[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9727-H9734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONGRATULATING NATIONAL ``VOICE OF DEMOCRACY'' WINNER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, to begin this special order tonight I 
would like to read a statement and some passages to pay tribute to a 
young man in my district. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to pay tribute 
to a truly remarkable youngster. His name is Niles Randolph, and he is 
the first-place winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars ``Voice of 
Democracy'' broadcast scriptwriting contest for the State of Minnesota.
  Niles is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Randolph and is currently a 
senior at Mayo High School in Rochester, MN. He was sponsored by VFW 
Post 1215 and its ladies auxiliary in Rochester.
  His interests include football, playing the guitar, soccer, and 
racquetball. He is also a member of the National Honor Society and has 
held the offices of 6th grade class officer, 9th grade class officer 
and 11th grade junior representative.
  Niles is interested in attending the University of Wisconsin at 
Madison or Drake University in Des Moines where he intends to pursue a 
degree in Public Relations--I am sure he will be very successful.
  His essay titled ``My Vision for America'' was a genuinely patriotic 
piece of writing, and I am honored to share several passages from that 
tonight:

       I was once told the story of two brothers who quarreled all 
     the time. The father of the boys, to tech a lesson, gave them 
     a bundle of sticks tied together and challenged them to break 
     it. Try as they might, they could not. Then the father untied 
     the sticks and gave each one separately to the boys. He again 
     challenged them to break the sticks. They did with ease. The 
     father then said, ``You see my sons, untied as one, the 
     sticks are strong and cannot be broken. Apart, they are weak 
     and vulnerable.'' No longer did the brothers quarrel.
       My vision for America is one of unity. As the story 
     relates, we are strong when tied together. When we are 
     separate, we are weak and vulnerable. When we are together as 
     Americans, free from prejudice, ignorance and selfishness, we 
     are strong. That is my vision for America.
       To attain greater unity, I feel we must look at the basic 
     unit of our nation. That unity is the family. The 
     strengthening of the American family is an essential key to 
     the solidarity of our nation. The family is the teacher of 
     moral principles and values, the most influential guide in 
     someone's life. Too many times in modern society do we see 
     the decay of family; failed marriages and single parents, or 
     the increase in gang numbers due to lack of family support. 
     The family has been the backbone of American society 
     throughout our history. It has been the reason America has 
     remained as strong as it has. The family is where it all 
     starts, where everyone develops their character and their 
     values, where everyone must attain their moral principles.
       In becoming a more unified nation, we must eliminate 
     prejudice. Racial and sexual prejudice undermine the American 
     idea of equality and equal opportunity.
       All of these factors combine to make a unified America. 
     Through patriotism, stronger family bonds, education, and 
     elimination of prejudice, we stand united as one, as the 
     sticks were unbreakable when tied together. Let us maintain 
     our seat as leaders of the world in morality and virtue. Let 
     us come together in unity. This is my vision for America.

  Mr. Speaker, I submit the balance of the text to be printed in the 
Congressional Record:

                         My Vision for America

       I was once told the story of two brothers who quarreled all 
     the time. The father of the boys, to teach a lesson, gave 
     them a bundle of sticks tied together and challenged them to 
     break it. Try as they might, they could not. Then the father 
     untied the sticks and gave each one separately to the boys. 
     He again challenged them to break the sticks. They did with 
     ease. The father then said, ``You see my sons, united as one, 
     the sticks are strong and cannot be broken. Apart, they are 
     weak and vulnerable.'' No longer did the brothers quarrel.
       My vision for America is one of unity. As the story 
     relates, we are strong when united together. When we are 
     separate, we are weak and vulnerable. When we are together as 
     Americans, free from prejudice, ignorance, and selfishness, 
     we are strong. That is my vision for America.
       I am a member of my high school football team. Through 
     experience, I have learned that teamwork is the key to 
     winning. When members of the team fight, or become selfish in 
     their interests, they are drawn apart and more often than 
     not, we lose. In order to succeed there must be blockers for 
     each running back and defensive support on every play.
       I can see a correlation between American society and my 
     football experiences. If we are together in our interests and 
     goals, we will succeed as a nation. If there is sound 
     education for our youth, it is much like having the blocker 
     for the running back. The youth and the running back are much 
     more likely to succeed. If we have a strong family bond and 
     support, it is much like the defensive support, as it 
     reinforces. If we are drawn apart by prejudice and lack of 
     patriotism, it is much like team members fighting or being 
     selfish. Whether in football or in society we must be united 
     to succeed.
       To accomplish this goal, we must embrace patriotism. People 
     are often concerned only with their current situations and 
     problems. Nobody must forget the America that has given us 
     such unequaled opportunity and liberty. My vision for America 
     would be a patriotic America. An America concerned about the 
     future of our nation, as the past generations have been 
     concerned. From the times of the Revolutionary War, to the 
     times of Korea and Vietnam, our predecessors have given their 
     very lives for the benefit of America and it's future 
     generations.
       A revival of these principals and regard for our nation 
     would unquestionably bring us together as Americans.
       To attain greater unity, I feel we must look at the basic 
     unit of our nation. That unit is the family. The 
     strengthening of the American family is an essential key to 
     the solidarity of our nation. The family is the teacher of 
     moral principles and values, the most influential guide in 
     someone's life. Too many times in modern society do we see 
     the decay of family; failed marriages and single parents, or 
     the increase in gang numbers due to lack of family support.
       The family has been the backbone of American society 
     throughout our history. It has been the reason America has 
     remained as strong as it has. The family is where it all 
     starts, where everyone develops their character and their 
     values, where everyone must attain their moral principles. In 
     the past, families have been the base of America. They can be 
     the base once again. The strengthening of the family unit is 
     my vision for America.

[[Page H 9728]]

       In becoming a more unified nation, we must eliminate 
     prejudice. Racial and sexual prejudice undermine the American 
     ideal of equality and equal opportunity. Only through 
     education can we curb prejudice, as prejudice stems from 
     ignorance. My vision is to eliminate racial and sexual 
     prejudice.
       Another aspect of American unity is education. Education, 
     whether in the form of elementary schools or colleges, is the 
     key to a successful future. Only by knowledge can we grow and 
     adapt. The children of tomorrow demand a sound education in 
     order to lead our country in the coming years.
       All of these factors combine to make a unified America. 
     Through patriotism, stronger family bonds, education, and 
     elimination of prejudice, we stand united as one, as the 
     sticks were unbreakable when tied together. Let us maintain 
     our seat as leaders of the world in morality and virtue. Let 
     us come together in unity. This is my vision for America.

  Mr. Speaker, for the balance of this special order I would like to 
talk a little. We have heard from the other side of the aisle this 
evening about some of the things that this Congress has not 
accomplished. We have heard some complaints about our Medicare reforms 
and our Medicaid reforms, and I think it would be appropriate tonight 
to talk a little bit about some of the things that we have 
accomplished, and I would like to first call attention to a column 
which appeared about a week ago in the Washington Post by columnist 
David S. Broder, and even the title of the column, I think, says an 
awful lot about this Congress, the 104th Congress, and what has really 
been happening. The title is ``A Rout of Historic Proportions,'' and 
perhaps I could just read a couple of paragraphs, and the first 
paragraph starts:

       Whatever happens in the final weeks of this session, it is 
     now a certainty that the 104th Congress will go into the 
     history books as one of the most significant in the last half 
     century. It marks as fundamental a rightward turn in domestic 
     policy as the Great Society 89th Congress in the 1965-1966 
     session did in a turn to the left.

  In fact, let me just also close with the last couple of paragraphs 
where it says unlike Haley Barbour in 1993-1994, the leadership of the 
Democratic National Committee has been unable to coordinate a single 
message, nor have they been able to muster the kind of effective 
interest group and lobbying support that Republicans have used to get 
their allies in business in a broad range of ideological groups 
together. The result has been a rout of historic proportions in a 
Congress which will be long remembered, and I am happy to have with me 
this evening the gentleman from the great State of Florida [Mr. 
Scarborough], and I would like to yield to him to talk a little bit 
about some of the accomplishment of this Congress, some of the 
distortions we have heard from the other side, and some of the reasons, 
as we go forward, we are going to continue to press the agenda and 
change the way Washington does business.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht], and certainly thank him for his leadership throughout this 
entire process that we have been going through, and, if you look at the 
Washington Post editorial, it really is a season of change in 
Washington, DC.
  I campaigned, like you and a lot of other people, over a year and a 
half against all odds to get elected up here to make a difference, to 
come up here and make a difference, to change the way that Washington 
works and to change the fundamental concepts that run Washington, DC, 
and we have done that.

  You mentioned the Washington Post editorial and the column that says 
that this is the most significant Congress in probably 50 years or so. 
It talks about ending welfare state as we know it. There is a Wall 
Street Journal article that quotes several, quotes several 
congressional historians, who say this is not only the most historical 
Congress in the 20th century, it is probably the most historical House 
of Representatives session since the 1870's, since Reconstruction, and 
sometimes when things are moving as fast as they are right now, 
sometimes people tend to forget all the things that have been 
accomplished.
  You know, if you are like me and like many Americans, the changes 
that happened after the Iron Curtain came down in 1989, when one 
Communist country fell after another Communist country fell, it seems 
that the rate of change happened so much that people started taking it 
for granted, but look back at what we have accomplished these first 9 
months. It is just absolutely staggering.
  Mr. HOKE. If the gentleman would yield, one way you can think about 
this in terms of the difference, or one way, perspective, you can gain 
from this in terms of looking at where we are at today, is think about 
what would be happening in this Congress today had the Democrats 
retained the majority status both here in the House and in the Senate. 
Think about what the difference would be. Would we be debating at a 
national level whether we ought to get to a balanced budget in 10 years 
or 7 years? Would that be what the debate is about, or would it even be 
remotely on the table that we are talking about getting to a balanced 
budget at all under any circumstances? And I would submit to you that 
the answer to that is pretty obviously that we would not be talking 
about when we are getting to a balanced budget, which is, under our 
plan, obviously it is 7 years with real numbers. Under the President's 
plan it--maybe it is 10 years with numbers that have been scored 
differently by CBO, but in any event you can see clearly how the debate 
has been moved, and you can be doggone sure that, if the Democrats 
still controlled the House of Representatives, we would not be talking 
about that at all.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, let us just look at recent history to 
amplify on what the gentleman has just said. Would we be even talking 
about to balance a budget at all?
  Let us look at what the President of the United States said this 
summer. In June, he said a balanced budget is not a priority of this 
Government, we do not need it right now. Then he went up to New 
Hampshire a month later, which coincidentally happens to be the first 
primary, and the voters said we need a balanced budget. So the 
President said we need a balanced budget. Then he came back to 
Washington. His advisers said we do not need a balanced budget. The 
President said we do not need a balanced budget. Then he went back up 
to New Hampshire, and the voters told him we need a balanced budget, 
and the President said we need a balanced budget, and this goes back 
and forth. The President did not even know if we needed a balanced 
budget. The majority of the Democratic Members have been arguing 
against any plan to balance the budget for over 9 months now. There is 
no leadership on that side of the aisle to do what over 88 percent of 
Americans want us to do, and that is just spend as much money as we 
take in, and, if you look at that, if you look at welfare reform, 1 
year ago they are talking about spending more. We are talking about 
bringing in the reins. If you look at Medicare reform, we have a plan 
now that saves Medicare. Ask the seniors. Ask AARP. They know it saves 
Medicare. Again nothing from the other side.
  This Shays amendment to make Congress abide by the same laws that the 
rest of the country has to abide by--look what we are doing in 
corporate welfare. We are trying to eliminate the Department of 
Commerce, and who is the defender of corporate welfare? It is the 
Democrats. Who is the defender of welfare for lobbyists? It is the 
Democrats.
  I mean I just cannot believe the world has changed 180 degrees.
  We had on the same day that the Washington Post attacked the 
Democratic Party for being demagogs on Medicare, the Wall Street 
Journal attacked the Republican Party for cutting $35 billion in 
corporate welfare tax loopholes.

                              {time}  1730

  I will take that attack any time. Yes, I admit it before God and 
country: I am against corporate welfare. I just wish the Members on the 
other side of the aisle felt the same way about it. Taxpayers work too 
hard.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the author of the Shays Act. It 
is important for us to look back and see how much has changed. As you 
indicated, it is no longer a debate about if we are going to balance 
the budget, it is a debate about when and exactly how we are going to 
balance the budget. It is no longer about when we are going to save 
Medicare, it is about how we are 

[[Page H 9729]]
going to save Medicare. We have completely changed the debate. That all 
started on the very first day.
  I was so privileged to stand on this very place on the first day on 
the job and be the lead spokesman on the adoption of the rule for the 
Shays Act, H.R. 1. I was also privileged to have been the first 
freshman in 100 years to have been invited to the White House for the 
first bill signing. That was not the only thing we did on the first 
day. I think sometimes people forget how the paradigm shift began on 
the very first day.
  On the very first day, let us remind ourselves, we slashed the number 
of committees and committee staffs by one-third. We ended baseline 
budgeting. We changed the way the budgets are put together around here. 
We ended proxy voting, so Members actually have to go to committees.
  Mr. HOKE. Would you explain, just for the Speaker, because I know 
that the Speaker is interested in this, but would you explain for the 
Speaker exactly what the elimination of baseline budgeting means, and 
know that relates to having the Government work with numbers the same 
way that you and I and our spouses and our kids work with numbers at 
home?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can explain baseline 
budgeting. Essentially, I think the way it works is that the budget 
automatically goes up by about 6 percent. Anything you reduce from that 
is called a cut around Washington. Everywhere else, in every coffee 
shop, in every family, at every business, when you actually increase 
spending in real terms from one year to the next, that is called an 
increase, but with the convoluted baseline budgeting that has been used 
around here, that is not the way it is.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think 
this is important. You are asking a question that gets to the heart of 
this. If you want to talk about double-speak, Orwellian double-speak, I 
have seen it.
  Mr. HOKE. Voodoo numbers.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Voodoo numbers, where in the past a spending 
increase was called a spending cut. This year when we are talking about 
abolishing the Department of Commerce, we have Secretary Ron Brown 
telling us that there is not a penny of corporate welfare in that 
department, and that abolishing the Department of Commerce will cost 
the American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.
  Let me get this right, now. According to the Democrats, a spending 
increase is actually a spending cut, and a spending cut is now called a 
spending increase. As a Democrat says, ``Beam me up, Scotty. I cannot 
take it anymore. I don't understand that.''
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, if I can borrow the time just for a moment, I 
actually think this is a critically important point. This one thing 
that we did, and we did it in the Committee on the Budget, and I know 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] was there the day we did it, 
it is so important to the running of this place, because it means now 
when we talk about numbers, when we say that we are going to spend 4\1/
2\ percent more on the School Lunch Program in 1996 than we did in 
1995, which is exactly what we are going to do, we are using the same 
language that everybody else in America uses on a daily basis. We have 
not been doing this for 20 years.

  I will tell you something else, just to be honest. Baseline budgeting 
did not begin under a Democratic administration, it began under a 
Republican administration. We brought upon ourselves a great 
disservice. It is wrong, we have fixed it. And now when we talk about a 
cut, it means it is a cut from what we spent last year. When we talk 
about an increase, it means it is an increase over what we spent last 
year. It is real numbers, it is truth in budgeting.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, just to sort of review again all 
the things we accomplished on that first day, we opened the committee 
process so that staff and the press could come, the public could see 
what was happening in the committee meetings. We mandated a three-
fifths vote on any tax increase, and began a comprehensive audit of the 
House books. For the first time, we are opening up this process to the 
public, we are going to show our books to the public so people have an 
opportunity.
  I do want to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the 
author of the Shays act. Incidentally, I want to reinforce what an 
important act that was. When I was campaigning last year, I was 
surprised to learn how many laws that the Congress itself, in fact it 
had almost become routine for the Congress to exempt itself from the 
implications of a lot of the laws that they passed against everybody 
else. I think a big part of changing the attitudes of Members of 
Congress was to make us live by the same laws that we impose on 
everybody else.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. 
He does not necessarily have to talk about the Shays act. I do not want 
him to brag about himself, necessarily, but I do want to talk a little 
bit about Medicare or Mediscare that is going on around the country 
now. I think the good news is that the American people are a lot 
smarter than some people give them credit for. They understand that 
increasing the expenses per capita from $4,800 to $6,700, they 
understand that is not a cut, that is a significant increase. They 
believe the system can be saved.
  I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted 
to involve myself in this debate, because you are talking about the 
difference since the beginning of this year with the new majority. What 
we did is we ended 40 years of one-party control. That was a system 
where the chairman became so dominant that even a rank and file 
Democrat had no power, even in the majority.
  I would wager to say a rank and file Democrat Member has more power 
today under our system than they did under their system, which meant 
that the chairman decided every issue. You would bring a bill before 
the chairman. If he did not want to hear it, it did not happen. If the 
chairman did not want to have a public hearing on it, it did not 
happen. If the chairman did not want to invite these witnesses, it did 
not happen. If a bill was being debated and someone wanted to amend it 
and the chairman did not want it to be amended, under the old system it 
did not happen.

  What we have now is the expression of a lot of different ideas. We 
have a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle empowered to make 
significant change.
  I remember when the Contract With America was first brought forward. 
We, and I am looking at the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Hoke, because we 
are fortunately in the majority, because we are here with three 
outstanding new Members of this House. For the first time as incumbent 
Members, we said that ``If you elect us, you will elect a change of 
government.'' Then we invited those who were challengers to participate 
in making up our Contract With America and giving the American people a 
very positive presentation.
  I remember the press when we did this said, ``This is ridiculous.'' 
They said, ``It is going to cause the defeat, particularly of moderate 
Republicans.'' I was thinking to myself, ``Why would it do that? There 
are eight major reforms to this institution. We have 10 major bills we 
would pass during the first 100 days.'' However, they said, no, it 
would cause our defeat. When no Member lost, moderate or conservative, 
who was a Republican, and all these new Members were reelected, they 
said, ``You used this contract to get elected but you would not 
implement it''.
  Then we started in the opening day. I remember candidly thinking the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], thinking he was going to be 
in charge of the rule. I was thinking these new freshman Members, I 
could not have brought out a bill on the opening day or dealt with a 
rule. And I was thinking, ``Can you guys do this?'' You got together as 
a group, I watched what you did, you came to the floor of the House, 
you presented the rule. I could not have been more proud of any 
Republicans than to see what our freshmen did on opening day. They 
basically were the only ones to speak, the only ones to bring out the 
rules. It was awesome.
  I just want to thank all of you for what you have done to make it 
possible for this country to change. I make this point to you. They 
said moderates would lose. Moderates did not lose. Then they said we 
would not complete our Contract With America, we would 

[[Page H 9730]]
not try to work on these eight reforms and these 10 bills, and we did. 
Then they said moderates and conservatives could not work together. We 
get along fine. In fact, we find we have a heck of a lot in common.
  Then they said, ``You will not get along with the Senate.'' I 
actually like Senators and we work well with the Senate. Then they 
said, ``You voted to balance the budget, but you would not be so stupid 
as to vote to balance the budget and cause a lot of anguish and all 
those special interests that are going to weigh in.'' And would you 
look at entitlements? That has been sacred, that we should not look to 
try to get our financial House in order. We are doing that.
  This is what we have done. We have left the old world for the new 
world. We are not going back to the old world. We burned our ships. We 
are in the new world. We are going to conquer this new world. We are 
going to make sure the American people see a change.
  What are they going to see? They are going to see us get our 
financial House in order and balance the budget. They are going to see 
us save our trust funds, particularly Medicare. They are going to see 
us change this corporate, this social and corporate welfare state, into 
an opportunity society. I really believe we are going to accomplish all 
that.

  I would love to weigh in just a little bit on the whole issue of 
Medicare, but I do not want to monopolize the time, just to say it is 
really a pleasure to be with you. We need to talk about what we and the 
American people have so much to be proud of, a new Congress that is 
bringing extraordinary change.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I think we do want to have a little 
discussion about Medicare, because there is still so much distortion 
going on out there about what really is going to happen with Medicare.
  Mr. HOKE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I 
would say my understanding that what the gentleman from Connecticut 
intends to do with Medicare is to cut $270 billion from Medicare over 
the next 7 years in order to give $280 billion in tax cuts strictly to 
wealthy Americans. Is that what is going on here?
  Mr. SHAYS. The amazing thing is you got the Democrat story all in one 
sentence, and it is all wrong. There is a $240 billion tax cut. About 
half of it is going to families with children. These are children under 
18, a $500 tax cut.
  Mr. HOKE. Families with incomes under----
  Mr. SHAYS. Incomes under $200,000. It may be that ultimately that 
number comes down, but 75 percent of all families make $75,000 or less, 
so 75 percent of the people who get this benefit make $75,000 or less 
than $75,000. Why would we want a $500 tax credit? It is quite simple.
  My parents, and I am one of four boys, in the 1940's and 1950's took 
the equivalent deduction off their taxes of today of $8,000. In other 
words, they had the benefit of being able to deduct for every child in 
today's dollars $8,000 off their total income. That is $32,000 that 
they could deduct from their total income. It meant they did not have 
to pay taxes on $32,000.
  What are families allowed today? They are allowed $2,500. Families 
when we were growing up only paid 20 percent in taxes, Federal, State 
and local. They pay 40 percent today, so our first effort is to help 
young families cope with what is a very difficult environment. That is 
part of our tax cut.
  The thing I want to weigh in on is that we paid for it. We made cuts 
to this budget, and I know, because you and I were on the budget, and 
my colleagues, we have all had to vote to cut spending to pay for it. 
It has nothing to do with Medicare. Medicare is a separate challenge. 
Medicare is going bankrupt, Medicare part A. We have to save that trust 
fund, totally separate.
  So, wrong, first, that this is a tax cut for the wealthy; wrong that 
it somehow, that the tax cut, is related to Medicare. Let me make one 
last point. The most outrageous thing is to say it is a cut of $270 
billion. We spent, in the last 7 years, $900 billion. In the next 7 
years we are going to spend $1.6 trillion. We are going to spend well 
over $600 billion more in the next 7 years than the last 7. We are 
going to spend now $4,800. It is going to go to $6,700 per beneficiary 
in the seventh year. Only in this city and where the virus has spread 
in other parts of the country, when you spend more money like this do 
people call it a cut. It is not a cut. We are slowing the growth.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats clearly have not understood 
that, in fact, in reality, we did abolish baseline budgeting, and so 
they are using the same language that they used before, but I think it 
is very helpful to actually take apart their argument, facet by facet, 
piece by piece, because it starts with a $270 billion cut, which is 
completely false. That is simply untrue. We are going from $4,800 per 
beneficiary per year in 1995 to $6,700 per beneficiary per year in 
2002. How that can possibly be a cut under anybody's rubric, under 
anybody's language, other than for the purpose of trying to manipulate 
public opinion or trying to score political points, or simply to 
prevaricate and falsify the record, is beyond me.

  You start with that, you start with a $270 billion cut which is not a 
cut, that is incorrect, and I think then we also have to talk about 
where is the responsibility? Why do we have any responsibility to deal 
with Medicare? If the program, if it is so great and it is working 
perfectly, why should we touch it? What are we trying to do? I think we 
ought to talk about that, maybe.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Speaker, this is an important thing. I do not think the American people 
have to take the Republicans' word for it on Medicare. Again, we can go 
back and look what the Washington Post, which has long been a 
traditional ally of liberal Members of Congress up here, first of all, 
the Post came out a few weeks ago saying that the Democrats were really 
playing demagoguery with Medicare. Then they came out and said straight 
out that there is not a relationship between the tax cuts and the 
Medicare savings. Again, they said that the Democrats were, again, 
playing games with this.
  I think what has happened with some members of the Democratic Party, 
and what they have done has just been absolutely shameless. We have had 
Members stand up here kicking and screaming, showing pictures of 
grandparents, saying, ``The mean-spirited Republicans are going to take 
away their Medicare; is it not the worst thing that has happened? The 
locusts are going to descend from the heavens. They are going to be 
kicked out on the streets.''
  The fact of the matter is that a lot of those liberal Members who are 
pointing at those grandparents, saying they want to help them, are not 
telling the truth to them, which is again the trustees say it is going 
bankrupt in 7 years. Who is being more benevolent toward seniors, those 
who admit there is a problem, who want to go in and give seniors the 
flexibility they need to decide how they are going to handle their 
health care plan, instead of a bureaucrat in Washington, or the person 
who says there is absolutely nothing wrong with this system? Again, it 
is double-talk, it is demagoguery, and I think it is absolutely 
shameless.
  Mr. HOKE. As the Washington Post says, it is Medigogery. I would like 
to make a prediction. I think this may help some people put this in 
context and perspective, because it is do brutally partisan here. It is 
very unfortunate, because so much of what you hear is put in this 
partisan context.
  I predict when it comes down to the voting on Medicare and on the 
reforms that we are putting in place, and we ought to talk about some 
of the choices that seniors are going to have, because I think it is 
very important, but my prediction is that you will see 30 or 40 members 
of the Democratic party proudly casting aye votes in favor of the 
reforms that we bring to the floor.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Many now are admitting in the press that there are 
not going to be cuts. Senator Moynihan has said there are no cuts in 
Medicare. We have had Members in this House come forward and say that 
the Democrats need to admit that the Medicare plan is not as draconian 
as they originally said it was, that this is a plan that works.
  If we look at the PSN's, provider service networks, where we are 
allowing, again, free market-driven solutions, if we look at the HMO's, 
if we 

[[Page H 9731]]
look at the medical savings account, this is a revolutionary plan. I 
mean, we are giving the seniors 31 years of revolution in the health 
care field in one act.
  I have to tell my colleagues something. I will tell any senior 
citizen that I am proud to be a part of this process. This is an 
historical time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Exactly. If I could just reclaim my time briefly, I 
hate to question the motives of anyone, but sometimes I wonder. The 
reason that we have heard the harsh rhetoric that we have had for the 
last 3 or 4 months is not I think that some people fear that this 
reform plan is going to fail, I think they are afraid it is going to 
work, and that seniors are going to like it. The reason that they know 
it is going to work is because a lot of things that we are talking 
about in terms of reform are currently working in the private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not reinventing the wheel here. Managed care and 
PPO's and HMO's and medical savings accounts are currently working. We 
saw a report on the news the other night, I think it was NBC, who 
talked about where some of these programs are actually being 
implemented, seniors love them.
  At my town meetings where we have had seniors who are already members 
of what is called Senior Gold out in the State of Minnesota that is 
sponsored by BlueCross BlueShield, they love it. I mean, where these 
things are actually happening, it has become very popular. I think 
sometimes it is not the fear that this will fail, I think it is the 
fear that this will succeed and that somehow, we will get the credit.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my favorite Founding Fathers was John Adams, and 
this is one of my favorite quotes. He said, ``Facts are stubborn 
things.'' We can ignore the facts and we can deny the facts, but in the 
end facts are facts, and the facts are that the Medicare system as it 
exists today is headed for bankruptcy. Another fact is we are going to 
be spending more money on the system in 7 years than we are spending 
today. Another fact is that if seniors want to stay right where they 
are, they can.
  Mr. HOKE. May I interrupt you for a moment, because what we are 
calling this program is Medicare Plus, and the reason we call it 
Medicare Plus is that you start with Medicare, which is exactly as it 
is today, and then we are going to have three or four other choices 
that senior citizens are going to be given.
  I see that we have one of our newest Members of the Republican 
Conference here.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think he is the newest.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
want to say a word?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speakr, I sure do. I joined this revolution in full 
uniform and armor just a couple of months ago, but there were many 
conservative Democrats, as you know, that helped to make the contract a 
reality in this House, and in this House, and in this House in the 
first 100 days.
  One of the reasons I think that it was such a successful 100 days, as 
the gentleman already pointed out, is the incredible zeal, the 
incredible talent of the new Members who arrived here, the new 
Republican freshman class, dedicated to one thing more than anything 
else, and that is to change the way this place works and to find 
solutions to American problems, rather than just to play party games 
all day.
  I have been delighted now to have the chance to work with the new 
Republican majority for the last several weeks since our August break, 
and I have been delighted with the temper, with the incredible energy 
and the organization that I see still burning bright within the party 
to get this revolution completed.
  Mr. Speaker, we have only just begun. If we cannot end this session 
with the real dedication of balancing the budget the way the freshmen 
came up here so dedicated to do, to saving Medicare from bankruptcy, 
and to ending welfare as we know it in America, and to building an 
American system of government where the government is our servant again 
instead of our master, then shame on us.
  We have such an opportunity this year. This debate we will be 
entering into in the next several weeks over how to redefine the 
systems of health care in America is one of the key ingredients.

  Now, the President himself has admitted that the Medicare system in 
America is ready to go bankrupt in 7 years unless we do something 
dramatic and immediate. The President, as the Governor of Arkansas, 
pleaded with the Federal Government for many years to change the system 
of Medicaid to make it one that worked for needy people instead of one 
that wasted money on mandates that just cost money, just made people 
work, just created an invitation to fraud and abuse. The Governor 
Clinton pleaded with us to do exactly what we are now recommending we 
do in Medicaid reform.
  During the next several months, as we complete this journey toward a 
balanced budget, as we debate these critical questions of Medicaid and 
Medicare reform, and end the system of dependency on welfare in America 
as we have come to know it as a way of life instead of a stopping off 
place on the road of life, as we enter into this several months of 
debate, this will be our finest hour and our severest test as a party 
and as a people.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to come down today when I heard my 
colleagues talking, and I wanted to congratulate my colleagues and to 
urge that we never lose this fire. I am delighted to be a part of it 
and anxious to see us move on to the final victories.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would love to just weigh in and just thank the gentleman 
for being such a catalyst when he was on the side I am on right now, 
and now as a new Republican, because you have been a force for many 
years in the very things that we have been working on. It just really 
is extraordinary to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] as 
part of our family, and to say to the gentleman that we have such an 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I get up every morning and I just count my blessings for 
the opportunity to be a part of a Congress that is bringing about 
extraordinary change. There are people on this side of the aisle as 
well that have weighed in and have added their part, a lot of good 
people on this side of the aisle.
  The gentleman mentioned that he believes that there are a number of 
Democrats who will vote ultimately for the Medicare plan. Mr. Speaker, 
does the gentleman know why I think so? First off, the plan that some 
on the democratic side have described is a plan that does not exist.
  I had community meetings the last two weekends and I met some real 
hostility. People said, you are going to increase the copayments, you 
are going to have copayments. I said, no. They said, but you are going 
to have increased deductions for hospitals and doctors. I said, no. 
They said, well, you are going to increase the premium, and I said, no, 
the premium is going to stay at 31.5 percent, and it is going to stay 
at that percent, and the Federal Government's taxpayers are going to 
pay 68.5 percent. Then they said, oh, you are going to push everybody 
out of fee-for-service, our Medicare system as we know it. That is 
simply not true. That is another no; they can stay in that plan, but if 
they want, they can go to all the kinds of plans the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke] mentioned, and he mentioned three, but candidly, there 
are an unlimited number.
  Mr. Speaker, there are certain kinds of programs, but you can have 
providers that come in and say, if you want a certain kind of eyeglass 
care or dental care or drugs, they can encourage you to leave that 
traditional fee-for-service.
  What is so darned exciting, and the Democrats have simply not yet 
caught on to what is so exciting, that we are saving this plan and we 
are making it better.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Connecticut is absolutely 
right. It amazed me, that during 1 minutes this morning the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut specifically said, they want to know what our plan is, 
I will tell you what our plan is. Our plan is Medicare as it is today 
right now. That is our plan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Plus.
  Mr. HOKE. This was the gentlewoman from Connecticut, not our 
gentlewoman from Connecticut, the other gentlewoman from Connecticut 
during 1 minutes, and she was saying, very seriously, that they want to 
know what our plan is, the Democrat plan is, our plan is exactly what 
exists today.

[[Page H 9732]]

  Mr. Speaker, that is what is such a shame, because if you are a 
senior citizen and we actually enact this piece of legislation to 
reform Medicare and save it and improve it and simplify it, which I 
believe we will, then as a senior citizen you will be given the option 
of having Medicare as we know it today, if that is what you want, or 
Plus, and also, three large categories. As the gentleman pointed out 
quite correctly, there are an infinite number of options within those 
three large categories that are in addition to what exists today now.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the neatest parts about our plan is 
that if any citizen is unhappy with the plan they chose, they can move 
back.
  Mr. HOKE. Just like a private citizen, just like you and I, just like 
somebody in the private sector. You are not going to be stuck in a 1965 
plan and not have any other options or places to go.
  Mr. SHAYS. However, I think the gentleman was making another point. 
Americans have 2 years, and during those 2 years they can go into the 
private plan, the Medicare Plus plan, but if you decide you do not like 
it, it was not what you expected, you can come right back into what 
exists now.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Even after that 2-year period, senior citizens sign up 
for a year at a time, so that you choose your plan for the next year. 
Within that first 2-year period, you can try them all. You can see 
which one really meets the needs of your circumstances and which one 
really provides you the best medical care. You may find one where, for 
example, you find that your drugs are covered. You may find a plan that 
is better in fact because it includes some dental care that was not 
available in another plan you were in.
  The short and sum of it is you can choose as a senior citizen when 
today you cannot. You have one choice only and the choice you have, the 
status quo, is about to go bankrupt. What kind of a choice is that?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. That is what is so shameful about people getting up 
here and saying, we have a plan, and our plan is to keep Medicare the 
way it is. I will tell you, there is a correlation between our Medicare 
plan and what happened there, and also what happened with the Contract 
With America.
  As the gentleman mentioned, some in the Democratic party came on 
board with us. So I think that the votes in the first 100 days, I 
believe abut 310 Members joined together, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, to pass that.
  The same thing is going to happen on Medicare, because I will tell my 
colleagues, the gentlewoman that stood up from Connecticut this morning 
and said, we want to keep the Medicare status quo, we want to keep it 
the way it is now, we want to forget about the reforms, we want to 
forget about the fact that Medicare is going bankrupt in 7 years 
according to the Medicare trustees, is making former Governor Mario 
Cuomo's point for him exactly. He said on a radio talk show, the 
Democratic party is out of power because basically we put our head in 
the sands for too long; we are living in the past, we have offered no 
solutions.
  For somebody to stand up here on the floor and with a straight face 
tell the senior citizens, which the gentlewoman from Connecticut was 
doing, that we can keep going on the same fail path that we have 
followed for the past few years, with the rate of growth going the way 
it is without any changes or any reforms whatsoever, we can keep doing 
it that way, is shameful. The gentlewoman from Connecticut knows, the 
President of the United States knows, every Member on the Democratic 
side of the aisle knows, that if we do that, we are selling senior 
citizens down the river, and it is shameful. I have a 92-year-old 
grandmother that I am not willing to sell down the river for political 
gain.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to make a couple of quick points. I think 
what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] just said is 
important. Many of the Members of our freshman class are baby boomers, 
and I think we do come here with a special responsibility. Both of my 
parents are on Medicare, and we have a special responsibility to our 
kids.
  I want to come back to something that the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin] made, and I think it is the heart and soul of what really 
is the philosophical debate, and it is the crossroads that we stand at 
here in the United States today. The debate about Medicare and the 
debate about Medicaid is really a debate between those people who 
fundamentally believe in Government control, and in Government 
decisions, and in Government bureaucracy, and between those who want to 
give people choices and options, who believe in freedom and in markets.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe that if we get more freedom, if we get more 
market working out there, if we get real market forces controlling this 
thing, we can absolutely control the cost. It is happening in the 
private sector. The average cost of health care increases over the last 
18 months in the private sector has been something like 1.1 percent. On 
the government side, when you are talking about Medicare or Medicaid, 
it has been over 10 percent. We believe this system is going to work, 
and my sense is, some people on the other side fear it is going to 
work.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question? I want to ask the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] a question, because I know that 
the Speaker has been following this very closely, and I know that he is 
very curious himself about how it is possible that we are going to go 
from a situation where right now we will not only offer everyone 
Medicare as it is today, but we will also offer a series of other 
choices, and yet, this is going to save money.
  Now, the Speaker, listening to this, might think that there is a 
disconnect somewhere and it might be confusing to him to understand 
exactly how it is possible that we are going to actually save money 
doing this, and obviously I am asking for rhetorical reasons. I think 
it would be very helpful to spell out exactly why it is that by getting 
the private sector much more aggressively involved in this, we are 
going to squeeze the fat out.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of factors here. First, let 
me say when we said how are we going to save Medicare, we have four 
basic choices. We can increase taxes, and that is the payroll tax of 
1.45 percent, and if you are self-employed, it is 2.9 percent. That is 
a no. We can affect the beneficiaries, we can affect the providers, or 
we can change the system. We are looking to change the system and allow 
choice and still allow people to keep the same plan if they want.
  Now, how is the private sector going to step in? Well, all you need 
to do is just think about how the Government is running things.

                              {time}  1800

  The FAA, for instance, knew 10 years ago that we were going to have 
double the increase in traffic. Yet the FAA has not planned for that. 
So what do we have right now? We have a system that is basically 
shutting down. But that is the Government running it.
  Medicare and Medicaid cannot tell you what hospitals have sent money, 
even a year later. They do not even know why it sent money. If we want 
to come back and find, out, they have to reconstruct it. But Home Depot 
can tell you at 9:30 in the morning what they sold the 2 hours before 
and they have already ordered----
  Mr. HOKE. At every single store in the country.
  Mr. SHAYS. Every single store in the country. And they have it 
centrally located.
  The Federal Government does not do a great job of controlling costs, 
but it also does a terrible job in getting at waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I had a hearing on waste, fraud, and abuse. The estimate was between 
10 and 20 percent. Not 10. Ten is the low end of waste, fraud, and 
abuse. It really goes up to 20 percent.
  I would love to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], 
an expert in this area, and tell you that we have got lots of 
opportunity here.
  Mr. TAUZIN. We have just handled the Medicaid reforms out of the 
Committee on Commerce. We are going to take up the Medicare reforms on 
Monday. We will begin the debate. But let me tell you what the real 
option is, and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has pointed 
it out.
  The option is either fix this system, control costs, and create a 
better choice for Americans or else raise taxes dramatically to keep 
this system from bankruptcy.

[[Page H 9733]]

  Mr. SHAYS. And that is not going to happen.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The status quo the gentlewoman from Connecticut was 
defending relies upon us deciding one day to raise taxes dramatically. 
That is the status quo they are defending. Liberal Democrats have no 
problem with that. I think most Americans do.
  To raise the payroll tax sufficient to keep this system out of 
bankruptcy, we are told, will require a doubling of the payroll tax 
payments of working Americans by the year 2040. That is how immense the 
problem is if we do not cure it today. That is their solution.
  You try to explain that to working Americans who can barely get by on 
the paycheck today, we are going to double their payroll taxes. That is 
not going to work. What will work is a system of choice and reform in 
the Medicare system so that seniors can take advantage of what you and 
I can take advantage of today, choosing plans that work better for us 
in a system where cost does count and people are interested in 
efficiencies and better treatment.
  I saw an NBC program that centered on a program in Arizona where 
citizens have the choice there to go to HMO's. They showed some senior 
citizens telling their story, about how much better care they were 
getting and how much better treatment they were getting and how much 
better their lives were under an HMO. They showed New Jersey where 
Medisave accounts were being used and how citizens there were saying 
how much it saved them money and really improved their health care 
system.
  Those are just two of the options our Medicare proposal will allow 
seniors in America.
  Mr. HOKE. Is the real key to this not choice, giving our senior 
citizens the choices that we have in the Government, that people in the 
private sector have got?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. It goes deeper than that. It is not just choice. It is 
about markets and it is about competition.
  We saw this, and part of the reason the Soviet Union ultimately 
collapsed, and the Wall Street Journal ran such a beautiful editorial 
shortly after that. I think the headline was ``Markets Are More 
Powerful Than Armies.''
  What we saw on the other side of the world was that if you have a 
monopolistic system where the Government controls, you have enormous 
inefficiencies.
  The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] talked about the FAA. They 
are the largest buyer of vacuum tubes in the world.
  Mr. SHAYS. Vacuum tubes? Do they still make vacuum tubes?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Not in the United States. We have to buy them from 
Czechoslovakia.
  You have probably seen the Speaker carries around one of those vacuum 
tubes that the FAA buys.
  Mr. SHAYS. I am flying home tonight. You are telling me it is vacuum 
tubes?

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I am telling you this technology was developed in 
1955. That is what you are going to fly home on. The telephone 
companies route millions of calls using computers, and they do it 
without even thinking about it. Yet we are using vacuum tubes. The 
Speaker carries one around.
  That is the difference between a Government-controlled system and a 
market system. Competition makes them fund efficiencies. We can find 
those efficiencies if we allow markets to work.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If I can, I want to go back, cross over from Medicare to 
Medicaid again.
  I want to remind you all that something happens when you get to 
Washington that changes you somehow. I hope the freshmen really have a 
great success in changing the way this place works.
  When Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he understood that 
government mandates, government command, control, all these strings we 
tie to these programs simply create inefficiencies, paperwork, fraud, 
abuse, and all kinds of things. He begged the Congress for several 
years, ``Please get rid of those mandates, send us the money in a block 
grant, let us run our program in the State of Arkansas, we'll all be 
better off.''
  Guess what we are proposing? We are proposing to do exactly that, to 
send Medicaid moneys at a 4.9-percent growth rate per year for 7 years. 
We are planning on sending that to the Stats just as Bill Clinton pled 
with us to do, without all the strings, with the simple requirement 
that the plans they submit to carry it out have the same protections 
for seniors and for poor people that the current Medicaid system does.
  So what are we doing? We are proposing to do what Bill Clinton wanted 
to do as Governor. Why on Earth is he opposing it as a President now? 
Did something happen? Did he drink some water here in the Potomac that 
changed his mind? I do not know, I do know this. For people to believe 
that there is a monopoly on caring hearts and intelligent minds in 
Washington bureaucrats and there are no people at home with caring 
hearts and intelligent minds, capable of better running these programs 
is to believe something I have not heard in my district and my State in 
a long time.
  The truth is if we do what Bill Clinton wanted as Governor and create 
these programs with incentives and lack of mandates for people at home 
to deliver these services the way folks at home know how to deliver 
them, we are going to be in much better shape. And if we recreate 
Medicare so that seniors have the kinds of real choices that most other 
Americans have, they will have better care.

  If they do not like the new plan, they can stay in the Medicare 
system as it is. We will make sure it is well-funded. But if they want 
to go to something better, they will have that choice just like other 
citizens. Is that not the kindest thing we can do to folks we love who 
are senior citizens today?
  Mr. SHAYS. That is well said.
  I was thinking as we were talking, making reference to people on the 
other side of the aisle, candidly that is not usually my way of feeling 
comfortable because there are a lot of good people on this side of the 
aisle who have made a contribution.
  I think part of it is the frustration of here we have a plan that we 
think is so good and we are willing to debate it on the ideas. In other 
words, if you do not think there should be the private sector, if you 
do not think people should have choice or you do not like the kinds of 
choices, debate it on that. But do not tell my constituents that there 
is going to be a co-payment, that there is going to be a deduction. Do 
not go into nursing homes and tell everybody that they are not going to 
be able to live here next year.
  It brings out a side of you that you would just as soon not get into. 
I just want to make this point to you. One of the constructive 
arguments that people on this side of the aisle were making was, hey, 
we should see this bill, it should have the light of day and so on. We 
had a conversation with our Speaker and he totally agreed. Ideas win. 
We have every reason to be proud of this plan.
  So this plan has come out in full detail today, the legislation. It 
will be introduced to the committee but not voted on next week, in 
Commerce, I believe. Members will be free not to be here. They can 
study it every day. This bill will be debated on in committee and 
Democrats who have ideas to improve this plan, not just criticize it 
but to improve it, will make a wonderful contribution, because we are 
listening. If we can make this plan better, we are going to do it.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think you have highlighted something very important. 
It really was not, I do not think, our leadership that tried to turn 
this into a partisan issue.

  I think everyone would be happier, I know the senior citizens of the 
United States would be far happier if we could debate this more 
rationally rather than some of the harsh rhetoric that we have heard. 
It has been turned into a partisan issue. I think that is incredibly 
unfortunate particularly for the senior citizens because sometimes they 
wonder what really should they believe. That is why I made the point 
earlier about the facts are stubborn things. If they would just look at 
and study the facts, look at the options they are going to have, I 
think we could solve this problem, and it would be far better if it 
were on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Let me just point out that we do not need fistfights in 
the hall, and shouting matches in the hall. 

[[Page H 9734]]
American seniors do not need to be scared to death about this stuff. We 
need to debate it as adults. They would like to see us have that open 
debate as adults, trying to find rational solutions to a system about 
to go bankrupt. The last thing we need to see ever again is another 
picture of people shouting at each other in the hall. This is not a 
partisan issue. This is about mothers and fathers and grandfathers and 
grandmothers and about the working Americans who try desperately to try 
to earn a payroll enough to support them in their senior years.
  This is a good debate for us to have and we ought to have it as 
adults. Americans want to see that. They want to see us start acting 
like Americans once in a while who want to save this country instead of 
as partisans fighting in the hallway.
  Mr. SHAYS. I think they saw that in the vote on the temporary 
continuing resolution. The Government would have stopped being funded 
at the end of this month. What is that, tomorrow? In fact, we were able 
to get together and extend on a temporary basis at 90 to 95 percent of 
funding so we are not adding new money, we are putting in less money 
into the plan, giving ourselves 6 more weeks to have a dialog among 
Republicans and Democrats. We have a debt ceiling question. I am not 
voting to increase the debt ceiling, but I am going to vote for 
increasing the debt ceiling when this President weights in on a 7-year 
budget, then the President decides with us where we make our changes in 
programs, where we cut, where we slow the growth, we participated on a 
bipartisan basis.

  But we are going to get that budget balanced in 7 years, we are going 
to save Medicare, and we are also going to transform this social and 
corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. We are going to do 
that, and I think we can do it on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. TAUZIN. For those who complain that this has not been an open 
process, let me assure you, I have never seen a more open Congress than 
this one. We have had more bills come in under an open rule, more 
discussion on this floor than I have ever seen in all my career here.
  I do not know if you know it, but in the last three Congresses there 
were seven hearings on Medicaid. In this Congress we have already had 
seven hearings on Medicaid, as many hearings as three Congresses 
combined. We need to debate this in the light of day indeed, and we are 
doing that, and I have never seen more open discussion in all my years. 
This is a subject every senior has a great interest in, every working 
American, and we all ought to share in that debate again as we have 
proposed in the end. We will come up with some answers for America, not 
just for one party or the other.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to also interject that the whole issue of 
Medicare, people who think that we have not had enough public hearings 
or discussions, in my own case I have had 33 town meetings. At every 
one of those town meetings we have talked about Medicare and some of 
the ideas we are considering. So I do not think anyone is going to be 
surprised when they read some of the details that are going to be in 
this plan because we have had something like 36 hearings on the issue, 
of various committees on the issue of Medicare.
  This is not something we are going to sneak up on the American 
people, particularly on the senior citizens. I think by the time this 
bill is signed by the President, I think everybody in the United States 
will have a very thorough understanding of what we are talking about 
and frankly I think it will enjoy widespread public support as well.
  Mr. HOKE. The reality is, and I think it is good to hear this from 
different perspectives. The reality is that there is actually a schism 
within the Democratic Party, as well, as to how to use or how to deal 
with this issue.
  Some people believe it ought to be used strictly for political 
purposes, and that is a voice that we hear a great deal more of on the 
floor. There are an awful lot of others who also believe that it ought 
to be dealt with in a responsible way and those are the voices that are 
being heard in committee and that are really working on the problem. I 
suppose it is a reflection of politics, but it is absolutely true and 
unfortunate in this situation that it is easy, at least it is perceived 
to be something that is easy to scare seniors with and to scare them 
into believing that somehow they will not be able to have the same kind 
of quality care that they deserve and expect and must have.
  It is pretty clear, I hope it is clear at least that our commitment 
is to preserving, to protecting, to improving and finally frankly to 
simplifying this system so that it becomes easier for seniors to use 
and it brings them into the 1990's as well, and to join the rest of the 
country.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. We have one of our fellow freshmen, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray], joining us. I would like to offer to yield to 
him for a few moments.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I think one of the sad things about this Mediscare 
tactic is that the people that are trying to pull this off, the old 
establishment in Washington that cannot cope with the fact that it is 
time to move upward and onward to improve on the past and not allow the 
old systems to just collapse after 37 years. But I think what they 
really miss here with the Mediscare is that as the seniors find out 
about this problem, as they are being educated about this problem, 
their credibility and the credibility of the Washington establishment 
is slowly but surely crumbling more and more with this big lie that is 
going out there.
  I have advertisements running in my district attacking me on certain 
positions and they have not even taken the decency to check my vote. My 
colleague from Louisiana knows, because he serves on the Committee on 
Commerce with me that are working on this bill that the facts that we 
know and the facts that we are explaining to our seniors are nothing 
like the big lies that the Mediscare advertisements are saying out 
there. That, they really feel, will win them points. The seniors know 
what is going on. They are very sophisticated.
  I am getting 80 percent of my calls coming in saying, ``We don't 
believe these Mediscare tactics, keep going.'' I hope that the 
colleagues who are on the other side of the aisle who think that 
Mediscare will benefit them, it is destroying what little credibility 
that this town has left.

                              {time}  1815

  We need to shoot straight and be up front with the public, and I 
think this is a classic example where they are saying what sounds good 
right now to scare people, and the more people are learning, the more 
they are saying it is the same old garbage from Washington, ``They are 
trying to manipulate us and scare us so they can maintain their power 
base they have always had.''
  And at what cost? I mean, how many of us as a consumer would accept a 
product being sold to us three times more expensive every year than the 
rate of inflation?
  I do not care even if the system was not crashing, as the President's 
trustees say, if we could not manage a program, and I say this as 
someone who managed local government for 20 years, if we cannot manage 
a program with the cost increasing twice the rate of inflation, if the 
Democrats and Republicans cannot manage a health care program twice the 
rate of inflation, then none of us should be here. We should all go 
home and let the seniors run it.
  Mr. SHAYS. I have waited 20 years for the opportunity we have. I was 
a State legislator. I saw the Congress deficit spend. I served here 8 
years. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has been here much 
longer. We have an incredible opportunity to get our financial house in 
order, balance the budget, save Medicare and some of our other trust 
funds and change our corporate and social welfare state into an 
opportunity for society. This chance is here. It can happen on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank everyone for participating. We are making huge 
differences. It started with the Shays act on the first night. We are 
going to balance the budget, we are going to save Medicare. We are 
going to change welfare as we know it. We are going to keep a lot of 
the promises, actually, the President made when he was campaigning last 
time.

                          ____________________