Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. I am going to control the next 5 minutes and I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I am going to be really fair and assume that I took over that 5 minutes. Actually, let me take about 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from California's question. I think it is a very serious question and a very good question. I would tell you, I really believe there is a middle ground that unfortunately, I will be honest with you, I do not think either party represents. I think what the President said privately, I do not believe he said it publicly, he wants a budget that 100 Republicans and 100 Democrats will vote for. But the truth is in this Chamber, the way this process works, we are never going to have an opportunity to vote for a budget that 107 Democrats and Republicans will vote for, but we might. Let me follow through on that thought, because something is going to give. What is going to give is either there is going to be a two- thirds, or it might not, projecting the way this thing is going to play itself out.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Two-thirds of us.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Reclaiming my time, that is also a very good question that needs to be responded to. Let me talk about the Constitution for a second, because I think the Speaker, speaks of the Constitution and he is a historian of the Constitution. He is a professor. He speaks as a professor quite often. The Constitution has a role in all this debate. We go back to that. What is our job? Our job is to appropriate. That is our power, going back to the Magna Carta. How many times have we heard the Speaker talk about the Magna Carta? That is our job. We are appropriating. There is a whole process set in place in the Constitution. The President has a role in our system of government. He has a role in the constitutional authority to veto appropriations bills that he finds objectionable and give to us those reasons. We have the constitutional option at that point, which is to override his veto or to send him another bill. But one of the questions which your side has not really answered, and, truthfully, it is disturbing, is that all of sudden you as the controlling part in this Chamber have now put into the Constitution a third option which really does not exist in the Constitution, which is what is going on now. What should be happening is going back and back, because I will tell you absolutely the truth, and I speak with absolute certainly this will happen: If you kept sending the President veto messages, eventually you will get a two-thirds veto override. I guarantee that will happen.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield the gentleman 5 minutes that he is not going to control.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I want to respond actually to a couple of things because I have been taking notes, and this really is a dialog, and I would really like to respond to a number of things. The gentleman from California, I think, made a good point in terms of saying that the out years really are more difficult than the just the first year. The first year is difficult as well in terms of cutbacks that are taking place, real dollars levels less than, not inflation- adjusted or anything else, real dollars less than the previous year, I mean bottom-line reductions in a variety of programs. But I think what you obviously understand and what people need to understand is next year's Congress can change this budget. I mean, we can only obligate ourselves legally for the year, for while we are here for this year, we cannot obligate ourselves for next year. We are putting a framework in place, so I guess the reason why I bring that out is that your concern, and I am not arguing for a continuing resolution at all and I think you know, maybe it is a realization on our part, that we might not come to a resolution, and that is one of the reasons why, if we were under a balanced budget amendment, we would not be having this debate because that would be the sandbox that we were playing in. And by one vote, we are not having a balanced budget amendment in this country. This House overwhelmingly supported a balanced budget amendment. So, again, I guess, let me just really focus in on that point just a little bit more and to say to you that, you know, we are 10 months away from an election. You know, we are having this debate now, and we are not going in circles yet but we are getting close to the point of going in circles, that when we look at what is happening to the economy in this country today on a micro level, whether it is a small city next to Yosemite Park, whether it is a business that cannot get a EPA inspector to inspect a site in Houston, TX, and people get laid off because of that, whether it is a motel in Flamingo, FL, in my district, those are things that are adding up and happening. You keep saying, and we have heard it now, that you do not want to do the continuing resolution because it sort of frees things up. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. DEUTSCH. If I could respond, let me respond, I think this really has been very healthy. I think there are some of us on our side, and hopefully there is a realization for some of you on your side as well, that as hard as we work as individuals and collectively as a body, that at the end of the day there might not be an agreement, that although there are general areas of agreement, that disagreement in terms of Medicare, your proposals, and what most of us want to see happen are really totally different. We see the problem differently. We, many of us, see the problem the same way you do on welfare reform, but there are some areas where we do not, and I guess my question to you is that I think you as individuals and collectively need to come to a realization that there might not be a point, I mean, we are hoping and we are working, we are up late at night tonight, and hopefully they are still at the White House working to come to that agreement, but if those agreements, if those disagreements are such that there cannot be a compromise, I mean, I absolutely believe that the approach to try to leverage President Bill Clinton is just not going to work. I mean Bill Clinton, you know, whatever someone might think of him, is not someone who is going to be intimidated by pressure, by threats or by anything like that. I think a lot of people on your side think that he is going to be. I think you are totally misreading the man, and because of that there is a possibility that this might last not 12 months, as the gentleman has said several times at this point, 10 months, and I guess what I still do not understand is what is the big deal about the 1-month period, and then maybe at that point we have 9 months. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Send him some more budgets.

Mr. DEUTSCH. The gentleman from Georgia still controls 1 minute.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. I have a stopwatch on my wrist that counts down in 5 minutes, so what I would like to do is yield the gentleman 5 minutes and he will control that 5 minutes.

Mr. DEUTSCH. It is my cheap little plastic watch.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. My response to the gentleman from Georgia, and the distinguished gentleman is not just a Member of this body, but a practicing attorney before he came here and a very wise attorney and a very excellent attorney, you want to look for good faith. Look over the last week when if we add up the number of hours that the President has been personally engaged in discussions with the Speaker and the majority leader in the Senate, adding up to scores of hours at this point in time. Again, I would go back to your question. Now the gentleman is deciding, as one of 435 Members of this institution, this is what the President has to do before we open up the Government. What I guess I am really hearing, and sort of seeing things as you see them, I am sure if I sat where you sat I would probably see them a little differently in terms of the President's behavior. But still you can look at it from where I am. There is still enough good faith. All of us have a sworn constitutional duty to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of this country. Then why not give the President the benefit of the doubt for another 30 days?

Mr. DEUTSCH. If the gentleman would yield, I am glad you cleared that up, because in the sort of English language that I understand, that is a lot different than a flat-out lie or a flat-out mistake. If that is what you are going to say is the statement of the President, that he did not do it because he did not come back to you, that is a little bit different than being so disingenuous with us, about lying to you.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I do not want to focus on what the President said and what the President did not say. But I read the signature and the agreement on the continuing resolution, and I guess what I have heard now several times this evening is the President committing to a specific submission of a 7-year CBO. That is what he agreed would happen, but he did not agree that he was going to submit it. And to say that they are outraged that the President lied to you, I mean, he did not say that, at least as far as I am aware. I think it is a fundamental question.

Mr. DEUTSCH. That's right.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEUTSCH. I will take the time back. I would say to you, you know for a fact that a large number of Democratic colleagues did exactly that. They had a budget that was voted on this House floor that was a balanced budget, that used CBO numbers, the so-called coalition budget. It is still out there on the table. So there are a large number of Democrats on this side of the aisle that did exactly that.

Mr. DEUTSCH. If we can just with the Members who are here, if we can actually, it might be easier logistically, when you yield, whoever you yield to controls the time for 3 minutes. We cannot go through you.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Informally, because we are trying to get debate in front of what we are saying. If I could take 15 seconds, I know my colleagues wanted to respond to this, because we are at the heart of the dialog. What I would suggest to the gentleman from California are two very specific things: In a continuing resolution, you have the ability to focus in not business as usual, which is something I would agree with the gentleman about. You have the ability to pick numbers which are the lowest numbers of the House or Senate. You have the ability to constrain Government spending, to get toward your targeted goals. And you also have the ability to do it for 30 days, or less, but 30 days. If you look at what is happening to our country today in terms of the suffering, and just again the waste, the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars of waste on a macro effect. We know this is hurting our economy. For 30 days to pass a CR, and again I know there are some people on the other side of the aisle who feel the President was not truthful to them but I think there are others who feel maybe he was truthful and maybe there was just a misinterpretation.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you. I appreciate this. I think this is what we should be doing in really having a dialogue. That is a lot more healthy in terms of debate. And I am not questioning anyone's motives in terms of what they are doing and believe. I listened intently to the gentleman from California in terms of his statement. But I would just question him, and I agree really probably with 95 percent of what he said, I voted for the balanced budget amendment, I believe exactly the way the gentleman does about the future of our children and our grandchildren in terms of the fiscal responsibility of this country. But my question really to the gentleman would be, I agree with 95 percent of what the gentleman said. But why not pass a continuing resolution? How does the gentleman defend the fact that you folks are stopping us from passing a continuing resolution, which does not have anything to do with that issue? It is just that it is a leverage approach, which I think is ultimately going to hurt you politically, but I think it is really hurting the country today.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would control the next hour, and would be happy to agree for the following hour after the next 45 minutes that the gentleman from Arizona controls; I would continue that exact same procedure on a 3-minute type basis.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, when my Republican colleagues came to Congress, they promised us that they would run government like a business. Well, think about this business. There is a disagreement between the CEO and the board of directors, and what they decide to do is furlough the workers and pay them; and that is what has been going on for the last 19 days. We have furloughed the workers and we have paid them, and it has cost us $40 million a day for 19 days, three-quarters of a billion dollars, by those people who have promised us to run government like a business. Let us see what we have done with $40 billion, $80 billion, $120 billion, $160 billion.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. I thank the gentleman. I guess I pose the question to my Republican colleagues who are here, two freshman Republicans who are about to take over the next special order, and the question is, they came here saying they were going to run Government like a business. What we have is a situation, if you would think about it, in any corporation in American where the CEO has a disagreement with the board of directors. And what they decide to do is, they decide to furlough the workers and pay them. If you think about that, furlough the workers and pay them when they have a disagreement, and I guess I would throw back to any of my Republican colleagues or anyone in America, is there any corporation in America that would do that? Absolutely not. And if any corporation did that, if it were a publicly traded corporation, the value of that corporation would disintegrate the following day. That is exactly what we have done. Again, if we think about what is going on, it is a situation that is totally indefensible. Adults have disagreements. They have disagreements, and what they do in those disagreements, is, they try to work out those disagreements. On a practical level what is happening is we are actually wasting taxpayer dollars, about $50 million a day of actual salary expenditure, $50 million a day for the last 19 days, over $750 million that has been wasted in direct taxpayer dollars to date. The last shutdown cost about $750 million in direct payments, $1.5 billion in direct taxpayer waste, which is going to take a long time to catch up on that $1.5 billion, but there is a multiplier effect. There is a huge multiplier effect. It is probably a 10 to 50 times multiplier effect in terms of what is happening. You cannot get a visa to come to the United States of America today, if you are in any country in the world that needs a visa to come to America. When those people come, they travel, and luckily a lot of them come to south Florida and my district. They spend plenty of money, on average a couple of hundred dollars a person, and there is a multiplier effect on the couple of hundred dollars they are spending. Those people are not coming. There are 2,500 HUD home loans that are approved every day. That has a multiplier effect. That is not happening. In my district, whether it is the Flamingo--I have three national parks in my district--whether it is a hotel in Flamingo, FL, in the Everglades National Park, or closing down fishing in Florida Bay where people would come and spend money, that is not happening. Again, for anyone who is listening, for my colleagues on the Republican side, try to explain to me why we cannot pass a CR and agree to disagree and keep working on this. It is not unprecedented that the President and the Congress have had disagreements over the budget. For 2 full years under the Reagan administration, we operated under CR's. That is not such a terrible thing. And let the voters decide in November. But to do this destructive behavior, which is really what it is, it is destructive behavior for ourselves, for our children, for our economy, is just wrong, immoral, and just plain stupid.