Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 9, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, in information that came out after close of business yesterday, there was a report from CNBC about the 99 percent of ObamaCare applications that hit a wall. This report said:

As few as 1 in 100 applications on the Federal exchange

contains enough information to enroll the applicant in a

plan, several insurance industry sources told CNBC on Friday.

Some of the problems involve how the exchange's software

collects and verifies an applicant's data.

``It is extraordinary that these systems weren't ready,''

said Sumit Nijhawan, CEO of Infogix, which handles data

integrity issues for many major insurers including WellPoint

and Cigna, as well as, multiple Blue Cross/Blue Shield

affiliates.

Experts said that if Healthcare.gov's success rate doesn't

improve within the next month or so, Federal officials could

face a situation in January in which relatively large numbers

of people believe they have coverage starting that month, but

whose enrollment applications have not been processed.

``It could be public relations nightmare,'' said Nijhawan.

Insurers have told his company that just 1 in 100 enrollment

applicants being sent from the Federal marketplace have

provided sufficient verified information.

The article goes on:

One insurer reported a better, but still stunningly low,

rate of enrollment applications containing enough data to

process for coverage. ``It's about half of what we've

received,'' a source at that insurer said.

``We're getting incomplete data--about half of the

applications we haven't been able to process,'' said the

source, who used the term ``corrupted'' to describe the batch

of applications received.

The article goes on to point out what a huge problem, after 3\1/2\ years to get ready for ObamaCare to be the law of the land, after repeated refusals to negotiate whatsoever on delaying anything except for what the President has signed in the way of exemptions and waivers, hundreds of times himself, as he and Chief Justice Roberts completely rewrote the original ObamaCare bill. There has been a refusal to allow everyone in America to stand on the same fair, level playing field as the friends or supporters of the President have gotten through their waivers and exemptions, including people in Congress, which many of us here in this body have refused to accept if Americans don't get them as well.

One person in the article said he blamed the exchanges' software, which is allowing too many people to finish the process online without making sure they provide answers needed by the insurers processing the applications. But the article also mentions there are going to have to be people who go back and try to get information from these individuals that did not complete the application process--it sounds like through no fault of their own, just for the impropriety of the software programs, themselves.

And it's not difficult to see what a nightmare that will be, as it opens wide the door for identity thieves to start making calls or sending emails telling people they did not adequately complete the process, and they need this information or that information. It's going to be tough for people to know, Am I sending information to the government, or am I sending it to a proper contractor, or am I sending my information to an identity thief?

The process was not ready for prime time, and it's just going to get worse as we move toward January in the problems that are occurring.

Here is an article from Dr. Susan Barry. This was dated October 3, talking about Secretary Sebelius:

The woman who is behind the controls of ObamaCare was

unable to convince even one person from Kansas, the State she

used to govern, to sign up for it.

Though HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the former

Governor of Kansas, Representative Tim Huelskamp was informed

by an insurance provider in his home State that none of the

365,000 uninsured people living there successfully signed up

for insurance on the ObamaCare exchange on the first day.

Now in the midst of all the chaos, all of the broken promises where people have lost their insurance, they have lost the coverage they had, even when they keep their insurance, insurance prices have spiked for the vast majority of Americans in this country.

They did not get the $2,500 cheaper insurance the President promised. They either lost their insurance altogether or it has spiked dramatically. They didn't get to keep their doctor. We're hearing from those people constantly. And at the same time, when here in the House, we have sent compromise after compromise before the shutdown occurred down to the Senate, which normally, in a functioning Senate, would have the Senate--if they didn't like what we proposed--send back an alternative. And at that point, after an alternative is passed in the Senate, then the Speaker can appoint negotiators called conferees. The head of the majority in the Senate, Harry Reid, could appoint negotiators, and then come together, and they work out an agreement. And then that comes to the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote, non-amendable, straight up-or-down vote in each House.

But the Senate was playing games. It is now clear that there was no intention of having any agreement, that the conventional wisdom in this town for the last 3 years say that, Gee, if there is a shutdown, then Republicans will likely lose the majority in the next election. So whatever it takes to shut down the government, go ahead.

That was borne out by the fact that the first 21 mainstream stories completely faulted the Republicans, failing to point out the compromises that were sent down the hall and the Democrats' refusal to even entertain them. And then on the fourth, the ultimate capitulation said, All right, all right. Basically, we're appointing conferees; just appoint people to sit down and talk about it. We can probably have this worked out by morning. But it was clear they wanted damage from a government shutdown.

We've learned that as these telltale signs emerged--and one park ranger was quoted as saying that it was disgusting. But as park rangers, they had been instructed to make life as difficult as possible for people.

We're getting stories in from around the country about how this abusive Federal Government that wants to tell you what health care you can have, what surgery you can have, who wants to supervise everything about your private life, they want every page of every medical record about you they can get their grimy hands on so that bureaucrats can decide if you're doing something they don't like, how to jerk you around, as the IRS has been caught doing now, as we've gotten reports of other agencies--whether EPA, FEC, others--being abusive. And we find case after case now, since the shutdown, of this government funding park rangers to go out and create as much chaos for Americans as possible.

We have this administration, where the buck stops with the Commander in Chief, that has now made clear to Catholic chaplains of the military that are independent contractors that you are not to show up and conduct mass on Sunday. And if you do, you may be arrested or subjected to disciplinary action.

There was a time in this country when we believed in volunteerism, where no matter what happened, Americans would step up and make sure things that needed to happen actually got done. Now we have an abusive administration so intent on, as the park ranger said, making life as difficult as possible for people in such a mean-spirited way that it would go shut down facilities that don't take a dime of Federal money just to hurt as many people as possible.

And those same people that are calling those shots want to decide what you can have in the way of health care, Mr. Speaker. No, thank you. I am opting out. I will pay the penalty. I am not going to have the government telling me what I can or cannot have. I

will pay the penalty. I'm waiving the subsidies. If Americans can't have it, why should we, in Congress?

That same spirit of entrepreneurialism prevailed in 1995 when the Grand Canyon was actually shut down. It's amazing this administration hasn't tried to pay for some kind of screen to put over the top of the Grand Canyon so commercial airliners can't fly over and look down and see God's creation.

But in '95, there was an agreement between the State, local government, and the Federal Government to make sure that after it was initially closed, it reopened. And State and local government people were able to allow Americans who had scheduled their vacations, their travel time, to allow them to enjoy that.

Not this administration, oh no. They are so intent on refusing to allow even a delay across the board to be given to everyone as they've given to Big Business, to their cronies that they are not going to allow any local government, private business, States to reopen parks and things that have no business being shut.

The stories are coming in of all kinds of places that there was no need to close. There was no need to spend money to barricade but just to make life tough for Americans, because this is how Big Government has grown. This is how abusive government has become.

And I can't help but draw the conclusion that since Lois Lerner was never actually punished for the abuses and the obvious lies that have now come to light, that others in the Federal Government have said, Well, they didn't do anything to Lois Lerner. She got caught red- handed. So we can be as abusive to people as we want.

So a story from October 4 which talks about how Arizona Governor Brewer, local businesses, local governments are trying to get permission to fund the reopening of at least part of the Grand Canyon, but this Federal Government, like the park ranger said, wants to make life difficult and wants to create as much misery as possible.

I'll say this about the Carter administration. I was in the United States Army at Fort Benning for over half of the Carter administration, and we had a lot of misery as a result of the calls by the Commander in Chief then. And there came something that was called the misery index, to measure how miserable Americans were under President Carter. Because we were having inflation, which is now coming under this administration because of the massive creation of money. You can't keep creating money and not end up causing inflation. That's coming. Interest rates that keep being teased, that they're about to go higher. We'll see. And the unemployment rate was massively high back in those days.

But I'll say this about the Carter administration: they didn't mean to cause that much misery. They really did not mean to cause that much misery. There was massive misery across the country back then. But at least that administration did not intend to make people that miserable.

But reports continue to come in of the misery this administration is inflicting because they can, because they want everyone to succumb to what has been classified as Chicago-style thuggery, that having more to do with tactics of organized crime. If you didn't go along with what they wanted, they made you suffer. And we're seeing that.

I mean, for goodness sake, we passed a law before the shutdown. I've been pushing for a military pay bill for over 2\1/2\ years. And I'm very grateful the Speaker finally brought that to the floor. I'm grateful to the gentleman from Colorado, Michael Coffman, for shepherding that. And then the Department of Defense gets it.

We were going to mitigate as much as we could. To the Senate's credit, they passed that before the shutdown. But then the Department of Defense, this administration chose to interpret it so much more narrowly than the law itself, and said that they furloughed lots of people, just like the park ranger said, trying to make life as difficult as possible. And they said, Well, we're going to take some time to read the legislation and let people suffer for a while. And eventually we'll get around to deciding whether or not we think Congress meant to do what they said they meant to do, and that is, protect our country, provide for the common defense, make sure our military continued to get paid, along with every private contractor that supported them in any way, along with every civilian employee that supported them in their role. They just, apparently, wanted to make life miserable.

There are enough problems being created by ObamaCare and by the overspending of this administration without creating things unnecessarily.

Here's a story from Stephanie Condon from CBS news about ``Obamacare marketplaces raise data security concerns.'' That is continuing to be a concern. It seems to be borne out that this was a train wreck, it is a nightmare, and that it will continue to just get worse.

And the L.A. Times, Chad Terhune, had a story:

California exchange overstated its Web traffic for

ObamaCare launch.

That would be consistent with so many of the mainstream that grabbed ahold of a young man who said he had signed up successfully, so he was hailed. He was interviewed by different media, and then come to find out, actually, he is a paid computer hack who gets paid by Organizing for America, President Obama's lobbying group that he funds. The guy is paid, as he admitted. He's paid to go online and just say things politically supportive of the President. It turns out he had not actually successfully signed up for ObamaCare.

There was a story from Andrew Johnson, National Review:

Zero enroll in the new Louisiana plan on ObamaCare's first

day.

One from the Weekly Standard, October 3, the White House on a number of enrollees in ObamaCare:

We don't have that data.

AP reports that pressure continues to mount to fix the health insurance exchanges. Those continue to be a nightmare.

And in the midst of all this, where you had had Franklin Roosevelt say the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, we have John Harwood in a CNBC interview this week saying to the President, ``Wall Street has been pretty calm about this,'' and the President said, ``This time I think Wall Street should be concerned.'' So we have to fear the President making people fear.

There was an interesting online entry this week indicating at the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington where veterans have been staging protests to keep it open, Washington Examiner reports that at least seven officials were dispatched to Wednesday morning to set up a ring of barricades to block tourists from the memorial. That's two more security officers than the State Department had in Benghazi one year ago on the night of the terrorist attack that killed four, including the U.S. Ambassador.

Well, as I keep going out to the memorial each day to ensure veterans are getting in, I've noted there are more Park Service people out there than I have ever seen at the World War II Memorial. I have been there all times day and night--I don't sleep that much when I'm in Washington--although come to find out, our park rangers don't know the law. They don't know the parking law properly. There are a lot of things they don't know. We find out they have been instructed to make life as difficult as they can for people. As the ranger said, that was disgusting. Thank God there are some people I have met and spoken with with the Park Service that care about the veterans. We have veterans that serve in the Park Service who just want people to enjoy their parks, not to make things difficult. But I'm seeing more Park Service personnel around the Mall than you ever see out there around the World War II Memorial.

The last few days I've been out there, each time you see mounted Park Service people on horseback watching over things keeping their eye on the veterans. You know, those guys in wheelchairs from World War II, they may make a run. They may try to go down the sidewalk where they are not allowed.

It is outrageous what this administration is doing. The Obama administration has decided to block access to public memorials on the National Mall as a result of the government shutdown, like its decision to end White

House tours when the sequester cuts took effect. There is no rational reason for this. The Park Service normally in charge of monitoring these spaces isn't even affected by the shutdown, and they are shutting off access to these sites. It is gratuitous and petulant.

Another article about the ObamaCare privacy nightmare.

Shutting down the cemetery at Normandy for people that have spent so much, saved so much, trying to get a family member there to see the graves they never saw of people who fell while serving with them at Normandy is about as outrageous as it gets.

For heaven's sake, make life miserable for Members of Congress; but for Pete's sake, leave our veterans alone. Let them enjoy their memorials. Let them have their times of silence and meditation at their memorials, at their cemeteries. There are private entities, there are local governments, there are State governments wanting to keep these things open. But I can tell you, any administration that is so callous that it would allow and encourage difficulty for its citizens when it has a tantrum and doesn't get what it wants is not somebody you want in charge of your health care. Every American ought to be seeing this and ought to be saying loud and clear, let's hold up for at least a year on ObamaCare. You've done enough damage already. We don't want you controlling our health care. At least give us that break.

We are here this weekend. It would have been nice to have been back in east Texas and to be at the events that I was scheduled to be in different places this weekend, but we're here. I have no regrets. I just hope that the Senate, Mr. Speaker, and the administration will decide that negotiating means more than calling a press conference and announcing that we're willing to work things out, because when the President announces we're going to work things out, we're willing and he calls the leaders of Congress up to the White House so he can announce to them in person that we're not negotiating, I just wanted to make that clear, you give us everything I want, you abdicate, forget the Constitution, forget your requirements that you appropriate the money, you go through, you have oversight, you make sure that we're not wasting money, forget your obligations under that, give me all the money I had last year, don't put anything on it. Just give it to me like I want it or we're not negotiating. That is not an administration you want in control of your health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, October 7, 2013, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about ObamaCare, as most people call it. It's just difficult after the hundreds of stories we're getting from back home--not just me, but so many Members of Congress. It's just hard to call it the ``Affordable Care Act'' when we're hearing from so many that are saying, it's so very unaffordable.

It was interesting, so many members of the media were chomping at the bit to find somebody who was able to get online and sign up for ObamaCare successfully. They grabbed a young man, Chad Henderson. He talked Thursday about his Internet experience, applying for insurance through the Affordable Care Act, through the Web site. So he was kind of a media icon.

Gee, this young 21-year-old kid, this young man from Georgia got right on, and signed up for ObamaCare. Then we find the rest of the story. So many were using his story. Oh, Chad Henderson. He got signed up very easily.

But here's a story by Kate Harrison today, on Friday, that says:

A day after a 21-year-old Flintstone, Georgia, man became

the subject of national media attention--including a front

page Times Free Press story--for being one of the first

Americans to actually get through ObamaCare's glitchy Web

site and enroll for coverage, he acknowledged that he hadn't

completed that process.

Amidst the initial publicity, Chad Henderson was hailed by

supporters of the Affordable Care Act as an example of the

new system working and was attacked by those against the law

for buying into the plan and for being a volunteer for

Organized for Action, a nonprofit promoting President Barack

Obama's agenda.

Today, a libertarian magazine, Reason, called Henderson's

account into question after a conversation with Henderson's

father, who said that he and his son had not actually bought

a plan off of the ObamaCare site yet.

In an interview today with the Times Free Press, Chad

Henderson confirmed that he hadn't actually purchased a plan,

but he insisted he hadn't lied. He said the confusion was in

the wording.

``I never actually said I purchased a plan,'' he said. ``I

said that I submitted an application, and so I enrolled. I

haven't actually paid for a plan, though I found one that I

liked. I never meant to mislead anyone.''

When he first talked with the Times Free Press on Thursday,

Chad Henderson said he had ``picked'' a bronze plan from Blue

Cross Blue Shield of Georgia that had a premium between $175

and $200. He said that the specific plan fit into his budget,

though he wished it covered more.

In his initial tweet, Henderson said ``Enrolled in

#ObamaCare just now! Looking forward to having affordable

health care for the first time!''

Today, Henderson said he stood by those comments, but

repeated that he never specifically said he had purchased a

plan.

Then Ace of Spades apparently does a lot of online looking and comes up with some interesting things. He posts this today:

Chad Henderson actually disclosed that he was a partisan

paid to post ``advocacy things'' on social media.

So who's the bad guy here? Chad Henderson was not coy about his passionate support of Barack Obama or his volunteer (?) position with OFA. And here he says, ``Something you should know about me,'' and then discloses he's paid to post advocacy stuff.

And then it has an inset where the following is quoted from his posting:

I'm often labeled ``the guy who always talks about

politics.'' And it normally has negative affects LOL. So I'm

here to clear things up. If you were to hang out with me one

night, you'll see I'm not that obsessed with politics at all.

Yes, I do post political stuff on here and other social

networking sites, but it's for good reason. For one, I think

it's good if people get some insight into the world they live

in. Secondly, I work for an organization that pays me

quarterly to post the political stuff as advocacy. So it's

kind of my job.

It's kind of the way it seems things go around here. You have people with the Tea Party who seem to have one thing in common--they all pay income tax. Different races, age, national origin. I've met people at Tea Parties from countries all over the world, as I've been around the country. They pay income tax. They want the government to be responsible.

And as we've been out each day to the World War II Memorial, where somebody in the administration thought it would be cute to make veterans suffer, would create a good visual image of how much suffering, since they knew 21 out of 21 stories by the mainstream media would blame the Republicans, which they did. I thought, Wow, if they will all blame the Republicans even though they appointed negotiators, ask us to just negotiate, we wouldn't negotiate. We told them we wouldn't negotiate because we knew the mainstream media would blame everybody on the Republican side so we could do whatever we wanted. So let's create as much pain in this country as we possibly can because the mainstream media will help us ensure that the American people are duped into believing Republicans are to blame.

So this was the game from the beginning. There were no paid veterans out there from World War II to see the memorial that was constructed to them. They were out there hoping to roll in their wheelchairs down the granite open sidewalks, around the outdoor open air memorial that was constructed in such a way it would never have to be closed, that it could be open 24/7.

And I can tell you, I've been down there all hours of the day and night--10 p.m., 10 a.m., 2 a.m., 4 a.m. And no, I don't drink. I just go down there sometimes with folks to see the memorials that were constructed for America. And most of the time, I don't see any park rangers, no Park Service people.

But someone in this administration, some people in this administration thought it would be really cute to put barricades up at the World War II Memorial, the open air granite sidewalk, open 24/7 without guards most of the time, that would be cute. Because that would really play well in the media.

Then we find out, as protesters came down there as we were getting some more veterans in this week, Patrick Poole, a reporter, had his camera going when he saw these protesters, these union protesters coming, protesting supposedly because they're Federal workers who were put out of a job and are out there protesting, demanding Republicans get them back to work.

When one with a McDonald's employee shirt on was asked about--they saw the McDonald's shirt, Patrick said, How much are you getting paid to come protest? And he says into the camera, $15. Well, it took an SEIU supervisor, who must have put the whole thing together, to come running over eventually to explain, Oh, but he works as a franchisee in a museum. He was not a Federal worker. He worked for McDonald's, and he got paid $15 to go protest down where these World War II veterans in wheelchairs were just trying to enjoy a moment which for so many of them was very poignant, very emotional as they thought about their time in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, fighting for freedom in lands so far from home.

To some, it's a game. We heard the leak from the administration that, Why would we bring this shutdown to an end in this Obama administration when we're winning, as if it were a game.

People know that right here at this podium, I have criticized Speaker John Boehner. Let me tell you, he had it right today when he said, This is not a game. You're playing with people's lives. But apparently, it's a game to some.

In the Organizing for America, the new-found ACORN that's gotten all this money to support the President's agenda, they're organizing, they're lobbying like crazy and, apparently, paying people to come protest and create havoc where some World War II vets are just trying to observe their memorial. It's not a game to them.

It's apparently a game to some in this administration who are not satisfied to close the Normandy Cemetery. We heard from some from Texas who had been scraping their money together because they knew the patriarch of their family may not have long--certainly would not have another chance in his life to go back to Normandy, where he fought, where his friends died. They scraped together money and got him over there only to find that whoever it is in this administration--and it starts at the top, and it stops at the top--but whoever made the call decided, let's inflict emotional pain and suffering not only on the World War II vets--that will look good because the Republicans will be blamed--but how about over in Normandy. People get clear! Oh, yes, that will be great, won't it?

Because the mainstream media, they'll blame Republicans. And then they'll be furious at them. And just like whoever it was in the administration today that said, You know, why would we stop the shutdown? We're winning. They think they're winning when Americans travel before the end of their lives to see where they fought for liberty and their friends died for liberty and their friends are buried there. Some kind of game. This is not a game. These are people's lives.

Here's a report from Todd Starnes today entitled, ``Catholic Priests in Military Face Arrest for Celebrating Mass'':

The U.S. military has furloughed as many as 50 Catholic

chaplains due to the partial suspension of government

services, banning them from celebrating weekend mass. At

least one chaplain was told that if he engaged in any

ministry activity, he would be subjected to disciplinary

action.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese said:

In very practical terms, it means Sunday mass won't be

offered. If someone has a baptism scheduled, it won't be

celebrated.

They were told they cannot function because those are contracted services and since there's no funding, they can't do it even if they volunteer.

John Schlageter, general counsel for the archdiocese, said any furloughed priest volunteering their services could face big trouble. He said:

During the shutdown, it is illegal for them to administer

on base and they risk being arrested if they attempt to do

so.

Look, one thing we know for sure about the military, the Commander in Chief is in charge. And I know there are a lot of distractions, but somebody needs to get word to the Commander in Chief that his military members are not going to be allowed to get to mass if they are Catholic and their Catholic priest has been told that he can be arrested if he shows up on post because the Commander in Chief can give an order and that's gone, and every Catholic priest that wishes to volunteer that has got clearance will be back on that post or base to provide mass.

For goodness sake, we have more suicides in our military now than at any time in the history of the country. You might have thought that would have been at Valley Forge. But, no, it's now and in this time in this country's history. Good grief, Mr. President, let the Catholic masses go. Rescind the order that you won't even let them volunteer there. They are people that are serving this President, Mr. Speaker, that deserve to have the comfort of their spiritual ministers.

My friends here, I respect and I really do, I appreciated their comments because as they've indicated they're freshmen and they are new. They talked about the Democrats and they talked about to get budget conferees. Wow, after all these years, the Senate finally passes an unrealistic budget, after the President waited longer than any other time and violated the law to get a budget out, and he put it out at a time when it was past time to be helpful. We are way beyond budgets at this time.

The Federal Government in this country is in a new year fiscally, so budgets are not what does it now. Now we are into appropriations; and before the shutdown we had a bill that after three compromises were offered, we said, okay, here's our negotiators, all you have to do, Harry Reid, appoint negotiators and we can have this done by morning and the people in the country won't even have to know. At least send negotiators. And as we have found out today, the administration does not want to end the shutdown because they believe they are winning this game while real people are suffering.

I heard my friend, my heart went out to Joshua, a military member who was in the military for 5 years, 1 year longer than I served, and he couldn't find a job, and now he's told his benefits are about to end at the end of the month if the government is still shut down. He can't find a job, and he may have to apply for food stamps.

Well, I would think my Democratic colleagues would come and say, you know what, ObamaCare clearly has done damage, just as the economists have said it would, and it has, and businesses have repeatedly told us it was going to create havoc in the workplace, and it has. And we have ongoing reports of businesses, because of ObamaCare, having to lay off full-time employees and put them to part-time so that they can continue to be competitive and stay in business. And some have said even doing that because of ObamaCare, they are going to be crushed. They may not make the year in business. So, yes, our hearts go out to Joshua. Let's at least stop ObamaCare for a year. It isn't working, and it has got people not working, and it is costing people more than they ever dreamed it would cost.

Here's another from one of my constituents:

I just ran quotes for one of my insurance clients in

Marshall, a family of four. I was shocked when their premiums

were not lower than their current rate. President Obama said

insurance rates would go down $2,500 per year in one of his

many speeches in the past. I have to quote one of my heroes

and one of your fellow Congressmen who said ``You lie.''

Please note a $2,121.12 increase for this family if they

change their insurance to an approved ObamaCare plan for

2014.

So that's about a $4,600 swing wrong from what the President said.

This says:

I did not attend Harvard, but I can add and subtract. This

family's current cost is $706 per month. The new and improved

government-approved plan is $882.76 per month, and this is

the lowest price for this family.

He goes on. It's a lengthy letter. He's obviously upset for clients who are not going to keep the same insurance at the same rate. We have heard from so many who have lost their doctor, lost their insurance.

Here's another. This one has quotes from a letter he got.

``Dear Paul.'' It has his full name. He's another one of my constituents.

Thank you for trusting Anthem with your health plan. We

recently sent you a letter explaining how you can continue

your coverage with us. If you've already chosen to change

your policy effective date and extend your coverage through

December 1, 2014, then we'd like to thank you for your

continued patronage. You can disregard the message below.

However, if you have not decided on your health plan for the

coming year, you need to know that your current plan is being

discontinued. Starting January 1, 2014, we're no longer able

to offer or renew your plan because it doesn't meet the

requirements of the new health care reform laws. Your new

plan, Anthem Core DirectAccess, is available at $224.25 per

month.

Paul says:

I currently have a plan that costs me $65 a month, and I

have a $5,000 deductible. It just covers me. The new plan

with the same benefits is 3.45 times what I am currently

paying.

He's pretty upset so I won't read everything he says. But he says:

My wife and I now have to make rather large sacrifices to

raise the extra $1,908 so we can keep a plan that is already

mediocre.

I won't read the rest of that. He's pretty upset.

We got another insight into the strategy. Here's a story from Wesley Pruden:

The games politicians play: Barack Obama is having a lot of

fun using the government shutdown to squeeze the public in

imaginative ways. The point of the shutdown game is to see

who can squeeze hardest, make the

most pious speech and listen for the applause. It is a

variation on the grade school ritual of ``you show me yours,

I'll show you mine.''

President Obama is not a bad poker player, but the man with

all the chips always starts with the advantage and he gets

all of the aces. He has closed Washington down as tight as he

dares, emphasizing the trivial and the petty in making life

as inconvenient as he can for the greatest number. It's all

in a noble cause, of course. Access to most memorials is

limited and often in curious ways. The Lincoln Memorial is

easy to reach, with the streets around it remaining open. But

the Martin Luther King Memorial is made difficult to reach,

relegating it, you might say, to the back of the bus. Not

very nice.

The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim

and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount

Vernon where the plantation home of George Washington is a

favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the

new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World

War II, but the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is

privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The

ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national

memorial. The Feds closed access to the parking lots this

week even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount

Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and

they're only here to help. ``It's a cheap way to deal with

the situation,'' an angry Park Service rangers says of the

harassment. ``We've been told to make life as difficult for

people as we can. Its disgusting.''

So for somebody here in Washington at least who is giving park rangers orders to make life as difficult as possible, it is a game. There was a time in America when we had a President, we had Congress Members who would encourage people in this country that there was always a way to make something happen. And the volunteer spirit across this land made us the envy of the world because people volunteered. We could do anything. And yet people around Washington have seen just what the park ranger said. They've been told make things as difficult as possible. So here is a playground in Washington, D.C., that never has a Federal officer there supervising it I'm told by people whose children play their constantly, but they found a need to go lock it up and somebody spent a bunch of money all over this town printing up new things to emphasize not just closed, I'm sure they have plenty of closed signs they could use, oh, no, we have to print up all new signs that say because of the Federal Government shutdown, this National Park Service facility is closed. And they're putting it in places that isn't even National Park Service facilities.

Well, they're following their orders. They're making life as difficult as they can for as many as they can.

Here's another: ``Because of the Federal Government shutdown, all national parks are closed,'' and this one is at the World War II Memorial. See the wide open sidewalks. They're made of granite. They're not going to hurt them. I can tell you, there are enough veterans, there are enough people, those of us who have served, we're not going to let people deface this. Yes, it is possible somebody could sneak down there in the night and do that. And I can tell you they could sneak down there and do it at night even with the barricades. So the only people that barricades like this stop are people like our World War II veterans in wheelchairs because somebody has given the order, the disgusting order, to make life as difficult as possible for as many people as possible, maybe they'll blame, they will surely blame the Republicans, even though we're the ones who refused to even appoint negotiators to negotiate, as called for in the Constitution, the law, and the rules of the House and the rules of the Senate. I didn't like the idea of appointing conferees. It was basically a capitulation. All right, all right, you didn't like our compromises, here's our people to compromise. You don't have to worry, I wasn't one of those that Speaker Boehner appointed, and you wouldn't even appoint people to come sit down and talk about it.

Instead, rushing around all over the place, shutting places like the Moore Park, the Moore family farm that has been around since George Washington days in the 1700s. It hasn't taken a Federal dime since 1980.

They sent park rangers over to Virginia Tuesday to run the McLean Chamber of Commerce out of the farm, costing the farm money, costing the Chamber all kinds of headaches as they tried to relocate, for no reason other than what we have learned is someone gave the order to make life as difficult as you can.

So this farm that really gets a lot of business in fall--this is their prime time--the director says they have lost $20,000 because they rented barricades to put up to block a park that doesn't get a dime of Federal money.

People all over the country are finding the same thing. And it's time it stopped. This is not a game. Let's help Americans for a change.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Saturday, October 5, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my friends on the other side of the aisle, some really terrific public speakers. I also enjoyed particularly the question from my friend across the aisle who said: ``Why not let ObamaCare just go through?''

That is something that has been debated and I have discussed with so many of my constituents. There are many people in the country that are so angry about ObamaCare being passed. It is just hard to call it ``affordable care'' because I have heard from so many that it has just devastated, so many who have told me that it is anything but affordable. It is devastating them.

Some have said if we just let ObamaCare go through, it is going to hurt so many people. It has already hurt so many people. If we just let it go through--stand by, just get out of the way, let it hit, let it get the full hurt and damage that will continue--that will just get worse as it hurts the economy as it continues to make most people's health care and health insurance both go up.

If you are a purely political animal, that is the perfect question to ask: Why not just let ObamaCare go through and let it do its damage?

But when you care deeply about people and see the damage it is doing, how can you stand by and let it keep hurting the way it is? People have already lost insurance, they've already gotten their notices, we continue to get emails, we continue to get calls, I continue to hear from people I know and trust back home, I hear from other people around the country.

There has been an email where people could send us their stories and then we try to verify: [email protected] .gov. So those stories continue to come in at [email protected].

So if you are purely a political animal, whether Republican or Democrat, then it is a good question to ask: Why not just let ObamaCare come through? Because if it is as bad as people are telling us it is-- you see the damage to the economy, you see the people that have lost full-time work and gone to part-time work because of it, having to take multiple jobs, losing the benefits they had, you see businesses that had cultivated and trained employees, who did not want to lose employees, who were building and building but got above the 50 threshold and now they have had to cut below that or go to part time, you see the damage--then, yes, for purely political animals why not let it go through?

As my friend noted, if it is all that bad you will win the next election, the majority in the Senate next time, you will win the Presidency next time.

But there are some of us that don't think in purely political terms. We hear from people--our hearts break when their hearts break, we rejoice when they rejoice--and it is hard to feel good and stand by and let a train wreck or a nightmare, depending on which Democrat's description of ObamaCare you want, just let it go and continue to wreak havoc on America and real American people, on American lives.

We've mentioned some of the stories before. As I say, they continue to come in to [email protected].

Here is one from Jeff:

I run a business in Tyler. We have part-time associates

that work 35 hours per week on average. But this varies due

to the changing business levels. We provide transportation

services moving freight to and from Tyler. Since the

implementation of the Affordable Care Act, we have had to cut

down hours of these associates to get below the employer-

mandated level of 30 hours. These associates are used to

working 35 hours on average per week. As most Americans, they

set their budget for their family around this many hours. Our

company needs to be able to compete in this market so we need

the flexibility of the part-time worker. However, we must now

cut hours of loyal, dedicated associates below 29 hours. This

is creating a problem, first for our associates, who are

simply trying to make ends meet, and for the organization

that I run to provide quality service to our customers. This

law is handcuffing the businesses and will ultimately drive

up costs of running a company. When costs rise they are

passed along to the customers and on to the end consumer. We

will continue to struggle economically under this law. Please

do whatever you can to reverse this law and restore liberty

to this country and our businesses.

Here is one from Tammy:

When ObamaCare first passed its law, I asked my ObGyn what

he thought of it. His words were that it ``sucks.'' I told my

husband that I bet when all this is said and done he would

retire. And guess what? He did. So the part about being able

to keep your doctor is definitely not true. Also, I own a

small business with less than 50 employees, and we will never

be able to grow our business any bigger than what it is right

now. Sad.

From Tammy.

Mary said:

We had insurance through Moen in my retirement package,

which cost us $27 per month. It has been canceled effective

January 1 of 2014 and comparable coverage is going to cost us

$300 per month. We are on Social Security.

That is from Walter and Mary in east Texas.

Here is one from Harold:

My granddaughter teaches elementary students in Mesquite.

She was shocked to find that the health insurance she carries

on herself and her son has doubled in cost since the school

year. She inquired as to why. And well, you already know what

the answer she was given: ObamaCare.

A single mom and her son.

Here is another from a business owner:

I have been told that my company offers what is known as a

Cadillac health plan, although it has been years since anyone

in my

company could afford a Cadillac automobile. As a small

business, I use the ability to offer health care that was

superior to others to attract and retain quality, longtime

employees. Now faced with being taxed for providing too

much of a good thing I will reduce the benefits to my

employees. We call that a ``left-handed handshake'' in

Texas. It doesn't sit well with me. I am sure not well

with my employees. I am considering early retirement and

closing or selling my business all together. It just

doesn't seem to matter to anyone anymore that hard work

and doing the right thing all these years ever counted for

anything. Here is hoping some folks will pull their heads

out of--before it is too late.

I was part of Tenet's reduction in force on June 21, 2013.

With low hospital census and poor CMS reimbursement my

position was eliminated. I lost the family health care. I was

paying $2,062 annually with a family deductible of $2,400 for

our medical, dental, prescription, and eye insurance. For

COBRA or Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance we will now have to

pay $1,000 per month or $12,000 annually. My employment will

not cover the cost of my insurance.

That's from Claudia.

I am a firefighter with the city of Whitehouse, Texas. We

have been able until October 1, 2013, to work up to 39 hours

a week because the city cannot afford to give us benefits.

The city asked us if we could get on our spouse's group

insurance I could still work up to 39 hours a week with the

new health care law. I joined my wife's group policy and went

from paying $189 a month to $600 per month. We have been told

as of October 1, 2013, that Texas Municipal insurance has

interpreted the new health care law as anyone working over 30

hours a week has to be provided health benefits. We are now

going to be cut back to working 24 hours a week and not get

health care. I have left my wife's plan and went back to my

own insurance policy, but with the cuts in hours I cannot

afford to stay on her plan and will have a hard time paying

for my own.

I cannot understand, if the new health plan is going to get

health insurance for everyone and I already have insurance,

why can't I be left alone to work the 39 hours a week? At $13

an hour, 24 hours a week doesn't bring in much for the job we

are expected to do, and at 61 years of age jobs are kind of

scarce. I can't understand why my country is trying to put me

on welfare. We have too many on it already. All I want to do

is work.

From John.

Here is one from Kerri:

I've been in law enforcement since I was 21, and what is

happening to our officers, dispatchers, and deputies today is

disgusting. Many rural counties, like mine where I'm from,

have voted in County Commissioners Court and actually passed

that because of ObamaCare, the deputies will have to pay for

their own medical insurance. These officers are already being

paid below what surrounding counties are being paid. Now they

are going to have to spend over half of their income on their

own insurance because the county cannot afford to pay it. Let

me break this down for you. A good friend of mine is employed

as a deputy by the same county sheriff's office and makes

about $900 every 2 weeks and $400 to $450 of that will now go

towards medical insurance. This deputy was almost killed in

the line of duty 2 years ago, resulting in a lot of surgeries

and a year of hospitalization and rehabilitation as well.

Because of all of those line-of-duty injuries he may not be

able to get private coverage now. How could you ask a man or

woman to lay their life on the line every day, to serve the

public and enforce laws, but then tell them that they'll go

from spending about $150 a month on insurance premiums to

about $450 per month.

It's true that you should be able to go to the exchanges, and if they can ever get through and someday get it, it's not going to have the coverage that they had before. They've lost their insurance. They won't have insurance like that again. It won't be the coverage that they'd wanted, that they'd selected, that they'd agreed on. Why? Because, if you like your insurance, ObamaCare makes sure you're not likely to keep it. That's the bottom line.

Here is one from Ima:

Due to ObamaCare, I received a letter from my doctor 2

weeks ago, telling me she would no longer take care of anyone

on Medicare. There is a big shortage of doctors that will

accept Medicare patients in such a small town as Lufkin. I

haven't been able to get another doctor to accept me as of

this date. I never thought I would live to experience my own

government treating us like we were a Communist nation. Our

Congress has truly let the American people down.

I'm sure Ima remembers being told repeatedly by everyone--from the President and by so many of our Democratic colleagues here--that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Well, Ima lost her doctor like so many across America.

Here is one from Jay in east Texas:

My son returned from a tour in Iraq to an economy that

hindered his job search for over a year. He finally got a job

with Fastenal as a part-time warehouse worker. As a part-

timer, he was able to work 39 hours every week, which paid

his bills and allowed him to put aside some savings for pilot

training. Thanks to ObamaCare, his hours have been cut to 29.

He has had to move out of his apartment and into a communal

house so he can afford to live. Thankfully, he has VA health

benefits. Otherwise, he would have to pay for health benefits

or a fine out of his greatly reduced income.

This is from Jim:

My son has a learning disability. Yet he has worked

faithfully for a nationwide paint company for over 3 years.

He is married. He and his wife work hard and refuse to go on

welfare. They have their dignity, a life vision and a

committed work ethic. Yet the best position he had attained

was part time at the paint company. He was working 32 hours

per week, and they were paying their bills, but were living

basically at the poverty line.

Then ObamaCare came, and like so many companies, my son's

hours were reduced to 28 hours per week. This put him below

the poverty line and made it impossible to meet all of his

bills. He refused to pursue welfare because he has a

commitment to earn what he receives. ObamaCare punished

diligent, community, responsible Americans like my son.

How many other working poor have been similarly hurt

because of a program that was put in place with such

irresponsible legislative leadership?

If someone wonders what James is talking about regarding irresponsible legislative leadership, that came through a legislative process without any input from Republicans, who represented nearly half of the country, so nearly half of the country didn't get any input into ObamaCare. We were told it would be negotiated on C-SPAN by the President while he was running. Not only was it not negotiated on C- SPAN, but the legislative leaders in this room--in this body--who pushed it through without most of the people who voted for it, haven't any idea what is in it. I read it. That's why I was so committed to voting against it and to trying to get others to understand what they were going to do to America.

So, for this young man, who had known the pride of being self- supporting with a disability and providing for his family just above the poverty line, ObamaCare has shoved him into poverty.

Here is one from Michelle with two ``l's.'' It's not my friend, Michele Bachmann. This is from a Texas ``Michelle.'' She sent this last week:

During this process and even before ObamaCare actually goes

into full effect, every single member of my family has been

affected. Both of my children, who have always maintained

full-time jobs and have supported their families are now

faced with part-time employment from multiple jobs because

their employers can't afford to provide health insurance any

longer, and as such, their hours have been reduced to avoid

having to provide health insurance. That means my children

and my grandchildren are all going to be forced into the

exchanges, which are not affordable at all despite the empty

promises made by the Democratic Party when this horrible bill

was passed.

In fact, please tell our former Speaker that, now that

everyone has had a chance to read it, it's even more obvious

that this plan does not work.

On my side, I've always maintained health insurance, but

since the passage of ObamaCare, my health premiums have

increased over 316 percent. In addition, my deductibles have

skyrocketed by 500 percent, and the covered services have

been reduced. So thank you for allowing me to keep my health

care coverage if I chose to. You didn't mention that it would

now be unaffordable.

Here is one from Leland:

``A dark age in medicine.'' That was the phrase my

oncologist, at a recent office visit, used. He said, When you

cut reimbursements as low as Medicare and ObamaCare have

done, the number of patients I must see to cover the fixed

costs of my practice severely impacts the time I can spend

with a single patient. Quality of care can't help but be

impacted.

If Leland has an oncologist, I hope and pray that his cancer is in remission.

It was amazing to hear Democrats say, Hey, yeah. Okay. Maybe we did cut Medicare in ObamaCare by over $700 billion. I'm not sure if I hear them talk about the amount by which they devastated Medicare. Hey--but that only goes to the providers. It does not affect and will not affect your care.

As you can find out from Leland, it does affect their care, and as we've heard from other people across the country, when you cut so dramatically the reimbursement that a health care provider gets for providing health care service, either they're going to have to stop providing that service or they cannot provide the same level or quality of service.

Seniors across America are one by one figuring that out. Wow, wait a minute. You were so sold on this ObamaCare bill, and you called it ``affordable.'' Yet you told me I wasn't going to be affected as a senior citizen in America when you cut hundreds of billions of dollars out from the services I was going to get? They're figuring it out. Their service has been affected, and it will get worse and worse as time goes on because that's what the government does. When the government takes over something, it's rare that it gets better.

Here we've got one from Nick:

The American Veterinary Medical Association has decided,

because of the uncertainties of ObamaCare, to discontinue its

sponsorship of its group major medical policy, effective

December 1, 2013. Not only have my wife and I had this

insurance since she graduated from vet school in 1976, but my

dad also had it when he graduated from vet school in 1952. So

now, at the age of 61, we are looking for new insurance.

I'm sure Nick recalls the promise: if you like your insurance, oh, you can keep it.

Here is an email from Debbie:

I am responding by letting you know that I've lost my

health care insurance. It's terminating at the end of this

year due to ObamaCare.

Of course, we have her name and information.

One from Tom:

My doctor retired as a result of ObamaCare.

That's somebody who served in the Army.

Here is one from Emily:

We had group insurance with my husband's work. It was a

plan that covered our family that cost $568 a month, no co-

pay, and the $1,200 deductible per person has now increased

to $1,100 per month and a $4,800 deductible per person to

stay current with new health care laws. That's more than our

house payment. Once upon a time, a mother whose husband

worked was able to stay home. Now either both have to work to

afford a thing like insurance or neither works so we can bum

off the people who do.

Her subject line was: ``Unaffordable rather than Affordable.'' But her insurance went from $568 a month, which is a pretty healthy price there, basically doubling to $1,100 per month, and the no co-pay deductible went from $1,200 per person to $4,800 per person. That's enough to devastate a family.

Here is one from James:

Several months ago, we got a letter in the mail saying that

our physician--and I won't give the name--was leaving her

affiliated practice. When we asked her about it, she listed

ObamaCare as the primary reason for leaving the practice.

Here is one from Ty:

I just received my affordable health care renewal notice

from my health care insurance provider, which is one of the

two members participating in North Carolina's marketplace

exchange. I've been informed that the plan which I currently

have and like will no longer be available under ObamaCare. As

a result, I'm being forced to switch to a new plan.

Additionally, effective January 1, 2014, the premium for an

insurance plan comparable to my current is increasing from

$235 to $407 per month, and my maximum out-of-pocket expense

is increasing from $2,700 to $6,350.

He goes on to complain about hearing the President say on numerous occasions, if you like your insurance, you can keep it.

Here's one from Carmine:

I am a responsible family man. I've always provided health

insurance for my family. In 2008, I was diagnosed with MS,

making insurance expensive. However, I always made do by

having insurance either on my wife's plan or my own plan. In

2009, we lost my wife's plan and we worried because of my

preexisting condition. However, we learned that our State of

New Jersey had a provision that we cannot be denied coverage

as long as we can prove we had coverage at the time I was

diagnosed. I also find out that in our State, New Jersey,

dependents can stay on their parents' plan up until they are

31 years old. So two of Obama's biggest benefits were already

available in my State. However, after being extremely

responsible in this tough economic time, the ObamaCare law

has now made my insurance policy nonrenewable. My wife worked

really hard to make sure that I and our child are covered

under this plan and now we will lose it. We do not know if

these plans, which could be a little cheaper, will provide

the coverage I need. I have a specific doctor I see at St.

Sinai. Because the liberal Democrats want to cover the

uninsured--a noble thing--they are hurting those who always

try to be responsible.

That was Carmine in New Jersey.

It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that back during the ObamaCare debate, there were many of us Republicans who were saying to our Democratic friends--they controlled the White House; they controlled the House; they controlled the Senate--who said, Look, why don't we do a bipartisan group of bills or one bill? We can agree on a bill that allows people to keep their kids on their insurance if they're dependents. We can work something out here. We were told we weren't needed because they controlled the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives. They didn't need our input.

They rammed through a bill without knowing what all was in it. I know of cases, I've heard of cases where people had acknowledged conditions, insurance companies that we know, and then later got dropped after they got expensive. Oh, you had a preexisting condition. There have been things that were very unfair that insurance companies have done, and there are ways to deal with those things. When there are not, we should fix it with legislation.

What the Democratic party did, without most people who voted for the ObamaCare bill knowing what was in it, they passed a law that had not been properly vetted or thought through. There was no chance to fuss about amendments at the subcommittee, at the committee, or here on the floor because the bill that was dealt with in the subcommittee, committee, it wasn't the same one that they rushed through as the final ObamaCare.

I read the 1,000-page bill. I read their 2,000-page bill when it looked like that was what they were going to vote on here. Then it turned out, here came the other. So I was slow to make my way through that bill. I really didn't want to. What if they come back with a 5,000-page bill after that? When it turned out that's what they were really going to do, I went through that.

I wasn't able to go through and take the sections in each place that were talked about in other bills, other laws. It's almost impossible unless you have a tremendous amount of time to go back and figure out how it actually affects other laws. But when you read through it, you get an awful lot of gist of what's happening, and it sure wasn't something we should have passed.

Karen, from Vermont, actually, said:

Shortly following passage of ObamaCare, I lost my primary

care doctor. He decided to join a group that limited the

number of patients that he could treat, and they charged a

yearly fee not covered by Medicare for the privilege of

remaining his patient. This resulted in hundreds of patients

being dropped. Put an end to ObamaCare.

She lost her doctor. She didn't get to keep him or her.

Here's one from Dee:

My insurance deductible was raised to $4,000, as of

September 1, 2013, per individual, $8,000 per family.

She goes on to describe all the other things that jumped up as a result.

Here's one from Erica:

As a single disabled mom to one disabled son, I'm on

Medicare and Medicaid. I just got my new policy for 2014.

Half of the insurance I had is gone because of----

Well, I can't read that here, Mr. Speaker, as Erica describes the bill in such a way that I can't read it on the floor.

Anyway, she says:

I was able to join a gym on a discount to keep me active,

but no longer can do that. My price increased for my

prescription drugs. Please, repeal this bill and listen to

the American people.

Here's one from Helen:

As a glass artist, Obama's hold on our economy has ruined

my business. My target market is middle class, stay-at-home

moms, but almost all my customer base has shifted to those

owning half-million-dollar homes. I know, because I check

every time I make a sale. This makes me very sad, and even

mad, that only the wealthy can afford my art now. I should

have gone into gun sales, which don't discriminate.

ObamaCare has forced my family to lose our Blue Cross from

my husband's work because he cannot afford us anymore. We're

almost old enough to go on Medicare, but I hear it's been

raided by ObamaCare, which we refuse to participate in. We're

not Obama's slaves.

Well, I'm not going to read the rest of that. But Helen obviously is rather bitter because they liked their insurance, but the promises were broken. She didn't keep her insurance, she and her family. That's only a portion of the stacks of emails we've been getting.

I want to go back to the question my friends ask: Why not just let ObamaCare go through? Like I say, if you're a pure political animal, yeah, let it go through. Let Americans like

these poor folks, let them keep suffering and, ooh, it will be so good. Republicans will win back the majority in the Senate, and we're told, oh, gee, they'll win the White House in 2016. Well, it just happens that, to some of us, doing the right thing in Congress is not about helping a political party. It's about trying to help the people that elected us. It's about trying to do what's right for the whole country.

If your heart doesn't break when you read these stories and when you take the phone calls and when you have people tell you, with broken hearts, of what's happened to their business, what's happened to their job, what's happened to their family, what's happened to their kids' jobs and the suffering that's going on, why? if you're enough of a political animal like some folks, I guess, yeah, okay, maybe it would be great for the Republican Party if we just sat back and let it go through, let it devastate everybody you can.

My late mother used to tell me she wished I would be a doctor. She used to have Dr. McKellar, who passed away this year. I think he's the one that kept encouraging me, but he would tell me: Louis, you'd be a great doctor. I'll help you. You'd be great. We can get you into Baylor Medical School.

That's a great medical school, but it just didn't feel like what I was called to do. It didn't feel right in my heart. But when I think about the suffering that is going on, I know that I'm in a place to make a difference, and we, every one of us here in this body, are here where we can make a difference, where we can help people see the doctor that they should see.

The question has come from different constituents, from other people, gee, all Federal workers--some think that Congress has a different health care plan than all Federal workers, but it's all part of the same Federal plan that every Federal worker has, and you've got choices you can make. Some people have asked a question that I don't have a really good answer for. They've said: If the Democrats were so insistent, if the real purpose of ObamaCare was to try to make sure people that didn't have insurance got insurance, and they really intended to make sure that if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance, and if they were really serious that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, then why didn't they just figure out a way that if you don't have insurance, you can choose from a State's cafeteria plan or Federal employee plan in their States? Do something like that.

I don't have a good answer, other than, when you look and you go through ObamaCare, it is very clear, as we said before, it wasn't just about health care. It was about the GRE, the government running everything, the government getting all of your most personal, private information, having every one of your medical records in Federal possession.

It's a disaster.

Well, I have reflected on Franklin Roosevelt's speech. I admired the speech he gave in this room from that podium when it was white marble, that this is a day that will live in infamy. He gave another speech when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It's considered one of the greatest speeches by anybody. Yet our President was on CNBC yesterday, and he said:

If we get into the habit where one party is allowed to

extort, then any President who comes after me would be unable

to govern effectively.

That's rather interesting. It's a little different from the approach that Bill Clinton took back in the 1990s; because President Clinton, back during the shutdown, the few weeks that was going on, talked to the Speaker of the House virtually every day. There may have been 1 or 2 days that they didn't talk, but otherwise, they were basically talking every day.

You had an interviewer asking the President, gee, Wall Street seems to be pretty calm. The President, instead of saying that's a great thing, everybody should remain calm, we're going to work this thing out, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, instead sounded more like a fire alarm, gee, they better be concerned.

He wanted Wall Street to be concerned, to be worried, because when Wall Street gets worried, then it means that people that have invested in the market, that have their life savings, retirement savings in the market, it means they lose money. Yet that's what was suggested--get worried, get concerned.

Here's an article from Penny Starr from yesterday afternoon late. It is an interview with our Democratic colleague across the aisle who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee that brought ObamaCare to the floor. cnsnews.com asked, ``What I was going to ask you is if you've read those 10,535 pages of regulations.'' Those are the final ObamaCare regulations that have now come out and been published in the Federal Register.

Former Chairman Waxman, who pushed through the ObamaCare bill, said to the reporter, ``Have you read them?'' The reporter said, ``No. Have you read them?'' The former chairman that pushed through ObamaCare said, ``Is it important that I read it?'' The reporter said, ``Do you think that the American people should read it? I just asked you a very honest question, whether you've read them. It's a yes or no question.'' The former chairman that shoved through ObamaCare said, ``I think it is a propaganda question, and I refuse to talk to you about it.''

The article says:

Since March 2010, when President Barack Obama signed the

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its companion

Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, various Federal

agencies have published in the Federal Register 110 final

regulations governing how ObamaCare will be implemented.

Those regulations add up to 10,535 pages in the Federal

Register. That is more than eight times as many pages as

there are in the Gutenberg Bible, which has 642 two-sided

leaves or 1,286 pages.

It is bad enough ObamaCare was never read by most of the people that voted for it. And now you've got 10,535 regulations that have been published that I'm sure nobody here in the House or the Senate has read, that are now the effective new laws of the land.

We've got new navigators. There is money, massive amounts of money being paid for navigators. And that's created a problem. National Review Online published this today by Sean Riley:

Tuesday marked the first day of open enrollment for the

health insurance exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act.

It didn't go very well. Would-be health insurance consumers

in at least 47 States encountered technical problems. These

so-called glitches, however, mask a much more serious concern

for consumers: protecting sensitive data. The lack of

sufficient security surrounding the exchanges should give

potential enrollees pause.

In August, a coalition of attorneys general from 13 States

wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

to express concerns over consumer privacy and oversight of

``navigators,'' counselors charged with assisting consumers

enrolling in the exchanges. Specifically, the attorneys

general asked what policies were in place to screen and

monitor program personnel, prevent fraud and remedy cases of

it, and regulate the navigators at the State level. But chief

among their concerns was whether sufficient safeguards were

in place to prevent security breaches.

In September, the concerns of the attorneys proved

prescient. An employee of Minnesota's health exchange

accidentally sent 2,400 Social Security numbers, complete

with names and addresses, to an insurance broker applying to

become a navigator. Not only was the information mishandled,

it was sent in an unencrypted and unsecured spreadsheet,

suggesting additional lapses in security. HHS--Health and

Human Services--has yet to respond to the August letter.

Concerns are not limited to the 13 attorneys general who

wrote to Secretary Sebelius. In California, State insurance

commissioner Dave Jones, an early supporter of the ACA,

expressed worry that the 21,000 personnel providing customer

support for the exchanges lacked proper oversight and could

``obtain information that will allow them to build the trust

they have with the individual they're working with and

potentially sell them all manner of bogus products, steal

their identity, and gain access to certain assets they might

have.''

Commissioner Jones is not alone in his unease. A report

from the House Oversight Committee found that top HHS

officials are similarly worried about the potential for

identity theft.

Anyway, the article goes on.

An article here from today entitled, ``Obama: `I have bent over backwards to work with the Republican Party.' '' It says ``I think it's fair to say that--during the course of my presidency--I have bent over backwards to work with the Republican Party. And have purposely kept my rhetoric down.'' Of

course that's not exactly what the term ``extort'' would indicate from the other article.

But again, I go back to the fact that during the last shutdown of the government, President Clinton and Newt Gingrich were talking daily, only a day or two exception during those few weeks. I mentioned that to another Member of Congress. And he said, Well the difference must have been that President Clinton wanted to end the shutdown. Because there's evidence that continues to mount that this wasn't about the Republicans as much as it was our Democratic friends thinking that the polling data, the conventional wisdom that all of us in this body have heard, that if there's a shutdown, Republicans will pay in the next election. So the conventional wisdom has been going around for some time. It goes back. I recall hearing it after the majority was won here in the House by the Republicans in November of 2010: If there's another shutdown, then we'll get the majority right back from the Republicans. Which always kind of mystified me a little bit because the last shutdown was in '95--that was when it began. And it was 11 more years before the Republicans lost the majority. And Newt Gingrich stayed Speaker for 3 more years. And as a result, the relationship seemed to grow closer, and the President and the Speaker worked more closely together.

But again, that was a different time because then, back in those days, the President would never call over the Speaker of the House to say, I just wanted to remind you here in private, here at the White House, since you took off from your busy day to come over here, I just wanted to remind you basically that I'm not negotiating with you.

Which had to feel a little weird to everybody in the room because everybody in the room knew the President has said, after the next election, you know, he'll be a lot more flexible with the Russians and certainly willing to negotiate with the Russians, certainly willing to negotiate now, as we've seen, with the Iranians, which certainly causes our close allies and friends who are trying to fight radical Islam a lot of concern because they've seen this administration throw one ally after another under the bus. We've heard allies wonder which ones of us may be next under this administration. So how is it the President can work with all these other countries--Russians, Iranians, Syrians--but can't negotiate with Americans?

This is an article from the National Review Online from Charles Cooke. In the article it says:

The Washington Post's Wonkblog is snarking a little about

the lack of successful Federal ObamaCare sign-ups. Under a

picture of a unicorn, Sarah Kliff writes: ``If you have

purchased health coverage on the Federal Government's new

ObamaCare marketplace, about a dozen or so reporters would

like to speak with you. We promise we won't take up too much

of your time. We just need to find you first. The Federal

Government has said that somewhere out in this vast country

of 313 million people, where 48 million lack insurance

coverage, someone has managed to sign up for health insurance

on the federally run marketplaces. As of yet, we haven't

tracked this person--or these people--down. This is not for

lack of effort. Reporters here at The Washington Post and at

other publications have been on the hunt for this mythical

creature.''

Anyway, kind of sarcastic snarking.

This article is from The Daily Caller by Alex Pappas from October 2:

In Tennessee, those shopping on the new health insurance

co-ops could end up with more than just some health

insurance. They might even walk away with a free smartphone.

The Nashville Business Journal is reporting that Community

Health Alliance, Tennessee's ObamaCare health insurance co-

op, is using the prospect of a free phone to encourage folks

to enroll:

``Community Health Alliance, Tennessee's health insurance

co-op, is running a unique promotional program to drive

enrollment in its plans for sale on the exchange: health

insurance in exchange for a smartphone.

``As a part of its Community Health Connection Program, CHA

is offering qualified individuals an LG''--that's not Louie

Gohmert--``an LG Lucid 2 4G smartphone (or equivalent model),

a phone plan, and tech support, included as a cost of their

health plan benefits. The phone plan includes unlimited talk,

unlimited texting, and 1.2 gigabytes of data.''

The article goes on.

This is by the Associated Press in Paris:

Government Shutdown Spreads to the Beaches of Normandy.

Tourists traveling to Omaha Beach to pay their respects to

the 9,387 military dead at the Normandy American Cemetery and

Memorial will find it closed, a victim of the U.S.

Government's partial shutdown.

We've seen what has happened to this country and what is happening to this country. It's time to stop the suffering. We could let it go through and let people continue to be hurt. I never took an oath to do no harm, but by golly, that's what this Congress should do. Stop the harm. Let's, at least, delay ObamaCare. And in the meantime, we'll keep passing spending bills to keep things going.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, these can be the times that try men's souls.

I heard my colleagues across the aisle talking earlier this hour about a

GOP tantrum over the Affordable Care Act. I'm not aware of the GOP throwing a tantrum over the so-called Affordable Care Act.

We've had word from many, many of our constituents that it is anything but affordable, that it is a disaster. We heard our colleagues across the aisle talk about ObamaCare being the law of the land. Yet these same people can't wait to come running in here and say, You've got to raise the debt ceiling. If you ask them why we have to raise the debt ceiling, they say, Because we've got to. We're spending too much money, and we've got to raise the debt ceiling.

I guess now we know the proper answer to our friends and to the President when they come running in, desperate to have the credit card limit continuously raised and raised and raised yet again, and that is that actually it's the law of the land. The debt ceiling is the law of the land. You just need to get over it because it's the law of the land.

And I recall hearing our President say in the past few days, talking about the law, saying that both Houses of Congress passed it, I signed it, it bears my name. It's the law. It's been upheld. Therefore, they just need to live by it. It can't be changed. It's got to stay the way it is.

So that sounds to me like if the President feels that strongly about it once a law is passed, then we need to force him to live within the debt ceiling without moving it one penny.

The Constitution, I think, is a great document to live under, but some find it much too taxing--those who do not want oversight and just want an unlimited budget and want to spend whatever they care to spend and on cronies and tax those they don't care for, refuse to allow those they don't care for to not have the same tax advantages or tax status so that they can engage in nonprofit activities like the Democratic groups. They find that rather enjoyable. But if we're going to live within the Constitution, it's important that people understand laws can be changed. The Affordable Care Act is the law right now. But it was passed against the will of the majority of the American people.

We've heard from Democrats at both the other end of the Hall, this end of the Hall, and down Pennsylvania Avenue, that there was an election in 2012 and everybody needs to understand that and that the elections have consequences.

And so I'm hoping that as the President, as the leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, continue to say those things, that hopefully they will hear themselves say those things, and they will realize that there was an election in 2012 that resulted in the most important part of Congress, the House of Representatives, when it comes to issues of raising revenue and setting budgets and appropriating money, and people need to understand setting budgets and appropriating money are two separate things. You can create a budget, pass it in the House and Senate; but it doesn't appropriate a single dime.

The Senate had gone years without ever passing a budget. And now, all of a sudden, the Senate finds its voice about budgets, saying, Hey, the House didn't send conferees to work out a budget. And actually we find that those who have glassy-eyed looks and don't really understand the Constitution or how things work here with the law, they accept what is said. Gee, there's the problem.

Well, that's not the problem. We're way past the issue of budget. That should have been done many months ago. We're grateful that the President now, in the fall, recognizes the importance of doing a budget on time. But the President actually waited so long beyond his deadline, not caring about the deadline, just completely being oblivious to it, that it was beyond the time when the House was doing its own budget. So the President did his in such a way that it was so incredibly late, it was of no consequence, no help.

So it's kind of tough to hear lectures about the budget from anyone who completely failed and refused to participate properly in the lawful activity of preparing a budget. Then, to come forward this fall, months later, after the massive abuses with regard to the budget, and start lecturing about the budget, again, hoping that the American people would not understand that the budget does not appropriate a dime.

When you come to September 30 at midnight, when you come to October 1, it doesn't matter whether you had a budget at that point or not because the budget was going to lead to appropriations. The House did appropriations. The Senate did none. We had four important appropriations bills that are still sitting down at the Senate without any activity whatsoever.

So once we got to August, it was too late. Even July is too late for a budget. It's now time we've got to appropriate money. We're coming up against the hard end of the fiscal year, September 30, and we've got to get appropriations done.

They can talk about budget conferees, but what the House here did, for those who are confused and don't understand the process we use here, we passed a resolution appointing conferees. That's appointing negotiators. The House passed a resolution appointing negotiators. I felt like we should have had a counterproposal of some kind that showed some adult was acting at the other end of the Hall by producing something that indicated that people in the Senate majority understood that there were massive amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse in our Federal money appropriations; that we've seen the abuses--the Solyndras, the massive amounts of money just thrown here, there, and yon.

And so I would have hoped that someone in the majority in the Senate would have noted, you know what, there's no such thing as a clean CR--a clean continuing resolution--because there are projects that have ended and finished being paid in the last fiscal year. Those certainly don't need the same funding anymore. So why should we continue with the same amount that we spent last year when we don't know what other projects there may be?

Well, the answer is they don't want a magnifying glass looking at the waste, fraud, and abuse. Down on Pennsylvania Avenue, they just want these massive sacks, metaphorically speaking. For those in the liberal media who do not understand metaphors, then go back to English school. But they just want the sacks of cash.

Just give us the money. Forget the Constitution. Forget the requirement that you actually appropriate the money and tell us what it shall be spent on. Just send us the cash. We've got a lot more Solyndras to waste it on.

That's not how it's supposed to work. We're supposed to actually go through and deal with the problems, cut out as much as we can in the way of waste, fraud, and abuse so that we don't have to keep borrowing over forty cents of every dollar. We can live within our means.

So I hope people in the future will understand a clean CR should provoke in your mind the most filthy, nasty, larded-up appropriations that someone can create. Because we are not going to look at the waste, fraud, and abuse that's contained therein.

There are a lot of looks that should be taken at where all our money goes, how it's being spent. Because if we really bear down and look at that, you would begin to wonder about a department that is shut down, we're told, yet finds money to go rent barricades to take out to a farm, though it is called a Federal property. It's the Claude Moore Colonial Farm. The story was reported by PJ Media.

This story says today:

It's a perfect fall day, and yet we can't do anything,

Managing Director Anna Eberly told me in a phone interview.

Eberly has managed the Claude Moore Colonial Farm for 32

years. Before managing the farm, she worked for the National

Park Service. Visitors unaware of how the farm is run are apt

to conclude that the government shutdown, now 2 days old, is

directly responsible for the farm's closing. But Eberly sent

a note Wednesday morning to the park's email list. In the

email, Eberly says, For the first time in 40 years, the

National Park Service has finally succeeded in closing the

farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the farm

has always been exempted, since the NPS--the National Park

Service--provides no staff or resources to operate the farm.

Eberly says:

The Claude Moore Colonial Farm has thrived even as the

Federal Government has treated it with ``benign neglect'' for

decades.

That ``benign neglect'' would serve it better than the

barricades now surrounding it.

Eberly writes that the National Park Service has already gone out of its way to disrupt an event at the farm.

The first casualty of this arbitrary action was the McLean

Chamber of Commerce, who were having a large annual event at

the Pavilion on Tuesday evening. The National Park Service

sent the Park Police--

Why couldn't they have been furloughed? Oh, here came the Park Police.

over to remove the Pavilion staff and chamber volunteers from

the property while they were trying to set up for the event.

Fortunately, the chamber has friends, and they were able to move to another location and salvage what was left of their party. You do have to wonder about the wisdom of an organization that would use staff they don't have the money to pay to evict visitors from a park site that operates without costing them any money.

It should be noted that the farm has not used Federal funds since 1980, yet they found money to print a sign that said: ``Because of the Federal Government shutdown, this National Park Service facility is closed.'' It's as if somebody is sitting around saying, regardless of whether it cost any Federal money or not, let's find things that will hurt people and upset people, stick a sign on it, and blame the shutdown so that we can get all of the money with the waste, fraud, and abuse we want to keep spending.

One other note: our former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, sent out a photograph of barricades that have been put out by Mount Vernon. Now, most people hopefully know Mount Vernon is not run by Federal money, so what difference does it make if the Federal Government would put barricades up somewhere around Mount Vernon? Well, there is a little part of the road where buses can turn around to make it convenient as they drop people off out at Mount Vernon. By closing that, even though it doesn't need to be patrolled--it's just a turnaround area for big vehicles and buses--they can make as much chaos as possible for those coming out to Mount Vernon, to this historical site of our Founding Father, George Washington, and create some chaos. So they spent money, took time to go create as much trouble for American tourists as they possibly could.

You want to talk about fairness? There isn't any in what this administration and the Democrats at the other end of the hall are doing to the American people and blaming the so-called shutdown.

I see my friend Mr. LaMalfa here, and I would yield to him.

Mr. LaMALFA I appreciate my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and your heartfelt opinions and ideas you're holding up here tonight. And hearing you speak of what's going on, just this microcosm of the Park Service here and what's happened the last couple of days, it seems that as the negotiations--if there is any that have actually broken down-- the Federal Government, this administration has been poised to exact the kind of pain that we're seeing just in this area of our national parks.

You mentioned Mount Vernon, arbitrarily closed down. Mount Vernon is a private enterprise, done with their own funds, done with support of private people, the public. So they find a toehold to use the parking lot as a way to exact a little meanness on the tourists there at a time where this place can't come to an agreement on some basic issues with a continuing resolution, as well as the very outrageous act with our open air monuments we have right here in town.

The Lincoln Memorial, of course what we're seeing with the Honor Flights that have been coming in the last couple of days and will continue to come in for a while, World War II vets, Korean vets, Mr. Gohmert and I both had the opportunity and the pleasure and the honor of being able to join with some of those vets today as Members of Congress and others pulled back the gate and allowed them to enjoy their memorial, the country's memorial. These are areas that are not normally even staffed, at least to this extent. They had to bring in more staff than what is normally on hand.

These are 24-hour memorials and exhibits, open-air, you can see any time of the day or night, sometimes without staff at all. Yet they did have to go to the trouble, as was mentioned, to rent barriers, bring them in, put them up, and, boom, they were up there first thing in the morning on Monday morning. They were poised and ready to go, taking political advantage of the difficulties we're having here.

It reminds me a lot of the grievances that were brought originally with the Declaration of Independence. The people and Colonies, having had enough of the King's edicts and unfairness, listed a whole bunch of grievances that they thought were outrageous and caused them to actually break away from that long-held bond they had with England. Let me just recount a little bit of that from the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these

Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their

just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

Do you think what we see going on here is the consent of the governed? Leading into what a lot of this battle is about here, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, as it's called, that's been a line in the sand for Republicans I think for good reason. If you recount the history of how it was passed, it was done during a window of time when the majority party was the Democrats in the House and the Senate, as well as holding the White House, during the period of late 2009 and early 2010. A little window of time when, after all these years when they were looking for socialized health care, they had that window. They also had, I guess, the daring to do so.

You might recall HillaryCare back in the early nineties, when it was called that. There wasn't the political will--certainly ever by the Republicans, but the Democrats at the time. We saw then that elections have consequences. The consequence of HillaryCare back then was a big portion of what scared, I think, the country into putting a revolutionary Republican majority into the House in that '94 election.

We keep hearing from the other side of the aisle, 2012 had consequences in the Presidential. Well, let's just go back one election, 2010, following on the heels of what is called ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That sent a giant red flag amongst a lot of freedom-loving Americans to look at how this takeover of their health care system by a government that can't even run the Veterans Administration and getting the claims processed for veterans who languish for years just trying to get simple claims done, we want to take that blueprint of the government running things and expand that to everyone? It shouldn't be that way for the people that are subject to the VA, and we want to make this an example for the entire country. I shutter to think what that would be like. So many people feel like they're being herded into this program without any choice. That's really the case.

So let's talk about liberties for a minute here. Let's talk about those founding principles outlined in the Declaration and then later carried out in our Constitution that we all come here and are sworn to uphold. Let me list just one of the grievances you find in the Declaration talking about the King of England:

He has erected a multitude of new Offices, and sent hither

Swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their

Substance.

This doesn't just apply to the Affordable Care Act. You can name this with a lot of government agencies that are coming out there--swarms--to harass people and eat out their substance. Whether they are a small business or farming or timber or any one of many different endeavors in this country, the harassment people are feeling by a runaway government is huge and it's not right.

So why do Republicans dig in? Because we feel like this is a critical moment in time for our liberties, but for a program that is doomed to fail and become so entrenched that we never have the opportunity to come back from it because it becomes an entitlement or, as a lot of people are saying around here now, a right.

To me, the rights as laid down by the Founders are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just as outlined in the Declaration. Anything beyond that probably came from the force of legislation--which is enforced by a badge, a

court, or a gun; not one of the basic inalienable rights sent down by God, natural law.

So we have a lot to do around here. Republicans dig in for a reason because this is a solid belief system. It's not even politics. Yeah, not politics. This is an important cornerstone principle we're fighting for here--the basic liberties, the freedom of choice. And these are not being laid down 230-something years ago either by the King or by this mandate now.

My friend, I appreciate the time that you are giving me here tonight. We have a lot more to do on this effort, and we are going to continue to fight the battle because it's for the right thing on the founding principles of this Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.

Reclaiming my time, one of the things that I greatly appreciate is the in-depth analysis, the careful cogitation and contemplation about the role we are supposed to play. I have greatly appreciated that.

Another new Member of Congress is here with us. We have about 4 minutes, and I would yield to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

There doesn't seem to be much question at all. Having tried many cases as a lawyer, judge, and chief justice, the evidence is clear. We sent four things, the last of which was saying, Okay, we're appointing negotiators. You don't agree with any of the compromises we've sent, all you have to do now is appoint negotiators, conferees, and we'll work it out this evening and it will all be done. They refused to even appoint people to negotiate and get it worked out during the night. That tells you pretty clearly they wanted a shutdown for 3 years now, since the Republicans won the House back in November of 2010.

We have heard them talking about, gee, if there is a shutdown they always blame the Republicans and we can get the majority back.

But I would ask the gentleman the question that was asked to the Senate Democratic leader today, when a CNN reporter, Dana Bash, said: ``But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?'' And Mr. Reid said: ``Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is--to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you're irresponsible and reckless.'' She said: ``I'm just asking a question.''

Just asking the original question: ``You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you've said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games that Republicans are?''

He talked around it and wouldn't answer it. But the ultimate answer is: Why would we want to do that if we could save even one child?

It sounds like the gentleman is basically asking a question like Dana Bash. Well, that would have helped veterans who are sick and need help and are seeking medical care and need their checks to finish getting the medication and things that they need.

The question that Senator Reid asked keeps resonating back as the Democratic answer: Why would we want to do that?

I thank my friend, Dr. LaMalfa, and my friend the combat veteran, Mr. Bridenstine.

Mr. Speaker, we are still wondering why they would not want to help these people?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and I appreciate so much my friend who knows about serving in the military, Mike Coffman, getting this to floor.

My friend and I, Jack Kingston, had pushed this over 2\1/2\ years ago, when it became clear that both parties were going to use our military to get people to vote for a CR they might not otherwise have voted for. We had, I think, over 200 cosponsors on our bill. But as far as the discharge petition that would have forced it to the bill, he wanted to sign on but they didn't want to go against our leadership.

So I'm very grateful this bill is on the floor now. I'm very grateful. And I appreciate the Speaker for letting it come forward. Because there's one thing the military doesn't need, and that is to be in harm's way and have to worry about whether their loved ones are going to get the check that will allow them to pay their rent or for their car, or is it going to get repossessed.

From my 4 years in the military at Fort Benning, I'm told it hasn't changed much from this standpoint: people live from month to month. They don't get paid all that much. So this is critical to get this done.

I'm glad the bill is coming. I'm glad to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to vote with us, it sounds like. And as far as the effort to have civilians that work for the Department of Defense paid, I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle saved a little bit of righteous indignation for the Democrats at the other end of the hall.

They have had the Department of Defense appropriations bill for months. They've been sitting on it. It would get everybody paid. It would take care of all those things we've been hearing our military is not going to able to do because we're not passing the bill. So we need to get the Senate to pass the DOD bill and that'll take care of that-- civilians and everybody.

We passed the Department of Defense bill, we passed the Energy and Water bill, we passed the Department of Homeland Security. They haven't taken up anything. We passed a veterans' bill. They haven't taken up any of those. They've been sitting around talking about how the Republicans are out of control at the end of the hall.

And yet we have Democrats in this town that say we'll be flexible with Putin; we'll be flexible and sit down and talk with Iran, even though they want to destroy our way of life. But oh, no, the Republicans, won't talk with them. I know we share a love for America and wanting to do the right thing, but for heaven's sake, have as much flexibility with the Republicans as you do with the Russians and Iranians. That shouldn't be too much to ask.

George Washington had a prayer. He prayed we would never forget those who serve in the field. And I'm glad this bill will remember them.

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting back here when a Democratic leader came to that microphone and with indignation in his voice demanded the Republicans act responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you: Was it responsible for the Democratic Party, when they had Republicans willing to say, yeah, we will agree to a bill that let's 26-year-olds be on their insurance with their parents, we will agree to work something out so insurance companies can't abuse people with preexisting conditions--they didn't want our help. They said, We don't need your vote. They didn't get one because they didn't want it.

They took a massive--my copy was about 2,500 pages, rammed it down America's throats without even having them stick out their tongue and say, ``Ahh.'' This is irresponsible.

We are the ones that are acting responsibly and trying to mitigate the damage they've done to the American people--their health care they've lost they didn't get to keep, their doctors they've lost they didn't get to keep, and now the economy that's been devastated.

Mr. Speaker, I heard our President in a speech that I heard this morning say that in essence people who watch Fox News think ObamaCare is terrible, there are all kinds of problems. I sure hope that our President will start watching something besides CNN or MSNBC so he can find out that everything he's done is not made of gold, that people are hurting across America.

They heard him when the President promised that if you like your insurance, you'll get to keep it. He said it over and over and over and over: if you like your insurance, you can keep it. He made that speech across the Nation over and over and over.

He said that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. It turns out that wasn't true. If you like your insurance, you're probably going to lose it or it's going to cost a whole lot more. That's what people are finding across the country.

So I appreciate my colleagues talking about and actually saying some of the same things about ObamaCare that they said 3\1/2\ years ago. The trouble is now that ObamaCare is upon us and people are being hurt. They've lost their insurance, and they've lost their doctor. They can't afford the extra thousands of dollars it is costing. I think it was PolitiFact that took a shot at me for accurately saying it would cost people thousands of dollars if they were at 133 percent of the poverty level, that they'd have to buy the insurance or pay the extra income tax.

When you get down to it, even their article that criticized me pointed out at the end that still, with all of the government subsidies, it was still going to cost a few thousand dollars. That was the estimate. It's costing people money they don't have. They're getting less care, not more. And I don't have to just give opinion on that. We've got case after case, email after email from real Americans that have seen the harm it's done.

A young friend that I have tremendous respect for across the aisle pointed out, from his limited experience, that Congress has worked in a very partisan way the last few years. What he doesn't realize is that in the 4 years the Democrats controlled the House, they presided over the Congress that had more closed bills--that meant they didn't allow a single amendment. They ostracized nearly half of the country from being represented because they did not allow a single amendment to more bills than any other Congress in the history of our country. It was the most ruthless, partisan, overreaching Congress in the history of the country. It was unbelievable.

So it gets a little difficult to hear leaders who were in charge during the four most oppressive partisan years when it comes to having input from the other side tell us about responsibility and bipartisanship when they showed what they think when they were in charge. It was really quite mean.

We were told by our colleague earlier that Republicans gave us sequester. I encourage my friends across the aisle to go back and look at accurate history. It was the President who proposed sequester. I didn't think it was a good idea at all. That's no way to really legislate. We should have made the difficult choices and made the cuts. Then to hear comments that the Democrats believe freedom has made us great, I absolutely do, too. But freedom has a price. Freedom requires responsibility from Americans. It requires that everybody be involved, that everybody pay attention to what the government is doing.

So for those who have said for so long, I don't care what the government does as long as they stay out of my business, if that's your approach, the government does not and will not stay out of your business. It gets to where we are right now with ObamaCare. Every American's most private secrets about their own personal and private health will be kept by the Federal bureaucracy headquartered in Washington. The records may be kept elsewhere. I think the administration made a deal with GE. So GE and the Federal Government will have everyone's most personal secrets. It's a good thing they can keep a secret in the Federal Government so that nobody's

personal records will be leaked out once they get into the possession of GE or the Federal Government.

But for my friends across the aisle to talk about hostage politics, all I know is that people that I talk to across my district--I think the lowest denominator probably ended up at 500 to four that gave examples or talked about how bad ObamaCare was. You'd have a few people that said, Well, actually, we got our 26-year-old on our health insurance, so it's not so bad. Gee, the Republicans were ready to agree to that. We were ready to do bipartisan bills, but the most closed- minded and closed Congress in our history would not allow input. They didn't want our input. They were going to do it all themselves. As a result of that kind of mean-spiritedness, Americans are suffering today.

I have my friend from Texas, also a former State district judge. As I understand, he has heard from his constituents, as well. I yield to my friend from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, real people being hurt in real ways is what ObamaCare is doing. And for those who think it is a good thing, those were people that would have been helped by either side of the aisle.

But it should be noted that insurance companies, under ObamaCare, are paying an additional tax to the Federal Government. Everybody is having to pay more for everything, and yet they're getting less health care.

I get questions: Why, under ObamaCare, are we now going to see everything--we've already gotten notice, it's so much more expensive, and yet we're getting less coverage, less health care, higher deductibles, those kinds of things.

Part of that answer is, well, we've got to pay for the 18,000 or so IRS agents who are going to be hired to help you with your health insurance so they can monitor more closely what you make and what you spend it on and whether you are spending enough on health care and how you are spending it. But we've got to pay for all the IRS agents. Now, that's not going to help anybody's health.

But then you also look at all the navigators that are being hired, and that's a problem. I saw over $1 billion was about to be spent on advertising to tell Americans how good they were going to feel under ObamaCare. All of those things end up coming out of the coverage and the health care that people would otherwise get.

I see my friend from Pennsylvania has arrived, and I yield to him at this time.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman is absolutely correct. But it's not just Pennsylvania, and it's not just Texas. It's everywhere. People are hurting.

My friends across the aisle in the last hour had commented about Republicans wanting a shutdown. We don't want a shutdown. We don't. Ted Cruz does not want a shutdown. I visited with him quite a bit yesterday. He doesn't want a shutdown. But we know the damage ObamaCare is doing not just to the economy--that's bad enough--but to people's health.

Here is an email. We've gotten so many of them. Just in the short time I have, I'm trying to decide which ones to present. This one from Kaytee says:

Just got notice my health care coverage options and costs

will be changed. They will send out the info next month. I am

one of the 26,000 part-time Home Depot employees whose hours

were cut back to never exceed 29 per week. We used to do the

6-week thing. They would schedule us for 35 to 39 hours per

week for 5 weeks, then cut us back in the 6th week to 25 or

so and then back up again. Now it's always going to be less

than 29 hours per week. I'm scared to death to see what the

rate changes will be. Probably way more than I make.

My doctor of 9 years is retiring this month. She is only 46

and an amazingly exceptional family medicine practitioner.

Says she'll grow a garden and herd goats, but she won't be a

contributing member of the insanity. She is an Indian Hindu

born and raised in Canada. She came to Texas because of the

messed up state-run medical care in Canada.

Insurance not the same, losing the doctor.

Here is one from Sandric:

My wife has a bone disease and is always in severe pain. We

see a specialist in Longview, Texas. This specialist travels

from Dallas, 110 miles away, and practices here a couple of

days a week. But since ObamaCare, he has said that he can no

longer afford to have two practices so far apart and will

have to close his Longview practice and that he may just

retire early. Now there will soon be no doctor in this area

for my wife to see, and she is too debilitated to make the

drive to Dallas every month. We are not sure what to do now.

These are real Americans agonizing over the damage that ObamaCare is doing. And I can't bring myself to call it the Affordable Care Act, because it isn't.

Here is one from a widow that lives in east Texas, Joy. She says:

I am losing my insurance, which I have had for over 30

years.

So much for, ``If you like your insurance, you can keep it.'' There's no telling how many millions of times that promise will be broken in the subsequent months if we can't put off the damage ObamaCare is doing.

Back to her letter. Talking about the insurance, it says:

It was in my husband's name, and he has recently died. So

here I am, a widow and losing my insurance. I am frustrated

and a little scared. I've never had to do anything like

research for insurance and don't even know where to begin. I

am from Tyler, Texas, and saw your post on Facebook. Enclosed

is the letter my insurance company sent me. They do not

directly say it is due to ObamaCare, but it's pretty easy to

read between the lines.

And actually, you don't even have to do much reading between the lines. She enclosed a copy of the letter from New York Life Insurance. At the end of the first paragraph, it says that their insurance, their Group Health and Life Insurance Trust will terminate at midnight on December 31, 2013.

The decision to exit this market was not an easy one. The

determination was made based on the evolving market

conditions and regulatory requirements stemming from the

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

I think that's pretty clear. She lost her insurance because of ObamaCare.

I know that there's nobody on the Democratic side that really wants to do this, put this kind of fear and suffering into a dear widow, but it's being done. I know that nobody voted on this side of the aisle for ObamaCare intending to hurt widows and children like is happening, but it's happening. And now that it's happening, it is absolutely incorrigible if my friends do not help us help those that are being hurt by at least postponing this disastrous, hurtful ObamaCare.

Here's another from Jay:

On Tuesday of last week, my 89-year-old mother-in-law fell

and broke her hip. Her doctor gave her only a 50 percent

chance of survival, but survive she did. He stated after the

operation that she was lucky that it happened this week. He

said, ``In 2 weeks, I could not have performed the same

procedure because it is not an approved procedure under the

new rules. It's too expensive.'' We all wondered what her

chances of survival would have been under Dr. Obama.

She will have insurance, but we're already hearing from people that they've been told they'd better get the procedure now because, if they wait, it's not going to be covered because the ObamaCare board apparently thinks if you are of a certain age then maybe you don't need or deserve a pacemaker or back surgery.

Here's another:

I work for a commercial electrical contractor who has been

in business in east Texas for over 30 years. At the beginning

of this year, we employed over 100 workers. The company

provides group health insurance and pays 75 percent of the

cost for the employees. At this time, we have 66 employees.

We will intentionally have less than 50 employees by the end

of the year, and the owner is planning to drop the health

plan at the first of the coming year.

So much for, ``If you like your insurance, you can keep it.'' Not only are you not going to keep your insurance, you are not keeping your employment.

Here is another from Bobbye: With the health mandate looming, the college where he teaches ``determined that adjunct professors could no longer teach four classes per semester because the time for prep/ teaching would require they provide me health insurance.'' So he has been dropped from the class maximum to three. He said: I didn't expect health insurance from the college, but the mandate has now dictated my workload.

It dictated less work. So how does he make it?

Here's one:

I am a 56-year-old single woman with no children, and I

have been stuck as part-time toll collector for Harris

County, Texas, since the passage of ObamaCare. For 4 years, I

only work 72 hours every 2 weeks, with no benefits

whatsoever. Last year, the County

Commissioner stated they will no longer hire full-time

employees. I have $39 left for groceries once mortgage

payment and bills are paid. ObamaCare will destroy me.

Here's another, from Charles:

I recently applied for a job in Tyler at a new restaurant.

At my interview, I asked how many hours I could expect. The

owner said, verbatim: I'm sorry but because of ObamaCare I

cannot afford to hire anyone for more than 30 hours per week.

Here's another, from Timothy:

I am the only one that works in my house. I support a

family of five and would be considered lower middle class. I

just received notice from my employer that I now have to pay

an additional $6 per person per month as a surcharge on the

new health care law. Also, my premium is going up $60 per

month. It's a total of $100 per month, or increase of about

$1,200 per year. I am basically looking at a 34 percent

increase for nothing. I don't know how I'm going to be able

to afford this as my budget is pretty tight already. Repeal

the Affordable Health Care Act, please, because for me, it's

anything but affordable.

Here's another, from Rose:

I'm 54 years old and have always had health insurance,

which I pay for myself. I too received a letter telling me

that, due to this so-called affordable health care, they will

not be providing me with continued insurance. I will need to

make decisions about what insurance I want, but they have no

idea what choices I will have and of course, no idea what I

will be charged, but were quick to say it will likely be more

than I pay now. Thanks a lot, ObamaCare.

We have no extra income to pay for this. Please stop this

from happening to our family and families throughout our

country who are having their rights taken away from us.

Here's one from Andrea. She sells insurance for State Farm. They partner with Assurant Health for our individual medical plans:

Ever since we were forced this monstrosity in the most

partisan vote ever, we have seen major changes come from the

health insurance policies we were able to offer. Not only is

there a noticeable increase in the price, we no longer offer

maternity coverage, we no longer offer prescription copay, we

no longer offer an office copay, we no longer offer the low

deductibles we once did.

We have lost many of the networks that allowed people in

our area the best choice as their doctor being in network.

Now, the premium increases at the renewal are much higher

than pre-reforms.

Here's another, from Melissa:

I am self-employed, and I'm already paying for my own

health insurance. I received a letter from my insurance

provider 3 weeks ago that stated there would be changes in my

policy and they would be sending me additional information in

the coming months. Based on the estimates I've seen, my

monthly insurance costs will go up roughly 136 percent.

ObamaCare is damaging real Americans. We owe it to them to do everything we can to stop it, and stop the waivers and exemptions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some interesting news come out. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is changing its name. There was an article in the American Thinker on September 23. This article points out that an explosive story posted Sunday by Charles Johnson at The Daily Caller reveals that:

CAIR has apparently been laundering money obtained from

Middle East donors in violation of Federal law. While it

publicly presents itself as a single organization, CAIR has,

in fact, created a multitude of 501(c)(3) organizations and a

501(c)(4), CAIR Action Network. By moving donations around,

CAIR may have evaded taxes and has avoided disclosure of its

foreign funding sources required by the Foreign Agent

Registration Act.

Quoting Johnson, ``Under IRS regulations, an organization

may have 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) related entities, but they

must maintain a wall between the two; this is accomplished by

establishing separate bank accounts, board of directors,

bookkeeping, and payroll. CAIR, though, had none of these.''

Johnson cites David Reaboi, vice president for strategic

communications at Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy,

``Plentiful legal evidence, acquired in the course of a

lawsuit--plus CAIR's own official filing documents to the

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) and

IRS--make clear that CAIR has engaged in a thinly-disguised

money laundering operation. In addition to violating its

501(c)3 regulations, CAIR's undisclosed and hidden foreign

donations amount to violation of the Foreign Agent

Registration Act as well.''

Guidestar reveals nine state chapters, a property holding

company in California, a main office in Washington, D.C., and

the CAIR Foundation. Many of these chapters have little

income. The Iowa chapter--yes, there is one--has none. The

Foundation was de-listed in 2011 because it failed to file

the requisite IRS form 990 tax returns for the three prior

years. However, in June, WND reported that while Tea Party

organizations were being sandbagged by IRS, the agency

quietly restored the CAIR Foundation's nonprofit status

following a meeting with White House officials.

Well, the article, though, points out that CAIR is changing its name. And it should also be noted that this comes on the heels of an inspector general report last week that was made public that established that the FBI had not properly followed its own directives, that it had told FBI offices that they were not to have non- investigative relations with CAIR as part of their so-called community outreach program because of the evidence that was introduced in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007-2008.

It should be noted that the judge in the U.S. District Court in the Holy Land Foundation trial--in which there were over 100 counts of funding terrorism, basically, that were found to have been violated, criminal violations--found that when CAIR, ISNA moved to have their name struck--there was one other name, I believe--they had been listed as unindicted coconspirators. And they wanted to have their names removed. And the court there at the District Court refused to remove their names. So they appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court group of judges ruled that there was plenty of evidence to support CAIR, ISNA, their names being part of the suit because the evidence was sufficient to show they were the largest Muslim Brotherhood front organizations in America.

So it is interesting when the article points out that they got their IRS nonprofit status returned after they had visited with White House officials.

Which reminds me of back 2 years ago. There was a law enforcement seminar at Langley out at the CIA headquarters. And CAIR, though--at the time, the FBI was not supposed to have any relationship with them. The White House certainly had plenty of relationships with them. And they made calls to the administration, and they got these seminars eliminated out at Langley because they objected to people being taught about what radical Islam believed, what it wanted to accomplish.

And they actually got people delisted from being able to teach. One of whom, Steve Coughlin, spent many years studying radical Islam. And he used to brief our military commanders. And it was located at the Pentagon. Studied radical Islam. And then all of a sudden, because CAIR makes a phone call or two to the administration, now a man that knows a tremendous amount about radical Islam is no longer able to teach people about the dangers of radical Islam. That went well in line with CAIR's complaints that the FBI training material needed to be purged because there were things in there that they found offensive. And so things were eliminated.

Well, when Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, myself, and a couple of others sent five separate letters to five different departments--the Department of State, Homeland Security, intelligence--one was to the Department of Justice. And in each letter, it set out specific facts indicating that there was at least some Muslim Brotherhood influence in that department. So the inquiry was not requesting an indictment, just an investigation about the extent of Muslim Brotherhood influence in that particular department.

The Department of Justice response indicated they had an ongoing investigation at that time, and it was with regard to the impropriety of FBI offices dealing with CAIR, despite the FBI's new policy to the contrary, since there was evidence they were a large Muslim Brotherhood front organization.

But nonetheless, some FBI offices continued to have their so-called outreach programs. One found that they had brought a couple of CAIR officials in to help teach about Islam and Muslim activities. And the relationship went on.

I asked the former FBI director why it took so long since the FBI had been gathering that information about CAIR's relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood, why it took so many years after they started gathering evidence about them to sever that partnership relationship for community outreach.

So there's no question there's Muslim Brotherhood influence in this administration. The Egyptians have pointed that out for a long time. And

even under President Morsi in Egypt, it was published that they were so proud that there were six--and they named the six--Muslim brothers who were in high positions affecting the Obama administration.

Well, since CAIR--like ACORN had before it, when ACORN was found to have engaged in improper activities and they were captured on video engaging in highly inappropriate activities, and there was a move in Congress to sever any Federal funds going to ACORN--well, they just changed their name, and established different organizations so they could still get Federal funding.

But now CAIR--and I don't know if they had seen what ACORN did so they could still get Federal funding from different other agencies-- CAIR, according to this article, has changed their name, to the WTF. They changed their name to WTF. So no longer will they be CAIR for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Now they will be WTF. CAIR has now become WTF? Well, now when people want to have relations with CAIR, they'll have to seek out WTF.

So the article also mentions the Justice Department inspector general's report. This article says, ``Yesterday the Justice Department Office of Inspector General released, then yanked, then released again, its report on the FBI's questionable interaction with CAIR--sorry again, WTF. The FBI had a strict policy in place limiting its interactions with the group following revelations of CAIR's involvement with terror in the Holy Land Foundation Trial. But those policies have not been followed.''

So anyway, quite interesting there.

And I see my friend from Minnesota has come to the House floor. But it is very important to know that CAIR has been found by a district court and a Federal appellate court to be a Muslim Brotherhood front organization.

And now, when you seek out CAIR, you'll have to seek out WTF, the Washington Trust Foundation, or WTF instead.

I'd like to yield to my friend from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Reclaiming my time, it's also important to note, the American people are smart, but somebody at this administration continues to give CAIR access to the White House, to the administration, continues to listen to them.

I know the gentlelady from Minnesota and I were there to go through the materials that were purged from FBI training materials, and you actually came back and went through some additional materials later that I didn't, the only one to have done that.

And it's interesting, again, to me that it was CAIR's complaining. Here they are, a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, according to the courts, and they complained about instruction on radical Islam and the material is removed.

At the same time, another organization, the Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, was also one of those mentioned, a named coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And ISNA's President, Mohamed Magid, Imam Mohamed Magid, has--every time we hear about him it seems like it's another piece of influence he has had on the White House.

And I know I've even read a speech given by the Chief of Staff of the President himself, Denis McDonough, when he was the Deputy National Security Advisor. He spoke at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, ADAMS--and I'm sure John Adams appreciates this. But he spoke at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society and thanked Imam Magid for his wonderful prayers during the Iftar celebration at the White House.

We know the head of ISNA, Imam Magid, has been in the center of the State Department, was there when President Obama gave a speech. He supposedly had helped him with his speech about the Middle East, which explains why there were problems with things the President said in his speech that were an insult to Israel and not factually accurate.

So, just as the letter that we signed, five different letters, five different statements of fact in each of those five letters, but just as they pointed out, we know there is Muslim Brotherhood influence in each of those Departments. All we were asking for, not an indictment, just please investigate your Department, as this limited IG inspection did at Justice, of the FBI, and tell us how extensive or how little the influence is. We know there's some there, so is it very little? Is it great?

It's still a legitimate question. And I think, in view of the IG report, it's time to revise our letter to the Department of Justice and make further inquiries, because there's more information the gentlelady from Minnesota and I have obtained that indicates it's an even bigger problem than we knew at the time that those letters were sent.

I yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time, that is an extraordinary development, our President deciding, after America rose up so clearly with, basically, one voice, saying, do not get us involved in Syria.

I know in my own office, we had heard from, I think, three people who did not live in our district and between 1,300, 1,400 that did, saying, do not get involved in the war in Syria.

And we knew at the time that the largest part of the rebels were al Qaeda-linked. We knew that President Assad was backed by Iran and Hezbollah and with Shia. We knew that the rebels, the largest part of them, were Sunni, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and there's no reason to get in the middle of that. And, frankly, that's why, since we know so much about the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist activities abroad, despite CNN's reporting and so many reporting about the so-called coup in Egypt, we knew, the gentlelady from Minnesota and I having been in Egypt in the last few weeks and talking to so many people and doing our own homework, that that was not a coup. And the Coptic Christian Pope told both the lady from Minnesota and me that that was not a coup; that was the Egyptian people rising up.

And I did not know--maybe the gentlelady from Minnesota knew. I did not realize that the constitution in Egypt that America supposedly gave them advice about, didn't have a provision for impeachment. So when they had a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer as the President who was disregarding the constitution, there was no way they could bring impeachment charges to get him out.

They had one answer, one solution, and they acted peacefully; and millions--millions--more than ever has protested in the history of the world, came out to the streets and demanded the Egyptian military remove the President. And they did so, and he's awaiting trial. I'm hoping they'll wait until newly elected officials are present so that they can have the trial of former President Morsi in front of a new regime that's elected by the people.

But we didn't help give them any options there. And yet so much of the mainstream media has been reporting, as the Muslim Brotherhood has been killing Christians, killing moderate Muslims, and just destroying and burning churches, that it's basically the military, when it's not the military at all. It's the Muslim Brotherhood.

And they have made clear they'll burn the country down, and they'll kill everybody they can in order to get Egypt back under radical Islamic control. Because for those that envisioned a new Ottoman Empire, envisioned the beginning of a worldwide caliphate, they could not afford, in their dream of running the world as one massive, radical Islamic caliphate, to lose Egypt. And they were willing to do whatever violence they had to do to avoid that. As the gentlelady has mentioned, the Muslim Brotherhood now has been outlawed in Egypt. I really applaud the efforts of the people in Egypt.

I couldn't help but be amused by some of the mainstream and then some of the far left-wing reporting about my coming here to the floor and showing blowups of pictures and giving speeches here about what the Egyptian people were doing and rising up and that they were upset not with America--they showed by their signs they love America--but they were upset with our President. Frankly, in my own ignorance, I didn't even know who our Ambassador was, but the people of Egypt knew. They had signs out there. They are upset with her. They were upset with the Obama administration. But they love America.

And I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for her valuable input, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we've had August to hear from our constituents, and most of us have. And what we've been hearing is tragic. For every several hundred people that give us a story of how dramatically and badly their lives have been affected by ObamaCare, there is one or two that says: Hey, my 26-year-old got to be on our family insurance--not realizing Republicans had agreed to do that, would have done that, along with some preexisting condition fixes.

But ObamaCare is devastating families and individuals across America. It's bad for America. It's bad for people's health. It's going to prevent seniors from getting the help they need. It's time, when you know these things, to stand up and stand for the health and well-being of people and this economy.

Let's defund ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, today was a big day for the people of the United States of America. Some of us had tried to warn our friends across the aisle that back 3\1/2\ years ago, when ObamaCare was being passed, that there would be dire consequences. It would not just hurt the economy but it would hurt people's health.

We were assured, No, we've got to do this bill that most people hadn't read. A precious few had read. I had read it. Some said, we have to pass it so we can find out what was in it, which was diametrically opposed to what the Founders wanted to see done. Though Thomas Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention, he did write later that he approved of the work. But if he had one thing that he could add, it would be the requirement that no bill could be passed until it had been on file for a year.

If ObamaCare had been on file for a year, I really don't have any question that it would never have passed. Because whether Members of Congress read it or not, people across America would have read it and would have found out what was in it, would have realized that if they like their insurance policy, they are likely going to lose it. If they like their doctor, they are likely going to lose their doctor. People would have figured out that the consequences that are now being borne out would be coming down the road.

There were union leaders that just couldn't rush fast enough down to the White House to express their support for a bill that they clearly did not read. They relied on representations that turned out to be totally untrue. But we were trying to get across to union leaders, to Americans that this is a bad bill for union members. If they like their insurance--which most did--they would not likely keep it.

We were told, This has to be done for the 30 million or so that don't have any insurance. And now today, we see people losing their insurance right and left that they liked, losing doctors they liked.

A doctor in my hometown had told me about having done a surgery just recently. He helped a woman, and he said, you know, it was one of the best jobs I have ever done. Just a tiny minimal loss of blood. It was done in 61 minutes. They have to keep track of those things. And because of his many years of experience, it paid off, and a patient got great help.

But because so many parts of ObamaCare have been going into place, he got a call the very next day from a Federal bureaucrat who called from clear across the country to tell him that he was reviewing the information about the surgery the day before and that the average time for that surgery was around 3 hours and that, you know, 61 minutes was just way too fast, that he was way below the average. And normally, they lose three pints of blood, and he didn't hardly lose any. Therefore, they were going to have to dramatically dock the compensation only down to about 40 percent. He was told how he could change the record and get full compensation. But this is an honest and honorable doctor, and he was not about to do that. But what it did result in is, he has given his notice. He is giving up his practice. And because of the government's heavy-handedness, after this year, patients will not be having the benefit of his incredible experience, expertise, and training because this is where government control of health care goes.

You run off doctors who care more about their patients than they do the government. And they're not going to stand for this kind of intrusion by some bureaucrat that didn't have any idea what good surgery was, telling him he couldn't be compensated because he did what, in effect, was too good of a job.

These stories are being born out across the country. When the government starts taking over health care more and more, it is a disaster. And, of course, the government gets to know everyone's most personal secrets of their own physical body.

I would have thought that over the years, since Roe V. Wade and so many friends across the aisle were screaming about privacy rights, that surely, they would not want either Democratic or Republican bureaucrats or elected officials knowing every detail of their private bedroom lives. And now we find that Democrats, without a single Republican vote, passed a bill that is going to give the Federal Government full power to know every detail of what goes on in someone's bedroom. I mean, I would have thought that this was something that Republicans and Democrats could have come together on. I'm greatly appreciative of the Democrats that voted with us today. And I know there's one reason they would have voted with us today, and that is that they have been home.

I love August because most of the people here spend that time as they should. And they hear from people in their districts and across the country, letting them know what's a proper thing to do and what's not a proper thing to do. And who's suffering for what decisions of Congress.

I love it when we come back in September, and Members of Congress have been hearing from people across the country, especially in their districts. It's a great thing. It seems like we get a lot more things done that really are good for America. And today was one of those things. Every Republican standing together and some Democrats because everyone who voted for this continuing resolution--they had stuff in there I was not in favor of. But to bring help to the American people who are already hearing--we've had personal stories about people being told, well, that after the first of the year they're not going to be able to get their pacemaker, they're not going to be able to get the medical device they needed, they're not going to be able to get the back surgery they need. They're already hearing these things from health care providers that because of ObamaCare kicking in the first of the year, they will no longer be able because they're just too old. So we're going to throw them out to pasture and not let them have the health care they need for a good quality of life and for the long life that they should be entitled to. This was a good vote today. And I appreciate our Republican leaders for managing things to the point where we can be here today and do that.

Now, if the Senators just straight down that hall, if the Senators at the other end of the hall had to go back and listen to town halls and had to listen to their constituents the way Members of the House do, then there's no question in my mind they would have been rushing down here to work with us to say, How can we stop this disaster that is creating so much harm to people's health across America that it's only just going to multiply exponentially come January?

But because of the 17th Amendment and because State legislatures no longer select the Senators, as the Founders had established, Senators get elected at large. And there's a lot of benefit to having people accountable to all the voters in the State. But there was also benefit when the State legislatures selected the Senators because that was the Founders' check and balance to make sure Senators did not just totally take away the powers that the Constitution gave to the States and the people under the 10th Amendment.

Everything that is not specifically enumerated as a Federal power or prohibited to the States and the people was reserved to the States and the people under the 10th Amendment. That meant that before the Federal Government started getting its heavyhanded hands all over education, that local governments and local school boards could make decisions on what their schools needed.

But Congress got involved. We had set up a multibillion dollar department

to start sucking off money that could be going for students across America to fund bureaucrats and bigger, nicer buildings and offices and more and more cubicles for bureaucrats so that we would spend more money on bureaucrats that we used to spend on the students.

And it also meant that school boards across the country would have to spend more and more money on bureaucrats and administrators, other people in the school system that were not actually involved in teaching.

Madam Speaker, I would challenge people to go look at their own school board and get a report from their own school board. What percentage of our school districts' employees, in 1978, before the Department of Education really kicked in, what percentage of our school districts' employees were teachers that worked directly with the students? And what is that number now? Because the numbers I've seen seem to indicate most school districts have ended up now about half of their employees are actually helping the students.

This is what happens when government bureaucrats get involved. This is what happens when the Federal Government ceases to be the referee that they were designed to be, and, like, in health care, they become a player, they become the coach and the referee, all three.

We have a bad enough problem when we're just trying to referee; but when the Federal Government becomes the coach and the player and the referee, especially in the area of health care, it means less care for individuals.

Like ObamaCare. Oh, it was going to mean a lot more jobs, if you want to work for the IRS and go after people's personal lives and their insurance. And it's bad enough when they come after you demanding more tax money, but now they were going to come after you for your health care. That's the last thing we need.

Hiring all--millions and millions of dollars for navigators. They weren't going to provide one iota of health care for anyone. And I'm not sure they even were required to graduate from high school.

And all of that money that could be spent on health care will now be, if we do not, if the Senate does not agree, if they hold this good bill up, if the Senate shuts down the government, which I hope and pray they won't, but all of this money will end up going for bureaucrats instead of going for health care, as it could be going.

So it's a big day for the people of America who have already been told that come January 1 they will not get the health care they need. It's a big day for those who've been being told this year that their health insurance costs are going to skyrocket because of ObamaCare.

Some States like New York, apparently, theirs were so high they might come down a little bit, but most Americans were going to see, or are seeing, their health care costs skyrocket.

We have had reforms in the Republican Party; and those who say otherwise are either totally ignorant, intentionally so, or they're lying, because the Republicans have many great policies.

And most of us actually thought President Obama had a good idea when he said, let's see this debated about health care. Even on CNN. Let's get it out there, where the American people can see who is for what.

Well, the President didn't live up to that because if he had, they would have seen union leaders not helping their union members. They would have seen the big pharmaceuticals getting a special deal in there. They would have seen plaintiffs' lawyers getting special treatment.

They would have seen AARP getting special treatment, though their members were going to get hurt. They would have seen all these special deals from the groups that stood with the President on this health care bill.

And I have a feeling the President would not--feel pretty strongly he would never have won a second term if the American people had seen all the negotiations that were involved in passing this disaster or, as one Democrat called it, train wreck, Democratic Senator.

It is a train wreck. But the trouble is it is an ongoing train wreck that will continue to hurt passengers who were put into this ObamaCare system for many years to come.

And that's not even talking about the economy, those who have gone from full-time to part-time, those who have lost their health insurance when they had very good health insurance. Employers that I've heard from have said, we are so upset. Under ObamaCare, we cannot afford to keep insurance.

One owner had said, Look, I've always paid 100 percent of my employees' health insurance. And now, because of ObamaCare, this bill that Congress forced on us is making me stop. So I'll give them, you know, an allowance; but because of the way costs have gone up, it may not cover things.

That's playing out across the country. People are not hiring people as they should. They're not sure how much they're going to be out of pocket because of ObamaCare.

So there are plenty of alternatives. I had a bill that I think was, like, 28 pages, that Newt Gingrich sent some folks, experts to sit down with me and brainstorm, put together good ideas. Mike Burgess, Tom Price, there's lots of great health care ideas. And I think that if the American people could see us do what the President promised, and debate that, where they can see, we've got lots of great alternatives.

But one of them that needs to be in every bill, whatever ends up being the law, if we can totally get this repealed, we need to have truth in the cost of health care so that when someone asks a hospital administrator, what does a room cost for one night, single room, one bed, they can actually tell you without saying, well, it depends. Is it Medicare or Medicaid, Blue Cross? What insurance?

Or if it's cash, there ought to be a price; it ought to be posted. People ought to know what it is because if people could pay the actual price that a lot of insurance pay, they wouldn't want the insurance getting between them and the doctor and telling them what procedure and what doctor, or the government getting between them.

If they could pay what Medicare pays, then a lot of people would have the money to do it themselves.

But people get a bill, like I did for my daughter, $12,000 for two MRIs. Well, it didn't cost but a matter of hundreds of dollars, not $12,000.

There ought to be truth in advertising in the cost of health care, just like ophthalmologists do now on LASIK surgery. That's why the price kept coming down.

And there were times when my parents say, we're going to another doctor here in our small town, said the other one went up on price. I remember being told specifically: and this doctor's as good as that one.

When was the last time anybody changed doctors because the doctor was costing too much?

Nobody knows what doctors are costing, and that needs to be part of the reform. And ObamaCare does not even touch that issue. It just gets a heavy-handed government between patients and their doctors. And I want to see the day when patients and doctors make their decisions, not the government, not insurance companies. And we could do that with some of our proposals.

So I know there are people that know I've not cheered my leadership very often. But today was a big day. Today was an important day, not for Republicans, not for Democrats, but for the people of America who have already been finding out how much damage ObamaCare is doing.

And, hopefully, Senators down the Hall will--now that it's headed down to the Senate--now Senators will start hearing and having to listen to Americans who are suffering health-wise, health care-wise, and economically because of that terrible bill.

It is also an important week. A number of things have happened.

Oh, and there's an article here, ``Home Depot Alters Insurance for Part-timers.'' A lot of people have gone from full-time to part-time so they wouldn't have to be--the employers would not have to pay the heavy-handed ObamaCare insurance costs. Home Depot. There are just so many of these stories.

Let's see. There's a report posted by Rob Bluey on September 18, front page, ObamaCare. This says, here's a sampling of where America stands on

ObamaCare: 68 percent are concerned about the impact of their personal health care under ObamaCare; 57 percent oppose ObamaCare; 52 percent believe ObamaCare will result in their health care costs increasing.

And from people I've talked to, they don't just believe it. They've already seen it start to have that effect; 51 percent want Congress to cut funding for ObamaCare.

As it says here, labor unions have sought relief from it. Democrats have called it a train wreck, and the Washington political class is getting exemptions or special treatment.

Well, if we can't get it repealed, everybody ought to be under it, including the President, whose name is normally used to identify the bill.

Another thing happened this week, in the last week, that was certainly worth noting, and that was the sentencing of a criminal defendant who went in to the Family Research Center and began to shoot. There's an article here from WND, there's a quote, has a quote:

There's a paradigm shift in America where if you are an

outspoken, open Christian, you are now being labeled as not

only a hatemonger, but also a potential threat to U.S.

security.

And that was a quote from retired General Jerry Boykin with the FRC. He was, in part, referring to documents influenced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, that identified the Founding Fathers as the kind of radicals that we should be watching out for today.

So it is rather amazing that the very Constitution that we celebrate this week was founded by people who are now being called extremists. The most free country in the world now has people calling the Founders, those who gave us our Constitution, as being radical extremists that need to be stopped. The irony is actually sickening.

The article goes on, though, talking about Boykin. He was, in part, referring to documents by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Boykin's full list of accomplishments in service to his country is too long to detail, but it includes serving as an original member of the U.S. Army's Delta Force, commanding all the Army's Green Berets, and doing stints at the CIA and as deputy Under Secretary of Intelligence at the Department of Defense.

And now he's found himself facing an adversary here in his homeland, one that is also capable of bloodshed, and that is the radical left.

Boykin is the executive vice president of the Family Research Council, or FRC, which is dedicated to ``a culture in which human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives'' and seeks to ``advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian world view.''

On August 15, 2012, heavily armed homosexual activist, Floyd Lee Corkins, II walked into Washington offices of the FRC and began shooting with the intention of killing ``as many people as I could.'' Corkins admitted he picked the FRC offices that are here in Washington because the organization was listed as an ``anti-gay'' hate group by the SPLC on its Web site.

The article says, Corkins, a former volunteer at an LGBT community center, pleaded guilty to terrorism and will learn his fate Thursday when he will be sentenced in Federal Court in Washington, D.C.

We now know he was sentenced to 25 years.

Boykin said:

I think the SPLC should be taken to task by the media and

public opinion for the reckless nature of what they're doing.

Personally, I think it's worth noting that the Southern Poverty Law Center arose out of racial hatred and bigotry, those things that were addressed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a true American hero, who advocated for peace, who advocated for love of Christ Jesus, as an ordained Christian minister. That was the way to win the day.

And now, all these years later after the death of that great American hero, Martin Luther King, they've somehow morphed into an organization that is so busy calling other people and groups hateful, they don't see all of the hate that they are spreading and spewing around this country.

Back to the article:

The general called the map capricious and noted it had no

definition of a hate group.

It's talking about a hate map that the SPLC had created.

More importantly, we think what they're doing is absolutely

reckless, particularly given they put us in the same category

as groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads.

Pressure has to be put on the SPLC to stop this because,

Boykin said, ``It is reckless behavior that has, at least in

this case, incited someone to want to kill people who don't

believe what they believe and stand for.''

People may remember that he came in to the FRC and he had sacks of Chick-fil-A sandwiches, which was also to be considered hateful by the

Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize and congratulate the Hudson Lady Hornets on a stellar 2013 softball season in which they once again captured the Texas State Class 3A Softball Championship. The Lady Hornets have attained a dazzling level of excellence with their second state championship title.

The Hudson Lady Hornets triumphed over a solid team of Lady Jackets from Mineola with a final score of 12-9. Although Hudson dominated much of the game for more than two hours, the Lady Jackets fought back valiantly in the seventh inning. But that rally was short lived, with the ladies from Hudson pulling away determinedly to achieve their second state championship title win.

The lessons learned about teamwork and discipline should help everyone who played, coached, and assisted in knowing that whatever the obstacles that may lie ahead in life, they can overcome and they can be champions.

The Hudson Lady Hornets' championship success is a tribute to the coach, who brought his team back for another chance at victory, as well as a tribute to the players and all who assisted them along the way.

Having practiced with the Lady Hornets' in the last practice before their defense of their State Title in Austin, I saw firsthand that these gallant young women had the talent, the ability, the coaching, the drive, and that intangible quality that makes a winner. It was an honor for me to help Coach Eby in practice, just as I had promised to do during an assembly at Hudson High School recognizing the team for last year's championship.

This team has shown great faith in its journey to the championship crown. The team

scripture is 2 Corinthians 5:7, which reads ``For we walk by faith, not by sight.'' And the Lady Hornets affirmed their faith by painting the numbers 5 and 7 on their faces.

This recognition of their accomplishment is extended to all of the athletic staff, including Coach Jimmy Eby, and Assistant Coaches Wes Capps, Tanner Hines and Amanda Malone, as well as Hudson High School Principal John Courtney and Superintendent Mary Ann Whiteker.

The team members responsible for bringing the second championship title home to Hudson included Freshmen Alyssa Pierce, Katelyn Hanks, and Cortny Luna; Sophomores Madison Jeffrey, Bryli Lee, Maria Mireles, and Adriana Mosley; Juniors Kaylee ``KK'' Parker, Ashley Davis, and Madison Selman; and Seniors Cassidy Brasuell, Alyssa Dotson, Kelsee Selman, and Haley Willson.

The Hudson Independent School District staff and the community of Hudson have devoted countless hours to support and encourage these young ladies in the pursuit of their dream.

It is my most esteemed honor to congratulate everyone involved with this endeavor. May God continue to bless these young women, their families and friends, and all those individuals who call Hudson home.

Congratulations to the 2013 State Champion Hudson Lady Hornets, as their back to back championship legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of issues that are certainly worth elaborating on today. One is codified in The Wall Street Journal article from September 11, yesterday, and 7:35 p.m. is when it's timed out. It's regarding IRS Supervisor Lois Lerner. The article is entitled ``Lois Lerner's Own Words.''

The article reads:

Congress' investigation into the IRS targeting of

conservatives has been continuing out of the Syria headlines,

and it's turning up news. Emails unearthed by the House Ways

and Means Committee between former director of Exempt

Organizations Lois Lerner and her staff raise doubts about

IRS claims that the targeting wasn't politically motivated

and that low-level employees in Cincinnati masterminded the

operation.

In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff,

including then Exempt Organizations technical manager Michael

Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz, that

a Tea Party matter is ``very dangerous'' and is something

``counsel and Lerner adviser Judy Kindell need to be in on.''

Ms. Lerner adds, ``Cincy should probably NOT have these

cases.''

That's a different tune than the IRS sang in May when

former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller said the Agency's

overzealous enforcement was the work of two ``rogue''

employees in Cincinnati. When the story broke, Ms. Lerner

suggested that her office had been unaware of the pattern of

targeting until she read about it in the newspaper. ``So it

was pretty much we started seeing information in the press

that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a

look,'' she said in May.

Mr. Speaker, so no one misunderstands, it is a crime to give false information to Congress.

The article goes on:

Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw

the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires,

testified that his oversight began in April 2010. Tea Party

cases under review are ``being supervised by Chip Hull at

each step,'' Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011

email. ``He reviews info from TPs--or Tea Partys--

correspondence to TPs, et cetera. No decisions are going out

of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the

(c)(3) and (c)(4) cases here.''

The emails also put the targeting in the context of the

media and congressional drumbeat over the impact of

conservative campaign spending on the 2012 elections. On July

10, 2012, then Lerner adviser Sharon Light emailed Ms. Lerner

a National Public Radio story on how outside money was making

it hard for Democrats to hold their Senate majority.

It certainly appears that the IRS was weaponized for the political purpose of one party, which would, of course, be one of the worst nightmares for the Founders of this country. Of course, George Washington didn't even want us to have political parties--he warned of the danger there--and here we are, all this time later, with a group of Democratic operatives who are doing things with the IRS that Richard Nixon could have only dreamed of doing.

This article from The Wall Street Journal goes on:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had complained

to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups

like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be

treated as political committees rather than 501(c)(4)s, which

are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to

disclose their donors. ``Perhaps the FEC will save the day,''

Ms. Lerner wrote back later that morning.

Having been a district judge presiding over criminal cases, that is what you would call, Mr. Speaker, a statement against interests by Ms. Lerner in a prior communication that directly contradicts what she said the motivation was. I think there are criminal implications here that need to be followed up.

In any event, the article goes on:

That response suggests Ms. Lerner's political leanings, and

it also raises questions about Ms. Lerner's intentions in a

separate email exchange she had when an FEC investigator

inquired about the status of the conservative group, the

American Future Fund. The FEC and IRS don't have the

authority to share that information under section 6103 of the

Internal Revenue Code. But the bigger question is: Why did

they want to? After the FEC inquiry, the American Future Fund

also got a questionnaire from the IRS.

Again, that's from The Wall Street Journal dated last night.

When one party in power in the executive branch can weaponize its Federal agencies against its political opponents, unless it is stopped, this little experiment in democracy will come to an end. It will bring about the very things that the Founders had hoped would not happen but were realistic enough to talk about them at some length about when and if we might move to one person being able to grasp control of the Federal Government.

Of course, one of the things they used to try to keep that from happening was to give Congress the power of the purse, to give Congress oversight over the executive and judicial branches. When we've had Congress try to do oversight, whether it's over Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, we've met with nothing but blinded opaqueness--not transparency--from this administration. They have obfuscated constantly, done everything they can to prevent Congress from getting the truth about what they have called even phony scandals.

If they're so phony, why don't you get the transparency out here, Mr. Speaker? Let's get people out here with the truth and then we can see fully whether or not they're phony scandals. The more this drip, drip, drip of information comes out, the more it becomes clear as to why this administration has been hiding evidence and attempting to keep Congress from discovering things.

I have personally been pushing for many months now to have a special prosecutor investigate the Internal Revenue Service situation with regard to targeting for political purposes. The reason is that there are statutes that pertain to the IRS that could make some of this conduct potential crimes for which people could go to prison.

I am so proud that I became a friend of Chuck Colson before he passed. I think he is one of the great Christian luminaries of the 20th and 21st centuries. His becoming a Christian all came about after his arrogance and his willful disobedience of the law during the Nixon administration brought him to prison. He had possession of information from the FBI about someone. As I recall, that got him about 1\1/2\ years in prison. Yet, we have seen during the close of the Clinton years as President, one man having, at the White House, about 1,000 FBI files. If he had been held to the same standard as Chuck Colson, he would never have gotten out of prison, but nobody went to prison.

We've seen, as time has gone on and abuses within the executive branch have not been dealt with properly, the abuses have continued and gotten worse. From reports I hear from conservative groups, whether Tea Party, pro-Israel, pro-marriage, as it's been known throughout the history of mankind as being between a man and a woman, groups that just wanted the Constitution followed are all coming under attack--not all of the groups have, but most of the groups that have have been these type of groups--from the IRS.

Then I hear from others who are being hit by inquiries from the FEC, not about Democratic matters, but about contributions to the Republican candidates and party. Then we hear that the EPA and other Federal agencies are going after conservatives.

It is unbelievable how powerful this government has gotten and how dramatically it can affect the outcome of an election. We must make sure that these kinds of abuses stop. We have the power of the purse to stop it, and we should. If the administration is not going to be forthcoming with information about the IRS, then it may be necessary to defund part of the executive branch until such time as they become truthful.

The Department of Justice still has not been forthcoming on information that in our Judicial Committee we've been trying to get. We still haven't gotten answers to all of the matters that ended up resulting in the Attorney General of the United States being held in contempt for failing and refusing to answer.

It would seem that in the Fast and Furious scandal, where this administration saw to it that 2,000 or so guns made their way into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico, resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives in Mexico and at least one or more here in the United States, that someone should be held to account. When no one is held to account, when there is no accountability, the abuses get worse. That's what we're hearing.

You would have thought once the IRS scandal had been exposed that people would be more cautious about going after conservative groups for political purposes. Since no one has been held accountable yet, no budgets cut, the arrogance and the political maneuvering within Federal agencies seems to be growing much worse.

I'm hoping that my friends on the other side of the aisle will understand that the pendulum swings back and forth. I cannot imagine a single of my Democratic friends across the aisle being nearly as composed as we've been on the Republican side of the aisle about the abuses if the shoe were on the other foot and those abuses were over Democratic groups that were trying to elect the next Democratic President. If they were, I should be helping the Democrats and I would help the Democrats, because there's no place for an administration that weaponizes for political purposes the agencies under its control. We've gone for over 200 years fighting and doing what we could to avoid that happening, yet here it's happening.

It is a Federal agency that I want to go to next that's been involved in carrying out the will of this administration.

Here's an article from yesterday from Breitbart, written by John Sexton. He says:

It has been nearly a year since the attack which killed

four Americans in Benghazi. During that time, various minute-

by-minute accounts of the attack have been published. In

addition, the administration's decisions to refuse additional

security requests and to revise its talking points after the

attack have been examined in detail.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on, I would like to grab a couple of posters.

I would have felt good in life having Ty Woods and Glen Doherty covering my back, just as they were trying to do for the survivors for our American Government workers at our consulate in our annex in Benghazi.

These are the four people we've lost: Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and our two former Navy seals, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty. They deserve the truth to come out.

This article continues:

But Benghazi may have been a case where most observers have

missed the forest for the

trees. This is not an attempt to add new information so much

as it is to collate the information that already exists from

the most reputable journalistic sources.

To begin with, Benghazi was a CIA operation involving

weapons, one which had no cover beyond a small mission that

provided a diplomatic fig leaf for the effort. Officially,

the CIA was there to track and collect dangerous weapons left

over from the war that ousted Qadhafi. But the evidence

suggests that the CIA was also either tacitly or actively

involved in a multinational effort to ship those weapons to

Syrian rebels. Our covert effort in Benghazi, Libya, was

connected to our escalating involvement in Syria.

The general outlines of this CIA effort have been reported.

One fact which has not been highlighted is that the U.N. arms

embargo of Libya, which the United States helped pass in

2011, makes shipping weapons in or out of the country a

violation of international law. Indeed, the way the U.N.

resolution is written, even knowingly allowing such shipments

to take place may be a violation of the agreement.

I want to add parenthetically here that some of our concerns with having a world court and international tribunals that have jurisdiction over American citizens is that they may have laws that they decide to enforce that are against or outside what our United States Constitution allows. I would submit that American individuals, whether they're CIA agents or military, should be accountable to the United States and under the United States Constitution and not some world court. And it should be worth noting that as this administration pushed U.N. resolutions--I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is, but if individuals within this administration then violated the international law that they pushed to create, then they probably need to be careful when they're traveling in years after they leave the White House or the administration efforts because, who knows, you might get an indictment somewhere in one of these international tribunals that you violated the U.N. law you passed. You got guns into or out of Libya, you violated the law.

People in this country need to understand that participating in the making of laws and that participating in the violation of laws have consequences.

This article continues:

In 2012, the Obama administration publicly claimed it was

working on diplomatic and humanitarian responses to the

situation in Syria. But behind the scenes, the United States

was aware that a network of arms shipments was being created

to support the rebels. This network involved shipping weapons

from Qatar and, later, Libya to Turkey where they could be

taken across the border and distributed to militia in Syria.

In June of 2012, The New York Times reported that a

contingent of CIA agents were ``operating secretly'' in

Turkey to help vet which groups would receive these weapons.

But later reporting by the Times would indicate the CIA was

doing more than vetting.

The article goes on down and mentions that The Wall Street Journal reported at the time, this was back in June, that:

The Central Intelligence Agency has begun moving weapons to

Jordan from a network of secret warehouses and plans to start

arming small groups of vetted Syrian rebels within a month,

expanding U.S. support of moderate forces battling President

Bashar al-Assad, according to diplomats and U.S. officials

briefed on the plans. To sum up, the CIA encouraged the

creation of a multinational arms pipeline, helped shop for

weapons to fill it, vetted the groups who would receive those

weapons in Syria and, since June of 2013, contributed U.S.

weapons to the mix. With that backdrop in place, we can now

return our attention to Libya.

During the U.S. involvement in overthrowing Libyan dictator

Muammar Qadhafi during 2011, the Obama administration became

aware that shipments of weapons were making their way to

Qadhafi's troops, allowing them to resupply themselves and

pose a greater threat to civilians.

I might add parenthetically that with Qadhafi, that Qadhafi was an ally of this administration and this country at the time, that this administration chose to destroy and help remove.

The article says:

So in February the U.S. and other allied nations including

the U.K. and France pushed for a package of international

sanctions which became U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970.

Resolution 1970 condemned the bombing of civilians, imposed

travel restrictions on Qadhafi and his inner circle, froze

assets and, importantly, banned any transfer of arms to or

from Libya. In addition, Resolution 917 requires member

states, upon discovery of such arms, to destroy them.

A second resolution, number 1973, was passed a month later

in March 2011. It created a no-fly zone and reaffirmed that

member states were expected to help enforce the embargo by

inspecting any sea or air vessels believed to be shipping

weapons to or from Libya. If discovered, such weapons were to

be destroyed. But despite Resolution 1970, The New York Times

reported in April 2011 that shipments of arms were reaching

Libyan rebels from Qatar. Another in-depth story published in

December 2012 describes how the U.S. winked at these

shipments despite concerns that some weapons were falling

into the hands of extremists.

Parenthetically, I might insert, duh.

The article goes on:

In fact, the nature of our military strategy in Libya made

partnering with Qatar necessary. The Obama administration

wanted to avoid getting immersed in a ground war, which

officials feared could lead the United States into another

quagmire in the Middle East. As a result, the White House

largely relied on Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two

small Persian Gulf states and frequent allies of the United

States. After discussions among members of the National

Security Council, the Obama administration backed the arms

shipments from both countries, according to two former

administration officials briefed on the talks. ``The UAE was

asking for clearance to send U.S. weapons,'' said one former

official. ``We told them it's okay to ship other weapons.''

But the American support for the arms shipments from Qatar

and the Emirates could not be completely hidden. NATO air and

sea forces around Libya had to be alerted not to interdict

the cargo planes and freighters transporting the arms into

Libya from Qatar and the Emirates, American officials said.

Again, that would be a direct violation of the U.N. resolution that we helped pushed into international law.

The article says:

This pattern of winking at violation of the U.N. arms

embargo of Libya was repeated after Qadhafi's ouster. With

the war in Libya at an end and the one in Syria ramping up,

the direction of the arms pipeline simply reversed itself.

Whereas weapons had been coming into Libya from Qatar, they

now headed out of Libya back to Qatar and from there on to

either Mali or Syria by way of Turkey. A June 21, 2013 New

York Times story points out that local militias were

organizing these shipments--including flights this year from

Tripoli and Benghazi. But these shipments out of Libya are

said to have been taking place for a year, beginning several

months before the 9/11 attack in Benghazi--

that killed these four American patriots.

To sum up, the U.S. approved and cleared a path for a pipeline of weapons into Libya during the revolution in 2011. That pipeline would eventually reverse course to provide the same spare weapons to rebel in Syria. Both efforts seem to violate the U.N. resolutions which the United States helped pass in early 2011. But late in 2011 the United States realized its revolution on the cheap in Libya had a worrisome downside. Thousands of dangerous anti-aircraft weapons were loose in Libya, attracting militants who might wish to use them to commit terrorist acts against civilian air traffic. Something had to be done.

So the article goes on to talk about how we sent people into Libya to try to reclaim the weapons that we had helped provide, including surface-to-air missiles. The article says:

A month later, just three days after the 9/11 attack in

Benghazi, the Times of London reported that a Libyan ship

carrying 400 tons of weapons, including SAM-7 surface-to-air

anti-aircraft missiles, docked in Turkey. This was the

largest known shipment of weapons to Syria at the time. The

ship's captain, Omar Mousaeeb, was from Benghazi.

The article goes on to make light of the allegation that this is a phony scandal. If it's so phony, why is there so much in the way of effort to keep Congress from knowing what really happened? Reports have been that we have CIA agents with direct knowledge of what happened during the death of our four patriots. They are being polygraphed every 30 days to keep them quiet, and demanding to know if anyone has leaked any information to Congress or the media because this administration is doing absolutely everything they can to keep us from getting to the truth of what happened there.

And I have been greatly encouraged this week, and in a trip to the Middle East, where, over the safety and the future of the United States, people in a bipartisan way were very concerned about our involvement in Syria, that we should not get involved in Syria, that it would be a huge mistake. Some say Members of Congress should never travel outside their district or Washington, D.C., but what I have seen, and especially from a trip to the Middle East last week, we're not getting the straight information from this administration. If we want to know what's

really going on, where we are appropriating money, where we are making policy through our control of the purse strings--or lack of control-- we've got to go to those areas and talk to the leaders involved. It's amazing what you find out. When leaders of allied countries tell us we don't understand you, what you are doing. Do you not know you went to war in Afghanistan for the Muslim Brotherhood--against the Muslim Brotherhood? There you were fighting the Taliban, and then you go to Libya, and--well, first to Egypt. We have helped the Muslim Brotherhood in the wrong places, and it needs to stop in Syria as well.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.