[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H76-H81]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. White). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, during the course of these special orders, 
is it in order or appropriate, even though I control the time for this 
hour as the designee of the majority leader, is it appropriate to find 
some way to yield the time in an orderly fashion so we might invite our 
friends from the minority to engage in a dialogue about the future of 
this country? For example, in 3-minute allotments to each side. Indeed, 
if I may be so bold and with unanimous consent from my friends from the 
Democratic side, to perhaps continue this through the following hour, 
as they are the designees of the minority leader? What would be in 
order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman that he 
controls the time and he has the right to yield time under whatever 
conditions he may wish to impose.
  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. HAYWORTH. If that is fine, we would ask the Chair's indulgence 
and that of the timekeeper to allow us to know when 3-minute increments 
expire. Is that appropriate? Could we do that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
the gentleman should keep his own time by watching the clock that is on 
the floor. Otherwise he is perfectly entitled to yield as he sees fit.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I certainly, certainly appreciate the Chair's reliance 
on self-sufficiency. I am armed with the second hand of my watch from 
my alma mater, which is altogether reliable. With that in mind I would 
be happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Florida.
  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 

[[Page H77]]
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. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Since my friend from Florida addressed the question to 
the good friend from California, I would be happy to yield time to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. In response, there are two reasons. The first is not at 
all regarding leverage. To pass a continuing resolution is to continue 
the business as usual. It was in this vein that I made my reference to 
the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, President Reagan. What happened in 
those years was a substantial amount of the time that he was in office, 
certainly in his first term, was governed by continuing resolution. 
That postponed the necessity and the eventual achievement of a balance.
  The continuing resolution, there are several possibilities we are 
speaking about, but the essence of it is we postpone the hard choice, 
keep a present level of funding, until we get to where we want to be. 
So that could be continuing forever.
  So the first and most important answer to the gentleman from 
Florida's question is that a continuing resolution constitutes business 
as usual, with the assumptions that will eventually get to that which 
has not yet been resolved, and that is what I think we must say no to.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would yield for a comment to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to answer the question with something 
practical, not necessarily philosophical, but strategically important, 
and that is when we had the November shutdown, the 6-day shutdown, you 
will remember we had a continuing resolution passed that reopened the 
Government for a 3-week period of time, at which time, by December 15, 
the President of the United States was to have submitted a 7-year 
balanced budget, which he did not on December 15.
  So what has happened is there are a lot of Members who feel somewhat, 
``burned once, and it is your fault; burned twice, it is my fault.'' I 
am not going to be burned twice.
  That is their concern. What would be different now? The President did 
not do it then. It was a public agreement to do a Congressional Budget 
Office 7-year balanced budget, which he did not submit.
  The other thing I wanted to say is that we are arguing numbers here. 
We think we should spend $12 trillion over the next 7 years, and the 
President wants to spend $13 trillion over the next 7 years. But beyond 
that we are also arguing policy. We have to have some policy changes. 
For example, give our senior citizens more choices to preserve and 
protect their Medicare program by allowing, for example, a medical 
savings account, which takes a change in the tax law. If you do not 
have that tied into the balanced budget, then, unfortunately, this 
President is not going to do that. He is not going to sign that and 
give our seniors a choice.
  So there is a policy reason, and then there is a strategic reason 
along with the reasons that Mr. Campbell had pointed out.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, there is one thing that undergirds 
this, and that is a moral imperative for generations yet unborn and for 
our children, my son age 2, who will pay in excess of $185,000 in 
interest on our debt if we do nothing.
  With that, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida.

  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. HAYWORTH. We will try to make sure we control that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. I would inform the Members that the 
gentleman from Arizona controls the time. If you want to have an 
informal agreement that you can operate among yourselves, that is fine. 
But from the standpoint of the House rules, the gentleman from Arizona 
controls the time.
  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. HAYWORTH. What I would suggest is what is the big deal about 
giving us 30 days?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me answer the question. If you have 30 days, and I 
am not one who says no CR. I am very concerned about these out-of-work 
employees. But my concern is that if we gave you 30 days, would you and 
your colleagues here tonight have a 7-year balanced budget plan that, 
regardless of what your leadership says or does, that you, the three of 
you, to put you on the spot, would say here is our plan, we are going 
to end up, because I think what it takes at this point is it is going 
to take rank and file assertiveness to come forward and say ``I am 
tired of waiting on the President, I am tired of waiting for our 
folks.''
  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. KINGSTON. Are you saying then the only thing we are arguing is 
the coalition budget versus the Republican budget? If we can establish 
that, I bet we could wind this thing up.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me yield to the gentlewoman from New York for a 
comment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you so much. This is a very helpful discussion and 
I want to thank my good friend on the Committee on Appropriations from 
Georgia, Mr. Kingston, for yielding, for you both yielding to me.
  I think there really is a difference in priorities, and that is a 
healthy debate, as we said before. We can talk about Medicare, and you 
mentioned medical savings accounts. Some of us feel it should be done 
differently. We can talk about Medicaid. We can talk about education, 
the environment. You and I may differ on the depth of the cuts in the 
environment. But I do believe that we can agree that there should be a 
balanced budget. In my judgment, the President, Democrats, and 
Republicans for the most part, have agreed there should be a balanced 
budget.

  This kind of a debate is healthy. We do not have to hold all the 
Federal employees hostage while we are debating very serious questions 
in this country. I do not have a national park in my district. But when 
a national park closes, it is not just the visitors who 

[[Page H78]]
are on Christmas vacation that could not get into the national park. In 
the United States of America, seeing a closed sign to me is outrageous, 
but it is all the small businesses around that national park that are 
being deprived of their livelihood. People who want to get mortgages 
from the FHA cannot get those mortgages. People at veterans hospitals 
are not getting the services. Meals on Wheels, Head Start.
  Why can we not agree to open up the Government, like adults, and then 
continue our serious discussion. I would respectfully disagree with my 
colleague, my distinguished colleague from California, that we can have 
this discussion in an adult atmosphere. Why do we have to hold these 
Federal employees hostage. That seems very wrong to me.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
restrained tones and very sober assessment, and indeed this is 
refreshing compared to some of the things I have heard in this Chamber 
and elsewhere. But I think here is the fundamental problem. In all 
sincerity, I would say to the gentlewoman from New York, it is 
extremely distressing in a free society when the parameters of debate 
are agreed to, to have one party--no, I do not mean Republican and 
Democrat--but I mean one party to the agreement seem to be perhaps 
either confused or deliberately disingenuous as to the parameters or 
the terms of debate. That is what I feel is so difficult.
  Certainly the gentlewoman offered, in a very, I think, understated 
way, a very appealing argument in some ways. The one that is 
fundamentally flawed, because it fails to acknowledge the culpability, 
or let me rephrase that, the responsibility of the executive branch to 
recognize that yes, there is a new majority, and though there may be 
disagreements, there is also a responsibility for the Executive to sign 
appropriation bills to keep people at work. The problem at which we are 
at loggerheads comes from the fact that we just do not seem to get a 
consistent answer from the executive branch.

  Again, as my friend from Georgia pointed out, fool me once, shame on 
you; fool me twice, shame on me. And it is difficult to abandon that, 
because it is more than an obstruction. It is the very crux of the 
problem we face. If the Executive will agree in good faith to the 
parameters, if my friend from Florida and my friend from New York, my 
friend from New Jersey now embrace the budget offered by the minority 
within the minority, then fine, let us move forward and have that 
discussion. But not to be able to get the debate on the table because 
of the shifts that come almost by the nanosecond in the executive 
branch is extremely, extremely distressing.
  Mr. PALLONE. I again appreciate the fact that the gentleman from 
Arizona has yielded us the time, but I am extremely frustrated, and I 
listened to the gentleman from California, who has been here in 
previous sessions with me, and the problem that I have with what the 
gentleman has laid out and what some of my colleagues on the other side 
have laid out is that they are acknowledging in essence that what they 
are doing is having the Government shut down, the Government if you 
will, being held hostage to what they want to accomplish.
  I say this, I am trying to say this in a calm fashion. The reality is 
that historically here procedurally, the procedure has been that the 
Congress passes the appropriations bills or the budget and they send 
them to the President, he vetoes them or he approves them. If he vetoes 
them, he sends back a message which he did in each case with each 
appropriation bill and each budget, and also with the budget bill, and 
then the opportunity exists to either sit down with the White House and 
work out an agreement or to bring up another appropriations bill or 
budget bill that reflects in some measure what the President has said, 
so that a compromise can be reached.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Let me finish, if I could. Historically, while that 
process went on, there were continuing resolutions passed so that the 
Government could continue to operate.
  As the gentleman from Florida stated, those continuing resolutions, 
even the ones we passed for a brief time in November or December, were 
at a much lesser amount than the current operations of the Government. 
So one would make a very legitimate argument to say that there was 
significantly less money that was being spent. And if, in fact, we were 
to continue operating the Government for the rest of the year at those 
lesser amounts, we would probably be saving a tremendous amount of 
money.
  I do not see any argument other than this hostage theory; this theory 
that if we pass a continuing resolution, if we let the Government 
continue to operate, even at a lesser amount, which meets the budget 
demands or the budget parameters, that the problem with that is that 
the Government will continue to operate and we will not be able to come 
to an ultimate agreement over a balanced budget.
  So, basically, what we are saying is, we do not want the CR, we do 
not want the Government to operate because we want this leverage with 
the President.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, and I will be happy to yield to my 
friend from Kentucky and my friend from California in just one moment, 
and I appreciate the measured tones that my friend from New Jersey is 
employing, but to suggest that it is this new majority that holds this 
Government hostage is again to ignore the fact that the President, 
within his constitutional bounds, as the gentleman points out, chose to 
pick up a veto bill because it was more important to him, for whatever 
reason, to veto those appropriations than to work with this majority to 
keep the Government in business.
  So to a certain degree it may be the chicken or the egg argument, but 
I feel compelled to protest, in measured tones, the use of that word. 
Because good people and people of good will should be able to disagree.
  And with that, let me yield to my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I think that argument could be used in the 
other direction that the President is holding us hostage to send him 
appropriation bills that he would sign. It works in the same way.
  Are we supposed to, in the House and the Senate, pass legislation 
that will fit the desires of the President? And if he does not get 
those, then he is going to hold the Government hostage, the Government 
workers. It works the same way. He vetoed those bills. He promised that 
he would work with the Republican Congress to come up with a balanced 
budget before the end of the year. Before the end of the year.
  He signed it and said he would do it, and he did not do it. And he 
vetoed three bills, Commerce, Interior, VA-HUD. If he would have signed 
those, the Government would be in operation for the most part.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time to yield 1 moment to my friend from 
California, and then, of course, I will be happy to hear from my 
friends from the minority.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and, Mr. Speaker, 
in response to the point raised by my good friend from New Jersey there 
are these differences, putting aside entirely the leverage argument. I 
want to do that just for a moment.
  The difficulty with the continuing resolution are the following: 
First of all, nothing structural can or will be done in a continuing 
resolution. This is a given. In order to get to a balanced budget in 7 
years, both sides acknowledges that there has to be structural reform, 
principally on the entitlement side.
  Second, whereas the gentleman from New Jersey is quite right in 
suggesting that a continuing resolution could be at a 75-percent, or 
25-percent, for that matter, expenditure level, the reality from 
history, and here I refer to the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, so a 
member of my own party, was that the continuing resolution that lasted 
longer than the 10 days, any CR that lasts longer than a very short 
time period, in order to have the approval of the House and the other 
body, is a continuation of present expenditure levels.
  I would put this proposition in a straightforward manner. If there 
were a series of CR's, if there were a series of CR's at 75 percent of 
the expenditure level from now for the next 7 years, we would indeed 
balance the Federal budget.

[[Page H79]]

  The last point I would make is the gentleman from New Jersey, I 
believe, or it might have been the gentleman from Florida, drew our 
attention to the coalition budget. Mr. Speaker, I would have been 
thrilled if the President of the United States had put the coalition 
budget on the table, and I would have voted in favor of a CR if he had 
done so.
  The leadership shown by the members of the minority party and the 
majority party, those who worked on the coalition budget, was 
admirable, and if the President had put that forward, I would vote for 
a CR. The President has still to fulfill his part of the obligation to 
put a package on the table.
  So those are the structural reasons why a CR will not do what needs 
to be done, and the historical record is, in the first 3 years of the 
Reagan administration, when we were governed largely by the CR, there 
was no structural change, nor could we expect there to be substantial 
cuts.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I believe my friend from Georgia 
wants to ask a question of our friends on the minority.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, the gentleman from New Jersey is about to burst 
in thought here, so I want to yield to him for a question.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
for his rejoinder and then we will return to our friend from Georgia.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to use a brief amount of time. First of all, I 
would point out, and, again, I will not use the word ``hostage'' 
anymore this evening, although I feel that way, but I will not use it.
  I would point out, first of all, that the coalition has on many 
occasions tried to bring their budget before this House. They have 
tried it on a privileged measure, they have tried many times.
  I have seen the gentleman from Mississippi, Gene Taylor, and the 
gentleman from Texas, Charlie Stenholm, and I have seen many others 
over the last week or so before the Christmas break try to bring the 
coalition budget to the floor. So the suggestion that somehow the 
coalition budget is not on the table, the only reason it has not been 
brought up again is because the leadership, the Republican leadership, 
has not allowed it to be brought up. I think one of the reasons for 
that is because it may very well be it would get enough votes to pass.
  Let me say one more thing, and then I will not talk for a while. I am 
listening to the debate tonight. I think it is very, very instructive 
and very helpful, but the bottom line is that right now the Government 
is shut down, and if tomorrow we bring up this motion and we allow the 
Speaker to have recess authority and the Government is shut down for 
another 2 or 3 weeks, I do not believe that the leverage that it seems 
that your side is trying to use to bring the President to do certain 
things is going to work.

  In other words, we have been at this now for several weeks. This is 
the 19th day. The whole notion that somehow shutting down the 
Government is going to exercise some leverage over the President or 
over the Democrats is just not happening.
  So I guess I am wondering, how long is this going to go on? Will this 
go on for another 2 or 3 weeks or another month, another 6 months, or 
whatever? At some point there has to be a recognition of the fact that 
this effort to leverage, if you will, the Government shutdown, is not 
accomplishing its goal, and that the budget negotiations, which 
actually are happening between the President and the Republican 
leadership, does seem to have some positive value. They are meeting 
every day. They are talking. Both sides claim that it has been very 
positive. So what is the point?
  The only people, it seems to me, that are suffering are the 
Government employees and the American taxpayers who are not getting the 
services. So even if we buy the leverage theory, I do not think it is 
working and everybody is meeting now and talking about the budget 
anyway.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's 
heartfelt sentiments. Perhaps I am guilty too, sometimes, of verbosity. 
I know he had a lot to say there and challenged to do it in a brief 
period of time.
  Again, before I yield to my friend from Georgia, let me respectfully 
suggest to my friend from New Jersey, again, as has been stated by my 
colleagues, this is not about leverage, this is about the future. It is 
about a free society, people of goodwill from opposite points of view 
agreeing to broad parameters, in terms of debate, upon which 
disagreements may be resolved.
  What is especially disturbing is that this pattern portends something 
that is less than the common good, because, in the words of columnist 
Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post 2 months ago, ``When one 
side continues to repeatedly distort the facts and the evidence, then 
the purpose is not to debate, it is to destroy.''
  With that, I yield to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to ask my colleagues this question, and I want 
them to think about it in the context of the debate in the last couple 
of weeks. Is the issue the Government shutdown or is the issue 
balancing the budget?
  It would appear to me, as I have listened to the debate over the last 
couple of weeks, that the issue is the shutdown. We are concentrating 
so much on it, I am wondering if, for some Members, it is not a red 
herring. Because if it is not the issue, and the issue really is a 
balanced budget, then should your Members not join our Members in being 
absolutely outraged that the President, during that 3-week grace 
period, did not offer a balanced budget scored by the Congressional 
Budget Office?
  And, as my colleagues pointed out, it seems all three of you support 
the coalition budget, or you are close to it. Why not put that on the 
table? The second he does that, the Government is reopened.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time briefly. Let me just ask my 
colleagues, did all three of you vote for the coalition budget when it 
appeared on this floor?

  Mr. PALLONE. No. But again, if I could----
  Mrs. LOWEY. No, but I would be happy----
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. So the gentleman from New Jersey did not; the 
gentlewoman from New York did not, and the gentleman from Florida did.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. That's right.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. So, again, a majority of the minority here tonight did 
not support that budget when it was brought to the floor.
  Mrs. LOWEY. No, but I would be very pleased if the gentleman would 
yield for a response to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I asked that question because I just want you to really 
think about this. Should we not all, as a body, be outraged that the 
President, during that 3-week grace period, under the agreed handshake 
of, yes, I will put a 7-year balanced budget on the table by December 
15, should we not all be outraged that he did not; rather than outraged 
at Newt Gingrich because the Government is closed down, when, in fact, 
the President of the United States has as much to do with it, if not 
more?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me yield to the gentlewoman from New York and then 
the gentleman from Florida.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Just briefly I would like to respond to my good friend 
from Georgia, because he asks a very key question: Should we not be 
focused on the balanced budget rather than the shutdown. And I think 
that is what my colleagues and I are saying this evening. Let us open 
the Government. Let us make sure these people go back to work. Let us 
make sure that the Head Start centers and the Meals on Wheels and the 
nutrition sites and the parks and the businesses continue operating and 
let us focus together on the balanced budget.
  I think many of us would have differences of opinion if we took the 
Republican budget and talked about specific parts of it, I do not think 
that is what we are doing tonight, or talked about the President's 
budget, talked about his forecast for the next 7 years or the next 6 
years, or 5 years. In fact, there was an outstanding article in the 
Wall Street Journal, I believe most of us have read it, talking about 
the Republican budget and how its predictions are questionable, and 
what happens after the 7th year, and does the deficit rise, and should 
a tax cut of that magnitude be put in place.

[[Page H80]]

  There are some real questions that I think we could debate in a 
healthy, open way. So I would like to just say to my good friend from 
Georgia, let us just focus on the balanced budget. Let us have a 
healthy debate about Medicare, Medicaid. The President wants to 
preserve Medicare, Medicaid. He may want to change it differently from 
my colleagues, from myself, or others of us, but let us open the 
Government.
  And, in fact, is it not strange that the leading contender for 
President on the Republican side wants to have a continuing resolution, 
agrees with the President, but that in our body we cannot get that 
done?
  I think that is the best way to focus on a balanced budget. Open the 
Government and let us focus all our discussion on the balanced budget.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for her observation and would 
yield to my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis] and then I 
promise, I will yield to my friend from Florida.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. With all due respect, why now are we hearing 
from the other side that we need to focus on the balanced budget, get a 
continuing resolution, move away from the government shutdown, when we 
did not hear anything from the other side about a balanced budget until 
just recently this last year?
  What we heard from the very beginning of the 104th Congress was a lot 
of rhetoric, a lot of words like ``extremists,'' ``mean-spirited,'' 
that we were ``cutting,'' ``slashing,'' going to ``destroy Medicare,'' 
we were going to ``starve children to death.'' I did not hear any 
proposals from the other side about a balanced budget, about saving 
Medicare, about reforming welfare, about all the things that now we 
seem to want to focus on.
  Just this very evening, I sat up here in the House and listened to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] say that we disliked Federal 
workers and even the military. I heard a lot of individuals talking 
about how extreme and how terrible we really are because we want a 
balanced budget.
  The question I have tonight: How can we trust, how can we trust the 
President when he has told us so many times that he is going to do 
this, and he is going to do that, and he does not follow through? How 
can we trust individuals that want to use that type of rhetoric and not 
get to a real debate, and then talk about how that we should keep our 
words and our conduct within the parameters of civility?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time to allow my friend from Florida a 
chance to answer those questions.
  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. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, it is a fair question that I would 
like to answer. When the Chief Executive vetoes the balanced budget 
offered by this House and the other body, when the Chief Executive does 
that, then he puts upon his shoulders, if you will, he foists upon 
himself and his branch of government the responsibility for offering an 
alternative.
  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. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
respectfully disagree with the gentleman from Florida. I think 
certainly the President purposely led the Members of Congress to 
believe, and remember I believe there were 68 Democrats who voted with 
the Republicans to reopen the Government in November under the clear 
understanding that the President would offer a balanced budget within 
that 3-week period. I thought, as a naive, fairly new comer here that 
we would have this thing wound up by December 15 and, if not, operate 
under continuing resolutions.
  But let me emphasize, even now, if the President, and I will not call 
him the porcelain President, although that has been suggested, but if 
he would make one sign of good faith negotiation, just offer the 
coalition budget or coalition modified or anything that is 7-years, 
Congressional Budget Office, then we reopen the government tomorrow.
  Let me reemphasize, I am not one who belongs to the caucus within the 
Congress of saying ``Do not reopen until it is finally done,'' because 
I am very concerned about these folks. I see a lot of gray area in 
here. But what I do not see any gray area in is in good faith 
bargaining.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida [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. HAYWORTH. To reclaim my time before I yield to my friend from New 
Jersey, ``History does not repeat itself, it rhymes.'' I am fond of 
that statement from Mark Twain. Our most recent history provided a 
continuing resolution. People may disagree as to the emphasis or the 
subtleties that I do not see appearing in that document. But when we 
have a situation, the gentleman used the term ``disingenuous'', when 
there is that situation and that unfortunate suspicion, it is very 
difficult, because it completely changes the parameters and fails to 
have common terms of agreement for debate in conflict resolution.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me just 
say this first of all. I guess I am somewhat amazed and trying to 
contain myself because I have never seen anyone as a Chief Executive 
who has been more willing to sit down and negotiate and spend time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time briefly for this question, where was 
he for the first 3 weeks after the public law was signed? Where was the 
negotiation for those 3 weeks?
  Mr. PALLONE. The bottom line is, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. PALLONE. The American people, whether it is public opinion polls 
or just my own talking to people, my own constituents believe very 
strongly that the President is the last person who is not trying to 
come to an agreement and not trying to negotiate in good faith. He is 
the one who constantly says, ``Let us negotiate. Let us sit down.''
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, we certainly all come from very 
different districts across the width and breadth of this continent.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to respond 
to the gentleman from New Jersey and since the gentleman is about to 
control the time, may I go ahead?
  Mr. PALLONE. What I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Georgia, 
for whom I have the utmost respect, I have 

[[Page H81]]
a basic disagreement with many of my colleagues on the other side 
because I believe the differences over this budget between Democrats 
and Republican, even if you compare the coalition budget to the budget 
that the Republican majority passed, the differences are significant. 
They are going to take weeks to work out. This is not something that 
can be worked out at the stroke of a pen.
  There are differences over entitlement status of Medicaid; over 
standards that are going to be applied for Medicaid for nursing homes; 
difference over environmental protection. I think in many ways it is 
sort of naive to suggest that somehow this can be worked out in 48 
hours or 72 hours or a week or even 2 weeks.
  So, as these negotiations go on, and we eventually reach an agreement 
that both sides can live with, it makes sense to keep the Government 
open. There is no way this is going to happen overnight.

                          ____________________