reform. all decent ideas but open the government first. get the bill on the floor that is clean. open the government, raise the debt ceiling to pay our bills. let the american people get back to work. let our veterans get services. we don't catch cattle. we don't go after cattle in texas by throwing down a committee. we get it done. let's get the job done. let's stop stampeding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. further requests for one minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garmeppedy, is recognized for 60 minutes as the december -- garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you. october 8, october 8. we are now eight days into the shutdown of the government of the united states of america. presumed to be the strongest nation on this earth, presumed to be the greatest economic power, presumed to be the tion's -- the world's oldest democracy. perhaps oldest, but not functioning. why? why are we in this situation? eight days without a functioning government. what in the world is the republican party doing to this nation? and why? why? it's hard to say why, because every day, the goalpost changes. every day, a different demand, and today, a new demand. what's the result of all of this? what does all of this mean? means that this nation is humiliated by this shutdown. speaker boehner, let your people go. speaker boehner, let your people go and vote. why not? we think there's a majority. let's see here. there's 198 democrats that will vote for the reopening of this government tonight. call us back into session, mr. boehner. 198 democrats. and by the public record, there re 23 or more republicans that have said they'd vote for a clean c.r. mr. speaker, let your people go and vote. what does it mean that the government's shut down? what does it mean to americans? i'll tell you what it means in my district. t means that the daycare centers, early childhood education programs, levy improvements, ain indeed -- levee imvofments and we have learned today that those brave and men and women that have recently been killed in the war in afghanistan, their families will not receive $100,000 that has been set aside for them. i know we have a vote here. this is the eighth day of the shutdown. and we have in this house passed eight bills to appropriate . eces, pieces of this these are the 12 appropriation bills. these are the 12 appropriation bills that fund every function of government, whether it's the military, whether it's the farm programs, the daycare programs, the health care programs, the centers for disease control, here they are. more than 1,000 specific items. and in eight days, our republican colleagues have put before us eight bills to fund eight of the more than 1,000. at this rate, it will be 2020 before this government is fully functional. how foolish. how stupid, how humiliating for this nation. mr. speaker, mr. speaker, let your people vote. let us vote. let us vote on reopening this government. the votes are there. a simple blackboard will tell you, the votes are there. tonight, call us back to session and tomorrow morning, the people of america, the people across this world will see the strongest nation in the world, the government of that nation, functioning once again. how do i go back to my district and tell the people at the dixon national cemetery, that those burials aren't going to take place? how do i go back to my district and tell them, yeah, maybe they ought to see this. in california, northern .alifornia, it's hunting season opened on saturday. but the refuges across this great nation are closed to hunters. the duck hunters, the men and women who want to recreate in those areas. and if you're not a hunter, maybe you're a fisherman, but don't go to a refuge, don't go to the bureau of land management fishing areas or put your boat in at the national parks. you can't do it, because this government's shut down. let peaker, mr. speaker, your people vote. let us all vote. let us reopen this government. we have several of my colleagues with me tonight. we are going to cover this issue . how much i would prefer to be here with my colleagues from new york and other states to talk about putting americans back to work and i guess we are in a way, putting the federal employees back to work. mr. paul tonko, from the great state of work. mr. tonko: i appreciate the gentleman bringing us together in thoughtful discussion on what is chaos here in the nation's capitol capital. thank you for bringing us from new jersey, connecticut and pennsylvania and others who will probably join us that will speak to the unnecessary pain that has trickled into the lives of working families across this country and impacting small businesses from coast to coast with the ill effects of a government shutdown, a republican government shutdown, simply because as you just heard the gentleman from california indicate, we need to vote on a c.r., a continuing resolution, a bill that allows for the budget to continue into a date certain, as mentioned in that bill, most likely, two months, eight weeks as an extender into perhaps mid-december. why do we need to do that? so we can bring stability into the process and allow government to be funded and allow the doors to be opened and the lights to go on and reopen government. as the first step in the sequence. secondly, another cornstone bit of legislation coming upon us, giving the green light to america to pay her bills. america's working families understand what that's about. they know they play by the rules. they roll up their sleeves, they work hard and expect success and pay their bills on time and expect their beloved country to do the same thing. our second step in the process. and then thirdly, buying this eight weeks' of time allow us to name those individuals who will be the representatives for the minority and majority parties in each of the houses of congress to sit down and nail down a budget in those ensuing eight weeks to make certain that stability again is the outcome. that's what we're asking for. mr. speaker. you are the speaker, not only to the tea party, not only to the republican conference, but to the entire house, the united states house of representatives. let all of us vote on what is a clean c.r., which has been approved by the united states senate, and by the way, in negotiations to date, accepts, accepts your number. the lowest number in the process. we're not happy with that number, but we're going to cave to your request to allow for government to be reopened and for us to move forward. that's what it's about. we're asking for dignity to be expressed for america's working family. we are allowing for certainty to be the outcome for our small business community, so we can grow our economy, allow for the climate that produces both public and private sector job growth that allows us to move forward with a sense of hope. that's what the request is here. why won't you let us vote on a clean c.r.? are you fearful that it might pass? are you fearful that you don't get your way? because, you know in the 45 votes that have been taken on a continuing -- or on a debt ceiling vote since the days of president ronald reagan, those 45 measures have been approved 38 times without any bells and whistles and certainly unprecedented to have attached to the vote some sort of clutter that deals with the repeal of the affordable care act. never have we reached to that sort of negotiated outcome where we are repealing the law of the land, in this case, the law of the land that is three years old, approved by a majority of the house of representatives and approved by a supermajority of the senate, was tested at your concern, because of your concern, before the highest court of the land and the supreme court gave it thumbs up in meeting the constitutionality test. what more do we need to convince you? let me say this so we can get to our colleagues, i want to share with you some of the results in these few eight days already, but painful eight days. by the end of this month, food pan tries may not have the money to stay open. that is the situation with many. this is a facility that helps feed 215 hungry families in the capital region of new york state. projections are one of the providers of electronics for our fighter jets, submarines and helicopters in saratoga springs have grinded to a halt as inspectors can't complete contracts and new orders cannot come in. we also have impacting us a orensic business in the 20th congressional district of new york that work with the national oceanic and atmospheric administration that helps bring benefits to all of us from the devastation of mother nature. these are jobs that are meaningful. meaningful to the quality of life of people across this country, that are meaningful to working families who are now without jobs. people who are not getting paid and showing up to work. these are devastating consequences to the economy. we implore the leadership of this house and implore the speaker to call for a vote on a clean, continuing resolution that embraces your number, the lowest number in negotiations that we will settle upon. we will offer our votes for that kind of measure, only give us that chance so america can have her government funded and we can move forward to advance the debt ceiling limit that will allow the government -- for america to pay for her bills and then finally move to that conference table where representation from both parties in each of the houses will nail down a budget in the ensuing eight weeks. that will bring stability to the economy and bring economic and social justice to the people of this great country. let's move forward with that sense of fairness. and thank you very much to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. tonko, the gentleman from new york. i would like to bring to the microphone, our friend from the reat state of connecticut, mr. arson. . garamendi as mr. has articulated. we find ourselves dealing with the issue de jure. each day the goal posts move, each day the american public sits in utter amazement and disgust with its elective representatives. it is astounding to them to see the greatest nation in the world brought to its knees. you know, our forefathers were very press yent and certainly george washington, who daniel webster, the senator from massachusetts, in this chamber, well, actually it would have been down the hall, got up on the 100th anniversary of george ashington's birth and talked about the president's admonishings -- admonitions. amongst his keenest admonitions as about that of exsive -- excessive party spirit. now, in washington's day there weren't political parties as we know them. it wasn't democrat or republican, it was federalists or antifederalists. but he knew very well -- anti-federalists. but he knew very well and was concerned deeply about what factions could do and he warned about the outside influence of party. what he was most concerned about is that what happens within a government if people are at ery government war with their own existence, are working against the interests of the government and therefore the people. and so we find ourselves this evening as members of the minority coming to this floor and asking for one simple thing from the majority. and that is a vote. now, we understand that we have asked for votes on this floor, we've asked for votes to put the country back to work. as the gentleman from california has articulated on many occasions, to come here and talk about making things in america, and allowing a vote to put us back to work. we've been denied that opportunity. we've been denied the opportunity here to vote on nutrition and funding and making sure that important bills like the agriculture bill , that the very poor amongst us, the very needy, are fed. week of been denied an opportunity to vote on immigration. as you heard charlie rangel talk about so nobly earlier this evening. and we've also, most importantly, been denied a vote here that is fundamental to our democracy. the most fundamental thing and the most patriotic thing that we do in a society is vote. and yet here, because of the ranny of the majority, 200-plus democrats are not allowed a vote. re importantly, the american people are not allowed a vote. on the continuing of its government. and as the gentleman from new york pointed out, not only is it the continuation and shutdown of government, but on , defaulting on the full faith and credit of the american people. this is unconscionable. but washington was presient. when a few dangerously are at , with their own government who seek to bring the government down, who seek to bring the government down through a shutdown, and then by not paying the bills that this body and the other body have racked up -- racked up, the greatest nation on the face of to be able e need to express the will of the people. all we ask of the majority party is for a vote. a simple vote, as the gentleman from new york said, on a continuing resolution unencumbered and does nothing more and at the levels that they have requested, but put the nation back to work and then respond quickly to the debts without being held hostage. you are not holding barack obama hostage, mr. speaker, you are not holding the democrats in congress hostage, mr. speaker. you are holding the people of .he united states hostage in the sake of fairness and being responsible, bring the bill to the floor for a vote. allow the minority the opportunity to vote. if you don't have the votes, let it be so and let the world know and let every american citizen know where their members stand on this issue. stand with your country. do not let it be shut down. do not let it default. i yield give us a vote back to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. larson. a vote. that's what democracy's all about. and we're asking for a simple thing. the opportunity to vote on extending the operations of the american government. i'd like to turn to mr. doyle from the great state of pennsylvania. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: i thank my colleague from california and my colleagues from new york and connecticut. many of us that you'll see on the floor tonight, we're not regulars, we're not people that come to the floor often to speak. but many of us feel it's important for the american people to understand the nature of this task, this battle that we face on their behalf. you know we hear a lot from republicans about the president not wanting to negotiate. not wanting to talk. the democrats don't want to negotiate. and they've been pretty good at saying that over and over and over again, mr. speaker. but what they're not telling the american people is the nature of the negotiation that they want to have. and i think it's important that that be revealed. you know, what makes me so angry, and the reason i'm here tonight, is what we face in the country right now is completely a manufactured crisis. there is no structural economic reason that our country should be facing default come the 17th of this month. there's no reason that 800 federal -- 800,000 federal employees aren't working. there's no structural, no reason for this to happen. this is being manufactured by a party because they're trying to get something that they've not been able to get at the ballot box. we have divided government. the republicans control the house of representatives. the senate is controlled by the democratic party. we have a democratic president. the republicans had two goals going into this manufactured crisis. one was to destroy the health care bill. now, this is a bill that passed the house of representatives, it passed the senate, it was signed by the president, it was upheld by the supreme court, and we had a presidential election and their candidate said on day one of his new administration the first thing he would do if elected was to repeal the affordable care act. that gentleman lost by five million votes. so, what they can't accomplish at the ballot box they now are looking for a way to accomplish here. but it couldn't be done through the regular process, mr. speaker. it couldn't be done through the regular order. so now comes this ingenious idea, hatched by the tea party wing of the republican party, to say, here's what we'll do. we'll wait for the end of the fiscal year to come. and we'll say, we're going to shut the government down. unless you repeal obamacare. you know, i was on this floor a couple days ago and read something on the floor that i had saw on the internet by a young man by the name of judd lagome. i hope i've said his last name correctly. he put an ale nal ji of what would -- an analogy of what we're facing. he's like, it's sort of like someone comes up to you and says, i want to burn down your house. you look at the guy and you say no. and he says, i just want to burn down the second floor. and you tell him no. and he goes can, what about your garage, can i burn your garage down? and you say no. and the guy says, let's just sit down and talk about what part of your house i can burn down. you look at the guy and you say, no. and he goes, you see? you're not compromising. this is what we're facing in this so-called rigged negotiation. what republicans are saying is, defund obamacare, we'll open up the government. we said no. then they said, well, delay obamacare for a year. and we'll open up the government. and we said no. and then they said, well, just get rid of that individual mandate which effectively kills the health care bill. and we said no. and then they said, well, will you just sit down and negotiate with us and tell us what part of the affordable care act we can get rid of? and we said, there's 20 million americans that are counting on this bill. it's the law of the land. the answer is no. and they look at us and say, the democrats don't want to negotiate. the president doesn't want to negotiate. well, i got news for my friends over there. we're not going to negotiate the rights of 20 million uninsured americans because they can't get this done at the ballot box. so now, mr. speaker, what's the new strategy? they've shifted off of the health care bill now because the american public by margins of over 70% have said, we don't want you to shut the government down to try to get rid of the affordable care act. so now where they've moved is to the ryan budget. what's the ryan budget? it's a budget that keeps us in sequester, it's a budget that does not invest in our infrastructure. it's a budget that does not invest in the education of our children. it's a budget that makes it impossible for this economy to grow. and it's a budget that threatens the social safety net that many of our senior citizens depend on. and they couldn't get it passed in the regular order. they couldn't get it passed in the house of representatives for a long time. they were afraid to put the bill on the floor. and they certainly couldn't get it passed in the senate and they knew the president wouldn't sign it. so what's the strategy now? this new rigged negotiation that we're being asked to have with our friends is, give us pieces of the ryan budget. and in return we'll open up the government and we'll raise the debt ceiling. but only if you give us what we want in the ryan budget. mr. speaker, we want to have a budget negotiation with our friends on the republican side. the house has passed a budget, the senate has passed a budget. the numbers, there's a great disparity in the numbers. democrats believe in investing in america. we want to rebuild our roads and bridges and sewer systems, we want to invest in the education of our children, we want to protect our seniors and our veterans. it costs money to do that, mr. speaker. so there is a difference. but, we're ready and we're willing to appoint conferees tomorrow. to sit down and have a negotiation. i want the american public to understand that we have asked 18 times to appoint conferees to negotiate the differences in the senate budget and the house budget and all 18 times the republicans in the house have said no. so, mr. speaker, i would just say, if there's someone in this house that's not willing to negotiate, it's our friends on the republican side of the aisle. the american people deserve a budget negotiation where we sit down and settle our differences. we're not going to get everything we want, mr. speaker. it's the divided government. the republicans are going to get something in this budget negotiation, the democrats are going to get something in this budget negotiation. but the country moves forward, we pay our bills and we live to fight another day. mr. speaker, in closing, let me say to the american people, we will not be part of a rigged negotiation where democratic priorities and principles aren't allowed to be discussed. only that which the republicans couldn't get in the ballot box, that they're trying to get now by holding a gun to our head. that's not the way you do business in the united states of america, that kind of behavior has to be stopped. mr. speaker, for the good of the american people, i hope republicans will come to their senses, pass a clean c.r. and let's sit down and negotiate a budget agreement for the american people and move this country forward. i thank you for giving me this time and i yield back to you. mr. garamendi: the republican shutdown has to end and how correct you are with the negotiations this afternoon. they put a proposal on the floor to create some sort of a negotiating committee that did not have all of the issues before them as you so correctly pointed out. only their set of issues were allowed to be discussed by that negotiating committee. none of the issues we care about on the democratic side, hardly a negotiating opportunity. i would like to call upon my friend from the great of new pascrell. parcel -- mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, how are you tonight? ank you, mr. garmeppedy, for bringing us all together -- garamendi, for us all together. the latest supercommittee plan, folks on the other side of the us a really absurd. fact, as a member of the budget committee, this new-found republican insistence on negotiations, referred to by mr. doyle from pennsylvania, is mind boggling. since my colleagues have spent the last six months avoiding negotiations. and i didn't come here tonight to water the wine. so we are going to say it like it is. my fellow americans, this house of representatives passed its budget over 200 days ago, on march 21. then the senate passed its budget two days later. now think about what i just said. what happened to it? well, the usual protocol is that the two sides named conferees, they come together in conference, and they work out a budget. that didn't happen. that's six months ago. we have been asking to go to conference so we can resolve our differences and there are always differences, within parties, between parties, you name it. we want to fund the government. we want to get rid of sequestration, like chairman rogers said on july 31, 2013, i believe the house has made its choice. sequestration is unrealistic, ill-conceived. discretionary cuts must be brought to an end. mr. rogers, the chairman, is republican. he said that. i didn't say that. he put it better than i could have even imagined to say it. so, what happened? democrats attempted to go to conference 20 times. the republicans objected every single time. fact check this. over here on the house, almost 200 members have signed a discharge petition calling for a conference on the budget. we tried four times to bring the resolution to the floor. leader pelosi even went so far as to name conferees. some of them are in this room. some of us are conferees. she did that on june 27. what's the date today? october 8th? june 27th. so why, after this stalling, has the republicans finally found religion and now want to negotiate? i tell you why. we just discovered we have a phantom government in the united states. every house member, every senate member, should be concerned that they're elected by the people of this country, republican, democrat, libertarian. they have been elected and we should respect that, because we know neither party is ever privy to virtue. come on. we all share in the pluses. we share in the minuses. never one party has all the answers. we know that. but why? , l, just this past saturday october 5th, we had a front-page story in the "new york times." it was mind boggling, mind boggling, that article. here was the title of the article. the federal budget crisis, months in planning. well, i don't remember planning this. i don't know if any republicans were out planning this. who in god's name were they talking about? and this is what it says in the article in the second paragraph, put refers to a manifesto together by nonelected people in this country, hear me, america. hear me. they sat down one morning in a location, the members insist on keeping secret. wow. and came little noticed, a blueprint, quote, unquote, this s what they said, mr. speaker. blueprint to defunding obamacare signed by -- you are going to love this -- ed meese. there's a name that pops up. eled meese. it's not funny, it's serious. a phantom government. leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups. i will put in the record who those groups are. and i got part of their manifesto. listen to this. this is what they put together. i'm sure there are only a few congressmen on the other side that even knew about this. says this. conservatives should not approve a c.r. unless it defunds obamacare. this includes obamacare's unworkable exchanges, unsustainable medicaid expansion and attack on life and religious liberty, they said that february 14 of 2013. this did not just happen, mr. speaker. it didn't happen. it wasn't an accident. it was planned. that is the lowest thing you could ever read about a government. that doesn't -- wasn't even elected. who the heck are these people who are going to decide what we are going to do. now we know why mr. ryan didn't want to go to conference. now we know why mr. boehner didn't want to go to conference. that was not the plan. read it. judge for yourself. judge for yourself. , that these 30is groups, and the names of each of the groups besides mr. meese's are right here. you have every right-wing group in the universe. they go into medicaid expansion, permanent appropriations, they want to run the government. these people actually wanted to run the government. my friends, the republicans don't want to negotiate. they want to use this shutdown and the threat of default to invalidate the results of oh, an election, last november. these people weren't elected. we were elected. and i love debating people from the other side who are elected. that's their god-given right. that's what liberties are all about. why don't they come in here, this shadow government, this phantom group, why don't they stand there and tell us who they talked to within the republican party. tell us. america has a right to know. don't you talk to me, mr. speaker, about let's have transparency in government, when you have this group out here guess, the ess, koch brothers. they think they are running this government. the supreme court heard another case today. and this is mild compared to what would happen if they are able to do and spend as much money as they want. i did not come here to water the wine. and you better listen to it. and every member of the staff better listen to it. because they tried every trick in the book, putting your own health care in jeopardy saying you get a subsidy from the government just like any other company that contributes to your health care, someone gets hired by the federal government to be a secretary, $25,000. the cost of their health care ill go up between $5,200 and $12,000, how are you going to live on that? will stop at nothing, nothing to bring the government down at any cost, at any cost. the november election apparently did not occur in their minds. we're dealing with dangerous people. they are on er drugs, or they just lost their minds. this is what we are dealing with. to bring us to this precipice, only a few days away, something's wrong. this is not how we debate things in the united states of america. this is not in any manner, shape or form. as president obama said, democrats are willing to negotiate. but not with a gun to our heads. never. i'm from paterson, new jersey. let's end this irresponsible shutdown and default threat and let's get back to work. that's what we were sent here for. i yield back. and i thank you, mr. garamendi, for your patience. >> mr. pascrell, thank you very much. i'm not about to threaten you. mr. garamendi: i welcome our friend from the state of massachusetts who is probably just as tough as new jersey, mr. capuano. my capuano: first time in life, i have no intention of being as passionate as the gentleman from new jersey. i thank the gentleman for yielding. to me, good people can disagree. reasonable people can disagree, even people i disagreed with. that's what politics is all about. but you're not entitled to forget history or ignore facts. and to me, there has been lots of misrepresentations the last week or two. there is a lot of passion, a lot of emotion. but i need to back up a little bit. educational value. when i'm told the democrats have to come to the table and compromise, my answer is, well, we have, repeatedly. and we will do it again, if necessary. and people say, no you haven't. the president says, no, you won't negotiate. no one can negotiate on this point at this point because we have gone far enough and here's why. 2011, the last supercommittee, where did it come from? it came from a budget impasse. couldn't come to an agreement, couldn't make a a deal. had taken our corners. what did we do. if the supercommittee doesn't work and do something like simpson-bowles, we would institute a sequester and sequester is an across-the-board cut of roughly 8% per year every year for 10 years in a row. that's what it is. at the end of that 10th year if you don't do anything, you will be 48 cents of every dollar you were spending when you started. i understand that some people want a government that does that and the governments that would be paid for, i don't agree with that, but that's a reasonable position. i don't want senior housing. i don't want childhood nutrition. we should argue about that. we should debate about that and the american people should agree or disagree with them on those types of issues. we couldn't come to an agreement. the sequester took place. and the sequester set out numbers for each year for 10 years. this is how much you can spend. we haven't been able to do it. first year of sequester. pursuant to the law that was passed in 2011, a law by the way that i voted against, i don't ke the concept of sequester, but, majority ruled, it passed. pursuant to that law in this coming fiscal year, we would have been allowed to spend a little over a trillion dollars. . . cut and presents a it represents a compromise. a massive compromise between democrats and republicans to pass that sequester. so a democratic compromise with republicans to cut the budget 10 years in a row. this year republicans pass a udget of $967 billion. $100 billion below what the sequester allowed. they're entitled to do that. and again, i can disagree but i respect their viewpoint. if you really think the government can operate and provide the services the american people want on that number, fine. i will disagree, you will vote, pass it and we'll move on. but of course the senate didn't agree with that number. the senate passed another number. here we are today. what's happened? the last week or so you have heard pretty much every democrat, pretty much every democrat say, we want to vote on the clean c.r., continuing resolution, but the senate -- that the senate passed. the average american has no clue what we're talking about. here's what they passed. they passed a budget that would llow spending of $986 billion. now, to me, if you're going to talk about a compromise, sequester allows a little over $1 trillion, republicans want $ 967 billion. a compromise is here. a little over $1 trillion. now, that would be a compromise on a compromise. but no. the senate says $986 billion. the compromise on a compromise on a compromise. what the -- can what do republican house leaders say? -- what do republican house leaders say? no. $967 billion, our number. and by the way, no health care. so, for those of you who thought democrats haven't been compromising, i'm here to tell you, in my opinion not only have we compromised, i think we have compromised too much. from my philosophical viewpoint. i know i'm the minority view in this house. so be it. i think the sequester was too much. i certainly think $967 billion is too much. and i think $986 billion is too much. you know why? my constituents want senior housing. they want children fed. they want young people educated. and on and on and on. they want veterans benefits, they want all the things that we do. of course no one wants to pay for that. i get that. i don't either. i pay taxes. i wish everything was free. i'm going out to dinner in a little while, hopefully to watch the red sox win this series. and i don't want to pay for dinner. but i guess i'll have to. reasonable differences of opinion, no matter how dramatic they may be, $100 billion difference, they're realistic, they're honest and the american people have a right to take sights -- sides. they don't have a right to say democrats haven't compromised. this was a compromise. this would have been a compromise. this is a compromise. this is not. this is uncompromising. and that's why i wanted to come up here. a point of historic note, i've been in the house now 14 1/2 years. this is my first special order. my first special order. and, as i said, i've probably missed the first inning of the red sox game. which in my district is close to a cardinal sin. but this is more important. this is more important. i'm not trying to convince anyone that my side is right or the other side is wrong. people have their opinions. i know that. and you're probably not going to change them. but i am here to say that there is a difference between compromise and capitulation. we've procompromised one, two, three times to get where we are. and to get to this number would be fourth and to get rid of health care would be not just fifth, it would be fifth and the end of it. as far as i'm concerned, this democrat will not compromise further on these issues. it's time for the other side to compromise off of what they think the world should be. thank you for yielding, mr. garamendi, and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. garamendi: thank you so very much. i think it's a tragedy you've waited 14 1/2 years to be so eloquent in explaining how we got to where we are and the fact that the democrats have consistently cooperated, compromised and watched those critical programs that we care so very much about being consistently hacked away at and reduced and in many cases all but eliminated. and now today we're in the eighth day of the shutdown of the united states government. it used to be thought of as the most powerful democracy in the world. but at moment it's a democracy -- but at the moment it's a democracy that's not working. there was an election last november in which these issues were all fundamental in that debate. and the american people voted to fully enforce the affordable care act and to provide the services, whether they're education, transportation, health care and the rest. and here we are, the minority party in this house and actually a minority of that minority party driving an agenda that is an anethma to those things i believe we need to do and contrary to last november's election. i'd like now to call upon mr. ryan of ohio, a gentleman that often joins us on these evening discussions. we like to talk about jobs, we like to talk about rebuilding the american manufacturing sector and we know that that can only be done when the united states government is operating. mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. and i appreciate my colleague's words here tonight. there's not a whole lot left really to cover, whether it was -- my colleagues' words here tonight. there's not a whole lot left really to cover, whether it was the gentleman from boston or the gentleman from upstate new york. week of seen them cover many of the issues here. they've been broken down. i would just like to maybe touch on a point or two. a lot of members have come to this floor and on all the tv shows they talk about, we got to pay our bills, we got to pay our bills. i think everybody here agrees that we've got to pay our bills. it's important for us to remember the bills that were racked up, that we have to go out and pay, those appropriations bills, off budget many times, were to fund two wars. went right on uncle sam's credit card. both of them. not paid for and many of our colleagues on the other side never came to this floor and said, oh, my god, how are we going to pay for all this? economist after economist would come back and say, this is going to be -- may be $100 billion today, we factor in all the veterans that are coming back, these wars are going to be $2 trillion to $3 trillion to $4 trillion when it's all said and done. and i don't remember being here watching a member come up on the other side of the aisle, get in the well and make an argument that we need to pay for these wars. if we're going to go. not one. and now today they want to talk about being responsible. they want to talk about us meeting our obligation. now they want to say, oh, yeah, we ran up those credit cards, we swiped them and we kept swiping them and kept swiping and then we doubled down, we needed a surge, let's double down, let's run that credit card one more time, and now today they're saying, we're not going to pay the bills. we're going to default. unless you repeal the affordable care act. then we'll have a conversation. so, it's the height of irresponsibility. another thing that i find humorous is how over the past few years we have been lectured to by many members of the tea party about the constitution of the united states. and how they're the only americans, this 20, 25, maybe -- 20%, 25%, maybe 30%, these are the only americans who have read the constitution. and they're the only ones that adhere to the constitution. but yet when we talk about the political process that we need to work through, as mr. capuano was just saying, hey, you can have a reasonable position, you don't like it, go to the ballot box, win the election. but yet those very same members are now thumbing their nose at the political process that the founding fathers set up for us to adhere to. we were here during the iraq war. i was. i wasn't for it. campaigned against it in my first campaign. guess what? i didn't win. didn't win the argument. 2002, 2003. didn't win it in 2004, 2005. came to this floor night after night after night. we finally won the house back, 2006, won the house and senate. we tried to stop the war. we didn't do it. but we took it to the people and we won the house and the senate back. 2007, 2008, we took it back to the street. won the presidency. and then, longer than any of us wanted, we finally started winding things down. we went to the -- through the political process. we didn't shut the government down. we didn't say, we're going to default on the credit card bills that previous congresses ran up. even though we disagreed with how they spent the money. what's happening is radical. these are radical acts here in the house chamber. and to say we're here to negotiate, if you get rid of the affordable care act, is ludicrous. it doesn't make any sense. have the guts to go to the american people and make the argument. for the life i me i can't figure out -- for the life of me i can't figure out why you wouldn't let the affordable care act get set up. if it's so awful, set it up, let it go, president obama has hiss his fingerprints all over it, the democrats have their fingerprints all over it. if it fails, you'll win the senate in 2014. and if it's so bad, you'll win the presidency in 2016. then dismantle it and put 30 million, 40 million people out of the health care system. make sure you can get denied health care for having a pre-existing condition and put the insurance companies between the doctor and the patient. fine. you won the elections. perfectly capable of doing that. have the guts to go to the street and make the argument. 70% of americans are saying, do not shut the government down to try to end the affordable care act. i will say what i think's happening here. i think the house leadership on the republican side, i think they have stockholm syndrome. i think they have started to identify themselves with their captors. the tea party has now convinced the leadership in the house of representatives that they should have sympathy and empathy toward their captors. and so the whole country at this point is being shut down because of this. lastly letmy say -- let me say that the only successful moments in politics that our friends on the other side have had is when they divide the american people. who's in a union, whose not in a union, who's in a public-sector union vs. who's in a private-sector union, whose black, whose white, who's gay, who's straight, divide, divide, divide, divide and here we are in 2013. a divided nation that is ungovernble at this point because of the power that is held by the tea party in the united states house of representatives. i just want to say that there is a future waiting to be taken for this country. investments back in the united states into our infrastructure, into our research, into renewable energies, into expanding the grid. and making it smarter. into making sure everyone has access to the latest technologies. three dimensional printers in schools, robotics, legos, get kids excited about learning. we only have 313 million people in the united states. we're competing against 1.4 billion people in china and we're sitting on our handles. we're not making the investments we need to be making. and there are colleges and universities and schools that need the investment. and every day that goes by, mr. garamendi, every day that goes by we see one more, two more, five more, 10 more situations where investments were made collectively by the public that benefit our country. nd we need to end this lockout that's happening right now and i thank the gentleman for his leadership. mr. garamendi: mr. ryan, thank ou so mr. garamendi: mr. ryan, thank you for bringing us some sense of reality of what's happening here. we're in the eighth day of the lockout, we're in the eighth day of the shutdown of the government of the united states of america. and it appears from all we hear from our republican side that this may go right up to the deficit -- excuse me, to the debt limit. what a tragedy it would be if we hit that and take down the entire economy. if i might inquire, mr. speaker, how much time we have available. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. garamendi: i think it's time for me to close i want to -- to close. i want to thank my league, i ask the american people to pay attention and finally, mr. speaker, let us vote. mr. speaker, mr. speaker boehner, let us vote on a clean continuing resolution so that we can once again start this government. the votes are here, if you don't believe the votes are here, put us up on the board. let's see. if there's 217 votes to reopen the american government. you can only find out, mr. speaker, if you let us vote. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from pennsylvania, r. perry, is recognized as the designee of the majority eader. mr. perry: i want to thank the speaker for the time, i want to thank the fine gentlemen from the other side, i appreciate your impassioned pleas, that's what this price is all about. i may disagree but i appreciate your passion and willingness to serve. i want to talk about a couple of things, at least from my side, set the record, or at least 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 he opposed the iraq war and folks were here spending on it with a credit card, he was opposed to that. i wasn't here, i can't atone for the sins of the past, but one of the reasons i wasn't here is 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're attacked you must respond, number one, and number two, i think it belies the fact that the current administration has nearly doubled that spending in half the time. and so, with all due respect, i think it's fair to point that out. regarding another gentleman who talked about the interest of the other side to negotiate and and to a compromise, looking at the number the sequester came from the president of the united states out of another super committee that was created, the president demanded the sequester and demanded that number. so by saying that they compromise, they didn't compromise 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 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 and the other side, i don't know where that gets us. i want to talk a little bit about some of the facts and these aren't my facts, not scott perry's facts, i've got "the washington post" here because some people say this is unprecedented, never happened before and only one party does this. well, there was a shutdown in 1976, gerald ford was president, the democrats held both houses. it was ended by all sides coming together and working toward a continuing resolution. next one was in 1977. jimmy carter was 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 president, democrats 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. hey're elected by their people to do the work of this house. but they came together after eight days and they resolved it. the next one, 1978. jimmy carter was president, the democrats controlled both houses. 18 days. 18 days. but they resolved it after they got together. the president, the senate, and the house they got together. 1979. jimmy carter was president, the democrats were in charge of both houses. 11 days. what resolved it? they got together and -- they got together and they talked. nothing happened here and nothing will happen here if we're not going to be willing to be civil to one another and get together and talk. 1981, ronald reagan was president, the republicans had the senate, the house was controlled by democrats. after two days, they resolved it. again, reagan came down and signed a bill extending the current spending limb and again, in september of 1982, ronald reagan was president, republicans had the senate, democrats held the house, tip o'neill was the speaker. but they resolved it in just one 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 in charge of the senate, ronald reagan, over the m.x. missile. they shut it down. but they figured out a way to get past it because they fwoshted. and for three days in 1983, ronald reagan, the president, republicans in charge of the senate, house, controlled by democrats with tip o'neill and they resolved it again over about a $100 million discrepancy. 1984. ronald reagan the president, republicans haed the senate, house controlled by the democrats, over a supreme court ruling they shut it down. but they resolved it after all sides coming together and negotiating. it says keep negotiating. this is from, not a right-wing paper in town here. this is not my facts. 1984, ronald reagan was president, republicans had the senate, the house was controlled by democrats, tip o'neill was the speaker, they shut it down again. ut they opened it back up. the 13th one happened in 1986 under reagan. the republican senate was controlled, bob dole, the democrats by tip o'neill they resolved it by getting together and each side gave up some of their demands and expanded welfare in return for appropriations necessary to reopen the government. ronald reagan in 1987 was the president, democrats 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 and they figured it out and signed a continuing resolution and reduced the deficit. and then the 16th time, clinton was president, gingrich was the speaker of the house, senate controlled by republicans, and so was the house. but even then they worked it out. even then they worked it out. when two sides were against the president, both houses in congress, mr. speaker, they found a way to work it out and then for 21 days in 1995, clinton as president and the house controlled by republicans and the senate 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 have also heard this is a his tore extime, it's unprecedented, never happened before, mr. speaker. so in 1970 is where we found out the practice of attaching john for the -- nongermane provisions to the debt limit began in earnest. 1971, social security changes. 1972, the spending camp. powers to increase the debt limit. i'm skipping because there's a pile of them here. 1980, repeal an oil import fee. president carter vetoed the bill. both houses of congress were democrats, president carter was democrat, but he joe vitoed it and they overroad the veto by wide majorities. but they worked it out. worked it out. 1985. 1990. 1993. 1996. 1997. 2000. 2010, 2012. the debt limit is the appropriate place in this divided government to find some fiscal sanity, that's what's happening here in this town. now of course, like i said, i don't want to get in the blame game here, i'm going to try to stay out of it, you know whether we agree with obamacare or not really is not the issue. it might be a great law. there are many other laws some people think are great laws or not great law. the question should be, and is, can we afford it? can we afford it? we are running $1 trillion deficit every year. we take in $1 trillion less than we spend. $1 trillion less than we spend. if your household brings in $100,000, you're 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 you stand? how long can you stand? 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 it's a good law, how will we pay for it? that's the question. congress' job, this house, this senate, is to craft legislation and determine our spending riorities and spending levels. that's our job. the other gentleman said, you know, read the -- haven't read the constitution or we -- it's in the constitution. it's very simple. that's 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 district elected us. they elected us to come here and do something. to do something. we keep hearing from the other side, just pass a clean c.r. just pass it and everything would be fine. i came here to do something. we're 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, but is going to ask in a week to raise the debt ceiling another $900 billion. that's $100 billion short of a trillion, still all numbers that are staggering to my mind. so if we add that up, at the minimum, we're at $20 trillion that doesn't include social security and all the other obligations that we have. and the clean c.r. that we're being beseeched to just vote on so everything will be fine, says that's ok. just keep going. don't change a thing. everything's fine. nothing to see here. but everything is 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're not going to have so much money to spend on some other things. 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's our duty so we are forced to choose. and we are ready to choose. i say doing nothing because -- i say it's doing nothing because passing a clean c.r. 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 and the people who elected me and they'll say what did you get accomplished? and i will say nothing. i won't say nothing. i will say, i tried. i might fail. but i'm not going down on my knees, mr. speaker. i'm going down and -- 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 five 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. edicare. i don't want to see her out on the street. we won't let that happen. but some people don't have that option. right now, social security disability, that portion of social security, last report i saw will be bankrupt 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 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 five years or 20 years. i have no reason to believe that they will. those who say that one side is doing this for partisan reasons or political gain. i say what political gain? what is the upside? there is none. the representatives in this body who disagree with passing a clean c.r. are putting themselves in peril for love of country and love of the future. i have two little girls, two little girls i'm desperate to have the same opportunities that i had. when i deprow up, our house didn't have electricity or running water. my parents were often unemployed. me and my brother ate some strange things. we did ok. we did ok. and we made a life for ourselves. but we had the 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, can no longer borrow from ourselves. the social security trust fund, part of that $900 billion that they're going to ask us to raise the debt ceiling, coming out of the social security trust fund. who agrees with that? i don't know one american that says that's ok and this is the om place in the world where it would be ok, but government employees, just like in greece, when they ran out of money, finally, the first ones to go, not for a week, not for a couple days. gone. you have no job. there's nothing to come back to. we don't have to do it. we don't have to. we aren't saying turn the ship around on a dime, we are saying turn the wheel a little bit and start heading to the course of correction. but voting for a clean c.r. says keep going, just keep going. just keep going. just like in cyprus, we come out to find out that they removed the money from our savings account. that's what they did, because they ended up where we're going. why would we do it? now, those who say they want a clean c.r., they are patriots. i know that. they are hearing from their constituents. i have had constituents come in crying, literally crying in my office as we talk about the situation. those folks who want to vote on a clean c.r., they want to fix it, but not do it now. i would say it is time to do the hard right because for two 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. we have offered our ideas. we have offered them. respect the and other side agrees with our solution. we had four votes in this house before the government shut down. four bipartisan votes, people on both sides of the aisle four times voted. but the senate agrees and the president agrees. i respect that they don't like our solution. it is their prerogative and maybe it's their duty. all we're saying, ok, 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 or dispute with my daughter, i don't want to go bed angry and i don't want my family angry with me. before the day is done, we are going to sit down. we might go to bed a little so rmp e with each other but we love each other and love this country. but it's imperative to work through it. we understand that they don't want to do anything with obamacare, but it adds $2 trillion to $3 trillion to our national debt. what do you want to do? that's all i'm asking. that's all i'm asking. what do you want to do? some say you need to raise taxes. obamacare raised taxes, the largest tax increase in history. ok. we did that and that wasn't enough. so last december when i wasn't here, $650 billion in taxes on an economy that is struggling to get through. 1% to 2% growth. we are choosing this and i don't hink 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 a trillion dollars apart ever year. how much more can we take? can we just take it all? that's another form of government. some will say, cut the military. well, this military cut it by $1.2 trillion and for me the constitution says, provide, uses that word, provide for the common defense, mr. speaker. the line below that is promote the general welfare. words mean things. we have the duty to provide for it. i have been in the military, i have served and i know they are there. everything needs to be on the table. but how much more and how much do we infeeble ourselves and disable our ability to do our constitutional requirement to protect the citizenry. it is our requirement. now, we passed a bunch of bills in the house here, and to the tell you the truth, i kind of like it. we are moving one piece at a time. we are voting on things that we shouldn't spend money on. mr. speaker, it's not optimal, but a way to get there. cancer research for kids, we passed that out of the house and the leader of the senate says, well, when asked, why won't you pass it? he says, why would we want to do that? why wouldn't we want to do that? we have some consensus. 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 are supposed to do. we have offered numerous ideas and the senate says no. they don't say no, but -- they just say no. refusing to negotiate is in my mind irresponsible. i mean, i don't know if they are here for themselves, when i hear reports, i don't know if they are true, but they are rotted in the newspapers that the park rangers are told make it as impossible. world war ii memorial barricaded up, costs more money to close it than it does to leave it open. i saw a cope out on one of the streets with barricades around the cope. why are we renting barricades. and on the maul adjacent to the street that's closed because it is a federal park area, there's an immigration rally that is being supported by the park police. what's happening, mr. speaker? the grand canyon is closed. 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 want to close it. that'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. extreme faction. the four bills we passed to avert this shutdown were passed by 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 both sides seems less than extreme to me. and i have to ask since when americans want to see the government act within the constitutional bounds, that is the house and the senate, the congress figuring out a spending level. why is that extreme? that's our job. that's the division of powers. that's the checks and balances. that's why we are here. how is that extreme. how is spending viewed as responsible? i was talking about saving some money and be responsible with the taxpayers' money. how is that seen as extreme? why is it ok to think that spending that money is ok and acceptable to most americans? who gets away with that kind of behavior in their own households. you do, but not for very long, i guess. with that, i would like to yield some time, if i could, to the fine gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: thank you. you were mentioning some of the things that the prior speakers, 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. -- 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 are supposed to have a budget very early in the year and after that, do the appropriations bills. well the senate has not been doing budgets in the past. first time in years. they haven't done what the law requires. seemed to ignore the law any time they wish. they have not been passing any appropriations bills. and that's a political game that allows majority leader harry law to avoid following the so that any potential vulnerable democratic senators will not have to take tough votes like people do in the house constantly, because we passed appropriation bills and we continue to do that. d so we know since the -- we passed the military pay bill that required that the military get paid. we freet military pea somewhat like we do social security pay so if the government were shut down, the military gets paid. people in harm's way don't have to worry about military members getting a check. my friends across the aisle were so upset by not having a vote and i realize we get busy here and people forget the things we have been voting on the last 10 days. i would 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 , 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 any way. the s consistent with what park ranger said, though it was disgusting to the ranger, were told to make things as difficult for people as we can. but after that vote -- 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 have already seen obamacare as not being put into law or is not being followed as law because the president has had hundreds of exemptions that he has waived his hand, waived 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 businessman date in the law makes no exceptions. business folks, my party still wants to get your contributions, so i will waive my wand and you don't follow the law. . so when my friends across the aisle say let obamacare go, we say the same thing. you let obamacare go. if the president will if harry reid will. if you let it be enforced exactly the way it's written, it wouldn't last a month. but he's had to do so many waivers, so it's not going into law. the supreme court had to rewrite it to uphold it. they already said that the basis for the law, the -- that was given, the interstate commerce clause, was not a basis to take over health care in america so they struck it down on the -- under the law as written and the law as written said there was a penalty, the supreme court said, page 15, it's a penalty and therefore the anti-injunction act does not apply, therefore we do have jurisdiction, 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, rewrite the law and we'll call it a tax and then we'll uphold it as a tax even though clearly that's not the way it was written. and it's not what the president promised the american people. so, so much for the democrats wanting obamacare to be followed as it was written. we're way beyond that with the waivers and exemptions. but then we had a vote that said, ok, let's just suspend it for a year because everybody knows obamacare is not ready for primetime. clearly. that's why the president had to give business a one-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, ok you gave business, you 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. the person that's making $15,000 or so, 133% of the -- of poverty level, a year or so ago, we were told that was $14,000 something, now it's $15,000. even under articles that have been written, even with subsidies, you'll end up paying a few thousand dollars. somebody making $15,000 or so has an extra few thousand over their subsidies, you don't do that, you'll pay the $95 or 1% of your income as an extra tax. people do not have that extra money. people have been sent from full-time to part-time, as the unions figured out, when the union members figured out what the union leaders had done to them, caused many of them to lose full-time employmenting going to part-time employment, many of them losing their great health insurance, and now they'll have to go under the obamacare exchanges leek members of congress, they got upset and then all of a sudden leaders of the union said, gee, look at all the unintended consequence. they knew there were intended consequences, we talked about it at the time system of that's something we passed, just waive the individual mandate for a year and you know, that was not taken up by the senate. what to me ssed seemed like a capitulation, we appointed negotiators. we said ok, 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 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, then -- and i'm -- it's possible he could have slept through it. maybe i was giving a speech and my democratic friends dodse 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 actually, then we had a bill that we voted on to provide local funding for the district of columbia. because we know the district of columbia has a lot of money of its own that comes in. frankly, i was shocked. 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 sense quit being objective, 21 stories from the mainstream media, all unanimously blame the republicans, failing to report that harry reid wouldn't even appoint negotiators to work something out quickly. and then we passed, 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 they can to hurt some way so they can blame republicans, when it's simply the decision of the president, we answer by saying, ok, 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 vote, most of the democrats, voted to leave them shut. they weren't going to vote with us to fund our national parks. and then we had a vote, research for life-saving cures act. h.j.res. 73. to provide funding for the national institutes of health which is responsible for life-saving medical innovations and cancer resedge. most, except for about 20 or so democrats, they all voted not to fund the national institute of health. my friends across the aisle say, give us a vote. they got a vote. we want to fund the n.i.h., then vote to to it. we'll send it down. but even though we passed it and sent it down the hall, harry reid wasn't 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? wouldn't you do that? and he said, why would i do that? 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. then many of us believed it 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 forward and reserve act on october 3 that ensured during the shutdown that it would not affect the pay for our national guard and reserves. let's see. most, again, 160 democrats voted against that. they asked for a vote, we gave 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. then, and 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, 164 of our democratic friends voted against that and harry reid refuses to bring it up. we also, we had actually brought up a bill to pay our veterans, make sure our wounded warriors were taken care of and 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's called a a suspension. but to bypass a committee of jurisdiction, it requires 2/3 votes in the house. i, like speaker boehner, thought surely you can bring the veterans -- veterans bill to the floor under a suspension because surely they'll vote to fund our wounded warriors. ost 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, when 157 of our friends across the aisle wanted a vote they got a vote 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 special supplement nutrition program for women, infants, an children, serves nearly nine million mothers and young children, provides vital nutrition that poor families might otherwise be unable to afford. 164 of our democratic friends voted against that bill. but it passed the house nonetheless. we sent it down to harry reid. they've 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 senate democrat's government shutdown and it's similar to the bipartisan legislation enacted during previous shutdowns. and we did pass that but harry reid thus far has refused to take that up. >> will the gentleman suspend? mr. perry: i ask the chair can i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. mr. perry: that's correct. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoil of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 18 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you. i appreciate so much my friend, mr. perry, from pennsylvania, bringing this whole issue forward and there are a number of more votes that we did take. and we took up head start for low income children act. providing official education funding to support head start programs across the country. and wow, 168 of our democrats across the aisle voted against that. and harry reid is refusing to take that up. friends across the aisle wanted a vote so we voted for the deficit reduction and economic growth working group act. now, 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 eally necessary, but there's an old chinese proverb having to do with allowing your opponent, a fwraceful way out, and so this bill was proposed s a graceful way out so that harry reid could come back and say, ok, 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 and yet we 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. and i thought about i thought about voting against it, because it seemed needless since we already appointed conferees. harry reid didn't do that. but i was persuaded saying this was a way for reid to get out gracefully. maybe we can get something worked out. we also passed the federal workers pay fairness act which ensured all federal employees still on the job during the shutdown will be paid on time. and again, we have not seen 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. o let's see, a term that was used in the prior discussion was burning the house down, rig negotiation. rig 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 have also seen in this shutdown something that's just not normally been seen in america. e have seen franklin roosevelt say we have nothing to fear but fear itself. it is an extremely rare thing to say that the market needs to be afraid and needs to start getting concerned, trying to get up a panic to drive down the market and the market after a ek'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 are winning a political battle, so being unwilling to send negotiators to sit down and work out a deal. of the tween the threat president, and republicans will get scared and give me everything i want. it's interesting they talk across the aisle about holding a gun to their 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 tours, people through at least once a week when we're in session. his is the people's house. so hard to get in here. wasn't like that when i was in high school but i would like it more accessible for 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 saw that happen with the gm and chrysler bailout. the government became socialist for a while here and decided to take up nationalist interests in things. did so with wall street. , i'm th the car dealers sure it scared most americans. it should have scared americans enough that they never ever wanted the government to be in control of their health care, 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. nd the supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg put a 24-hour hold but let it lapse. the supreme court hung their heads. let unlegal 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 if the citizens united case that the president got upset and 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 visas given to him by those around him that those giving him advice were as ignorant as they are. but when people keep saying give us a clean c.r. when people hear, give us a lean c.r., they need to know 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. the congress -- we don't want the congress to do its job and to appropriate as article one requires. we want congress just to say here's the massive sacks of money, mr. money. do and find all the cronies you can help in a capital it way so they can overtake their competitors. go do what you wish. maybe you can find some dealerships to take away without due process. we hear friends across the aisle say they would love to debate elected first, when the fact is that during the four years the democrats had the house as the majority and had the senate, it closed ost partisan 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 represented when 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 saying the supreme court upheld it. the supreme court rewrote it and then upheld what they wrote or at least five out of the nine did and then the president has completely rewritten anything he oesn't like, giving waivers, exemptions, so it's not the law that got passed. and amazing to hear people say once the law was passed and signed by the president, it's the law, get over it. i almost come back and say, now the debt ceiling, parenthetically which was passed by both houses signed by president obama and 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 by a gun to your head. you told us it's the law and signed by congress and signed by the president, if it bears my signature, we aren't changing it. why would it be a gun to the head when i felt the president said we weren't supposed to talk like that and not supposed to use violent things. why are we talking like that and calling people arsonists when they are just trying to follow the constitution but that's consistent with homeland security saying that those who believe in the constitution are extremists and must be watched at all costs. 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 asked my friend had andrea mitchell, why are you not asking where the president obama sn't under it. but gee, so let's be honest about things. 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 an article from "mercury news" that talks about -- cindy vince ebtent, big believer in obamacare they are proud to say they re-elected president obama but like others, they were flood last week when they opened their bills. heir policies were being replaced. vincent of san jose will pay more for an individual policy while another will could you have up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four. welcome to the club says a prominent health care consultant, from 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 how the legislation will affect their pocketbooks. it's a disaster. and so when my friends across the aisle say let it fully take effect. we have seen what happens. this president, harry reid are not going to let the full thing take effect. we have seen the way the way the i.r.s. with instructions from somebody around the white house, if not in it, -- we are still trying to get to the bottom of it -- was instructed to go after conservative groups and they did. the i.r.s. was weaponized. we have seen what has happened with other groups. they are 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 gliches, will young americans pick up obamacare, an oral on october 7, one of the heated arts has revolved around the issue of rate shock. and younger ones will experience once the law kicks in. it's just going to get worse. my friends across the aisle say they want a vote, they have been getting votes and will continue to get votes. just ask them to join us in demanding that har reid bring these bills to the floor for a vote and get them passed and these things will be taken care of. and 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 are not going to bring the bills to the floor, for heavens sake appoint negotiators and 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. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i would move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Texas , Afghanistan , Boston , Massachusetts , China , California , Virginia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Connecticut , Iraq , Stockholm , Sweden , New Jersey , Maryland , Pennsylvania , Saratoga Springs , Ohio , Cyprus , Greece , Americans , America , Chinese , American , Gerald Ford , Harry Reid , Jimmy Carter , Barack Obama , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Ronald Reagan , Scott Perry , Jackson Lee , Daniel Webster , Cindy Vince , Charlie Rangel , December Garamendi , Andrea Mitchell , Bob Dole , Franklin Roosevelt ,