To watch Senator King’s remarks, click here.

The complete transcript of Senator King’s remarks follows:

“Madam 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.

“And, 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’s what I want to try to do. That was a validation of what I’m 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 – so why aren't we doing it? Why aren't we out cutting a deal? Why aren't we out compromising?

“Well, I’ve 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’s not where negotiations should be made. That’s not where negotiation and discussion should be had, when essentially the government has been shut down and one side is saying, ‘We won't allow the government to operate unless you give us what we want on a substantive piece of legislation.’ This is the problem, Madam President. This is why, I think in this one case, negotiation really isn't the right course. It’s a process problem. It’s a practical problem, and I believe it’s a constitutional problem.

“It’s 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 – lots of late nights. That’s when this work, for some reason, seems to get done. But in those contexts of budgets – of negotiating the most fundamental governmental document – you negotiate about numbers, about details, about allocations. You don't negotiate about entirely separate substantive pieces of law.

“And, 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, ‘Let's go forward, because we can do this cleanly with a continuing resolution at a lower level than the Senate Democrats felt was appropriate – then what was in the budget that was passed earlier this year.’ 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.

“This 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’s the core of this current situation. That’s what's bothering me about it.

“I don't mind negotiating budgets. I do think we shouldn't use the threat of a government shutdown – 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.

“I don't have one of those books, but we all know those books, ‘How a bill becomes a law.’ 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, ‘Well if all else fails, hold the government hostage and then you can make a law.’ That's not what it says. Mary, my wife, got me a book when I was first elected called ‘Congress for Dummies.’ 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 – a new shortcut way of achieving political ends without having to deal with those pesky elections.

“Here 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’ll 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 – and goodness knows there were probably over 20 of them – my Republican opponent started the debate by saying, ‘I want to repeal the Affordable Care Act.’ That was the whole mission – 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 – and here I am.

“Mr. Romney said, ‘I will repeal Obamacare on day one,’ 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.

“The passionate opponents of this Act are acting like those elections just didn't happen. Let’s 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’s not the way our Constitution is supposed to work, and I’m 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 – 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 – most of the Democrats and enough Republicans to achieve a majority, and all of this would be over.

“Speaker Boehner yesterday said two things that I think were important – one I agree with and one I don't. The one I agree with is, he said, ‘This isn't a game,’ and it isn't a game. It's deadly serious. It’s deadly serious because of the impact this shutdown is having on our country and people throughout the country.

“Let'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’ve got people that are not being trained and our defense industrial base is already suffering.

“In 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.

“Why 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, ‘I like the looks of your land. I’d like to buy your farm.’ The farmer says it’s not for sale. The city guys says, ‘Well how about the 50 percent that’s down there on the river. I’d like it buy that.’ ‘It's not for sale.’ ‘How about just the quarter acre right your house is on the road?’ ‘It is not for sale.’ The city guy says, ‘Why won't you negotiate?’

Because it is not for sale.

“This 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 – and here's the real problem – 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’s going to be, ‘Okay, we’ll take another nick.’

“What 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.

“Our 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 – and of course checks and balances is the rest of the Constitution, so that we aren’t abused by our government, but if you take away the governing parts – which is what a budget is – nothing is left but checks and balances.

“The 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. ‘In 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’ by minority rule. ‘It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.’

“Lincoln put it much more succinctly: ‘If 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.’ That's what is at stake here: governing.

“I understand the opposition – although I frankly don’t fully understand not wanting people to have health insurance – 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 – 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.

“I 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.

“Thank you, Madam President.”

###