Transcript: 10 Freshmen Lawmakers Talk With Diane Sawyer

PHOTO: Tea Party Roundtable with Diane Sawyer

Diane Sawyer interviews Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Marlin Stutzman (Ind.), Frank Guinta (N.H.), Vicky Hartzler (Mo.), Scott Tipton (Col.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), and Michael Grimm (N.Y.) on the debt deal and Washington's spending.

DIANE SAWYER: So we're just gonna start in the middle, 'cause it's just-- no, no, yes, no. Do you think Congressman Grimm sold out?

HUELSKAMP: No, folks have a different-- view of where we need to head and how quickly we can get there. I--

DIANE SAWYER: But how strongly do you feel about this?

HUELSKAMP: I firmly believe this doesn't solve the problem. And it-- it's a deal, but it's not a solution. And I think we'll find out next few months that it didn't go far enough.

DIANE SAWYER: But when we first came together, you were one unified-- I think I-- we said-- like a motorcycle gang comin' into town. Now you're divided. What does this mean? What does this say?

GRIMM: I don't-- I-- I don't-- I don't think so. Obviously, we have some differences of opinion about tactics. But we are all united about the problems that we're facing and what we have to do. We have a debt crisis. We have an addiction in this country to spending. And this president's been on a spending spree for two and a half years. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues. We need to stop that.

The only difference is tactically how do we do that? I recognize the limitations that we have by only having control of the House. We don't control the Senate, we don't control the presidency, we have to crawl before we walk to some extent. But I think we've already made some historic gains. We've changed the debate in a historic way. This is the first time we're gonna raise the debt ceiling in our history by imposing more cuts than the raise of the debt ceiling-- (OVERTALK)

DIANE SAWYER: But Congressman Brooks, what are you gonna say to him about defense spending?

MO BROOKS: Well, I'd really rather focus on a couple of other items as to why I'm principally voting no. One is the process. We're about to burden our children and grandchildren with $2.4 trillion in additional debt, and we will not have had 24 hours to study the legislation, understand it, interact with people who we would like the advice and counsel of from our home districts. That's not the way to run a government. But second, on a substantive level, it's somewhat akin to what Tim said. Imagine that you've got a 1,500-foot hole and a politician walks by and tosses down a 22-foot ladder. That's what the spending cuts in this bill do for FY-'12. You've got $22 billion in spending cuts, plus or minus a little bit, but a $1.5 trillion deficit. This is-- this legislation may be well-intended, but it's not up to the challenge of protecting our country from a bankruptcy and insolvency.

GRIMM: And if we controlled the presidency and the Senate, I would agree, let's go all in. Let's make the massive cuts that we need. But I would caution my colleagues about something else. This economy is extremely fragile. I sit on the Financial Services Committee. I speak with industry, whether it be Realtors, which we're in a double dick-- double-dip housing market right now, in a bit of a crisis there. We have to be very, very careful with everything we do, and avoid another recession that would be worse than the one we're trying to come out of now.

Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...