{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-king-government-shutdown-shouldnt-be-used-as-a-negotiating-tool", "Sen. King: Government Shutdown Shouldn’t Be Used as a Negotiating Tool", "2013-10-05", "2013", "2013-10", "Independent", "House", "ME", "Angus King", "K000383", "www.king.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Sen. King: Government Shutdown Shouldn\u2019t Be Used as a Negotiating Tool\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tSaturday, October 5, 2013\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tWASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 In an impassioned speech on the floor of the United States Senate today, U.S. Senator Angus King voiced his belief that the government shutdown should not be used as leverage to negotiate changes to the Affordable Care Act or achieve any other policy objectives that otherwise could not be enacted through the normal legislative process because of the precedent it would set for legislating in the future.\r\n\u201cMy intention coming here was to help solve problems, to find common ground, to work together with colleagues from both sides of the aisle. That\u2019s my history,\u201d Senator King said in his remarks. \u201cBut the important thing about \u2026 this discussion is: it's all taking place in the context of a government shutdown. That\u2019s not where negotiations should be made. That\u2019s not where negotiation and discussion should be had. \u2026This is why, I think in this one case, negotiation really isn't the right course. It\u2019s a process problem. It\u2019s a practical problem, and I believe it\u2019s a constitutional problem.\u201d\r\n\u201cThis is an attempt to rewrite a major piece of substantive law through holding the government hostage, which is a result that cannot be achieved through the normal democratic and constitutional processes. That\u2019s the core of this current situation. That\u2019s what's bothering me about it,\u201d Senator King said. \u201cI don't mind negotiating budgets. I do think we shouldn't use the threat of a government shutdown \u2013 or, now the reality of a government shutdown, to obtain legislative and policy benefits that we can't otherwise attain through the normal constitutional process.\u201d\r\n\u201cI would love to sit down in good faith with people and try to fix them [problems with the Affordable Care Act] \u2026but I think the way to do that is not in the context of the government being held hostage. We don't \u2013 and here's the real problem \u2013 if we do it now this will become the normal way we legislate around here.\u201d Senator King concluded. \u201cI want to talk. I want to negotiate. I want to solve problems, but not at the expense of this institution, not at the expense of the Constitution, and not at the expense of the American people.\u201d\r\nTo watch Senator King\u2019s remarks, click here.\r\nThe complete transcript of Senator King\u2019s remarks is below:\r\n+++\r\n\u201cMadam President, my intention coming here was to help solve problems, to find common ground, to work together with colleagues from both sides of the aisle. That's my history, and in fact, that was my primary motivation for running, for stepping into the shoes of my illustrious predecessor, Olympia Snowe of Maine.\r\n\u201cAnd, in fact, that's what we did this summer on student loans when a small group of bipartisan senators worked together to find a compromise, work it through both sides of this body, both parties, and then through the House, and then get the signature of the President. We got 81 votes in the Senate; 392 in the House. That\u2019s what I want to try to do. That was a validation of what I\u2019m here for. And this situation that we are in now cries out for resolution. It cries out for finding common ground, for compromising, getting everybody back to work, getting the government shutdown over \u2013 so why aren't we doing it? Why aren't we out cutting a deal? Why aren't we out compromising?\r\n\u201cWell, I\u2019ve talked to my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, talked to House members, both Republicans and Democrats, and there are lots of options. And, in fact, the House has sent us a series of options: the first one was essentially defund, effectively repeal, the Affordable Care Act. Then it was to delay the Affordable Care Act. Then it was to delay a part of the Affordable Care Act, but the important thing about these options and this discussion is: it's all taking place in the context of a government shutdown. That\u2019s not where negotiations should be made. That\u2019s not where negotiation and discussion should be had, when essentially the government has been shut down and one side is saying, \u2018We won't allow the government to operate unless you give us what we want on a substantive piece of legislation.\u2019 This is the problem, Madam President. This is why, I think in this one case, negotiation really isn't the right course. It\u2019s a process problem. It\u2019s a practical problem, and I believe it\u2019s a constitutional problem.\r\n\u201cIt\u2019s perfectly appropriate to negotiate budgets. As a governor, I did it four times for biennial budgets and innumerable supplemental budgets, and it is perfectly appropriate to negotiate up to the deadline \u2013 lots of late nights. That\u2019s when this work, for some reason, seems to get done. But in those contexts of budgets \u2013 of negotiating the most fundamental governmental document \u2013 you negotiate about numbers, about details, about allocations. You don't negotiate about entirely separate substantive pieces of law.\r\n\u201cAnd, in fact, that happened a month ago right here when Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner negotiated a continuing resolution on what the number should be, and it was a hot and heavy negotiation, and the Leader compromised. He said, \u2018Let's go forward, because we can do this cleanly with a continuing resolution at a lower level than the Senate Democrats felt was appropriate \u2013 then what was in the budget that was passed earlier this year.\u2019 But that's not what's going on here. We're not negotiating about what are the dollar amounts of the budget or what are the details or what are the allocations, how much to defense and how much to head start.\r\n\u201cThis is an attempt to rewrite a major piece of substantive law through holding the government hostage, which is a result that cannot be achieved through the normal democratic and constitutional processes. That\u2019s the core of this current situation. That\u2019s what's bothering me about it.\r\n\u201cI don't mind negotiating budgets. I do think we shouldn't use the threat of a government shutdown \u2013 or, now the reality of a government shutdown, to obtain legislative and policy benefits that we can't otherwise attain through the normal constitutional process. In a very real sense, Madam President, this is a frontal assault on the Constitution itself. Ironically, it is being led by many of those who wrap themselves daily in the Constitution.\r\n\u201cI don't have one of those books, but we all know those books, \u2018How a bill becomes a law.\u2019 I guarantee you can read those books, as my father used to say, until the spots come off but there's going to be nothing in there that says, \u2018Well if all else fails, hold the government hostage and then you can make a law.\u2019 That's not what it says. Mary, my wife, got me a book when I was first elected called \u2018Congress for Dummies.\u2019 Even in Congress for Dummies, it doesn't say you can make laws, change laws, rewrite laws in the context of holding the country hostage. It is an attempt to create an alternative process \u2013 a new shortcut way of achieving political ends without having to deal with those pesky elections.\r\n\u201cHere is the electoral history of this bill: in 2010 the Affordable Care Act was passed in early summer. There were elections in 2010 and, indeed, the Republicans gained substantial seats in the House probably because of concern about the Affordable Care Act. I\u2019ll concede that. But the Senate didn't turn over. (By the way, that's the way the framers planned it. That's why there are six-year terms here, so public passions in one electoral cycle don't entirely change the government.) And then there was another election in 2012. In that election, in which the Affordable Care Act was a major factor, Democrats gained seats in the House, gained seats in the Senate, and the President, whose name is attached to this bill, won by 5 million votes. In my election in Maine, in every debate \u2013 and goodness knows there were probably over 20 of them \u2013 my Republican opponent started the debate by saying, \u2018I want to repeal the Affordable Care Act.\u2019 That was the whole mission \u2013 and I defended it, not in every detail, because I think it needs to be fixed, but I defended it and I won that election \u2013 and here I am.\r\n\u201cMr. Romney said, \u2018I will repeal Obamacare on day one,\u2019 but he lost. But here we are, Madam President, in effect trying to effectuate that agenda, that policy position, through an alternative process that skips around those annoying elections.\r\n\u201cThe passionate opponents of this Act are acting like those elections just didn't happen. Let\u2019s be clear about what this is: this is one faction of one party in one house of one branch trying to run the entire United States government. That\u2019s not the way our Constitution is supposed to work, and I\u2019m confident of that statement because from talking to my friends in the House, I believe it's highly likely that if a clean continuing resolution \u2013 that means one without any strings, without any political baggage, without any repeal of the Affordable Care Act, went before the House today or tomorrow or Monday, it would pass \u2013 most of the Democrats and enough Republicans to achieve a majority, and all of this would be over.\r\n\u201cSpeaker Boehner yesterday said two things that I think were important \u2013 one I agree with and one I don't. The one I agree with is, he said, \u2018This isn't a game,\u2019 and it isn't a game. It's deadly serious. It\u2019s deadly serious because of the impact this shutdown is having on our country and people throughout the country.\r\n\u201cLet's talk nationally: 70 percent of the civilians of the Department of Defense have been furloughed. Seventy percent of our Intelligence agency personnel are on furlough. I'm sorry, half of the Department of Defense and 70 percent of Intelligence. We have air squadrons that are grounded. We\u2019ve got people that are not being trained and our defense industrial base is already suffering.\r\n\u201cIn Maine we've got 1,500 people on furlough at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard; more coming at Bath Iron Works, and almost half of our National Guard people are on furlough. This isn't a game, but all of this is being done in the name of effectively repealing or crippling the Affordable Care Act. Even if you don't think it's a good law, this is not the way to go about dismantling it. It's not the way our Constitution is designed.\r\n\u201cWhy won't we negotiate, though? Why aren't the Democrats negotiating on this and maybe nick the Affordable Care Act? Well, it reminds me of a story of a city guy who came up to a farmer in Maine, and he said, \u2018I like the looks of your land. I\u2019d like to buy your farm.\u2019 The farmer says it\u2019s not for sale. The city guys says, \u2018Well how about the 50 percent that\u2019s down there on the river. I\u2019d like it buy that.\u2019 \u2018It's not for sale.\u2019 \u2018How about just the quarter acre right your house is on the road?\u2019 \u2018It is not for sale.\u2019 The city guy says, \u2018Why won't you negotiate?\u2019 Because it is not for sale.\r\n\u201cThis isn't the place or the time to negotiate. Listen, I think there are problems with the Affordable Care Act. I would love to sit down in good faith with people and try to fix them, starting with making the web sites work better, but I think the way to do that is not in the context of the government being held hostage. We don't \u2013 and here's the real problem \u2013 if we do it now this will become the normal way we legislate around here. This is a six week continuing resolution, so we nick the Affordable Care Act in this one, and next time it\u2019s going to be, \u2018Okay, we\u2019ll take another nick.\u2019\r\n\u201cWhat I am afraid of is this will be the normal way that we do things around here. Police and Intelligence people and military officers tell you that you don't negotiate with hostage takers. The reason you don't is because you empower, you enable, and you ensure that it will happen again. That's what worries me.\r\n\u201cOur constitutional system has two principles in tension: one is governing and the other is checks and balances. Governing is to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare \u2013 and of course checks and balances is the rest of the Constitution, so that we aren\u2019t abused by our government, but if you take away the governing parts \u2013 which is what a budget is \u2013 nothing is left but checks and balances.\r\n\u201cThe framers thought of this. Madison in the 58th Federalist addressed it directly. He said it might be a good thing to have minorities have additional power above a quorum but he says these are outweighed by the opposite scale. \u2018In all cases where justice of the general good requires new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed\u2019 by minority rule. \u2018It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.\u2019\r\n\u201cLincoln put it much more succinctly: \u2018If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government, must cease. There is no other alternative for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other.\u2019 That's what is at stake here: governing.\r\n\u201cI understand the opposition \u2013 although I frankly don\u2019t fully understand not wanting people to have health insurance \u2013 but I understand the passion, the attempt. I think the Speaker is a good man and he wants to do the right thing. I understand the need to get something \u2013 to win something in this weird atmosphere where everyone has to win or lose, but they gave it their best shot, it didn't work, let's move on. Let's have a clean vote in the House so the American people and the world know that we still know how to govern.\r\n\u201cI want to talk. I want to negotiate. I want to solve problems, but not at the expense of this institution, not at the expense of the Constitution, and not at the expense of the American people.\r\n\u201cThank you, Madam President.\u201d\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-king-government-shutdown-shouldnt-be-used-as-a-negotiating-tool"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.8462860025465488, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}