Fiscal Responsibility
Over the years, Democrats have shown our commitment to restoring fiscal responsibility by taking actions that have reduced our national deficit while investing in the American people’s priorities. During the 117th Congress, House Democrats delivered the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, which will reduce the deficit by over $300 billion while lowering health care and energy costs and taking action on climate change. In sharp contrast, Republicans jammed their 2017 Trump Tax Scam through Congress without a single hearing, gifting trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax handouts to the wealthiest Americans and large corporations while leaving our nation with ballooning deficits. They have repeatedly held our economy hostage to benefit their irresponsible ideological agenda, whether creating artificial “fiscal cliffs,” shutting down the government, or bringing our nation to the brink of defaulting on its obligations. With other landmark legislation delivered during the 117th Congress, including the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science Act, Democrats have worked to invest in economic recovery, job creation, all while cutting the deficit in half last year. Democrats are committed to continuing our work to restore sound, long-term fiscal management so future generations can afford to invest in opportunities, secure the American Dream, and ensure workers have the tools to Make It In America.
I hope the Speaker can come forward and say, we're ready to move forward and keep the government open and we can move on. The fact of the matter is it's been self-evident for some period of time now that this issue was not over dollars. We made substantial cuts in spending. We know we need to make cuts. We need to effect efficiencies and bring this deficit under control. The fact is this has not been about dollars. It's about social policy. It's been about, in particular, as you pointed out, women's health issues.
Democrats have offered on the House Floor five times a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open as negotiations on a full year continuing resolution continue. So far, even though Democrats have gone 70 percent of the way to Republicans’ position, Republicans refuse to compromise over their divisive social agenda. As a result, Republicans are risking a shutdown that will harm the economy and negatively impact Americans.
Isn't it a shame, I tell my friend who just spoke, that his colleagues objected to unanimous consent request yesterday which would have taken care of the problem he raises today? There's not a person on this Floor that doesn't want to make sure that our men and women in harm's way and in uniform ready to be put in harm's way are paid on time. But we're playing a political game here—a game of got you, a game of my way or the highway—not a game of coming together from all over the country and trying to make laws for our country that require compromise.
We have a history, a pattern of the Republicans taking control and shutting down the government as they did in 1995. It hasn't happened since then, even when we had disagreements when George Bush and the Democratic Congress. It’s not an alternative we ought to be taking. I think we're very close. [Democrats] have come 70% of the way in terms of dollars. That’s a long way to go in terms of trying to reach compromise. Now as the President and Harry Reid pointed out, there are social issues which the Republicans are holding hostage the government.
We tried to have a unanimous consent for resolution that would in fact have kept the government open without question. The President would have signed it and the Senate would have passed it. It was what we usually do. That is a bridge to allow you to cross over and not fall into the river until you get an agreement. Unfortunately, it was not passed. And what we did pass is a resolution that the President said he would veto. Not on numbers, not on cutting spending, not on keeping troops in place, but social policy being adopted unrelated to numbers, which the President clearly indicated he was not for. I frankly think what we’re doing is playing chicken. We're driving down the road. We agreed to 70% of the cuts proposed. 70% of the cuts they proposed. And the other side says--the founder of the [Tea Party Patriots] said today that if John Boehner brought in $99 billion, he said that wouldn't be enough.
I want to say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, how often he and I have said, you know, when we have these impasses, we need a clean CR. This CR is unclean. This CR will not get us to where you say you want to get, Mr. Chairman, and that's not shutting down the government. Because you know and I know the President will not sign this bill. Why? Because you put in poison pills that you know are unacceptable to him. Why? So you can get the votes on your side of the aisle to vote for your bill to keep the government open. Why is that difficult? Because so many of your folks, unless they get 100%, are prepared to shut down the government.
I thank the Majority Leader for yielding. I share his view we ought to keep the government running, not only the sake of our economy but for the sake of all those that rely on the federal government. My friend has made the observation in the past that shutting down the government, and I believe the Speaker made the same observation, was not a national policy for us to pursue. I ask the gentleman because I believe that the resolution that we will be considering will not either pass the Senate nor be signed by the President. In light of that, and in light of the fact that the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker have both indicated that negotiations are ongoing, would the gentleman agree to a unanimous consent that we, as we have done so often in the past, when the majority Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate, disagreed with President Bush, that we would have a “hold in place” unanimous consent Continuing Resolution, not changing the status on either side of the negotiations, for seven days, which would give the parties the opportunity to come to an agreement? My understanding from the Leader of the Senate is that we have agreed to some $70 billion in cuts, which is a substantial way toward what you wanted and a show that we share the view that we need to have fiscal restraint. So I ask my friend if I made a unanimous consent request that we continue the government authority to stay running until next Friday without changing the status quo so that neither party would be disadvantaged and that our government would in fact, as the gentleman observes is his objective, be able to stay in service to the American people.
Republicans have announced that they are bringing to the House Floor a divisive and partisan spending bill, which will not pass the Senate. Their refusal to make tough choices moves us closer to a government shutdown, which will severely threaten our economic recovery. Instead of partisan maneuvering, we should be working to quickly find a compromise on a long-term spending bill that tackles our deficit. If that work needs a few more days, then we should pass a simple, bipartisan bill to keep the government open for the American people. Democrats are presenting such a bill as our alternative to the Republicans’ partisan patch. It is time for members of both parties who understand that ‘my way or the highway’ doesn’t work in a democracy to compromise and prevent a government shutdown.
Budgets are not simply about dollars and cents: they are about values and priorities. And the debate over spending has revealed Republican priorities in the worst possible light.
There's so many Republicans taking the position that you either take what we passed, we'll not compromise, or we're going to shut down the government. That won't work. I think we're close and I think frankly if Mr. Boehner would put on the Floor a bill, which goes almost three quarters of the way toward where he wanted to go, three quarters of the way to where they wanted to go between their zero and 100, I think we could pass it.