we should not limit the ability to have flexibility in meeting the new rules. this amendment would mandate that you could only change that by increasing. i think, mr. chairman, that's the wrong way to go. i think the amendment is ill-advised. i urge rejection of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time on the amendment has expired. the question sont amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 113-374 on which proceedings were postponed in the following

order. amendment number 1 by mr. lowenthal of california. amendment number 2 by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113 inion 374 by -- 113-374 by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part bs before -- b of house report 113-374 offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188. the nays are 231. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in rt b of house report 113-374

by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 113-374 offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 196, the nays are 225. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rules, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill, h.r. 2824, and pursuant to house resolution 501 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. he chamber will be in order. he house will be in order.

he house will come to order. the chair will receive a message. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed, without amendment, h.r. 3771, an act cited as the philippines charitable giving assistance act. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the surface mining control and reclamation act of 1977 to stop the ongoing waste by the department of the interior, of

taxpayer resources and implement the final rule on excess spoil mining waste and buffers for perennial and intermittent streams and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman will suspend. he house will come to order. the chair will proceed when the house is in order. members, take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bera of

california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 2824, to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith, with the following amendment. page 3, after line 20, add the following, sections -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from ohio. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing ith the reading? without objection, the gentleman from california has five minutes. mr. bera: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a final amendment to the bill which will not kill thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, instead of voting

on divisive bills that threaten communities and the water supply with toxic mining waste, we need to focus on creating jobs, on getting unemployed americans back to work, particularly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman has a right to be heard. members take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bera: mr. speaker, we have no more urgent mission than getting our veterans back to work. that is our priority. american families want their leaders to work together, democrats and republicans, to rebuild an economy that works for the middle class. not more partisan politics. to date, over two million unemployed americans have been waiting for congress to restore federal emergency unemployment benefits since december. and among veterans who have served since 2001, the unemployment rate has hit 9%. this is disgraceful.

during these tough economic times, americans need to focus and congress needs to focus on getting americans back to work. this amendment would do just that. allowing priority hiring of veterans and those who have received unemployment insurance. to help create more jobs, we also need to make more products here in the united states. there's a greater opportunity for our people to make it in america if we make things in america. that means we need to focus on creating the best conditions for american businesses to manufacture their products, to innovate and to create jobs right here in the united states. already more and more u.s. companies are bringing overseas manufacturing back home. the american auto -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. we will proceed when the house is in order.

members in the badge, take their conversations off -- back, take their conversations off the floor. that includes the staff. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bera: let's continue to encourage these u.s. companies to continue to bring those jobs back here and to build things here in america. we've seen the american auto industry come back, apple computers, alternative energy companies, just to name a few. we need to continue to encourage these companies to make their products here. that's exactly what this amendment does. and it will help set us on a solid path forward to a future of greater economic competitiveness, more jobs and longstanding, long-term economic success. let's show the american people what our priorities are. it's about creating jobs and getting americans back to work and most importantly getting our veterans back to work. that's exactly what this amendment does. i urge the adoption of this important amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, this is simple. there are two competing views on the floor right now about the future of america. one side believes that the key to america remaining the leader of the free world starts with the robust american economy led by a strong and stable energy market. an america that then leverages a healthy america and a strong energy market to help allies across the globe like the ukraine, japan and others. an america that can go toe to toe with the russians as they leverage their energy resources to try to achieve their political ambitions. an america that creates energy jobs here at home in a way that

balances the duo need of a vibrant economy and a healthy environment. now, that other competing view would rather see american manufacturers and hardworking middle-class families pay more for their electricity. mr. speaker, that's not fair. the other side talks a big game , about being for an all-of-the-above energy policy, but every turn tries to shut down our fossil fuel production and use. the other side would rather shut down our cheapest and most reliable form of energy and the thousands of jobs that go with it in favor of taxpayers' subsidized windmills to heat our homes on cold days like today. and the other side's apparent unwillingness to leverage america's energy abundance to influence geopolitics is unwise. america's rivals and

adversaries are watching. mr. speaker, like i said, this is simple. what side of the coin do we want to stand on? the one that shoots ourself in the foot or the one that embraces our god-given energy advantage and leads? to me the choice is clear. i urge all of my colleagues to vote against this motion and vote for final passage and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. bera: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will advise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a five-minute vote on the motion to recommit and it will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if

ordered, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: on this vote the yeas are 197. the nays are 224. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. and members will please take their seats. the house will be in order.

members will please take their seats. the speaker: the chair wishes to reiterate the announcement of february 26, 2013, concerning floor practice. members should periodically rededicate themselves to the core principles of proper parliamentary practice that are so essential to maintaining order and deliverancey in the house and the chair believes that these bear emphasis today. members should refrain from trafficking in the well while another, including the presiding officer, is

addressing the house. members should wear appropriate business attire during all sittings of the house, however brief their appearance on the floor might be. and you know who you were. members who wish to speak on the floor should respectfully seek and obtain recognition from the presiding officer, taking time to do so in proper form, including one minutes. the proper form would be to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. members should take care to yield and reclaim time in an early fashion, bearing in mind that the official reporters of debate cannot properly transcribe two members simultaneously. and members should address their remarks in debate to the presiding officer, not to members in the second person or to some perceived viewing audience. members should not embellish the offering of a motion, the

entry of a request, the making of a point of order or the entry of an appeal with any statement of motive or other commentary and should be aware that such utterance should render the motion, the request or point of order or appeal as untimely. members should attempt to come to the floor within the 15-minute period as prescribed by the ringing of the bells. members should be advised that they're in the chamber attempting to vote the chair will try to accommodate them. but as a point of courtesy to each of your colleagues, voting within the allotted time would help with the maintenance of the institution. following these basic standards of practice will foster an atmosphere of mutual and institutional respect. it will ensure against personal confrontation amongst members or between members and the presiding officer. it will facilitate members' comprehension of and participation in the business

of the house. and it will enable accurate transcrippings of proceedings and in some it will ensure the comity that ensures deliberations above mere argument. the chair appreciates the attention of all the members to hese matters. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 229 and the nays are 192. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the approval -- to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the journ stands pproved.

the house will be in order. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to congratulate the college of engineering and computing at my alma mater, florida international university, f.i.u., on its 30th anniversary of proven excellence in producing high-quality graduates. the college was established with one mission in mind, to provide public access education to those interested in these fields and to serve as an instrument for

economic development in our vibrant south florida community. they have accomplished that and much more. from using nanotechnology to improve human health, to building superior bridges, people's lives across the country are impacted each and every day in a positive way through f.i.u.'s stem graduates. f.i.u. has also created programs to encourage students to pursue careers in stem fields. their latest approach was to create an accelerated technology magnet program that would prepare low income high school students for employment and educational options in computer science and information technology. i'm certain that f.i.u. will continue to lead and produce more skilled professionals in these fields. go, f.i.u., go, golden panthers. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today, march 25, to celebrate the 193rd anniversary of greek independence. in greek we say -- in recalling the day that the people threw ff the yolk of the at month -- ottoman empire and established greece as an independence empire. mr. sarbanes: modern greece has been a staunch and dependable ally of the united states. our relationship is based on shared democratic values and respect for individual freedoms. the spirit that guided the greek people in securing their freedom nearly 200 years ago resides within them still. it is the reason i am confident that greece will overcome the economic and humanitarian crisis that it faces today. the united states must and will stand as a strong partner in

greece's efforts to regain its footing, to take full advantage of new opportunities emerging in the eastern mediterranean and to move forward as a vital economic and cultural resource for pa critical region of the world. knowing that america and greece and together allow us to proclaim -- [speaking greek] i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the napoleon of siberia, putin, controls ukraine and other countries by holding their energy needs hostage. russia uses gas as a political and economic weapon to manipulate its neighbors. this does not have to be and the united states can change it. by selling european country ours

oil and gas, we can reduce their dependence on imperialistic russia. we have more gas than we can use in the united states and we can sell the gas to our allies in europe that would create jobs here in america and help our allies overseas. the same go for crude oil my amendment that passed the house foreign affairs committee today would require the state department to submit to congress within 90 days on the impact of our increased natural gas and crude oil exports, how they would have an effect on russia's economic and political influence over the ukraine and other european nations. the ukraine has to get their oil and gas from some place, let them buy american and make the russian bear putin and his energy irrelevant. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is

recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: as a member of the house agriculture committee i rise in support of the goals of national agriculture day which is today, march 25. agriculture remains the number one industry in the commonwealth of pennsylvania, supporting upwards of 63,000 family farms. generating more than $67 billion in economic impact, one in zen residents of pennsylvania work in the agriculture sector. while a good portion of america's population does not see firsthand where our food supply comes from, a wise man once told me we shake hands with a farmer at least three times a day this saying truly illustrates the importance of supporting agriculture but equally the importance of supporting the future of agriculture and our food security. i had the pleasure of meeting with two officers of the pennsylvania chapter of the future farmers of america earlier this morning. i commend them for their outreach efforts here in washington to promote the goals of national agriculture day. their advocacy and engaging the

next generation to become farmers is crucial to ensuring our country has the most affordable, highest quality, abundant and safest food supply in the world. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. bachmann: i rise today in celebration of national agriculture day but also today marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of a man who literally changed the world, his name is norman baurlog, he was born in an upstairs bedroom in northeast iowa 100 years ago today he went to the university of minnesota where he received a ph.d. degree in plant biology. while he was in a class dealing with plant genetics and the future options of increased food production, he had that moment of divine genius.

that's when the applied himself to work and norman, because of 6,000 experiments in difficult terrain, created a grain of wheat that literally changed the world. norman baurlag is rightly credited with saving the lives of over one billion people. one billion people on this earth. because he dedicated his life and persevered to create strains of wheat which would grow in india, pakistan, africa and places that never before could be able to hold a grain of wheat. he did that in east asia with rice. today we honor and recognize and celebrate the life of one american who did so much for a billion people across the world. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. this is an important day right across the street at the u.s. supreme court building. it's been interesting. in the past, most of the time i am aware of, when there was a matter coming before the preme court, they observed what's called reciprocity. just as if a u.s. senator wants to come down here and observe -- they can't speak on the floor but they can come to the house floor. same way we have reciprocity with the senate. we can go down to the senate and stand in the chamber and be there in person as i've done

when rand paul was doing -- filibuster. when ted cruz was doing what amounted to a filibuster. and with the supreme court, normally if there are members of congress that are going to be coming they'll reserve a bench, and there have been a couple of times that the bench was full and other members of congress filled those spaces before i got there. but it's been an observation that since this body is charged with funding the supreme court and providing what they need, determining what they don't really need, it's part of reciprocity that they provide those places to observe what's happening. i've been rather ambivalent. i can see both sides of the issues of cameras in the courtroom, because as a judge, murder trials, other things of interest, cameras -- networks would want to come.

film. we have very strict rules. only one camera in the courtroom. couldn't be worked on. could never be a distraction at all. but i saw how cameras could work in the courtroom without being any problem at all. but here in congress, i've very ch taken the position if the camera's going to be in the courtroom, leave it up to the courts. but with the united states supreme court, as i've seen this week, there would be no harm in having a camera in -- somewhere in the courtroom where people didn't notice so that americans could see, since we moved the supreme court to going an oligarchy, we can see whether they're sleeping, whether they're participating, whether they're asking stupid questions. i went over and since i've been

sworn in as a member of the supreme court bar, i was allowed to be in the overflow room to know what was going on. it was hard to tell who was addressing what during the case that the supreme court was hearing this morning, heard oral arguments on. but this is an extremely critical case, and i couldn't tell which judge asked the questions, but when the supreme court is in effect expressing concern through their questions that a corporation, a for-profit corporation could not possibly have religious -- firmly held religious beliefs, then it occurred to me, for heaven's sake, this justice department doesn't seem to have a problem indicting corporations. so if the justice department

can indict a corporation and say they have the intent to violate the law, that corporation could have intent with regard to violations of the law, it serum ought to be able to form the intent to have religious -- permanently held religious beliefs. but it was shocking. as i listened to questions from some of the supreme court stices today, when that is compared with the history of the united states of america and roger williams, for example, whose statue was moved last week, but how he formed rhode island because of his firmly held religious beliefs and his beliefs that there should be freedom of religion in america, where the government does not interfere n any way, you compare the

beliefs of the pilgrims who came from holland, to england and then here, they wanted religious freedoms so they could -- they could serve the god of abraham, isaac and jacob, they could follow their religious beliefs without being persecuted or any government to say you don't have any right to practice those beliefs, compared with the supreme court justices in effect saying, gee, they could just pay the fine and it would be a lot cheaper than $475 million in penalties they'll have to pay. and actually one justice had the nerve to say, i believe hat was called a tax and not a penalty, paul klemette was

doing a great job. my immediate thought was, no, the supreme court at page 15 of the majority opinion said clearly the mandate was a penalty, congress called it a penalty. it clearly was a penalty. it's only assessed if you don't do what the bill requires people to do is clearly a penalty and if it's a penalty, says page 15, we do have jurisdiction going forward because the supreme court pointed out if that mandate ere a tax, then in the injunction statute, the supreme court wouldn't have jurisdiction to proceed when they did and the plaintiffs that brought the case would not have had standing to bring the case. but they said since this is clearly a penalty and not a tax, then we can go forward because if it's a tax, the injunction tax kicks in.

but page 15, supreme court alled it a penalty and they in that opinion, apparently to the ignorance of at least one of our supreme court justices, the supreme court called it a penalty on page 15 because they quoted the congress calling it a penalty in obamacare and they said clearly it is a penalty. we have jurisdiction. we'll go ahead and determine the rest of the case. then you go over about 40 pages and then they determine, ok, now that we're hearing this -- because it's a personality and not a tax, we determine it's a tax and therefore it's constitutional. if we know under the rules of his house that supreme court judges would not do anything appropriate but, mr. speaker, i can tell you that opinion was indecent. it was a travesty. it was hypocritical, that decision was. how you can call it a penalty on page 15 and then with a

straight face 40 pages later say now it's a tax so it's constitutional and then stand -- sit, as they were today, and have a justice say, well, kind of snidly, we didn't call it a penalty. i mean, it was called a tax. depends on where you look in the majority opinion whether it was a penalty or a tax but congress clearly called it a penalty. i am very concerned. we had someone who was in a position with the executive branch when obamacare was put together and pushed here in congress and in her position at the executive branch that time she either had to be incompetent and failed to give the executive branch any advice on its most important bill that no advice was

given about this bill. either way that justice should not have been allowed to be on -- to hear this case as a member of the supreme court. because clearly -- and i think the questions that were apparently asked by her today show she was an advocate, is an advocate now and most likely was an advocate then in this administration. so this country's in trouble. i had my deer friend from minnesota here -- and i have my dear friend from minnesota here and i yield any such comments she might have. mr. bachus: well, i want to thank -- mrs. bachmann: well, i want to thank my friend from texas for allowing me to participate in this discussion. this is be a issue today. people on a political level are talking about obamacare and how obamacare is hurting our economy, it's hurting job prospects, it's not allowing us to move into the robust growth we would be in without obamacare but it's even more

fundamental. i think the gentleman from texas, as a judge, as a lawyer, has been laying out really his broken heart over what he observed today at the supreme court. i share that same level of heart brokenness because this really is the whole game. this is the whole ball of wax, because if you look what america was founded upon, why we were founded in the first place, it was so we could be a free land made up of free people who are allowed to exercise our own moral conscience and not just in the realm of belief, freedom of belief, but also freedom of speech and freedom of expression but even one step further. it's the exercise of our religious liberties. there is a case, as the gentleman from texas would remember, it was during the vietnam era, it was called

tinker vs. des moines and the very famous holding out of that decision was this, students did not have to check their constitutional right at the schoolhouse store. and today the supreme court is taking up this question -- will the american employer, will the american employee have to check their religious liberties at their church door so they can only exercise their religious faith within the confines of their religious house of worship or maybe even so far as in their home? but certainly, according to the obama administration, not in the workplace. but think about it for a moment. the author of the constitution of the united states, james madison, and the other founders specifically wrote the constitution and in particular the first amendment to the constitution to guarantee that it wasn't just behind closed doors in our church or behind

the confines of our homes that we would be entitled to religious liberty, a freedom of beliefs and freedom of expression and walking out our faith, because isn't that what most churches and synagogues and mosques advocate during the time of worship that we live our faith, that we don't have a dead faith but an alive faith that we practice? this is really the key and this is the issue. we're here in the most lively place on the planet for speech, the house of representatives. representative gohmert is standing in the well. there is no other piece of real estate on this earth that allows for greater freedom of speech and expression than right here. in fact, we are protected by law. we can't be arrested while we're coming here to cast a vote. we can't be dragged off to urch court because of the speech we enjoy here on the house floor.

and just merely steps from here, if you pass through staff wear hall and into the rotunda, representative gohmert has given probably more tours of this building than any other member of congress. and i know when he gives that tour, he points to one of the seminole paintings that hangs in the rotunda. that painting is called the embarkation of the pilgrims and it shows our ancestors, the pilgrims, as they bowed down on their knee before a holy god, the bible in front of them on their lap, turn to the new testament and on the sail of e ship it says, god with us, hanging in the rotunda, just in yonder hall. and the pilgrims left their surroundings, not because they didn't like england, not because they didn't like holland. they came to the united states because their religious liberties were being infringed upon. they weren't allowed to believe

and act on their beliefs in such a way where they truly felt free. and so they came to the united states of america, and that was in 1620 when the pilgrims first came. and it wasn't until later in 1776 when the declaration of independence was passed and then later in 1789, i believe, or 1787 when the constitution of the united states was passed. but the author of the united states, james madison, wrote and i just the week before last saw the first amendment to the constitution. it was written in james madison's hand and i bent over and read in that beautiful chicago are a fee script, and -- calligraphy script, and toll adison said full ration of religious expression meaning, we tolerate your belief. instead what he wrote in was

free exercise, so that not only was our government saying that under -- it is nonnegotiateable -- nonnegotiable, there is no negotiating away these rights. these are fundamental rights that every american enjoys. just because we're americans, freedom of religious beliefs and freedom of free exercise of expression of those beliefs, that's what's on trial today before the supreme court. . it should have never gotten there because our liberties shouldn't be up for sale. that's part of the problem. what we do believe is that there should be equal treatment under the law for every american, black, white, whether or not you're male, female, poor, rich, everyone should be treated equally under the law. is that true under obamacare? according to the becht fund, they say over 100 million americans who are politically connected to this administration

are exempted or waived from some of the requirements under the affordable care act. but americans who have religious objections to providing drugs or devices that would take the life of innocent americans, they are being denied the exercise of their religious liberty -- liberties. so just think of that. over 100 million people, whether they belong to a union, maybe they work for a university, but somehow they're politically connected to this president and this administration, they're waived but the people who aren't politically connected, they have a different kind of a justice that they have to come under. that's wrong and that denies equal treatment under the law. mr. gohmert: if the gentlelady would yield, one of the things that -- i was not aware of that line that was scratched out by james madison but obviously if

he scratched out tolerate and added in the free exercise, it was intended to be more than just tolerance. this was a bedrock principle. and i know the gentlelady, i doubt there's anybody else in all of congress or even the senate that has a masters in tax law as the gentlelady from minnesota does, but i know we both heard our professional live the putter -- power to tax is the power to destroy. now i don't have the exact words, i haven't seen the transcript, i haven't heard any replay since i was at the supreme court building this morning but to hear a supreme court justice of this country ay to the litigants' attorney, in essence, why don't you just ay the tax, the penalty, and

then you can have your religious beliefs? mrs. bachmann: could we talk about that? mr. gohmert: staggering. i doubt you were aware, in essence that question, why don't you just pay the tax. mrs. bachmann: let's talk about the reality of an employer and employee of how egregious this tax. is the employer that was in front of the supreme court today, there were two employers in front of the supreme court today. they could pay the tax, they could do that, and then enjoy their religious liberty. this is what the tax is. employee 36,000 per per year. so we're talking about a company that has 16,000 employees, think offer a very generous health care package. the employer wants to provide health insurance for their employees. in fact, they already offer 16

different contraceptives. they just don't believe, because it violates their moral belief, that they should supply four different contraceptives because it takes the life of an innocent human being. so they fully paid for health insurance, but if this employer decided they didn't want to offer health insurance, then they'd pay the government a $2,000 fine per person. so they can either choose to offer health insurance and pay over $36,000 a year, which would effectively shut the company down. mr. gohmert: it's phenomenal insurance. employees love it. mrs. bachmann: very, very high, phenomenal insurance they already offer. or they offer no insurance and pay the government $2,000 fine, the employees don't get any health care, by the way, or they could choose to violate their moral conscience or they could just close their doors and go

out of business. this is freedom? under the obama administration? this is freedom for the american people? and i think the gentleman would agree the supreme irony of all of this is that we have a president today who under article 2 is given executive power and he has made a decision, apparently, that he's also going to arrogate to himself the power that's given to congress under article 1, which is to make the laws, because this president is currently making his own law, even as we speak, every day, but he's also arrogating to himself the powers of article 3 of the judicial system. would he and -- when he and our attorney general said they don't agree the defense of marriage act is a constitutional law so they're not going to uphold it in violation of article 2 which says the president must faithfully execute the laws of the land. we have a president who ironically is taking power that

sn't granted to him and by this law today, he's taking away fundamental guaranteed rights from the american people. the president is giving himself power unconstitutionally but he's taking away from the american people power that belongs to them. that to me is a part of gangster government. we talked about gangster government early on when the president issued 3,400 pink slips to automobile dealerships all across america he shut them down, overnight virtually, because he said to. -- because he said so. now we have a president who is giving a pink slip to anybody who wants to exercise their religious liberty rights. and we're here to say, mr. speaker, to the president of the united states, i hope he's listening that our first amendment rights, our second

amendment rights, all of our rights are nonnegotiable because they are guaranteed by the constitution of the united states. that's why this matters. and that's why the gentleman from texas is dead on today to talk about this issue. because this is it. if we lose political speech and expression and religious liberty, it's game over for the american people. game over. mr. gohmert: i would like to ask the gentlelady a question, knowing history, our history, as well as you do, can you imagine if king george had sent a decree penalty , pay a $2,000 or tax and then you can observe your religious beliefs, what would the gentlelady think would be the response of patrick henry, john adams, james

madison, thomas payne, all of those people -- thomas payne wasn't a very religious man but he was big on rights. mrs. bachmann: we know what they would say. patrick henry said, give me liberty or give me death. they were willing to put their live, their honor, their sacred fortune on the line to fight for what the obama administration has been eager to deny to the american people which is freedom of speech, expression and religious liberty. that's what they would do. they would do far more than dump some boxes of tea into boston harbor. if they thought the tea party was strong now, you ain't seen nothing yet. we're going to see the american people rise up in force. they're unwilling to put duct tape willingly over their mouths, unwilling to put duct tape over their moral conscience. unwilling to put duct tapes over their hearts that have a heart for god. people will stand for freedom

because that's -- it's written in our d.n.a. as americans. it's what we do for a living. we get up in the morning and we fight for liberty. it is who we are. the obama administration can pass an unconstitutional bill. which obamacare is. but the american people won't stand for it. and that's why we're here today in this chamber where we still retain free speech to hopefully continue to give free speech and religious liberty to every american so they don't have to check their religious liberty at the doors of their church or their synagogue or their home. mr. gohmert: if it came down to this, the federal government, of course, using the i.r.s. under , amacare to enforce the law the federal government comes and says, the gentlelady from minnesota must either pay a

$2,000 fine, penalty, tax, whatever they may wish to call it today, or you cannot observe your religious beliefs, what would the gentlelady's reaction be? mrs. bachmann: that's fundamentally what they're doing in this legislation. we apparently the question that the supreme court justice asked today, that's what the justice was saying. is it that you pay a fine of over $36,000 a year per employee and then that's the price for exercising your religious liberty. you can have religious liberty but it's at a very steep price. since when did it become for sale? that's the issue. that's what's unconstitutional about this bill. no one has to pay for speech. no one has to pay, are we going to start charging the printing presss? what about local tv?

what about bloggers? what about all of the mainstream media, usually called team obama, what if they have to start paying for the privilege of being able to publish? then where would they be in their defense of the administration? mr. gohmert: it's going to be interesting, and this is a bit of a tangent, but because of what the gentlelady has pointed out, this president has indicated he's going to turn over the control of the internet away from where it is now to an international con fab that has been -- con it isfab that has been -- confab that has been chomping at the bit to control the internet. they have been hoping desperately that they would have something everybody wanted to use so they could begin taxing it, charging fees to use the

internet and once they could do that, then the international entity like the u.n. wouldn't have to go begging to the different countries that make up its membership, they could require taxes and penalties be paid in order to publish on the internet, in order to send an email on the internet, you could wrack up taxes and then they will be a permanent entity from now on, once we give control of the internet over to an international group that will have authority to tax those who want to publish online. so we're talking about the disaster -- ms. balk: -- mrs. bachmann: the gentleman is exactly right. if you have an international body, whether it's the u.n. or some international body, we know that the largest block in the u.n. is the o.i.c., the organization of islamic cooperative, and the number one agenda item of the organization of islamic cooperative is to

criminalize speech. any speech that they consider as an instult to -- insult to their prophet system of we would see across the world, again, a silencing of freedom of speech and expression dictated in all likelihood by this largest block at the u.n. which takes us back to religious liberty here in the united states. as the gentleman asked in his original question, what about this idea of the government being able to tax us for religious speech? i believe that if we lose this case, this will set precedent that the government will then be able to dictate and decide any practice that touches our religious belief. so for instance if you're in a doctor's office if you're in a counselor's office or a therapist's office, the government could conceivably then dictate to the therapist what the therapist can say or not say in that office or

likewise a doctor, what they can say or not say because let's remember again what this is. this isn't a company imposing its beliefs on employees, because employees are free to buy whatever they want to buy in health care. this is the government, this is government censorship. this is our government forcing government's politically correct beliefs and religious ideas down the throats of every american. every american company, every american employer, every american employee, and do we see where this is leading? it's here right now. it is government enforced, coerced, speech. i want to say that again, this is government enforced coerced peech. speech and religious practice. so now the federal government is going to have the power to

force you and me and everyone listening to us today that government gets to choose, government gets to decide what our speech is, what our religious expression is? that's not america. you see, that's it. that is the entire game right there. that's why it is game over if we lose on this issue. that's how central and important the issue the gentleman from texas is bringing up today. mr. gohmert: i just can't avoid thinking in these terms the conclusion when ultimately you follow the logic of at least one of the supreme court what is in essence being implied by the question s, if you want to avoid paying

to kill a child in the womb, then just pay the tax and we'll allow you to observe your conscience, your firmly held religious beliefs. it is staggering that anybody, any justice on the united states supreme court would have rationalized to the point that could ever even dream of saying, just pay the fine, penalty, tax, and then you don't have to pay for killing children -- mrs. bachmann: the gentleman is absolutely correct. because in that statement lies the premise and the premise that the justices are embracing is you don't have a guaranteed right to religious expression and to religious thought. you don't have that right. that is our right.

we'll sell it. the only question at this point is, how much and can you afford it? for people who are poor people, will the government be subsidizing them so that they can buy their indulgence from the government? is that what it will be, we'll have to buy indulgence from the government? mr. gohmert: it's protection. mrs. bachmann: it's a gangster government when you have to buy protection from your own government. and in this instance, it's over $36,000 per year per employee. in fact, the fine is in excess of what the wage is for some of the employees that are being provided full generous health insurance. mr. gohmert: the gentlelady brought up something i don't recall being mentioned during the entire argument. hobby lobby, because of their christian beliefs, not only want to provide compensation,

they want to provide an excellent health care policy. what i don't believe was oral t up in the entire argument was that the employees can buy supplemental insurance to cover that -- those four rugs that will kill children in utero. mrs. bachmann: and can i tell you at what price? this is how inexpensive it is. this doesn't deny any employee to go out and purchase a drug that would kill their child in the womb. you can purchase it at one retailer for $4 a month. and another retailer, all of these retailers are widely available across the united states. $9 a month. so this is well within the grasp of any employee. the one employer from oklahoma that you mentioned pays

starting wage over $14 an hour. there's a lot of americans listening right now who would love to have a job at $14 an hour. n fact, i think it's $14.61. i think that's their starting wage per hour plus very generous health insurance benefits. so why in the world would the obama administration deny to 16,000 employees scattered across the united states potentially their job, their livelihood and it's either you agree with our administration's view of religion and morality or you forfeit your company? this is a pretty big deal. this is about as big as it gets and this to me shows a stunning arrogance of power by the obama administration that they would force people to give up and yield their religious liberty and freedom of expression

rights or pay for that right. mr. gohmert: and one of the justices -- and, again, since we don't have cameras in the courtroom yet -- i will be fighting for that in the future. i could only listen to the audio, but one of the justices -- again -- tried to belittle paul clement's comments that they have a choice. the gentlelady has pointed out accurately you pay $2,000 or $ 36,500, but he was indicating when you add up, with all the employees they have, the total $475 hey either pay llion or they can drop the insurance, leave the employees in a dilemma, have to go buy obamacare insurance that other contraceptives

that bring about abortion, they provide them far better insurance than what obamacare requires. and so when he said it's either $475 million or $26 million, he was insisting that you could just pay the $2,000 fine and was virtually in belief -- unbelief that it actually amounted to $26 million when you add up all the people they'd have to pay for. and so that was his position before the supreme court. to follow our religious beliefs, we either pay $475 million or we pay $26 million. $26 million even. mrs. bachmann: in fines to the government and nobody gets anything. in fact, you give up the health insurance you have today.

that's why people are so upset and rightly so across the country because more people have lost health insurance, we're told, than have gained health insurance under obamacare. again, all across my district -- i'm sure you have the same stories -- it breaks your heart. people whose deductibles quadrupled, people whose premiums quadrupled if they still have health insurance. this is real. and then you have the sector, as the beckett fund said, over 100 million americans who are politically well-connected to this administration under what i call gangster government that they were able to be waived out of the obamacare requirements. does that mean they get to exercise their religious liberties? but if you're a business that has, what, christian-held beliefs, then you're going to lose those beliefs? this is insanity. we have to have freedom in this country, and we have to have

equal -- equal application of justice under the law. that's who we are. it's a good thing. it's what builds us up. that's worth fighting for. mr. gohmert: well, that's who we've been. the question is now before the supreme court is that who we will continue to be, and we know that at least one justice of the supreme court seems to think that it's ok for the government to tax you $2,000. just pay the tax and then you can observe your religious beliefs even though it keeps you from providing the great health care that you have been providing. i tell you, this is a seminole point in our history. obamacare, that decision broke my heart because i thought so much of chief justice john roberts. and then when you read the decision, the decision is so poorly written, so pitifully

reasoned, so hypocritical within the decision itself. yes, it's a penalty so we have jurisdiction. now we have jurisdiction, it's a tax, so it's constitutional. i mean, totally at odds with itself. and now we're at this place. is the majority of the supreme pilgrims, to say roger williams, all of you that brought us to the place where the freest, most successful country in the history of the world, those freedoms that you saw, that you prayed for, they're going away because now since the government has the power to tax it will have this power to destroy your religions and just -- as the gentlelady points out, why stop with $2,000? once the supreme court says this government has the power to tax you for -- to observe your religious beliefs, why not

$10,000? why not $20,000? mrs. bachmann: express your religious beliefs is $36,500 per employee. the tax is $2,000 per employee if you decide you're not going to purchase health insurance. so it's extremely expensive. but i think the gentleman is raising an excellent point because to where do the people of this country repair? if we have a president whom many believe is no longer following the sfution of the united states under article 2 -- constitution of the united states under article 2, limitations of power, or if we look at the supreme court and the supreme court justices themselves are not issuing -- rendering opinions that are within the constitution of the united states, what do the people do? we have -- the constitution provides for impeachment for justices. there's impeachment provided

for the president of the united states. that's an option, but those are options of last resort. i think what we're trying to do is appeal to the justices, to think of the people, think of the oath they took to the constitution. don't consider every time you meet in the supreme court that you are in a new open constitutional convention. it isn't a constitutional convention where the justices have a free pen and a phone, so to speak, and can rewrite the constitution. we are appealing to the justices to limit themselves under the constitution and observe that the first amendment has been ironclad since james madison wrote it, and we are here on this floor today saying we stand with james madison, we stand with the people of this country and we're not for one moment going to allow anyone to attack any freedoms. religious

mr. gohmert: well, chains can be figuratively applied. figuretively applied when someone taxes, because a tax hung around the neck is a burden, it's a chain, it's an albatross. it can be devastating, as some people have found out. there are people in my district in a ere provided stock company when it offered its stock publicly and it was valued so highly on the date it s given to them that when it ame time to -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: with apologies to the gentleman from texas, mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: torpt -- the clerk

will report the -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1459, to ensure that the national environmental policy act of 1969 applies to the declaration of national monuments and for other purposes and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i yield back to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas may resume. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. going back to this morning, as i mentioned, i'm a member admitted to practice before the supreme court. it's a great honor. back when i was a real lawyer. but there is seating in front of the bar for members of the supreme court bar, and so those were full so there's an overflow room where we listened

to the audio but obviously don't get to see what's going on. so i was just listening to the argument, the oral argument audiblely without the benefit of -- audibly without the benefit of seeing which justice asked which question, but i don't know if i'll be able to forget the premise of an educated supreme court justice almost rhetorically asking, why don't you just pay the $2,000, and then she didn't say this but, pay the $2,000 so you can practice your firmly held religious beliefs, that's what her question amounted to. mrs. bachmann: did she say the $2,000 or the $36,500? mr. gohmert: she pointed out the $2,000. mrs. bachmann: what she was saying, don't provide health insurance for your employees, push your employees out in the cold, they casi