[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6405-H6409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Joyce). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am 
exceptionally privileged to be here on the House floor of the United 
States Congress this evening to speak on behalf of my constituents and 
in front of the Nation. It is an honor that few people realize, and 
it's worthy of mention.
  I just want to also thank the fine gentlemen and ladies from the 
other side that were here this evening. I appreciate your impassioned 
pleas. That's what this place is all about. I might disagree with many 
of them, but I appreciate your passion and your willingness to serve.
  I just want to talk about a couple of things and, at least from my 
side, Mr. Speaker, set the record, or at least kind of balance the 
record--maybe not set it straight in some people's minds because I'm 
sure some folks will disagree. But when the one gentleman said that he 
opposed the Iraq war and folks were here paying for it with a credit 
card and he was opposed to that, well, I wasn't here. So I can't really 
atone for the sins of the past, and there's a good chance that I would 
disagree with many of them, but one of the reasons I wasn't here was 
because I was in Iraq at that time.
  And even though I think it is morally wrong to have spent this Nation 
into such debt over those conflicts, when you are attacked, you must 
respond, number one; and, number two, I think it kind of belies the 
fact that the current administration has nearly doubled that spending 
in half the time. So with all due respect, I think it's fair just to 
point that out.
  And regarding another gentleman who talked about the interest of the 
other side to negotiate and agree to a compromise and to compromise, in 
looking at the numbers, the sequester came from the President of the 
United States out of another supercommittee that was created, and the 
President demanded the sequester, demanded the number. So this Congress 
has given it to him, and this Congress has held that number. It was 
demanded out of that negotiation. So by saying that they've 
compromised, they haven't compromised on anything. That's where we all 
agreed to be at the end of that negotiation.
  Now, there's been a lot of impassioned talk and yelling and wailing, 
and I don't really think that's helpful to the narrative here. We're 
all going to have to work together at some point and figure this thing 
out, and blaming one side or the other side, I just don't know where 
that really gets us.
  I want to just talk a little bit about some of the facts. And these 
aren't my facts; they're not Scott Perry's facts. I've got The 
Washington Post here, because some people say this is unprecedented, 
it's never happened before, and only one party does this.
  Well, there was a shutdown in 1976. Gerald Ford was the President. 
The Democrats held both Houses. It was ended by all sides coming 
together and working towards a continuing resolution.
  The next one was in 1977. Jimmy Carter was the President. Democrats 
held both Houses. Amazingly, it was resolved by both sides coming 
together and working on a Medicaid ban.
  Then there was the shutdown of 1977. Jimmy Carter was the President. 
Democrats were in charge of both Houses. They signed a temporary bill 
because they came together and worked something out. The 1977 shutdown 
under Jimmy Carter, Democrats were in charge, and they were doing what 
they thought they needed to do. They're elected by their people to do 
the work of this House, but they came together after 8 days and they 
resolved it.
  The next one, 1978. Jimmy Carter was the President. The Democrats 
controlled both Houses. Eighteen days--eighteen days--but they resolved 
it after they got together. The President, the Senate, and the House, 
they got together.
  1979, Jimmy Carter was the President. The Democrats were in charge of 
both Houses. Eleven days. What resolved it? They got together and they 
talked. Nothing happens here, and nothing will happen here, if we're 
not going to be willing to be civil with one another and get together 
and talk.
  1981, Ronald Reagan was the President. The Republicans had the 
Senate. The House was controlled by the Democrats. After 2 days, they 
resolved it. Again, Reagan came down and signed a bill extending the 
current spending limit.
  And then again, in September of '82, Ronald Reagan was the President. 
Republicans held the Senate. Democrats held the House. Tip O'Neill was 
the Speaker. But they resolved it in just 1 day because they got 
together. Both of them were out that evening having fundraisers, both 
parties. They let the government shut down, but they got together and 
moved beyond it.
  1982, Tip O'Neill again the Speaker. Republicans were in charge of 
the Senate. Ronald Reagan was President. Over the MX missile, they shut 
it down, but they figured out a way to get past it because they 
negotiated.
  And for 3 days in 1983, Ronald Reagan was the President. Republicans 
were in charge of the Senate. The House was controlled by Democrats, 
with Tip O'Neill Speaker. And they resolved it, again, over about a 
$100 million discrepancy.
  1984, Ronald Reagan was the President. Republicans had the Senate. 
The House was controlled by the Democrats. Over a Supreme Court ruling, 
they shut it down, but they resolved it after all sides came together 
and negotiated.
  This is from not a right-wing paper in town here. These are not my 
facts.
  1984, Ronald Reagan was the President. Republicans had the Senate. 
The House was controlled by Democrats. Tip O'Neill was the Speaker. And 
they shut it down again, but they opened it back up.
  The 13th one happened in 1986 under President Reagan. Republicans 
controlled the Senate, Bob Dole. Democrats in the House by Tip O'Neill. 
And they resolved it by getting together--each side gave up some of 
their demands--and they expanded welfare in return for the 
appropriations necessary to reopen the government.
  Ronald Reagan, in 1987, was the President. Democrats were in control 
of both Houses. And again, they found a way to get together on the 
fairness doctrine.
  In 1990, George H.W. Bush was the President. Democrats controlled 
both Houses. They figured it out and signed a continuing resolution and 
reduced the deficit.
  And then the 16th time, Clinton was the President and Gingrich was 
the Speaker of the House. The Senate was controlled by Republicans and 
so was the House. But even then, they worked it out. Even then, they 
worked it out. When both Houses of Congress were against the President, 
Mr. Speaker, they found a way to work it out.
  And then for 21 days in 1995, with Clinton as the President and the 
House was controlled by Republicans and the Senate was controlled by 
Republicans, again, what resolved it? They worked it out. They got 
together, and they worked it out.
  So let's go to the debt limit, because we've also heard this is a 
historic time, it's unprecedented, it's never happened before, Mr. 
Speaker.
  So 1970 is where we found out the practice of attaching nongermane 
provisions to the debt limit began in earnest. In 1971, Social Security 
changes; 1972, the spending cap and impoundment of powers on the 
proposal to increase the debt limit.
  And I'm just skipping because there's a pile of them here.
  In 1980, Congress repealed an oil import fee. President Carter vetoed 
the bill. Both Houses of Congress were Democrat and President Carter 
was a Democrat. But he vetoed it, and they

[[Page H6406]]

overrode the veto by wide majorities, but they worked it out. They 
worked it out.
  1985, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2010, 2011, 2012. The debt limit is the 
appropriate place in this divided government to find some fiscal 
sanity, and that's what's happening here right now in this town.
  Now, of course, like I said, I don't want to get into the blame game 
here. I'm really going to try to stay out of it. Whether we agree with 
ObamaCare or not is not the issue. It might be a great law. And there 
are other laws that some people think are great laws or are not great 
laws. The question really should be and really is: Can we afford it? 
Can we afford it?
  We are running a trillion-dollar deficit every single year. We take 
in $1 trillion less than we spend. So if you are a household that 
brings in $100,000, you are spending $25,000 more every single year as 
a ratio more than you bring in. I ask the American people, Mr. Speaker, 
how long can this be sustained?
  So even if we agree that it's a good law--and many of us don't. 
That's fair. But even if we agree that it's a good law, how are we 
going to pay for it? That's the question.
  Now Congress' job in this House and this Senate is to craft 
legislation and to determine our spending priorities and our spending 
levels. That's our job. The other gentleman said, We haven't read the 
Constitution or--it's in the Constitution. It's very simple. That is 
our job.
  With all due respect to the President, I've got to tell you, it does 
not help. Again, we are going to have to work together. It's for the 
sake of our Nation. It does not help to be lectured to about what we 
must do here, according to the President, when it's exactly what he 
would not do and did not do when he served in this building. It does 
not help.
  Now, our constituents elected us. The citizens of our districts 
elected us. They elected us to come here and do something, to do 
something. And we keep on hearing from the other side, Just pass a 
clean CR. Just pass it and everything will be fine.
  I came here to do something. We are spending $1 trillion more than we 
bring in every single year. We are $17 trillion in debt. The bill 
that's being implemented, the law that's being implemented right now is 
going to cost us $2 trillion or $3 trillion. We don't know. And the 
President, I understand--I'm not sure of the number--is going to ask in 
a week to raise the debt ceiling another $900 billion. So that is $100 
billion short of $1 trillion, which are still all numbers that are 
staggering to my mind.
  So if we add that up, okay, so at the minimum, we're at $20 trillion, 
and that doesn't include Social Security and all the other obligations 
that we have. And the clean CR that we're being beseeched to just vote 
on so everything will be fine says, That's okay, just keep going. Don't 
change a thing. Everything's fine. Nothing to see here.
  Everything's not fine. The constituents that elected me had three 
concerns when I ran, and I hear about them every single day at the 
grocery store, at the gas station, on my telephones, in email, and in 
the letters they send to me. Do something about this debt. Do something 
about this deficit. Do something about this spending. Do something 
about ObamaCare. That's what they send to me. That's what they tell me.
  Maybe the world doesn't understand where this is going to end, but a 
lot of us do. When our dollar isn't worth anything, when we have to 
take a wheelbarrow of dollars to the grocery store to buy just what we 
need to survive, that's where it will end. We don't have to go there. 
We are choosing to go there. And it doesn't have to be that way.
  Another one of the gentlemen said, Well, we need to move on so we can 
make investments, investments in education, investments in 
infrastructure. And he's right. The world is leaving us behind. He's 
right. But we only have so much money. So we have to prioritize, Mr. 
Speaker. We must prioritize. And that's what this is about. We said, 
We've only got so much; and if you want to spend a bunch more on 
education and on infrastructure so we can compete, then you are not 
going to have as much money to spend on some other things.

                              {time}  2115

  But nobody wants to make that distinction. Nobody wants to choose in 
this place.
  Some of us, reluctantly, because it's unpleasant, but reluctantly we 
know it is your duty and so we are forced to choose, and we are ready 
to choose. I say it's doing nothing because passing a clean CR will do 
nothing to fix our $17 trillion debt and our $1 trillion annual 
deficits. It will do nothing.
  So I will go home to my constituents, to the people that elected me, 
and they'll say, What did you get accomplished? And I will say nothing?
  I won't say nothing. No, I will say I tried. I might fail. I might 
fail, but I'm not going down on my knees, Mr. Speaker. I'm going down, 
if I go down, I'll go down fighting, because I can't do nothing.
  I don't want to see a government shutdown. Nobody in this place wants 
to see it. It's not good for this side, it's not good for that side, 
it's not good for the American people. It is not good. We acknowledge 
that.
  But why should anyone believe the concerns about debt and deficit 
will be discussed when they haven't been discussed in the 5 years?
  And to be clear and to be honest, they haven't been discussed really 
ever. Republicans, Democrats, nobody wants to touch it.
  I've got a mother on Social Security, Medicare. I don't want to see 
her out on the street. I will take care of my mother. That's what we do 
in our family. We will not let that happen.
  But some people don't have that option. I don't want to see it go 
bankrupt. But right now, Social Security Disability, that portion of 
Social Security, the last report I saw, will be bankrupt in a year and 
a half. In a year and a half.
  Social Security, 10, 15 years behind it. Medicare, Medicaid, 
bankrupting our Nation. And we're doing nothing. We're doing nothing.
  We can't do nothing. And so we must discuss it. We must get to the 
issue.
  So we can't agree to this thing where the other side says, just pass 
it. Let us spend as much as we want to, and we promise you that we'll 
come to the negotiation table and talk to you about the things that are 
important to you.
  With all due respect, they haven't been important enough in the last 
5 years or the last 20 years; and so we have no reason to believe, I 
have no reason to believe that they will.
  And those who say that one side is doing this for partisan reasons, 
for political gain, I ask, what political gain?
  What is the upside?
  What is the upside for me, any of us?
  There is none. The Representatives in this body who disagree with 
passing a clean CR are putting themselves at peril for love of country 
and love of the future.
  I've got two little girls, two little girls that I'm desperate to 
have the same opportunities that I had. When I grew up, our house 
didn't have electricity. We didn't have running water. My parents were 
often unemployed. Me and my brother ate some strange things just to eat 
because we didn't know any better. We did okay. And we made a life for 
ourselves, but we had an opportunity in America.
  But that opportunity is going to slip away from us because of the way 
we are handling our fiscal house.
  Look at what will happen if we continue without adjusting course. I 
would argue that the first people that would lose their jobs under this 
situation are government workers.
  When we can no longer borrow from the Chinese, when we can no longer 
borrow from ourselves, Social Security, the Social Security trust fund, 
part of that $900 billion that they're going to ask us to raise the 
debt ceiling so we continue to borrow is coming out of the Social 
Security trust fund. Who agrees with that?
  I don't know one American that says that's okay. And somehow this is 
the only place in the world where it would be okay.
  But government employees, just like in Greece, when they ran out of 
money, when they ran out finally, the first ones to go--not for a week, 
not for a couple of days, gone. The job is gone. You are no longer 
working. You have no job. There's nothing to come back to.
  We don't have to do it. We don't have to. We can make a choice now. 
We're

[[Page H6407]]

saying turn the ship around on a dime. We're saying turn the wheel a 
little bit, just a little bit, and let's start heading to the course of 
correction.
  But voting for a clean CR says just keep going, just keep going. 
Don't worry about the torpedos, don't worry about the iceberg, just 
keep going.
  So just like in Cyprus, we'll come home to find out the banks under 
Federal control and Federal order will have removed the money from our 
savings account. They'll just do it. That's what they did in that 
country because they ended up where we're going.
  Why would we do it?
  Now, those who say they want a clean CR, they are patriots. I know 
that. They are hearing from their constituents. I've had constituents 
come in, crying, literally crying in my office, and we talked about the 
situation.
  Those folks that want a vote on a clean CR, they are patriots too. 
They want to fix it; they just want to do it now.
  But I would say that it is time to do the hard right because for too 
long the easy wrong has been done. I don't know when they want to do 
something, but I want to do it now because I don't think we can wait.
  Now, we have offered our ideas and we have asked for their ideas. We 
have offered them. We understand and respect the other side disagrees 
with our solution.
  We had four votes in this House before this government shut down, 
four bipartisan votes. People on both sides of the aisle voted four 
times for something.
  But the Senate disagrees. The President disagrees. I respect they 
disagree. I respect that they don't like our solution. It is their 
prerogative, and maybe it's their duty.
  All we're saying is okay, fine. You disagree. I get it.
  What's your idea?
  What's your solution?
  The solution should not be nothing. The solution from them has been 
no. Now go about your business and come up with what we want.
  It just seems like not negotiating--if I had a fight with my wife, if 
I had a dispute with my daughter, I never want to go to bed angry at my 
family, and I never want my family to go to bed angry with me. Before 
the day's done, we're going to sit down at the table, and we're going 
to talk about it.
  We might go to bed a little sore with each other, but we love each 
other and we love this country, and so it's imperative that we stay 
with each other to work through it.
  We understand and respect the other side. We understand that they 
don't want to do anything with ObamaCare, but ObamaCare adds $2 
trillion to $3 trillion to our national debt. So if you don't want to 
do anything about that, fine. What do you want to do?
  That's all I'm asking. That's all we're asking. What do you want to 
do?

  Some say, well, you need to raise taxes. ObamaCare raised taxes; I 
think it was the largest tax increase in history.
  Okay. So we did that. And that wasn't enough, so just last December, 
when I wasn't here, another $650 billion in taxes on an economy that's 
struggling to get through, 1 to 2 percent growth.
  We're choosing this, and I don't think we have to.
  Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that we're taking in more tax revenue right 
now, right now, than ever before in history?
  There's more money coming in now than ever before, and we're $1 
trillion apart every year. I mean, how much more can we take?
  Should we just take it all?
  I mean, that's another form of government. It's been done. It doesn't 
work out real well.
  Well, some will say, well, cut the military. Well, this place cut the 
military about $1.2 trillion over the last year and a half. And for me, 
the Constitution says provide, it uses that word, provide for the 
common defense, Mr. Speaker.
  The line below it is promote the general welfare. Words mean things. 
We have a duty to provide for it.
  Certainly, there are inefficiencies. I've been in the military. I've 
served, and I know they're there. And it's right to take a look. 
Everything needs to be on the table.
  But how much more, and how much do we enfeeble ourselves and disable 
our ability to do our constitutional requirement, which is to protect 
the citizenry?
  It is our requirement.
  Now, we passed a bunch of bills in the House here; and, to tell the 
you truth, I kind of like it. We're moving towards the CR one piece at 
a time, so I don't have to vote for things that I don't think we should 
spend money on for the sake of the things that we must spend money on.
  Mr. Speaker, it's not optimal, but it's a way to get there. But, 
like, for cancer research for kids, we passed that out of the House, 
and the leader of the Senate says, when asked, well, why won't you pass 
it? He says, well, why would we want to do that?
  My goodness, why wouldn't we want to do that?
  That's where we have consensus. We have some consensus.
  And another gentleman questioned why Congress has the right to pick 
and choose what gets funded. Isn't it astounding that someone in the 
Senate doesn't understand that not only is it the right of Congress to 
do that, but it's our duty. That's what we're here to do. That's what 
we're supposed to do.
  We have offered numerous ideas. The Senate says no. They don't say 
no--but. They just say no.
  Refusing to negotiate is, to my mind, irresponsible. I mean, I don't 
know if they're here for themselves or the greater good of Nation when 
I hear reports--I don't know if they're true--but they're reported in 
the newspapers that the park rangers are told make it as difficult as 
possible.
  And when I see the World War II Memorial, when I went out on the Mall 
this morning, the World War II Memorial barricaded up. It costs more 
money to close it than it does to leave it open.
  I saw a cone out on one the streets with barricades all around the 
cone in the middle of the street. I mean, why are we renting 
barricades?
  And on the Mall adjacent to the street that's closed because it's a 
Federal park area, there's an immigration rally that's being supported 
by the Park Police.
  What's happening, Mr. Speaker?
  The Grand Canyon, closed. I guess you can't walk up to the rim and 
look over. The State offered to pay the bill, and the Federal 
Government said, no, we don't want your money. We want to close it.
  Is that reasonable?
  I don't know. It's not reasonable to me.
  It was The Washington Post that reported employees were to make it as 
inconvenient as possible.
  Now, some are characterized around here as being extreme, an extreme 
faction. The four bills that we passed to avert the shutdown were 
passed by this side and that side together, four bipartisan bills.
  And they say the House is being held hostage by a few Members. I 
don't know. Bipartisan votes on both sides seems less than extreme to 
me.
  And I've got to ask, since when are Americans who want to see the 
government act within the constitutional bounds, that is, the House and 
the Senate, the Congress figuring out our spending level and our 
spending priority, when is that extreme?
  Why is that extreme?
  That's our job. That's the division of powers. That's the checks and 
balances. That's what we do. That's why we're here.
  How is that extreme?
  How is spending trillions of dollars more than you have now viewed as 
responsible?
  How is talking about trying to save some money and be responsible 
with the taxpayers' money on our future, how is that seen as extreme?
  Why is it okay to think that spending that money is okay and 
acceptable to most Americans?
  Who gets away with that kind of behavior in their own households?
  Well, you do, but not for very long, I guess.
  With that I'd like to yield some time, if I could, to the fine 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania.
  You were mentioning some of the things that the prior speakers, the 
Democrats, were saying. And one of the things that was said was, give 
us a vote, when, as my friend from Pennsylvania pointed out, there have 
been plenty of votes.

[[Page H6408]]

  They also were saying that, talking about budget conferees. We're 
past the end of the fiscal year. The way it's supposed to work, we're 
supposed to have a budget very early in the year, and then after that, 
do the appropriations bills.
  Well, the Senate has not been doing budgets in the past. This is the 
first time in years. They haven't done what the law required. They seem 
to ignore the law anytime they wish.
  They have not been passing any appropriations bills. And that's a 
political game that allows Majority Leader Harry Reid to avoid 
following the law so that any potential vulnerable Democratic Senators 
will not have to take tough votes like people do in the House 
constantly, because we've appropriations bills and we continue to do 
that.
  And so we know, since we passed the military pay bill that required 
that the military get paid, we treat military pay somewhat like we do 
Social Security pay, so that if the government were shut down, the 
military still gets paid. People in harm's way don't have to worry 
about family members getting their check.
  So since my friend across the aisle was so upset about not having a 
vote, and I realize we get busy here and some people forget the things 
we've been voting on the last 10 days.
  So I'd just like to remind my friends across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, 
that actually, we voted, after we passed a bill to pay our military; 
and as my friend, Mr. Perry knows, the Democrats voted for it. The 
Senate voted for it. The President signed it.
  And in the bill, as we spelled out, civilians were supposed to 
continue employment that were assisting the military. Contractors were 
supposed to continue working that were supporting the military; and yet 
this administration had chosen to try to make as many people suffer as 
possible, even though the law didn't require it.
  So the Secretary of Defense sat on his hands for about a week, had 
civilian personnel not working that could have been working all this 
time; decides, after a week, to follow the advice, he says, of his 
people that had been looking at the bill.
  And we made clear from the very beginning, before the shutdown even 
started, you don't have to send all these people home, but he did it 
anyway.

                              {time}  2130

  It was consistent with what has been mentioned that one of the park 
rangers said, though it was disgusting to the ranger, We were told make 
things as difficult for people as we can.
  And people keep saying we were demanding the total repeal of 
ObamaCare. Well, we know that would be best for America because a lot 
of people are already suffering. We've already seen ObamaCare is not 
being followed as law because the President has had hundreds of 
exemptions that he has waved his hand, waved his magic wand and said, 
You don't have to follow this law; you don't have to follow this law. 
You don't have to follow what's here in this provision; you don't have 
to follow what's in this provision. And by the way, the business 
mandate in the law makes no exceptions. Business folks, my party still 
wants to get your contributions, so I will wave my wand and you don't 
follow the law.
  So when me friends across the aisle say, Just let ObamaCare go, I 
would say the same thing. You let ObamaCare go, if the President will, 
if Harry Reid will. If you just let it be enforced exactly the way it 
is, it won't last a month.
  But he has had to do so many waivers, and it will continue. So it's 
not going into law. In fact, the Supreme Court had to rewrite it just 
to uphold it. Because they already said that the basis for the law that 
was given, the interstate commerce clause, was not a basis to take over 
health care in America. So they struck it down under the law as 
written; and the law, as written, said there was a penalty.
  Well, the Supreme Court said at page 15 that it's a penalty, and 
therefore the anti-injunction act does not apply. Therefore, we do have 
jurisdiction, and so now that we have jurisdiction, we'll go ahead and 
decide it's not constitutional the way it's written as a penalty, but 
we will rewrite it, the five of us in the majority, and call it a tax. 
And then we'll uphold it as a tax, even though clearly that's not the 
way it was written.
  It's not what the President promised the American people. So much for 
the Democrats wanting ObamaCare to be followed as it was written. We're 
way beyond that with all the waivers and exemptions.
  But then we had a vote that said, Okay, let's just suspend it for a 
year because everybody knows ObamaCare is not ready for prime time. 
Clearly. That's why the President had to give business a 1-year 
exemption, where we just won't follow the law as it's applied to 
business.
  But then, after the Senate refused to even take that up, we did the 
most reasonable thing that some said they could imagine and that is, 
Okay, you just waved off the mandatory requirements for business. So if 
you're going to magically wave off part of the law that's mandatory, 
then let's agree to do that for everyone, like the person that's making 
$15,000, or 133 percent of the poverty level. A year or so ago, we were 
told that was $14,000 something. Now it's $15,000. But even with 
subsidies, you're probably going to end up paying a few thousand 
dollar. Somebody making $15,000 is going to have a few thousands over 
their subsidies? And if you don't do that, you're going to pay the $95, 
or 1 percent of your income, as an extra tax?
  People do not have that extra money. People have been sent from full 
time to part time. When the union members figured out what the union 
leaders had done to them, causing many of them to lose full time and 
going to part-time employment, many of them losing their great health 
insurance and now they'll have to go under the ObamaCare exchanges, 
like Members of Congress, they got upset. All of a sudden, the leaders 
of the unions said, Gee, look at all the unintended consequences.
  We knew there were intended consequences. We talked about them at the 
time.
  So that was something that was passed. Just waive the individual 
mandate for a year. That was not taken up by the Senate. So then we 
passed what, to me, seemed like a capitulation. We appointed 
negotiators and said, Okay, you don't like any of those proposals, Mr. 
Majority Leader Harry Reid, then this is what adults do: we appoint 
negotiators, and we can probably have a deal done by morning before 
anybody realizes there's even been a shutdown at midnight.
  But Majority Leader Reid, following the lead of our President, made 
clear that they were going to follow the conventional wisdom of the 
last few years that if there's a shutdown, the mainstream media will 
clearly blame Republicans, and maybe that will help us politically. So 
he even refused to negotiate.
  So once we saw that Harry Reid had completely refused to even 
negotiate, pretty reasonable folks that were appointed by Speaker 
Boehner, the majority leader says, We're not going to do that.
  It's possible they could have slept through it. Maybe I was given a 
speech and my Democratic friends dozed off and didn't know we had all 
these votes. So if they happened to be sleeping while we had these 
votes, I would like to remind people that then we had a bill that we 
voted on to provide local funding for the District of Columbia. We know 
the District of Columbia has a lot of money of its own that comes in.
  Frankly, I was shocked that our friends across the aisle--most of 
them--voted against allowing the District of Columbia to just move 
forward with its own money so that it could run the operations of the 
city. Apparently, they wanted to inflict as much harm as possible so 
that people would continue to blame the Republicans.
  We know the mainstream media has long since quit being objective. 
Twenty-one stories from the mainstream media at first all unanimously 
blamed Republicans failing to report that Harry Reid would not even 
appoint negotiators to work something out quickly.
  And then we passed the Open Our National Parks and Museums Act. It 
would have made sure that all of these places that have been shut down 
by this administration in the most hurtful, harmful, punitive way 
possible, trying to get everybody in America

[[Page H6409]]

they can to hurt some way so that they can blame Republicans, when it's 
simply the decision of the President.
  We answered by saying, Okay, Democrats across the aisle, you want a 
vote? Let's vote. There's no need to do this, and the response across 
the aisle was to have most of the Democrats vote to leave them shut. 
They weren't going to vote with us to fund our national parks.
  And then we had a vote on Research for Lifesaving Cures Act, H.J. 
Res. 73, to provide funding for the National Institutes of Health, 
which is responsible for lifesaving medical innovation and cancer 
research. Most, except for about 20 or so Democrats, all voted not to 
fund the National Institutes of Health.
  Our friends across the aisle say, Give us a vote. They got a vote. 
You want to fund the NIH, then vote to do it. We'll send it down. But 
even though we passed it and sent it down the Hall, Harry Reid was not 
going to do it because, as my friend pointed out, when he was asked if 
you could save one child with cancer, why wouldn't you do that, he 
said, Why would we do that? And then he chastised the reporter for 
asking a question which in his mind he thought was a silly question. I 
thought it was an excellent question.
  And then many of us believed there was enough latitude to pay some of 
our Reservists on Active Duty. But the Defense Department took a narrow 
interpretation so they could punish more people and blame 
the Republicans.

  So to counter that, we passed a Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act on 
October 3 that ensured during the shutdown that it would not affect the 
pay for our National Guard and Reserves. Again, 160 Democrats voted 
against that. They asked for a vote, we give them a vote. Most of them 
voted against it. Then our friend, Harry Reid, down the hall said, No 
way, we're not funding them.
  Again, maybe our friends were asleep. Sometimes when I talk, I put 
people to sleep. It happens. I'm a very restful speaker.
  We passed the National Emergency Disaster Recovery Act. That provided 
immediate funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and 164 
of our Democratic friends voted against that, and Harry Reid refuses to 
bring it up.
  We actually brought up a bill to pay our veterans and make sure our 
wounded warriors were taken care of. The way the rules of the House 
have been--and are--you can bypass the committee of jurisdiction and go 
straight to the floor without the committee bringing the bill to the 
floor, without it being voted out of committee, under what is called a 
suspension. But to bypass the committee of jurisdiction, it requires a 
two-thirds vote in the House.
  I, like Speaker Boehner, thought that surely you could bring the 
veterans bill to the floor under a suspension because surely they would 
vote to fund our wounded warriors. Most of us were totally shocked that 
the vast majority of Democrats voted against funding our veterans, our 
wounded warriors.
  So we had to go back, have the committee of jurisdiction pass it, 
bring it to the floor under a rule so a simple majority would pass it. 
And that's what we did with H.J. Res. 72; and when 157 of our friends 
across the aisle who wanted a vote, they got a vote. And they voted 
against funding our wounded warriors.
  We also took up the Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and 
Children Act that provided immediate funding for the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program for women, infants, and children. It 
serves nearly 9 million mothers and young children and provides vital 
nutrition that poor families might otherwise be unable to afford.
  Then 164 of our Democratic friends voted against that bill, but it 
passed the House nonetheless. We sent it down to Harry Reid. They have 
been wanting a vote. We gave them a vote.
  On October 5, we voted for the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay 
Fairness Act. It provided for compensation for Federal employees 
furloughed due to the Senate Democrats' government shutdown. It's 
similar to the bipartisan legislation enacted during previous 
shutdowns. We did pass that, but Harry Reid thus far has refused to 
take that up.
  Mr. PERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________