we believe we've followed the law--we will provide you health care coverage even if you're illegally here that one time. And when you're well enough to travel, you're going to be deported. And if you're ever found back in this country again after you were here illegally and got free health care, it's a prison sentence. We can't let people bankrupt this country or there is no hope for those other 1.5 billion that want to at least come here at some point. And then number nine, ``Guarantee equal protection under the law and the Constitution.'' Ten, ``Empower, rather than limit, an open and accessible marketplace of health care choice and opportunity.'' I know the Speaker knows that we begin our practice every day with prayer, and that it goes back to 1787--I believe it was June 28 at the Constitutional Convention. They had gone on for about 5 weeks and accomplished nothing. And some people say Ben Franklin was a deist. He said these words: ``I have lived, sir, a long time. And the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 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?'' He went on, and Franklin said, ``We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' He 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.'' And he went on to speak longer and then said, ``I, therefore, move henceforth we begin every day with prayer in this room.'' And from that day, June 28, 1787, to this day today that we are about to wrap up, we begin with prayer. So America works when people let their elected representatives hear from them and let them know their mind. It works when we do what Ben Franklin suggested. That doesn't sound like a deist. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT. Over 3,000 ``shalls,'' but that was a big little ``may'' there.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, and it is so important that people understand that. To say that no one will be denied care or coverage is accurate to a point, but the fact is they're told in Canada and England, gee, we're not going to deny you treatment or care, we just have to put you on this list. The gentleman brings up an important point about how much greater the survivability rates are in the United States from diseases like cancer, but some want to try to compare apples and onions and say they both taste and smell alike when they're not at all the same. The fact is, when you hear some people say, well, in this country--England, Canada, you know, these other countries--they apparently have much better health care, even though they have government-run health care, because people have a longer average life span. Well, that's not exactly fair to put that on the health care in the country because it's sad, but true, when you make those comparisons, we have a much higher murder rate in America than they do in England or Canada. Those numbers go into the statistics. Another involves what was explained by a health care expert that most countries do not include preemies, premature babies, the death of premature babies in their numbers. Well, we sure do here because every little baby born counts, premature or otherwise, unless it's one of those horrible tragedies where somebody aborts a baby and realizes they're alive and goes ahead and takes action to make sure they're killed or allowed to die on their own without proper care. But number four on the pledges of the Declaration of Health Care Independence is, ``Be negotiated publicly, transparently, with genuine accountability and oversight and be free from political favoritism.'' Well, we saw an effort last Thursday at the summit to look like there was going to be a publicly, transparently negotiated health care bill, but the President announced beforehand, here's the bill we're going with and the summary of what we're going to do to that, and the summary of the summary. It had all been negotiated behind closed doors. You had a union representative, an AARP representative who said, oh, we've already worked this out in secret behind closed doors where nobody saw what was negotiated. Now we're going to bring the Republicans in and put a little window dressing on it. Well, I don't know how many people or Members of Congress who are certified as mediators or have been through the certification process. It's pretty extensive to become an arbitrator, an international arbitrator, but I've been through those processes. And I can tell you that what happened last Thursday was not a negotiation or a mediation. It was structured to look like perhaps it was, with the President being the objective and all-caring mediator in the middle, but the trouble is the mediator kept cutting off one side when they said something that he didn't want to go there. I'll tell you the most gratifying comment to me that just touched me deeply--and I was so proud of the President because it meant a lot to me to hear him realize this--when John McCain was speaking and the President pointed out that the President had finally realized, for the first time since November of 2008, that we're not campaigning anymore. That meant a lot to me that the President finally realized it was time for him to quit campaigning and actually work on the bills rather than the campaign. But then, after that I read this weekend that the White House is already preparing the next campaign for 2012, so apparently maybe it only lasted a day or two they weren't campaigning. But number five, ``Treat private citizens at least as well as political officials.'' Well, Americans weren't fooled, went in--and this is just one volume; there are four volumes of this, the House bill, and I don't have time to pull out the other--but in there, to address America's concern that Congress was being treated more specially than rank-and-file citizens, they added a line in there that said, Under the Federal Insurance Exchange program, that Members of Congress may be covered under that if they want to be. Most people, no matter how low you read what was in the bill, they pick up on that pesky little word ``may.''

Mr. GOHMERT

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