[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15466-15467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       VOTING TO END THE SHUTDOWN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 18 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate so much my friend, Mr. Perry from 
Pennsylvania, bringing this whole issue forward.
  There are a number of more votes that we did take. We took up the 
Head Start for Low-Income Children Act, providing official education 
funding to support Head Start programs across the country, and 168 of 
the Democrats across the aisle voted against that. Harry Reid is 
refusing to take that up.
  My friends across the aisle wanted a vote. So we voted for the 
Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act. It seemed like 
if Harry Reid would not appoint negotiators before the shutdown really 
had a chance to take hold, I wasn't sure this was really necessary, but 
there's a Chinese proverb having to do with allowing your opponent a 
graceful way out.

                              {time}  2145

  So this bill was proposed as a graceful way out so that Harry Reid 
could come back and say, Okay, well, now we will, under this new bill, 
we'll go ahead and appoint negotiators and act like it was some new 
bill when the truth is it's just us trying to have a bicameral 
discussion. Yet we had 197 Democrats vote against--well, there were 197 
that voted against the bill, basically Democrats, saying we don't want 
to sit down and work this out with negotiators.
  I thought about voting against it because it seemed pretty needless 
since we already voted to appoint negotiators, conferees. Harry Reid 
wouldn't do that. But I was persuaded, look, this is a way for Harry 
Reid to get out gracefully, go ahead and appoint negotiators. Now maybe 
we can get something worked out.
  We also passed the Federal Workers Pay Fairness Act, which ensured 
all Federal employees who are still on the job during the shutdown will 
be paid on time. Again, we have not seen that the Democrats in the 
House have any interest in bringing that to the floor to get a vote.
  So my friends across the aisle here in the House who kept screaming, 
Give us a vote, I hope that will be directed toward their friend, Harry 
Reid, down the hall, Give a vote to the Senate on these bills. I just 
can't imagine a majority of the Senate not being willing to fund the 
things that we have passed.
  So, let's see, the term that was used in the prior discussion was 
``burning the house down,'' ``rigging negotiation.'' Rigging 
negotiation? We appointed negotiators. It's not rigged.
  Now, it is interesting that the President wishes to have the 
authority--takes the authority even though he doesn't have it--to just 
rewrite the entire ObamaCare law. Any part that he decides to wave his 
hand and dismiss, he's done that. But there are consequences for doing 
that.
  We've also seen in this shutdown something that's just not normally 
been seen in America. We've seen Franklin Roosevelt say, We have 
nothing to fear but fear itself. But it's a rare thing--an extremely 
rare thing--to say that the market needs to be afraid and needs to 
start getting concerned, trying to gin up a panic to drive down the 
market. And the market, after a week's time of Republicans having 
negotiators sitting out there for over a week, waiting to sit down and 
negotiate with Senators, and the Senators thinking they're winning a 
political battle, so being unwilling to send negotiators to sit down 
and work out a deal. Today, between the concerns expressed by the 
President that the market needs to be concerned, basically saying it 
needs to start dropping so Republicans will get scared and they will 
give me everything I want.
  So it's interesting they talk across the aisle about holding a gun to 
the head, burning the house down. The thing is, this is not our House. 
It's not the Democrats' House; it's the people's House. That's why I 
try to take people through tours at least once a week when we're in 
session. This is the people's House, and it breaks my heart that it's 
so hard to get in here nowadays. It wasn't when I was in high school, 
and I would like for it to be more accessible to people.
  But burning the house down, the references are so misplaced because 
it's the Democratic President that says, Give me everything I want. Do 
not stand in my way when I legislate and rewrite the laws to suit me. 
We already saw that happen with the GM and Chrysler bailout. The 
government became socialists for a while here and decided to take up 
nationalist interests in things--did so with Wall Street.
  With the car dealers, it should have scared most Americans. It should 
have scared Americans enough that they would never, ever have wanted 
the government to be in control of their health care, because what we 
saw is mainly Republican dealers were the ones that lost their 
dealerships. There was no due process. They violated bankruptcy law 
right and left. And the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a 24-
hour hold, but then let it lapse. The Supreme Court hung their heads, 
let illegal actions, unconstitutional actions, takings without due 
process all take place. And Republican dealers, many of them were 
punished, had their dealerships taken away even though they still owed 
money on them. That should have been enough to scare everybody, but we 
didn't learn a lesson.
  Then we find out that after the Citizens United case that the 
President got upset, stood up here in this Chamber, misrepresented--I 
know he didn't do it knowingly, but he was not familiar with the law 
regarding the Citizens United case and misrepresented the law as borne 
out by the Supreme Court Justice Alito sitting there shaking his head 
saying ``not true.'' And the President, I'm sure, is just taking advice 
that's given to him by those around him, not knowing that those who 
gave him advice were as ignorant as they are.
  But when people keep clamoring, Give us a clean CR, when people hear 
the term ``give us a clean CR,'' they need to understand that this is 
people demanding that Congress reject the responsibility it has under 
the Constitution and help crown a monarchy. Let's make it official. We 
don't want the Congress to do its job and to appropriate as article I 
requires. We want Congress just to say, Here's the massive sacks of 
money, Mr. President; go

[[Page 15467]]

do what you want. Go find all the Solyndras you want. Go find all the 
cronies that you can help in a capitalist way so that they can overtake 
their competitors. Go do what you wish. Maybe you can even find some 
more dealerships to take away without due process.
  We hear friends across the aisle say they love to debate elected 
officials when the fact is during the 4 years the Democrats had the 
House as a majority and had the Senate, it was the most partisan, 
closed Congress in the history of this country. There were more closed 
rules, bills where no amendments were allowed whatsoever. Even on 
ObamaCare, we were not allowed input. There was some discussion, but it 
was made clear our input was not allowed, so nearly half of the country 
was not misrepresented when had it came to ObamaCare.
  And it's really amazing to hear people say that the ObamaCare law was 
passed by Congress, by both Houses; the President signed it into law; 
and then of course they misrepresent--I know they don't do it 
intentionally--but saying the Supreme Court upheld it. Now, the Supreme 
Court rewrote it and then upheld what they wrote--or at least five out 
of the nine did. Then the President has completely rewritten anything 
he doesn't like, given waivers, exemptions. So it's not the law that 
got passed.
  And it's amazing to hear people say, gee, once a law is passed and 
the President has signed it, you can't change it. It's the law; get 
over it. And almost in the same breath come back and say, now the debt 
ceiling--parenthetically, which was passed by both Houses, signed by 
President Obama and is upheld by the Supreme Court--we want to change 
that immediately, do that now; don't use it as a gun to our head. What 
do you mean a gun to your head? It's the law. You just told us if it's 
passed by Congress, signed by the President--the President himself said 
it bears my signature, we're not changing it. So why would that be a 
gun to the head when I thought the President said we weren't supposed 
to talk metaphorically like that. We weren't supposed to use violent 
metaphors. Why are we talking like that? Why are we calling people 
arsonists when we're just trying to follow the Constitution? But again, 
that's consistent with Homeland Security saying that those who believe 
in the Constitution are extremists, and they must be watched at all 
cost.
  I think my friends are right when they say go to the American people. 
The trouble is the mainstream media has not done that. They have 
actually stood in the way of the truth getting to the American people. 
They're not asking questions as my friend had asked Andrea Mitchell 
today, Why are you not asking why the President is not under ObamaCare? 
She says, well, why aren't you under it? Well, we are on it.
  There was an issue about subsidies. I'm not going to take them, not 
when other Americans don't get them the way they used to. But, gee, 
let's be honest about things. Well, The Wall Street Journal says that 
Maryland has 326 enrollees in their health exchange--got an article 
here talking about there. ``ObamaCare's Winners and Losers in Bay 
Area,'' an article from Mercury News that talks about:

       Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the 
     Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to 
     say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama. 
     Yet, like many other Bay residents who pay for their own 
     medical insurance, they were floored last week when they 
     opened their bills: their policies were being replaced with 
     pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new 
     health care law.
       Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an 
     individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will 
     cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of 
     four.
       ``Welcome to the club'', said Robert Laszewski, a prominent 
     health care consultant and president of Health Policy and 
     Strategy Associates in Virginia.
       For years, the Nation has been embroiled in the political 
     rhetoric of ``ObamaCare,'' but this past week the reality of 
     the new law sank in as millions of Americans had their first 
     good look at how the 3\1/2\-year-old legislation will affect 
     their pocketbooks.

  It's a disaster. So when my friends on the other side of the aisle 
say, well, let's just let it fully take effect, we've already seen what 
happens, this President and Harry Reid are not going to let the full 
thing take effect.
  We've seen the way the IRS, with instructions from somebody around 
the White House--if not in it, we're still trying to get to the bottom 
of it--was instructed to go after conservative groups. And they did. 
The IRS was weaponized.
  We've seen what's happened with other groups. They're paying a price. 
And you want these people to control your health care? You want them to 
decide whether you get a knee replacement or a hip replacement?
  ``Beyond the glitches: Will young and healthy Americans pick up 
ObamaCare?'' is an article, October 7, that talks about one of the most 
heated arguments among health care policy writers has revolved around 
the issue of rate shock, which is a term for the premium increases many 
Americans--especially younger, healthier ones--will experience once the 
law kicks in. It's just going to get worse.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle say they want a vote. 
They've been getting votes. They will continue to get votes. We just 
ask them to join us in demanding that Harry Reid bring these bills to 
the floor for a vote. And let's get them passed so these things will be 
taken care of.
  And in answer to his question: Why would we do that? The answer is: 
To help America. It's that simple. Mr. Reid needs to bring these bills 
to the floor in the Senate; and if you're not going to bring the bills 
to the floor, for heavens sakes appoint negotiators so we can get 
America moving before any more punitive shutdowns by this 
administration occur just to punish the American people because of the 
temper tantrum being thrown by those who want their way or nobody gets 
to play.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________