[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 137 (Saturday, October 5, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6312-H6319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE REST OF THE STORY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, for the last hour, the minority in the
House, the Democrat Party, has had the right to speak to the American
people in their leadership Special Hour. I think the gentleman from
Oregon and the gentleman from California did a good job of presenting
the side of the story as they viewed it.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the late Paul Harvey had a radio
program for many, many years that many of us listened to, and in that
radio program he would tell us ``The Rest of the Story.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, for the next hour, those of us on the majority
side, the Republican side--most of us from Texas, although we're going
to have some friends from Michigan and perhaps from Florida, too--are
going to tell you the other side of the story, the rest of the story.
And let's start by discussing this continuing mantra from the minority
side that we ought to just bring up the clean continuing resolution, or
CR, from the other body, the Senate, and life would be perfect.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there's one tiny, small problem with that. And
that is,
[[Page H6313]]
Mr. Speaker, that that continuing resolution funds the discretionary
part of something that is legally called the Affordable Care Act, but
most people in the United States are now calling it ObamaCare.
Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is a huge new entitlement. It's not just
another Federal program. It changes, fundamentally, the way we practice
medicine in the United States of America. It changes, fundamentally,
the rights of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare mandates--forces--every American to have
health insurance, whether they want it or whether they need it. It's a
huge new right taken away, a freedom. Heretofore, we've said that
people had the right to choose whether they wanted health insurance or
not. And now we're going to tell them, at the Federal level, they to
have it. That is not a trivial right to take away from the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, mandates that every
employer that has at least 50 employees must provide health insurance.
Heretofore, health insurance had been considered a fringe benefit. Some
employers provided it, some employers did not. Now, according to the
Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, you have to provide health
insurance.
What that's done, Mr. Speaker, is caused many small businesses to
reduce their workforce, to change their work hours. Many employees that
were full-time, 40-hour employees, have become 20- or less than 30-hour
part-time employees. Again, a huge change in the way Americans have
conducted their business.
Mr. Speaker, there are many mandates in the Affordable Care Act, or
ObamaCare, that relate to how you practice medicine. Many health care
practitioners have told me in my district that they're not going to
practice. They're going to retire. They're not going to put up with all
the mandates. They're not going to put up with all of the paperwork.
Again, something that is fundamentally changing the United States of
America.
Mr. Speaker, in the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, there are all
kinds of mandates on what has to be included in insurance, how the
insurance companies have to provide it, what premiums they can charge.
Because of this, Mr. Speaker, many insurance companies have raised
their premiums. Many insurance companies have changed their policies.
Again, a fundamental change.
So, Mr. Speaker, when our friends in the minority on the other side
say, Just bring up a clean CR and we'll vote for it, they don't point
out that that clean CR includes funding for ObamaCare. It is, again, a
fundamental change, Mr. Speaker. Most of us on the Republican side, the
majority side, don't want that. We want the freedom to choose.
I would ask my friends on the minority side, if ObamaCare is so
great, why does it have to be mandatory? Let's make it voluntary.
Republicans happen to support many of the things in it. We support
coverage for preexisting conditions. We support allowing young adults
to stay on their parents' life insurance until they reach the age of
26. We support the concept of the public exchanges. In the Republican
alternative, when ObamaCare was passed, we had something called ``co-
ops.'' Not exactly like these health exchanges, but certainly similar.
So, again, if this act is so good and so great and everybody loves
it, let's make it voluntary. How about making it voluntary for a year
and just let the people choose? If these health exchanges are great,
people are going to flock to them. If all of these mandates are really
worthwhile, make them voluntary based on free choice and the market,
and most of those will be accepted and implemented. So that might be an
alternative at some point in time to consider. Take all the mandates
away, leave the structure of the law, and let the American people
choose whether they wish to participate.
Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this story. In the next 50 or
55 minutes, the Texas delegation on the Republican side, with some help
from friends in other States, are going to tell you the other side of
the story.
With that, I would like to yield to Congressman Weber from
Friendswood, Texas.
{time} 1230
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
You know, it's interesting. We see that in 2010, the other side of
the aisle--the Ds--had no problem passing this humongous takeover of
health care. Funny, they had no problem that the Republicans were
against it; they had no problem that the majority of Americans were
against it; and, Mr. Speaker, they had no problem that the majority of
the business community was against it. They had no problem that there
wasn't any bipartisanship involved, and now they have no problem
blaming others, as a result of this government shutdown, of this failed
legislation, this not-ready-for-prime-time hostile takeover of almost a
sixth of the economy.
In short, the other side has no problem. I guess that's right. Now
the Affordable Care Act is the American people's problem, and yet they
continue to blame us. They continue to demagogue and say it's all about
us.
We have a President who will not negotiate. He will negotiate with
terrorists; he will get his foreign policy from the Russian President,
Putin; but he will not come to the House of Representatives and
negotiate.
The majority leader in the Senate and the Executive in the White
House want this House of Representatives, the Republicans, to
unconditionally surrender and roll over and forget that it is the
American public that has the problem--this huge entitlement that the
gentleman from Texas was just alluding to. This is our method of
getting negotiations going about fixing that problem.
Interestingly enough, today we heard in speeches on the floor of the
House the analogy of the Republicans' attempt to go ahead and fund
those crucial parts of the government while they play their games. They
bring up a game analogy called Whac-A-Mole. They say that our policy is
akin to Whac-A-Mole. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I recall
in recorded history that someone has actually made a molehill out of a
mountain--a Whac-A-Mole analogy.
I would submit that the ``Unaffordable Care Act,'' as I like to call
it, is a lot larger than the 900-pound gorilla in the room. Our
colleagues on the other side are ignoring the 900-pound gorilla and
paying attention to moles, that proverbial molehill. That's so
interesting.
In some of their comments today they have been decrying the fact that
hunters in their own States may not get to hunt. Well, that seems
really peculiar to me. The party who is in favor of gun control, who
seems to be anti-Second Amendment rights in my opinion, all of a sudden
are interested in hunters' rights. As Mr. Rogers from the old TV show
used to say: Can you spell hypocrisy? Sure you can.
It's very interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, at this juncture in the
game, that all of a sudden they're interested in those rights that
heretofore they had no interest in and somehow it's the Republicans'
fault.
I will remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as well
as the American people, that of the last 17 shutdowns in the last 30
years, 15 of those shutdowns occurred when a Democratic majority was in
control of this House of Representatives. You never heard the terms
``terrorists,'' ``holding a gun to the head,'' ``refusing to
negotiate.'' You never heard that back then.
But because of this Affordable Care Act, as the gentleman from Texas
has already eloquently stated is a huge mandate, because this seems to
be their signature legislation--to make Americans have health
insurance--now we're hearing that all of a sudden they're in favor of
these other things.
Well, Mr. Speaker, since March 23, 2010, when President Obama signed
that hostile takeover of health care into law, we have seen key promise
after key promise made to the American people broken.
The President said, ``The Affordable Care Act is designed to make it
easier for younger Americans to obtain and maintain health insurance.''
Well, I'm from Texas. We believe in being truthful with people. In
Texas, you get in trouble for making those kinds of false statements.
We still believe in truth, justice, and the American way even though
we're from Texas.
[[Page H6314]]
In reality, if ObamaCare is implemented in Texas, health insurance
premiums on the individual market will see an increase of 53 percent
for young males and an increase of 11 percent for young females. That
doesn't sound like such an affordable deal. To top that off, those who
live in Texas could see premiums increase up to 43 percent in the
individual market and 23 percent in the small group market.
Promise number two, broken, the President said, ``If you like your
current health care plan, you'll be able to keep it.'' Promise number
two, broken.
The fact is, ObamaCare incentivizes, as the gentleman from Texas
stated, employers to drop coverage to avert taxes and fees that would
be imposed on those small businesses and large businesses if they were
to continue to provide their employees coverage. Home Depot, UPS, to
name a few, have dropped tens of thousands of covered employees from
their plans just at the outset of this. According to the CBO, 7 million
people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage, nearly double the
previous estimate of 4 million.
In 2012, the Texas State Comptroller, Susan Combs, and her office
surveyed Texas members of the National Federation of Independent
Businesses and received replies from over 900 Texas businesses, large
and small. In that report, only 3.4 percent of those business owners
believe that the President's health care would be good for their
business. In fact, fines and penalties paid by those same Texas
businesses with more than 50 employees for fiscal year 2010 through
2019, those fines were estimated at $9.3 billion.
Not only have there been broken promises, there have been major
delays of the law. It is simply not ready for prime time; and the truth
of the matter is, folks, it will probably never be. As more and more
Americans get that, they understand how imperative it is that we make
changes in that law. In fact, since the law has been in place, there
have been 22 actions to defund, revise, or repeal parts of that
overburdensome law.
To the other side, I would say this. Let's use the President's words:
Knock it off and move on. Fifty-nine percent of the American people
want this law defunded. Why does the President and the majority leader
keep ignoring the American taxpayers?
In my district, I have constituents sharing their heart-wrenching
stories about the negative impact ObamaCare has already had on their
family. There's been hundreds of responses. Take Susan Gay from
Beaumont. She said:
My husband and his coworkers lost their overtime 2 years
ago from the vote for ObamaCare. We are now still frightened
he may lose his job, as he works for a small business man
locally in Beaumont.
Susan, I hear you. The Republicans hear you. We're fighting for you,
fighting for your husband and his coworkers and millions of others that
have already been negatively impacted by the President's hostile
takeover of the health care system.
Folks, your House Republicans are making every effort to get rid of
this law. We have introduced replacement bills that will empower the
individual and make affordable health care more accessible for
everyone.
Folks, there is a better way. It is high time that the President and
the Senate get on board with us in the House if they truly want to help
and listen to the American people.
I'm Randy Weber, and I'm proud to be a Texan.
Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Congressman Weber.
Before I yield to my friend from far north Texas, Mr. Benishek, of
the First District of Michigan, I want to read into the Record a
comment that I received on my Facebook page. Now, most of these
comments are from Texans, some of them are not. I'm not sure of the
location of this gentleman, Mr. Dave Guss, Jr. This is a Facebook page
comment received yesterday or this morning:
Just got a letter from my provider that my policy will end
and I need to purchase a new one. When I called and asked
why, I was told that my current policy does not meet the
required coverage for ObamaCare because it has no prenatal
coverage. I am a male. The new policy will cost me $500 a
month, the old one I had was $200 a month.
We have a number of these stories, Mr. Speaker, that I will be
putting into the Record as this Special Order continues. But now I
would like to yield to the gentleman from the First District of
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
Mr. BENISHEK. I want to thank my colleague from Texas. I feel a great
affinity for my Texas colleagues, and I'm an avid fan of western swing,
especially Bob Wills.
I didn't know how we would end up in a shutdown. I never really
wanted to have a shutdown in the government. I wanted to reach a
compromise with the Senate and have business go on. The problem is
that, in the House, we've passed four different pieces of legislation
that would have prevented a shutdown. I mean, I can see, for example,
the first thing that we sent to the Senate was a plan to fund the
government and defund ObamaCare. Okay. I can understand that the Senate
isn't going to maybe significantly budge on that, but maybe we would
get out of the Senate some votes. Maybe some Democrat Senators would
vote for it. We would see what kind of support we would have on the
Democrat side in the Senate.
So then we sent to the Senate a piece of legislation which simply
delayed the President's health care law for a year. The President had
already delayed components of his law for some people or for some time.
So let's try this. Maybe we would get Democrat votes in the Senate to
support that. Well, those two propositions, they weren't even voted on.
They were tabled in the Senate. They voted to table them and not have
any debate about the merits of those two proposals.
So then we sent to the Senate a proposal not to defund the
President's health care law but to continue to fund the President's
health care law, but to change the law so that it affected all
Americans the same. The President, by executive order, changed his own
law. Contrary to the law, he wrote an executive order to change the
nature of the law so that employers were exempted from their mandate.
In other words, the law mandates that employers provide insurance for
their employees or suffer a fine. The law also demands that individuals
buy insurance or suffer a fine. Well, the President saw fit to change
the law so that major employers don't have to pay a fine, delayed the
enforcement of that part of the law for a year, despite the fact that
the law doesn't go for that.
And when is the President allowed to change a law by edict, by his
signature? We change laws in this country by statute. Should we allow a
President to change the law at his whim?
Another aspect where the President changed the law is he changed the
law to give special privileges to Members of Congress, that the Members
of Congress who have to go to the exchange would be afforded a
subsidy--unlike anyone else who has to go to the exchange. So how is
the President changing the law to give special privileges to Congress
something that the American people should be for?
{time} 1245
I think that the American people want the law to apply to everyone
the same.
The third thing that we asked for from the Senate was simply change
the law so that the law applies to the Congress, to the President, and
to the Vice President, the same as it does to every other American, and
to afford individuals the same delay in the law that the President
granted to his big manufacturers, some of his favorite unions--not all
unions got it. Why not all Americans?
So that is what we asked for in the Senate. Not even to defund the
President's health care law, but simply to make the law abide with all
Americans.
How is it that we have become a country where the law applies only to
certain people--that the President by a written statement can exempt
certain people from the law? Is that what this country is becoming? Is
that the United States of America that we grew up in? I don't think so.
I think what we asked for, which funded ObamaCare and simply changed
the law to apply to everyone, was certainly a reasonable compromise
from our initial piece of legislation. And they tabled that.
Our fourth effort to keep the government open was simply to ask the
Senate to come talk to us. So if you won't agree to make the law the
same for everyone, will you at least come to us
[[Page H6315]]
and talk about what you will accept? That is why we are in this impasse
we are today.
We have taken steps to reopen the government. We have passed targeted
pieces of legislation that will fund critical portions of our
government--FEMA, national parks, WIC, Veterans Affairs, the National
Institutes of Health, the National Guard. We even passed legislation
that furloughed employees will be paid once the shutdown ends.
The Senate and the administration have given exceptions to their
allies, big businesses, and some unions. Why shouldn't the American
people be given the same kind of treatment?
We have heard a lot about a clean CR. I don't know, I don't see how
it is so clean when it allows the President to change a law by edict. I
don't see that as a clean piece of legislation. I think that is a piece
of legislation that allows unfairness in the law to continue. To me, it
is rather unclean.
I am willing to talk to the Senate to come to some sort of agreement,
but it just strikes me as really, really disingenuous to call what they
are calling a clean CR ``clean'' when in reality it is allowing the
President to change the law at his whim. I think that the
administration and the Senate certainly should come to the bargaining
table and talk to the House. The ``power of the purse.'' We have the
power of the purse. Shouldn't our consideration be taken into account?
Shouldn't we have conversations to make sure that the country stays
open?
I just wanted to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to those listening,
how I feel and why we are here. I would ask your support in that.
Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Florida, I want to
read two more comments into the record from my Facebook page.
The first one is from Kevin Hussey, H-U-S-S-E-Y. Kevin says:
It's doubled my premiums. Simply put, how is that
``affordable?''
And Laren Engel Schmude comments:
My mom is facing having her hours cut, or being laid off
all together, not to mention that her company is dropping
health insurance for part-time employees all together.
Again, these are comments from folks on my Facebook page.
I would also like to point out that my wife, Terri Barton, is the
marketing director for Ennis Regional Medical Center in our hometown of
Ennis, Texas, and it is her job to help the hospital get ready to
implement ObamaCare. I have texted her this morning and asked her how
that is going, and she has replied that the counselors are all trained
and they are ready to help if people call in wanting to sign up. Ennis
Regional Medical Center is a certified application center, but so far
very few people have called and tried to sign up.
That is on the front lines. Ennis Regional Medical Center is a
hospital approximately, I think, 60 or 70 beds, in a town of
approximately 18,000 people, in the suburbs of Dallas and Fort Worth,
Texas. It is on the front lines of ObamaCare as we implement it, if we
do implement it.
With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Florida, Congressman Yoho.
Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I appreciate you
wearing our stripes on your tie today. That is apropos.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address all of my colleagues, both
Republicans and Democrats, but more importantly, the American people,
for they are the ones that we all need to listen to. They are the ones
that will hold us accountable. We were sent here to represent the
people. I represent approximately 700,000 citizens in north Florida's
congressional district and had approximately 65 percent plus support of
that district.
One of the things I ran on was preventing the Affordable Care Act
from being implemented, and I have voted to do all in my power to
prevent this ill-conceived legislative malpractice of a bill from being
a burden to the American citizens I represent.
I also ran on the rule of law and the adherence to the Constitution.
So when I hear my colleagues on the left--I mean, excuse me, to this
side of the Chamber--say the Republicans want to shut down the
government, I find it somewhat disingenuous.
I am voting the way the majority of the people I represent have
instructed me to do, as have my colleagues.
Since we are the House, the people's House, we are the voice of the
people. So when my Democratic colleagues say the Republicans want to
shut down the government, keep in mind that it is the voice of the
people that we represent whose voice you are hearing. That is the way a
representative Republic works.
Another issue that belittles this body and lowers our approval
rating--I read the other day--with the American people, equal to or
less than a root canal or a colonoscopy, is the drama, the theatrics,
and the name-calling. Understand, no one on this side, as is true for
your side, wants children, veterans, old people, or widows to starve or
to be deprived of health care. We, as you, will take care of the needy,
the truly needy.
The name-calling, I have to admit, seems to emanate from one side
more than the other side. I have heard childish, angry words like
``jihadist,'' ``terrorist,'' ``anarchist.'' Today, I heard ``Whack-a-
moles,'' ``teabaggers'' and ``Tea Party radicals.''
Now, it is interesting, the word ``Tea Party'' reminds me of a time
in our history. In fact, it was a pivotal point in this country in
gaining its independence from a tyrannical government under the rule of
law by the King of England. I am so thankful that the colonists at that
time rose up--rose up--in opposition to a minimal tax placed upon all
the tea sold into America. That led to the Boston Tea Party.
So isn't it ironic that after 237 years, we have created a government
that not only says you must pay the tax, but you also must buy our tea?
Can you say the ``Affordable Care Act?'' Is it any wonder that today
there is a new Tea Party in America with a mindset of limited
government, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, personal
responsibility, and the Constitution?
The Tea Party is a movement. It was a spontaneous movement that
happened throughout this country. There is no national leader, there is
no national headquarters. The American people said they were tired of
Washington and the gridlock and politics as usual, and that led us to
where we are at today. They said, like I did: ``I had enough.''
Now, as far as shutting down the government, nobody I know wants to
shut down the government, because in the shutdown who pays? The
American people pay. Therefore, it would behoove us to negotiate a
settlement to keep the government up and running for the benefit of
these people and for this great country.
The Republicans have offered at four different times CR legislation
that represented the voice of our constituents to keep the government
open. Two of those offers were outright rejected by the President
himself and the leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid.
We worked through last Saturday up here until 2 in the morning and
passed more legislation to resolve this issue and compromised. We did
not hear back from either side--the President or Mr. Reid. Many of us
in the Republican party were on the Senate steps of the Capitol on
Sunday afternoon asking for a chance to sit at the table just to
negotiate in conference to stop this gridlock and get America back to
work again. Again, silence from the President and Mr. Reid. We did not
hear from the President or Mr. Reid until Monday afternoon. Their
answer was ``no negotiation,'' which translates to ``our way or the
highway.''
On one other point, to clarify, is for the House and Senate to go to
conference over the budget. Yet the Senate didn't offer a budget for
over 4 years, the last 4 years. But now all of a sudden it is a problem
if we don't go to conference.
Again, one side is being disingenuous to the American people, because
a budget does not fund our government. A budget is a wish list of the
House of Representatives, of the Senate, and the President.
Appropriations are what funds this government, and the House has passed
four appropriations bills, and the Senate has failed to bring those up
for approval by the Senate and then send over to the President to sign.
So again, America, you are being fed misinformation.
That is why this government is shut down. The American people need to
[[Page H6316]]
hear the other side of the story. They need to hear that we amended our
bills, the CR bills, four times from the House to negotiate with the
Senate. They need to know that we requested to go to conference to
resolve our differences, the way a Republic is supposed to work, the
way differences have been resolved in this esteemed body since its
inception.
Mr. Speaker. Let's add an air of dignity to this damaged body, let's
end the name-calling, let's end the bickering, let's go to conference
on a continuing resolution, hash out our differences and get this
government up and running again, and let's focus on the ensuing tsunami
that is coming called our debt ceiling.
This is a time for us not to be Republicans or Democrats; this is a
time for us to be Americans. It is what the American people expect, it
is what the American people deserve, and it is what I came to
Washington to do.
Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I want to read a couple of more comments from my
Facebook page that have come in in the last days.
This is from a gentleman named Richard Lay:
Since ObamaCare my insurance rates have gone through the
roof. Every teacher I know has seen their monthly insurance
rates increase by more than $200 to $300 per month. One
teacher's went up by $400.
Mr. Anthony Rhodes from Arlington, Texas writes:
My rates have increased over 15 percent a year for the last
3 years. Last year and 3 years ago, my deductibles also went
up 20 and 50 percent respectively. There has been nothing
affordable about my health care for the last 3 years. I have
less coverage and it costs me more, and even if I wanted to
cancel it, I am better off paying the high prices because I
get hit with a penalty tax if I cancel. I get fighting mad
just thinking about the mess of legislation that was passed
so that we could ``find out what's in it.''
With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
the 11th District of Texas, Mr. Mike Conaway, from Midland, Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague from Ennis, Texas. I appreciate his
hosting this hour.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare,
or as most of the folks in District 11 want to refer to it, the
``Unaffordable Care Act,'' was passed in this House by the slimmest of
margins in March of 2010 and then passed without, frankly, one
Republican vote. It was also passed in the Senate by parliamentary
tricks that were used to avoid the 60-vote issue that they lost. Once
they lost the Ted Kennedy seat to Scott Brown, it eliminated their
ability to cram it through there. They had to resort to some
parliamentary issues. Again, with not one Republican vote to make that
happen.
While our colleagues on the other side may say that this is currently
the law of the land, that was 3\1/2\ years ago. Today, poll after poll
is showing that the American people are expressing themselves that they
do not want this bill and the underlying requirements and costs
associated with it crammed down their throat. Much like those now
infamous words of Speaker Pelosi when she said that we were going to
have to pass this bill before we would know what is in it, the American
people are going to have to suffer through this flawed rollout in order
to understand what is in it that they do not like as part of the
implementation of this deal.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, we've had to resort to a government shutdown, quite
frankly, to try to get this President's attention and Harry Reid's in
order to force them to come to the table. It is almost unconscionable
to hold the American people through their government hostage like that,
but that is exactly what this President and Harry Reid have wanted to
do.
We have time and time again, as has been recounted already on this
floor today, to find common ground with this President and the majority
leader in the Senate and to come to agreement on those parts of funding
the government that are unrelated to the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act, areas in which we thought we could agree.
One of the first ones was the bill that passed unanimously in the
House to fund the Department of Defense and the related contractors
while this shutdown is going on so that they would not be impacted by
it. We then sent a series of bills across this House floor for which
we've gotten good bipartisan support.
We've had 25 Democrats agree with us on continuing the funding of
pediatric research. We've had 23 Democrats agree with us that we should
reopen our parks and memorials. We've had 35 Democrats agree that
veterans benefits should not be impacted by this. We've had 36
Democrats agree with us that the National Guard and Army Reserve should
be paid for their monthly training. We've had 23 Democrats join us on
disaster relief. Then, just today, we had 189 Democrats--100 percent of
those voting--agree with us to pay furloughed Federal employees once
this conflict with the White House and the Senate is over; and 184 of
them agreed with us that the Federal Government should continue to
provide religious services to our Armed Forces while this is going on.
In addition to these efforts, the House passed by voice vote a bill
that would allow the District of Columbia to continue to operate using
its own resources, not Federal general revenues. It was UC'd, as that
phrase is used in the Senate, and it was passed by the President.
So this President and Harry Reid have had a very checkered pattern of
supporting some issues that we thought we had common ground on, but not
supporting others, including Harry Reid's now callous comment with
reference to children with cancer as to why would we want to continue
that funding during this time frame.
Mr. Speaker, analogies are always dangerous, but this one, I think,
fits. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union built a wall in Berlin,
separating East Germany from West Germany. I would argue that we are in
another cold war today with this President and with Harry Reid in the
Senate. This is a cold war that they are also building a wall of, but
their flat-out refusal to negotiate with House Republicans--except, of
course, when it benefits a constituency that they believe is important
to them on these issues--is their building of a wall of obstinance, a
wall of hardheadedness and a wall of stiff-neckedness, if that is, in
fact, a word. It's a little hard for somebody in west Texas to get his
tongue around that one. Nevertheless, that is a wall in that they are
refusing to listen to the American people.
To paraphrase those wonderful words of Ronald Reagan's when he was
speaking to Gorbachev, I will try to use those same comments to this
President and to Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate:
Mr. President, tear down this wall of obstinance. Tear down this wall
of stiff-neckedness. Tear down this wall of not negotiating with House
Republicans. Listen to the American people, and tear down that wall so
that we can get this government back to operating and so that we can
deal with a bill--and now a law--that the majority of Americans do not
want.
Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman.
Before I yield to the Congressman from the Fourth District of Texas
(Mr. Hall), let me read a few more comments into the Record from my
Facebook page.
This is from Kevin Jones:
It hasn't hurt me yet, but it will. I don't have medical
insurance; don't want medical insurance; don't need medical
insurance. I pay my own way. Because I am self-pay, I am able
to negotiate some nice discounts on my medical bills.
ObamaCare will just be another tax on me.
This is from a lady named Theresa Stone:
I had a job that I did well in, but because I was expensive
and getting old--I'm turning 54 in January--to save money, I
was let go in February for absolutely bogus reasons. I am
collecting unemployment, but that ends in January. I lost my
insurance when I lost my job. I can't afford my bills--house,
food and insurance--so I am uncovered. I will never sign up
for ObamaCare--ever.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, the Fourth
District of Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, a decorated World War II veteran
and, in my opinion, the absolutely nicest man in this Congress.
Mr. HALL. I thank you for those compliments. You read them out just
exactly like I wrote them for you.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you, too, and I thank you for being here when
most everyone else has gone.
[[Page H6317]]
ObamaCare was forced through the Congress without a single Republican
vote. Just think about that for a second--not one Republican vote. I
don't know if that has ever been done. I think Charles Krauthammer says
it best in an article from yesterday's Washington Post.
He said:
From Social Security, to civil rights, to Medicaid, to
Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has
major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-
line vote--never. In every case, there was significant
reaching across the aisle, enhancing the law's legitimacy and
endurance. Yet ObamaCare, which revolutionizes one-sixth of
the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and
intimately affects just about every citizen, passed without a
single GOP vote.
Mr. Krauthammer is not alone in being concerned about this country.
We are concerned about, not the Members of this House or of the Senate,
but of everyone who has children or who cares about children.
Let's talk about jobs. There are no jobs now whether you are educated
or not educated. They don't look to a job. By the time this President
exits, they're not going to find any employers. That's how serious it
is. This is a real problem, Mr. Speaker, and I'm afraid it's going to
bankrupt the families and bankrupt the businesses in the Fourth
Congressional District, which was the third largest user of
manufacturers in the entire United States Congress--House or Senate--in
2011. I have not seen the words for 2012.
We are forcing people to buy insurance that they can't afford; and if
they opt out, we fine them. Then they can't even afford the fine. What
a train wreck. Go ahead and go to the Web site and sign up. There are
reports from all over the country of glitches and of the confusion and
frustration from those who have tried. Now we're hearing that the
Federal Government will be shutting down the Web site for repairs. You
would think, after 3 years of planning, it would at least be able to
sign people up. This is clearly not the case, and they are clearly not
ready for prime time. I think this is a sign of things to come under
ObamaCare, Mr. Speaker.
I am also concerned about data security in this system. Given the
government's track record, I am worried that people's personal
information could get out. All of us have good and honest relationships
with our doctors. We trust each other. We do not need the government to
get in the middle of that relationship. The push for ObamaCare was to
cover all Americans; and now, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, 30 million people will still not be covered in the year 2022.
So what's going on here? This is just one giant tax on the American
people. If you don't sign up, you get taxed. If you do sign up, your
rates will go up, and some reports are saying it will be by as much as
400 percent.
In closing, I'll just say another push for ObamaCare was to bring
down the cost of health care. According to the American Action Forum,
health insurance rates for people between the ages of 18 and 35 will go
up substantially. Premiums for this group before ObamaCare averaged
about $62 a month, and now the premiums for these youngsters will be on
the average of $187 a month. That's triple the cost. How is this
helping? My constituents are opposed to this bad health care law. My
mail is 100 to 1 against it, and I am opposed to it.
The folks on the other side of the aisle should listen to the
majority of Americans and repeal, defund, or delay ObamaCare. The
Senate had four chances to prevent this shutdown. They selected none of
them, and we shut down.
Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman from the Fourth District.
I would point out to the Speaker that, yesterday, Congressman Hall
was one of the Texas Congressmen who went to the World War II Memorial
to make sure that our veterans on their honor flight were allowed in to
see it.
I want to read one more email into the Record before I yield to the
gentleman from Flower Mound, Texas, Dr. Burgess. This has come in as
we've been doing this Special Order, Mr. Speaker.
Katie Hoffman of Minneapolis, Minnesota, says:
Hi, Joe. Keep up the good battle today. I am tuned in to C-
SPAN with a close eye. I received notice last week under the
Affordable Health Care Act that my insurance will be doubling
almost from $113 a month to $207 a month. I am a 35,
nonsmoking, healthy female. Who am I paying for? I've had
enough. I'm working hard to cover the non-working society--
frustrated. Keep up the fight.
Then one more from a gentleman named Tim Ruschi:
Dear Representative Barton, I just want to express my
support for your efforts. I am watching you right now on C-
SPAN. My wife and I received a certified letter recently from
our insurance provider, Cigna, informing us that our health
insurance plan is being dissolved, effective January 1, 2014.
I believe the President knew he was lying when he boldly
proclaimed many times that, if people liked their insurance
coverage, they could keep it--period. He knew or should have
known full well that the Affordable Care Act would cause many
insurance plans to shut down, and now this has become the sad
reality. I cannot trust anything the President or this
administration says anymore.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Flower Mound, Texas, in
Denton County, Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities towards the President.
Mr. BARTON. If I may let the Speaker know, this was an email sent to
me from an American citizen. I was just reading something an American
citizen wrote. These are not my remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities towards the President, including by reading
into debate matter that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
words.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank Mr. Barton for bringing this hour to the floor
of the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is significant that this is the Texas hour. People
look to Texas for leadership. Certainly, from an economic standpoint,
Texas enjoys a AAA rating. The United States, unfortunately, does not.
If you look at Texas between the years 2009 and 2011, it gained
nearly a million new residents. Other times when there have been vast
expansions of populations in a State, the rate of uninsurance has also
increased, except in Texas. During that time period from 2009 to 2011,
the rate of uninsurance went down.
Why is that?
It's because people were moving to Texas because they could find a
job, and accompanying that job typically was employer-sponsored
insurance. The reason for that is, of course, that Texas has a long
history of utilizing the energy resources inherent in that State. In
fact, it's Texas that has gone a long way towards redefining our
national energy policy and making us an exporter of energy rather than
an importer.
But our purpose today, here, is to talk about the Affordable Care
Act. It has already been referenced that the other body passed this
late on a Christmas Eve in order to get out of town right before a
snowstorm. Now, the chairman of the Finance Committee in the other body
when talking to the Secretary of Health and Human Services earlier this
year said, Madam Secretary, I am worried that we are seeing a train
wreck.
I wanted to provide for Members of the House of Representatives what
a train wreck looks like right before it happens.
Ladies and gentlemen, the House and my colleagues, this is where we
were last Monday night--the two locomotives bearing down on each other
with smoke trailing out of each of their smokestacks. This is a train
wreck right before it happens, and that's where we were on Monday
night. A train wreck was fixing to happen, and we were trying to do
everything possible to prevent it. We had passed four bills and had
sent them over to the Senate to allow funding for the government. Each
one had been rejected. In fact, with the last one, in the spirit of
compromise, we said let's just sit down and talk; and the Senate
rejected that as well.
When you stop and think about the history of this thing, you say, Why
has it been so hard to implement this? The reason it has been hard to
implement this is that this was never intended to become law.
The House of Representatives never had a single hearing on what at
the time was known as H.R. 3590. It was passed in the Senate without a
single Republican vote at the midnight hour
[[Page H6318]]
on Christmas Eve, and every Senator thought, We'll get a chance to go
to conference and fix it. We know there are problems, but we'll get a
chance to fix this. They didn't because they lost their 60th vote in
Massachusetts, and the Senate majority leader told the Speaker of the
House at the time, There is nothing else I can do. I've put everything
into it. I can't pass this again in the Senate. It's because he lacked
one vote.
I will just ask people in this body on both sides of the aisle to
think back. Lyndon Johnson was a Member of this body. Lyndon Johnson
was the majority leader of the Senate. Lyndon Johnson was President.
Can you imagine Lyndon Johnson not passing the Civil Rights Act because
he lacked one vote? Can you imagine Lyndon Johnson not passing Medicare
because he lacked one vote? No. He would have exercised Senate
leadership or Presidential leadership, and he would have gotten that
vote, and he would have made it happen.
{time} 1315
Both of those, by the way, passed with bipartisan majorities in both
the House and the Senate. So don't fault the House of Representatives
because of how bad this thing is. Don't fault the Representatives
because the people of the United States do not like this thing. Don't
fault the United States House of Representatives because they couldn't
even get their informatics piece correct with 3\1/2\ years and billions
and billions of dollars.
Why did the site crash in the first couple of days? They knew it was
coming. They knew there would be great interest in this. Amazon is able
to do that. Amazon handles how many millions of hits a day? Facebook--
certainly a nonessential site on the Internet--how many transactions
does it handle a day? How could they not be ready? This is, after all,
the President's signature piece of legislation.
I get criticized because they say Republicans haven't tried to fix
it. Republicans have tried to fix it. We have passed seven pieces of
legislation that have modified the Affordable Care Act, and the
President has signed them. The President himself has laid portions of
this law down not to be enforced for whatever period of time he says.
Certainly, people can't sign up for preexisting condition coverage
now. They have to wait until the first of the year. That window has
been closed since February 1 of this year. The employer mandate went
away right before the Fourth of July weekend. Reporting requirements
were also suspended right after the Fourth of July weekend. The
President has put more pieces of this law on hold than any Member of
this House could ever do.
I appreciate so much the gentleman from Texas holding this hour. I'm
privileged to have been a part of it. I did want to remind people what
a train wreck looks like right before it happens.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining in this
Special Order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentivolio). The gentleman from Texas
has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Stockman, I want to
apologize to the House for reading into the Record comments from
citizens of the United States exercising their First Amendment rights.
One of those citizens made a disparaging remark about the President of
the United States, and we understand that Members, ourselves, cannot
personalize these issues. Some of our citizens that are commenting
don't understand the rules, but I do, and I want to apologize to the
House because I do understand the rules.
I now yield to Congressman Stockman.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the fact that we're
talking here today about things that impact our Nation, and I want to
talk about our Speaker who, as you know, or many of you know, I voted
against and didn't want to be the Speaker. Today, our Speaker has been
vilified after offering opportunity after opportunity to negotiate. The
President, on the other hand, said he's not willing to negotiate with
our Speaker.
The Speaker grew up in Ohio in a working-class community, and has
negotiated many times with the President. It's most puzzling to me why
now the stance of no negotiation. Every time we had a shutdown--I was
here in the last shutdown--we negotiated. The President at that time,
President Clinton, negotiated. In all the shutdowns, we always had
negotiations. That's the way this body works is that we work on
compromise.
The President wrote a letter to this individual who is the head of
Iran. He's negotiating with the head of Iran, who wants to eliminate
Israel. He's willing to negotiate with him for nuclear weapons.
The President also wants to negotiate with the head of Syria. This
individual gassed his own people, tortured his own people, and killed
his own people. I don't understand why he's willing to negotiate with
him, but he is. Again, he's not willing to negotiate with our Speaker.
Next, the President is also willing to negotiate with the Taliban.
The President ordered the release of several prisoners prior to even
negotiations to get ``the negotiating to start.'' Again, let me remind
the body that the Speaker is not to be negotiated with, but the Taliban
is. Now the President says, I'm willing to negotiate if you give up
your position. That's not negotiation.
I would like to show you, Mr. Speaker, some of the words that have
been used against our Speaker and the Republican body. We've been
called by this administration: terrorists, anarchists, suicide bombers,
blackmailers, fringe, extortionists, ideologists, gangsters,
extremists, bombs strapped to their chest, guns held to their heads.
We're not talking about the terrorists who the President is
negotiating with, but we're talking about the working-class gentleman
from Ohio.
I call on the President to tone down the rhetoric. I call on the
President to respect this body and to negotiate in good faith. It's
time to end the government shutdown, and let's do it in a positive
manner.
I would like to point out, too, while these names were hurled in
insult to the Speaker, never once has the Speaker ever used that kind
of terminology against our President.
I would like to see this body turn down the rhetoric and get back to
the business of negotiating and making compromise. It's the fair thing
to do, it's the proper thing to do, and I just appeal to the Nation to
stop using this kind of rhetoric against people in this body. We
deserve better.
I praise the gentleman from Ennis, Texas, for allowing me this time
to speak to unifying the body and negotiating in fairness. We ask the
President just to sit down.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, we've appointed conferees to negotiate. To
this date, they've never shown up on the other side. We can't negotiate
unless there's someone else. Anybody in a family knows that it takes a
husband, a wife, a spouse, or a partner to make a deal. It takes two
people. You can't do it unilaterally.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, to my friends in the body, this is a serious
issue. ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, as I said at the start,
is a huge new entitlement. At a minimum, we would have a real debate
about it. As has been pointed out, it barely passed the House on a
partisan vote. No Republicans voted for it, and some Democrats, I
think, voted against it. I think it passed by one or two votes. It
passed the Senate only because they were able to get around the 60-vote
requirement to end debate. It is the law of the land, but it was passed
with all Democratic votes and no Republican votes.
Before it is fully implemented, I think it is worthy of a debate and
it is worthy of the type of situation that's going on now. As I said at
the top of this Special Order, if the Affordable Care Act is such a
great thing, let's make it voluntary for the next year and let the
American people choose whether they want to implement it as it is
currently structured. If they don't, let's work together, hopefully on
a bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker, to change it.
No one wants the Federal Government to shut down. That's obvious. The
Republicans in the House are bringing bills to the floor on a daily
basis to try
[[Page H6319]]
to open up as much of the Federal Government as is possible. Our
friends on the Democrat side some days are with us on that and some
days are not. They were with us today on paying furloughed Federal
workers when they come back to work. Hopefully, next week, they will be
with us on paying the veterans, opening the VA, the national parks,
funding cancer research, and some of the things that earlier this week
they were against.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________