They wont have employersponsored Health Insurance which, by the way, has zero tax consequences to the employee. They have no tax consequences, but under obamacare, every american is forced to buy a product whether they want it or not, even if they cant necessarily afford it, so then people now under obamacare have to go and buy a product that the government dictates to them that they have to buy at a price that government dictates that they have to peso either they get Health Insurance with no tax consequence or pay so they get Health Insurance with no tax consequence or with money they already paid taxes on, so now theyre going to get double hurt under obamacare. So the president wins, the American People lose, thats our choice. The president wins, the American People lose. Financially, freedom new york this case, the most important case, religious liberty, thats not acceptable under our constitutional guarantee of liberty. The magna carta taught king john that no man is above the law, especially the king, because thats who you have to worry about. No man is to be above the law, including the president of the United States he cant just change a law with the stroke of a pen or with a telephone call. He is not allowed to, under our system of justice, but he also is not within his power to deny anyone their real jougs liberty rights. Mr. Gohmert the gentlelady makes a great point. But unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the founders created so much in the way of checks and balances to prevent the government from abusing the power the gentlelady points out, but if the congress will not protect its own powers as we have not, the senate has been very protective of the president s executive orders that usurped our power, they have gladly handed over power and i was shocked to hear in this very room, as the president spoke from this podium a standing ovation from most of the people on this side of the aisle when the president in effect says if you dont change the law, i will. And they stand and applaud a president who says, in effect, im going going to usurp even more of the legislative power given to congress under article i than ive already taken. Its stag toring hear that applauded and its also stag toring me to see the senate as a body in effect protecting the president s usurpation of our power. Thats one check, one balance mrs. Bachmann i was here in the chamber with the gentleman, i saw and observed exactly what you said that our colleagues across the aisle stood up and applauded. That is a constitutional crisis. As we are having this discussion today, we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. With a president who is eyre gating to himself who is air ating to himself pow who is arrogating to himself powers that are not his, taking power away from people as far as freedom of speech and religious free tom. With all due respect to our colleagues across the aisle, theyre applauding becoming dinosaurs because when the president of the United States decides hell also be congress and he will write the laws, thank you very much, i dont need your help, thank you very much. Why in the world would anybody in this body who has an election certificate applaud that they get to become a dinosaur, theyre no longer relevant. We might as well dispense with the cost of elections and go home and revert to what king george wanted in the first place, a government with one person calling all the shots. Thats not our form of government. Mr. Gohmert i was shocked that one of the justices asked the question, basically, how can or does a corporation exercise religious freedom . This justice knows that the Justice Department has indicted corporations, charging criminal intent, intent to violate the w, and yet she cannot figure out how a corporation could have intent to violate the law but could not have intent to have religious religiously held beliefs. That was a bit staggering to me to hear that question. How can a corporation exercise religious beliefs . Mrs. Bachmann and she fails to understand that the federal government again is practicing censorship in that the sfrovet the one forcing its vision of morality and religious belief on every american. Again, thats government enforced coerce i speech and morality and religious expression. Thats also contained in that remarkable premise of the Supreme Court justice. Mr. Gohmert it is remarkable. Again, the justice, if i heard her correctly, just advocated well, just drop the insurance. Drop the insurance. This company is providing great insurance, as the gentlelady pointed out, and that point was not her point was not made because time is so limited, know paul clement knows, but that is such a huge benefit to the employee, there was discussion by the Supreme Court about, you know, benefits to employee. Well, you know, you can raise their salaries and make up the difference, when actually you may have to raise that salary an extra third in order to cover the cost that is pretax to the employee. So the employee is getting hammered when they just, as this justice appeared to callus oy callously advocate, play pay the drop the insurance, pay the penalty, Congress Said penalty, they said penalty and tax, take your pick, but either way they were advocating harming the employee mrs. Bachmann 16,000 employees of one company. Mr. Gohmert harming 16,000 employees. With an unconstitutional act. Mrs. Bachmann and isnt it true if the gentleman recalls that while this Supreme Court justice was advocating in a flippant way, drop Health Insurance coverage for over 16,000 employees, doesnt that seem doesnt that Supreme Court justice enjoy federal employee Health Insurance and isnt that same Supreme Court justice protected from not going into obamacare . It seems to me that our president is not in obamacare, nor are the Supreme Court justices in obamacare. It seems to me that theres a shield of protection for them. Its good enough for the American People to suffer under obamacare but i dont believe that our president or the Supreme Court justices have to be in obamacare. Mr. Gohmert that is my recollection. Some of us were pushing for and asking our leadership, why dont we do an amendment that will make sure the Supreme Court has to be under obamacare. I really think that would have been the more appropriate thing to do. In fact, i still think its the proacht thing to do and since of course its hard to know since congress was not given a chance to see what the Supreme Court was doing, who was asking what questions, but it sure seems like that since they feel so strongly about obamacare, that they really should have the chance to experience it firsthand. And just find out how wonderful it is. Mrs. Bachmann i would like to share my experience with it. As members of congress we were forced to go into obamacare, the only exchange we were allowed to go in was the one here in washington, d. C. , its called a Small Business link. But the only Small Business is congress. The government. Were the ones put in. And just for the record, my own individual premium increased for the same number of people in our family that we would have to cover, our premium was scheduled to increase times four. So we would have had to increase our premium by four times and our deductible was quadrupled. That also went up four times. So there was no Affordable Care act in our family. Its an extremely inaed for unaffordable Health Insurance act. I would be curious to know if the Supreme Court justices would voluntarily put themselves in obamacare so they, too, could know the pleasure of what it is to pay four times more for the same Health Insurance than my family paid last year. Mr. Gohmert one of the one of the justices pointed out, apparently, appeared to point out that an agency is the one that establish sod many of these things so the question arises, since an agency can say, your insurance policy must provide this medicine this medicine, not his medicine, this medicine, does that agency apparently, have we given unelected bureaucrats the power to determine what your religious beliefs, firmly held, include because under obama care cair, an agency says, your religious rights must yield to our unelected bureaucratic decision that this medication must be included, therefore, your First Amendment rights, yield to our unelected bureaucratic rights to decide what your religious rights have to include and what they dont. It is incredible when you think about it. Mrs. Bachmann that is government enforced coercion of religious beliefs. Thats one thing under the rule of law that has been a pillar of american exceptionalism, the fact that under the rule of law, theres certainty for the American People. If you look at the declaration of independence and the constitution you knew with certainty when you woke up tomorrow morning that your religious liberties were intact. Now, apparently today, the gentleman was in the chamber, and heard that according to least one Supreme Court justice, in her opinion, they arent so much certain anymore. It is not only the election of the court, but at the election of the unnamed bureaucrats who the side, today well have these killer drugs that we mandate, tomorrow what drugs will they take off the list . Will i not get lifesaving drugs that i would need to get . Will i not get lifesaving treatments i thought i was going to get . Will the bureaucrats decide that only politically connected best friends of the administration get certain surgical procedures . Or get to see the best doctors . We dont know. Because apparently, the Supreme Court has decided that the bureaucracy must be fully imbued with all powers. But that means again that the president and his Administration Wins their religious liberty and the right to force their religious views down the throats of the American People but while the president wins, the American People lose, and they lose under the protections of the constitution. Its unlike anything we have ever seen before in the history of the United States of america. It is a seminal day in washington, d. C. And its why the American People better wake up really quick and watch whats happening because we are living in a country we no longer recognize. Because it is being rewritten by unelected bureaucrats, it is rewritten by Supreme Court justices who apparently think that the amendments in the constitution are optional rather than mandatory. Mr. Gohmert god bless justice antonin scalia, clarence thomas, i didnt hear Justice Thomas ask questions, he normally doesnt. Its extraordinary if you spend time with Justice Thomas, you find out rather quickly how really brileant he. Is he didnt need affirmative action to get him into yale law school. Or harvard as we was accepted to but at the time thought was too conservative. But Justice Scalia took on the governments position, the governments attorney stood up d basically said, if a corporation is forprofit, no matter how religiously convicted the holders of that are, they have no right to religious beliefs. Scalia took him on and said theres never been a case where we said if youre a Forprofit Corporation, you had there has never been a case that you dont have religious freedom. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expire. Mr. Gohmert thank you, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. The clerk h. R. 3771, an act to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable Cash Contributions for the relief of victims of typhoon haiyan in the philippines. The speaker pro tempore under the speakers announced policy the nuary 3, 2013, gentlewoman from california, ms. Speier, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Ms. Speier mr. Speaker, i thank you for the opportunity to address the house tonight on what is called the defense logistics agency, something probably not many people have heard about. Well, the d. L. A. Is like a big Hardware Store in the department of defense. And about 30 years ago we heard horrific stories about wasteful spending, taxpayer dollars being spent, 436 being spent on a hammer, 7,600 on Coffee Makers and 640 for toilet seats. And we all thought, well, its been taken care of. Well, not so fast. Im showing you right now what is a plumbing elbow. At the local Hardware Store i, this elbow sells store, this elbow sells for 1. 41. But the taxpayers of this country spent 80 to a defense contractor who charged us that much money for this elbow. How about a box of washers . At the local Hardware Store we as individuals would pay omething like 1. 22. 1. 22 for this box of washers. What did the taxpayers of this country pay a defense contractor for a box of washers . How about 196. 50. So, that issue that was around some 30 years ago is still with us today and its time for the house of representatives and for the Armed Services committee to hold hearings on why it is that the defense logistics agency, our Hardware Store that is responsible for putting together good pricing on spare parts, is being overturned and overlooked by defense contractors within the Department Deaf fence who would rather go outside within the Department Deaf fence who would rather go outside and pay 100 , 200 more. Well, we are going to play a game tonight on cspan called the price is wrong and see what were talking about here. Now, if for one minute you think that were talking about small potatoes, were not talking about small potatoes. Were talking about a lot of money. The Defense Department has so many excess spare parts that they have disposed of, thats right, thrown away, 15 billion in excess parts and materials. In just the last three years. And theres about 96 billion worth of spare parts inventory right now in the defense Hardware Agencys coughers. So why would we coffers. So why would we ever go outside the internal Hardware Store to buy parts . Well, some argue that its faster or its cheaper to go outside. Well, the audits have repealed instances when the military had enough of certain parts that would last 100 years and theyre still going outside of the defense logistics agency. I mean, thats the equivalent of having spare parts that include horseshoes for a calvary, because thats 100 years of spare parts, if we were looking back in time today. So, the likelihood of these parts being used completely over 100 years, not so likely. Now, you might say, well, maybe this is difficult for the Defense Department to figure out where their spare parts are and how much they are. And how much they cost. Well, thats not correct. In fact, the department of defense has the resources and the databases to check the accuracies of these prices. The auditor found these overcharges by using the department of defenses own database. So this is no more than a click on a mouse to find out, one, whether the part is in stock, and, two, how much it costs. Well, lets start this game. First game were going to play is called flip flop. Its a game where the numbers are scrambled. And im going to start with the in this picture here. This is what it looks like. Its a little larger than a quarter. Its a ramp gate Roller Assembly. Its used for chinook helicopters. You can buy this at a local Hardware Store for 3. 50. But because this is the military and we want the very best quality, then the d. L. A. Sells this part for 7. 71. So the question is, what did the army pay for this Gate Assembly . Well, did they pay 7. 71 . Nope, they didnt pay that. 77. 10 . Ay nope, they didnt pay that either. Did they pay 771 for this Little Assembly part . Nope. For this ramp gate roller 678. 61. Y, they paid 1, now, thats obscene. And that shouldnt be happening in the department of defense or anywhere in the federal government. The taxpayers should not be ripped off in that manner. In the price is wrong, taxpayer always lose because the Defense Department consistently pays too much and defense contractors consistently win. All right, so were going to play the next game which is thats too much. See what happens again when the military thinks that they can get something faster and cheaper by not going to the defense logistics agency, our inhouse Hardware Store. This is a bearing sleeve. All right. Lets see what we paid for this. Did we pay 6 . Thats what it would cost at our local defense Hardware Store. Nope. We didnt pay 6. Was 86 too much to spend for that bearing sleeve . Nope. 86 wasnt too much.