Providing for Consideration of the Senate Amendment to H.J. Res. 59, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, and Waiving Requirement of Clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership on this very important issue. And what is that issue? Do we, as Members of Congress, intend to honor our responsibilities to the American people by making tough choices to keep government open and working for the American people?

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, in the dead of night, the Republican majority had a simple, but clear, choice to make: they could make a choice to accept Democrats saying ``yes'' to them on their budget number to proceed to the negotiating table to come up with a budget for our country, or they could choose in the dead of night to continue, like hounds baying at the Moon, once again--for like the 44th and 45th time--to try to overturn the Affordable Care Act. And what did they choose--and I say this with great apology to hounds because I love dogs--they chose to bay to the Moon. It was a sad thing because so much is at stake.

We should all, as Members of Congress, have confidence in what we believe in and debate full throttle the issues that are important to our country and to our constituents. We shouldn't take hostages because of the weakness of our ideas. We should go confidently to the table of policymaking to debate them, but to say we're going to shut down government unless you overturn the law of the land--that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by the last election--we are going to shut down the government.

Now, the decision that they made the other night--baying night--they're continuing today, attempting to put on the floor a resolution that has no possibility of becoming the law.

We as Democrats say, you have put forth two really unpleasant proposals; one, to overturn the Affordable Care Act; and the other is hiding the terrible budget bill that they are putting forth, which even their own chairman says does not enable government to function, does not even enable us to do the job that we're here to do for the American people.

Two ``noes'' do not make a ``yes.'' Two ``noes'' make matters worse. Democrats are absolutely, totally opposed and determined that we will not shut government down. We will not be party to shutting government down, and so we're willing to take your budget figure, with the accompanying 6-week opportunity to go to the negotiating table, and develop a bill that will get rid of sequestration and all the harm that that does to our national security and to our investments in the future. Take ``yes'' for an answer.

This debate is about the budget. Keeping government open is about passing a bill, a continuing resolution to do that. Don't be insecure about your own ideas and say the only way we can prevail is if we threaten to shut government down if we don't have our own way--if we don't have our own way, we're going to shut government down. You and that attitude are a luxury this country cannot afford.

So again I say, this is an explicit offer to the Republicans in the Congress to agree to your number in this legislation and take the next weeks ahead to come to the table and negotiate--something we should have done 6 months ago. In March, the Republicans said they wanted regular order. Regular order means you pass a bill in the House and a bill in the Senate, and you go to conference--at least that's what the book says. That's what regular order is. The Republicans wanted regular order. That's what they told the President of the United States in the Oval Office. How would you like to proceed, the President said. We want regular order, said Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell.

The House passed its budget bill. Republicans started saying things like ``no budget, no pay'' to the Senate, the taunt. The Senate had planned to--and did--pass its budget bill. That would be the regular order. Now we go to the table to reconcile our differences.

The minute the Senate passed its bill, the Republicans abandoned any interest in the regular order. Why? Maybe they were afraid that people would see the contrast of what they want to do in their budget compared to the investment in the future, the statement of our national values that our Democratic proposal had under Chairwoman Patty Murray in the Senate and Chris Van Hollen in the House.

Whatever the reason, for 6 months they have not wanted to negotiate, and for 6 months they were saying the President doesn't want to negotiate. But they are the ones who have the responsibility, under the regular order of the House, to come to the budget table to reconcile our differences.

I salute the President for saying that the full faith and credit of the United States is not negotiable. We will not default on the debts that we have all incurred already.

That is over here. So when he says that's not negotiable, that doesn't mean that we won't negotiate on the budget which is in the form of a continuing resolution, a separate issue.

You can only conclude that ``insecure'' because of the poverty of ideas or ``just determined to shut down government,'' maybe because they don't fully understand the consequences of it.

The Republicans have once again come to the floor with a bill which they know will shut down government. 5 1/2 hours from now--5 1/2 hours from now--we either bay to the Moon again or we'll make the right decision to take ``yes'' for an answer, we agree to your number for the purpose of going to the negotiating table.

Our number is what we agreed to with you in the Budget Control Act, a bipartisan agreement--$1.58 trillion versus $986 billion. That's an $80 billion comedown. That number was a comprise to begin with. That wasn't like plush with spending. It was a comprise to begin with. Now we are underfunding government; and that's not good enough for you, to underfund in meeting the needs of the American people. You want to shut down government.

I would hope that all who think this is not a good idea will express themselves on the rule, because the rule does not allow us to have a vote, a clean vote, on your suggestion for a continuing resolution at $986 billion. Let's give the Republicans a vote on their number. Let's give the Republicans a vote on their proposal, and let's do it in a way that is clean and does not place in doubt whether government will be open in the morning to meet the needs of the American people.

I hope that in the previous question enough people will reject what the Republicans are putting forth, and certainly on the rule we can do that. Otherwise, we'll go time and time again--46 times--to vote against undermining the Affordable Care Act. Instead, we could have passed an immigration bill. We could have passed a bill to make sure we had background checks for people who are legally able to purchase guns to make sure that they are. God willing, we could have passed legislation creating jobs, investing in the future for our country.

But all of those things can be the legitimate--not all, but the stuff about the job initiatives and investing in the future are the legitimate debate of priorities that is the budget debate. That is what I hope the Republicans will allow: something they asked for--the regular order; something they asked for--$986 billion in the bill; something I think we all want--keeping government open.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source