I rise this morning to speak in opposition yet again to this Democrat offer for a continuing resolution. As has been said, this resolution today goes through February 28, and I am not sure why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle expect a different outcome just by changing the end date. There is, however, one simple way to get a different outcome, and that is to come to the table and negotiate and talk. Show up at the table when you are invited to negotiate. There is a seat there waiting. The people elected the President, and they elected each of us, and they elected us to do our job. Quite honestly, legislating is a very serious job, not putting veto-bait bills on the floor of the House to be voted on over and over again, knowing what the outcome is going to be. All of the political points, I think, have been made over and over again as we have debated these continuing resolutions. I think it is important that we put partisanship aside. We have to work together. We all have to sit down at the table and decide how we can move forward. Just saying ``no'' to a physical infrastructure, in my opinion, is not a negotiating position. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill that is going nowhere so that we can get back to the serious business of the legislative process. Let's show the American people that we deserve the trust they have placed in us to govern.
Share
More from Robert Aderholt
We once again find ourselves debating a commonsense measure that would actually safeguard the American people's vote in the upcoming elections. The rhetoric surrounding this bill is that it fixes a problem that does not exist. My answer is…
the Administration has the duty to enforce the law without prejudice to political philosophy or those in violation of the law.
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed. Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Biggs The Acting CHAIR. It is now…
I am concerned the Department is more interested in catering to beltway-based liberal social policy concerns rather than responding to the very real needs that real Americans deal with.





