Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to point out two things. One to my good friend and colleague from Florida, there is a reconciliation bill that we are going to take up actually in a very short period of time that is this high, or higher. It includes untold numbers of pieces of legislation. The gentleman is on the Committee on Rules. He probably does not even know how many different bills. My colleague still has time. There is another bill you can put in reconciliation, which is the line-item veto bill. That in fact deals with your issue of the Senate filibuster, because as the gentleman is well aware, in the Senate the reconciliation bill needs only 50 votes, or 51 votes. Actually 50 votes because that is something that the President has supported. I assume the Vice President will follow the President's leads on that issue. You have put everything else in the reconciliation bill. Here is your opportunity to do the right thing. I have to respond to my colleague's last statement on the floor. Gridlock. My God, when this Chamber has wanted to do something, the rules of this House allow you to do things pretty darn fast when you want to do them fast, without debate, without any discussion. You get it done. We have 1 day hearing, less than a day of hearing on Medicare, 27 days on Whitewater, 84 days on Ruby Ridge. You guys control the time. There is an incredible limit in terms of what we can do. You can do it today. Here is your opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am hearing sort of a repetition of debate. I keep hearing being pointed out that there are Democrats opposed to this issue. There are also Republicans opposed to this issue, but they have been in the majority not that long. Maybe they have not gotten it yet, that they, in fact, are in the majority now; and they do not need any of our votes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] that the majority controls the conference committee and there are Members of your party and my party that voted against this. The Republican party, the day it wants, can pass out of conference without a doubt. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green]. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, they are important groups and I seek their support. The organization that you mention is not one of them. Let me also mention that I would like to offer a wager to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], of Florida oranges versus New York apples, as the whether this is ultimately adopted into law. In front of the world I offer the gentleman that wager. If the gentleman is willing to accept it, I would be happy for him to accept it.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, on February 6 of this year, this House passed by a 294 vote a line-item veto bill. The Senate subsequently passed the vote as well. It took 7 months. We went through the winter, the spring, the summer, and then we came into the fall, just about the fall again, and September 20, conferees were appointed. I think there is a question, really, of the sincerity of conferees and appointing conferees when it has taken this long. This is an idea which not only has the support or the voting support of the majority of the Members of this House, but I really think a clear majority of the American people as well; 38 States have line-item vetoes. If we are talking about fiscal restraint, this is the way to go. What this proposal does, Mr. Speaker, what this motion to instruct says is if we are going to have a line-item veto, let us get the job done. Let us apply it to 1995 appropriations bills and budget bills.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on the Senate bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the President to reduce budget authority.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, this body is the greatest deliberative body in the world. I mean, I have a thrill every time I come into this Chamber, and really thank God that I have the opportunity to serve the people of my district and the people of this country. I think what the people of this country want from us is nothing more than taking the high road. That is what they want from us. You know, there is an old expression that all of us know: If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck and feels like a duck, you know, there is probably a pretty darn good chance it is a duck. You know, if it sounds like you delaying, if it sounds like you are delaying, if it talks like you are delaying, if it smells like you are delaying, if it hears like you are delaying, if it feels like you are delaying, then you are delaying. You can protest as much as you want. But, you know, I just do not believe it stands up to the light of day. Let me talk about something that has been reported in the press today. This is a USA Today article talking about some of the tax breaks that are in the reconciliation bill as it is coming before us, things like college football coaches, college football coaches. You can read it in today's USA Today: College football, not basketball coaches or volleyball coaches, but college football coaches get a special tax break because they have friends in powerful places. Convenience store owners, because of a large company in a particular Member's district, get a special tax break, and that is someone from Oklahoma who is able to get that into the bill. I mean, this is business as usual. This would make Dan Rostenkowski proud. Let me just say that, you know, that is what is going on, and that is what should not be going on. If my colleagues on the other side want to be the majority party into the next century, then shame, shame, shame, shame. They should not be doing this. The same thing in terms of appropriations. Here is a list that my staff prepared for me of really turkeys, I mean outrageous, turkeys, that, you know, it seems as if what is going on to pass this reconciliation bill is a bidding war. You know, Members come and they say, ``This is what I need and buy me off and give it to me.'' Well, that is business as usual. That is not what the American people want. Again, I say to my colleagues on the other side, the smartest thing they can do and the best politically but also from a policy perspective is to stop playing the games and pass this bill. As has been pointed out before, there are 38 States in this country that provide a line-item veto for their Governors, and it has also been pointed out, I served 10 years in the State legislature in Florida. I served under Republican Governors and served under Democratic Governors as well. I tell you the system worked. It worked in Florida. I have talked to Members from other States. It has worked there. Not only does it give the Governor an opportunity to veto turkeys, outrageous things like these outrageous things like this that we are going to be voting on that are flat-out wrong. What it does, it prevents them from happening. People do not want to be embarrassed by highlighting those issues that might be in there. You know, it is a very simple debate, as well. The bill needs to apply to this year. If there is going to be line-item veto, apply it this year. There is no rational policy reason why it should not apply to this year, and, you know, we both talk about how we want to get away from the partisan politics, and that is not why people sent us here. I mean, I represent everyone in my district whether they are registered as a Democrat, as a Republican, or Independent or any other party. Americans are Americans. They are not Americans by party definition. What is good for this country does not just fall on individuals in political parties. It is good for this country, and it continues to make this country the greatest country in the world and the greatest country in the history of the world. I really urge my colleagues who have the ability on the other side of the aisle to use their majority as it should be used, to do the right thing, not to talk on the floor and say one thing but take 7 months to appoint conferees, to smirk when we are talking about issues in terms of resolving this issue, which just has not been done. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1595, which is a piece of legislation that will facilitate a long overdue movement of the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is the only Embassy in the world, American Embassy, that is not in the capital that is designated by the country that the Embassy is in. It is unprecedented and almost bizarre that it exists at this point in time. It is an anachronism from a misguided policy of really 40 years ago that this country has continued. I really congratulate my colleagues in the leadership of this House for bringing this bill to the floor at this time. It is a bill that really should not be necessary, but we are here today discussing it and hopefully we will pass it in a few minutes. It is setting the size of the sandbox. Why should this Congress be dictating to another country what their capital is? Obviously Jerusalem is the center of the world for most people on this planet. But still that remains the capital of the state of Israel. To offer anything else but passage of this resolution today, I think, would be really sending a terrible signal to the world, a terrible signal. In fact, I would argue very strongly that failure to get the two-thirds vote on this bill today would be sending an exactly wrong message because it would be sending a message that there is not resolve in this Congress of support of the peace process and that there is an opening in terms of what could happen in terms of Jerusalem, that the United States Congress has weakened its supports for this peace process. So I really urge my colleagues, hopefully as close to unanimous as we can be in support of this process, that we will continue an effort, and I hope we have a situation in the Middle East that we will have peace in that region for all time.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak in support of S. 1322, a piece of legislation that will facilitate a long overdue movement of the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As an original cosponsor and strong advocate of relocating our embassy to Jerusalem, I congratulate the leadership in both the House and Senate for making this a priority and moving this legislation. For 3,000 years Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people, the very heart of its religious, spiritual, cultural, and national life. It is and will forever be the eternal, undivided capital of Israel. Yet for nearly five decades Israel's closest ally--the United States--has failed to acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital. In fact, Israel is the only country in the world that the United States does not recognize the designated capital of the host country. When you think about it, out position is nothing short of bizarre, illogical, and offensive. For 47 years, the United States has shared an extraordinary friendship with Israel but for 47 years, the United States has been frozen in this state of inconsistency and insensitivity. But instead of looking back at what may be our mistake let's look ahead at what may be our fortune. As the peace process moves forward, moving the United States embassy to Jerusalem will send a clear message to the world, to the Middle East and most importantly, to the Palestinians that America supports Israel's claim to Jerusalem. We must stand behind Prime Minister Rabin's words to the Knesset: United Jerusalem will not be open to negotiation. It has been and will forecer be the capital of the Jewish people, under Isreali sovereignty, a focus of the dreams and longings of every Jew. For far too long, the United States has allowed this matter to linger in ambiguity throughout the peace talks. There is absolutely no reason to risk uncertainty about the U.S. Government's commitment to the status and the destiny of Jerusalem. Tomorrow, Prime Minister Rabin will be here to celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. What better way for the United States to celebrate this occasion with Israel than to begin the process of relocating our embassy to Jerusalem.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXVIII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on S. 4 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Deutsch moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendments to the bill S. 4 be instructed, within the scope of the conference, to insist upon the inclusion of provisions to require that the bill apply to the targeted tax benefit provisions of any revenue or reconciliation bill enacted into law during or after fiscal year 1995.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak tonight on something we did last week and we are probably going to do again on Thursday, and that is to pass a bill that basically eliminates Medicare in this country. We will pass it again as part of the reconciliation bill on Thursday, and it will go over to the Senate. The reason I am speaking about it is with the faint hope that my colleagues on the majority side will try to make some changes. I just doubt that will happen between now and Thursday, but the good news is it is a bicameral legislature, and the Senate will have the possibility to deal with this, and ultimately this is a piece of legislation that will go in front of the President. The President has issued a statement he will veto this legislation. I urge him [[Page H 10697]] and I think all Americans need to urge him to follow through on that veto. I think it is worth it to really focus on the facts on this issue. I am going to talk about three facts and just go through them very clearly, very specifically, because this is a case that the more that the American people know about what the Republican majority is doing to Medicare, the more disturbing, the more distressing that it is. It is truly as bad as people's worst nightmare in this country. The first thing is this whole debate has started because my Republican colleagues say Medicare is going bankrupt in 7 years. We have to do something to save Medicare. It is going bankrupt in 7 years. Well, one of the things that this chart points out, and this I think really says it in black and white, is if you look at the 30 years that Medicare has existed, 12 of those 30 years Medicare had an actuarial life less than what it has today. In fact, in several years it had only a 2-year actuarial life. What Congress has done is made adjustments to the Medicare system like any health care insurance program, which is what Medicare is, and has made adjustments to correct those actuarial deficiencies. So the first big flat out lie that my Republican colleagues have made in this legislation is this is unprecedented. That is just not the case. The second flat out lie that they have made is that it requires $270 billion to correct. Where did the $270 billion number come from? There are actuarial, nonpolitical, technical people whom evaluate the solvency of the Medicare program. No one has come up with any numbers anywhere near $270 billion. Where did that number come from? Where it came from, it was a derived number from the budget process. The Republicans, as they were drawing up their budget, came up with a hole of $270 billion. And the only place that they went to, they could have gone to Social Security, but they were a little bit more fearful of that, they went to Medicare for a $270 billion gap to fill the hole. What is in that hole? Well, there is a variety of things in that hole, including a military budget above what the President has requested and what the Joint Chiefs of Staff and divisions of different branches of the military has requested. But they are also including tax breaks of the worst kind that are outrageous from this government's and from the people of this country's perspective. Special interests at the worst level; it is a list that gets longer and longer. Who did what for who? College football coaches, convenience stores, certain specific companies get tax breaks in this legislation, on the backs of 36 million Medicare recipients, who worked hard and played by the rules, and yet if this legislation passes and is not vetoed, would in fact occur. So that is the second big lie, which is a $270 billion number. And the third and final big lie that I will mention is this whole idea of choice. My Republican colleagues consistently say that the Medicare proposal that they pass, and they will pass again this week, provides choice. They continuously say it provides choice for Medicare recipients. What it provides is a false choice. It provides a false choice, because what will inevitably happen, and this legislation is set up to make this happen, is that for anyone who remains in traditional Medicare, the out-of-pocket costs will be astronomical, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,000 a year for seniors. To put it in perspective, 75 percent of the seniors in this country, their income is less than $25,000 a year, so we are talking about $4,000 out-of-pocket for someone in that category. It just does not work. So what will end up inevitably happening is that 90-plus percent of seniors will be forced into substandard HMO's. I urge everyone to both write their Senators and urge the President to veto this legislation.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, you know, sometimes we can make complicated issues simple. If we are saving $270 billion and there are 37.6 million beneficiaries, this is what it is going to cost each Medicare beneficiary in America, whether in terms of direct out-of- pocket expenses or not. There is another chart which I think is probably the best chart and the clearest and most factual, and if we can focus in on this so people watching can see, my Republican colleagues have said we have to do something, there is this incredible crisis, the trust fund is gong to go bankrupt in 7 years. Well, the Medicare Program has existed for 30 years. Twelve of those thirty years there was a shorter life expectancy than 7 years that exists today, and we did incremental changes. We fixed it. It is a flat-out lie that this is unprecedented. It is a flat-out lie that $270 billion needs to be cut. It is a flat-out lie that choice will be available for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that under the Gingrich Medicare plan, the hospitals in and around the district of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] would lose $232 million over the next 7 years to pay for the program and tax cuts for the very rich in this country.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because my Republican colleagues want to destroy Medicare, and their premise is that Medicare will be bankrupt in 7 years. What I have here is a chart that points out a fact, which is that in the 30 years of Medicare's existence, the actuarial life of Medicare was less than 7 years. This is not unprecedented. It is a flatout lie that my Republican colleagues have been stating about the unprecedented nature of the 7-year actuarial life. The $270 billion in cuts, as my Republican colleagues have been talking about, is also a flatout lie. The trustee report calls for a far less number in terms of what would make actuarial sense for the Medicare system. The choice that my Republican colleagues have been talking about is a false choice. Everyone in this Chamber, everyone in America knows what the agenda is. The agenda is to force people into substandard HMO's because the reimbursement level in a traditional Medicare will be so low. Just because people are old in this country does not mean they are stupid. The American people will not believe what the Republicans are doing.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if we can focus in on this chart, the facts are that in the 30 years of the Medicare system, for 12 of those 30 years there was less of an actuarial life than there is today; less than 7 years, 12 of the 30 years. This is not a crisis that all of a sudden erupted. That is the nature of insurance programs. Contrary to what my colleagues have said, we took some tough votes in my first year in the Congress. We took a tough vote to change some of the actuarial problems in the system. We can do that again. But we are choosing not to. This program that is going to pass this House tomorrow has nothing to do with saving Medicare. It is a flat-out lie. The $270 billion number is a flat-out lie. That has nothing to do with the trustee report.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, no, I will not yield. What the Republican plan is doing is creating a false choice for Medicare beneficiaries throughout this country. What they are doing essentially is a false choice because, if the Medicare reimbursement, traditional Medicare, becomes so low and balanced billing is eliminated, which it will be, which will allow physicians to charge whatever they want, where today they cannot and protect senior citizens, over 30 million Americans, when that changes, seniors will be forced into HMO's, not by choice. It will be a false choice. They will be forced into HMO's. Let me just conclude that seniors in this country believe that Republicans want to save Medicare probably as much as the Jewish community in this country believes that Farrakhan should be the head of the Jewish Federation. It is just not a reality. I think this chart and the outright distortions that have been made on this floor this evening and will be made tomorrow, the numbers speak for themselves. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Actually could I have the last poster, please? The previous one you cite the----

Mr. DEUTSCH. Does the gentleman yield for 1 second?

Mr. DEUTSCH. You know you have a quote from the trustee report up on the last poster, and would the gentleman agree with the trustee report which does not call for $270 billion in cuts?