[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10032-H10039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DEVASTATING CUTS IN MEDICARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to be here tonight and 
to be joined by my colleagues to talk about what we, some of us, have 
been talking about for the last several months, and specifically in the 
last several weeks, and that is the issue of the devastating cuts that 
the Republican leadership in this House would like to inflict on 
seniors in this country with $270 billion of cuts in Medicare.
  I think you need to put this issue into some perspective to 
understand how the special interests today are winning out over the 
public interest in this Congress. You really just have to take a look 
at today's newspapers. There really are two very poignant stories about 
two different groups who came to Washington, to the people's House, I 
might add, which is what this body is called. We are not only the House 
of Representatives, we are known as the people's House.

                              {time}  2000

  Well, we have two groups who came this week. One group's members got 
a private meeting with the Speaker of the House. The other group's 
members got arrested. Yes, my friends, the other group got arrested. 
When the American Medical Association and its high paid lobbyists came 
to Capitol Hill, they were given a closed door meeting with Speaker 
Gingrich. And, lo and behold, after the meeting with the AMA, it 
announced that it would reverse itself and support Republican Medicare 
cuts.
  You will note on Tuesday, October 10, in the report of the New York 
Times, it said ``For months Republican plans to curb Federal health 
care spending have sailed along on a silent wave of interest group 
approval. But now cracks are showing. The American Medical Association 
is starting to complain about the impact on care.'' That was on October 
10 in the New York Times.
  Well, they had their closed door meeting with the Speaker of the 
House, and, guess what? It was a flip-flop. And here you have on 
Thursday, October 12, ``House GOP Medicare bill wins over doctors with 
hidden enticements and the promise of profits.''
  When happened behind those closed doors? And I will quote to you the 
AMA representative, I believe his name is Kirk Johnson, in the paper 
said, ``Doctors were promised billions of dollars more than they would 
receive under the original plan.''
  In other words, they were bought off by the Speaker, How were they 
bought off?
  Today in the Wall Street Journal the headline is as shown here, that 
the House GOP Medicare bill wins over doctors with hidden enticements, 
promise of profits, and the Journal lays out what they call the 
Medicare sweeteners. These incentives include a provision to make it 
easier for doctors to set and profit from their own managed care plans 
known as provider service networks; a limit on payment of damages to 
some victims of medical malpractice; they would allow beneficiaries to 
set up medical savings accounts which would place no restrictions on 
the fees that doctors could charge those patients; and a promise to 
trim spending reductions in future fee for service payments by 
undisclosed amounts.
  Together, these provisions, once again, amount to a windfall of 
billions of dollars that the AMA representative crowed about after his 
meeting with the Speaker. Am I against doctors making a profit? I do 
not think anyone is against doctors making a profit, no. But I will 
tell you what we are against. We are against doctors making a profit 
while seniors get the shaft.
  You see, the $270 billion in the Medicare cuts can only come from 
providers or from beneficiaries. And every time the Republicans cut a 
deal with the providers, they have to cut more health care for seniors.
  Let me tell you, the American seniors are getting the message. They 
truly are. They understand this GOP shell game. Again, what I want to 
tell you is what happened yesterday, because it is equally important to 
find out about these two groups and what happened to them.
  When you take a look at the group that came, the National Council for 
Senior Citizens, they came to Capitol Hill, they did not quite get the 
same kind of reception that the AMA did. The seniors got no meeting 
with the Speaker; they received no concessions, no deals. Instead, they 
were arrested. That is right, there were 15 senior citizens, some in 
wheelchairs, some with canes, that were arrested yesterday. They were 
put in handcuffs and they were taken away in a paddy-wagon.

  What was their crime? They asked to speak in the people's House. That 
is what they were asking for, is an opportunity to participate in our 
democracy. And we have right here the photographs of those who were 
taken away. You will hear from some of my colleagues in a few minutes 
that they were there when this happened. You got here Teresa McKenna, 
age 68, from Falls Church, VA, with handcuffs being put on her. You 
have Roberta Saxton right over there, who is from Maryland, and she is 
67 years old. There she is being handcuffed.
  Let me just say that they simply went, this group of seniors, to ask 
questions of the Committee on Commerce about the Republican plan, what 
is in it, what does it mean in terms of our lives, and they came to 
exercise their right as citizens. But they were turned away. The lights 
were turned off in the committee room and they were taken out to the 
paddy wagons.
  Let me just say that we found out yesterday that daring to ask a 
question and asking that question, which is the right of every American 
citizen, that is punishable by a rest.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks, because I know my 
colleagues want to join in this debate this evening, but when it comes 
to the special interests, the Republicans, this Congress and the 
majority in this Congress, they are all ears for the special interests. 
But when it comes to the people in this nation, they turn a defense 
ear. That is not what we should be about.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. If the gentlewoman will yield, I 
really wonder who the Republicans are listening to, and I would like to 
hear later from members of that committee. Because as I am reading, a 
Republican Congressman the gentleman from Iowa, Dr. Greg Ganske, from 
the Des Moines Register, said,

       I guarantee you that these reductions will be bad for 
     quality health care. Not just for our senior citizens, but 
     also for working families. If Medicare and Medicaid cuts are 
     too deep, hospitals and doctors will shy away from serving 
     the elderly and poor or will try to push costs to the non-
     elderly, which could further increase the number of 
     uninsured, or the quality of the whole health care system 
     could decline.

  Now, that is a Member of this body, who is a Republican and who is 
also a doctor.
  Then from the New York Times, the American College of Surgeons, the 
American College of Surgeons said today that the Republican proposals 
would reduce Medicare payments for all surgical services by 10 to 12 
percent next year. Cynthia Brown, manager of the College's Washington 
office, said these cuts would heavily penalize surgeons.
  Maybe that is who they might be listening to, just the persons on the 
money-making end.
  I have high regard for any physician that is attempting to practice 
good medicine. But I do not believe that even the physicians want to 
make it uncomfortable for our seniors and rob them of quality care just 
for a paycheck.
  Now, according to a poll that was done by Lou Harris & Associates 
this month, 86 percent of wealthy Americans oppose Medicare cuts to pay 
for the tax breaks. Americans across the board overwhelmingly oppose 
using Medicare as a cash cow to pay for the 

[[Page H 10033]]
Republican plan to offer tax breaks to the very wealthy.
  A recently released Harris poll suggests that the opposition is even 
stronger among the wealthiest Americans. When the question was asked 
``Do you favor or oppose cutting the future costs of Medicare to pay 
for a tax break,'' 86 percent of Americans with income of $50,000 or 
more said they did not favor doing this, while only 83 percent of all 
Americans said they opposed the plan to cut services for our children 
and our senior citizens for a tax break for the wealthy.

  While the tax break for the wealthy is being given attention, the tax 
break for the working poor has been taken away. It seems to me that we 
are not listening. Perhaps there are persons inside listening only to 
selective voices, but they are not listening to the majority of 
Americans, and this is a body that is of, by, and for the people.
  So who are we hearing these quotes from? Selected persons that are 
making statements we all agree with, or from those persons that simply 
want to make a plea for the health of their future, and they get 
arrested?
  They are proposing medical savings accounts. Well, we are talking 
about 80 percent of these people that have worked all of their working 
days paying into Social Security with the promise and the contract that 
when they retire and reach their days on a fixed income, they would 
have available to them a fund that they have paid into for health care.
  While Medicaid was essentially passed as a program for our children, 
almost 70 percent of those dollars are being paid for long-term care 
for our seniors. And why is that? It is because our seniors do not have 
the money now. They are very stretched with what is being offered, and 
we are about to swipe that away from them.
  Who are we listening to? Are we the only persons listening to the 
people of this Nation? I am hearing desperate voices. Why are the 
Republicans not listening? Because the polls are not made up by us, it 
is an independent poll. And I hear the question, we want to save our 
children's future.
  Well, if we want to save our children's future, they must have a 
healthy present. If we do not provide for our children just the basic 
health care, they will not have a good future. They are being cheated 
out of the dollars even set aside for them now, because most of it by 
necessity is going for the care of our senior citizens.
  I want to know who, who are the Republicans listening to. They are 
not listening to America.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would love to have my colleague from Illinois, Mr. 
Durbin, join.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, thank you for the special 
order. It is a shame we have to come here late at night with an almost 
empty Chamber to talk about an issue which is literally on the minds of 
every American.
  We are in the eleventh month of this Gingrich revolution in the House 
of Representatives. America remembers when it got started, some of the 
promises that were made.
  Do you recall the promise from the Speaker that every amendment 
considered on the floor would go right up on the Internet so all across 
America Americans would know exactly what was being debated? There was 
to be no effort to put things through without clear scrutiny.
  Do you recall the promise of open hearings so that every American 
would know what was going on in the House of Representatives under this 
new Gingrich revolution? Do you recall the promise of open rules, so 
that we could have as many amendments offered and have a healthy 
debate, a deliberative procedure?
  Well, you may remember those promises but, frankly, take a look at 
what is happening with Medicare and Medicaid. A 421-page bill that has 
been heard one or two days at the most in committee, destined to come 
here to the floor of the House of Representatives next week, and we 
hear tonight from the majority leader, Mr. Armey, we are going to be 
given two hours of debate.
  Well, one would think surely two hours is enough. It cannot be that 
complicated. For 70 million Americans it is very complicated. Medicare 
is literally, literally, their lifeline, as to whether or not they can 
obtain affordable quality health care. For my mother, for parents and 
grandparents of so many Americans, Medicare is more than just another 
government program. It is a lifeline.
  The Republicans want to cut $270 billion out of this program. You 
say, well, in Federal terms that cannot have much impact. But it will, 
in terms of the services that are offered to our parents and 
grandparents, in terms of the payments to the providers, in terms of 
the expenses which may be shifted to the families of our elderly when 
the elderly themselves cannot pay.
  On the Medicaid side, the story is even more horrific. Half of the 
payments to nursing homes across America are made by Medicaid. The 
Republicans are coming on the floor with a proposal that does not 
protect families of those in nursing homes from having their own assets 
attacked once the elderly person in the nursing home runs out of money.
  It has got a long Federal term; it is called spousal impoverishment. 
In the State of Texas they brought it to the vernacular, it was the 
hock-your-home provision. Once grandma or grandpa is in a nursing home 
and runs out of money, they go back to the family and say maybe you 
ought to pay now, since they run out of money. The Federal law protects 
that from happening today. The Republican proposal does not contain 
that protection.
  Is that an important thing to debate for families across America? Is 
that worth two hours of our time at least? You bet it is. Instead, we 
are going to have this jammed down our throats. And when senior 
citizens came to this Capitol building and and said they wanted to know 
what is in this bill, they wanted to know the impact it will have, they 
were greeted by the Gingrich revolutionaries with handcuffs. Sixty-
seven and 68-year-old ladies who come into a committee room, irritate 
the chairman, and they are escorted out in handcuffs? What has this 
come to?
  Frankly, what we are dealing with here is a fact that has been made 
known by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. If you are a special 
interest group, if you have a political action committee, if you have 
the clout, you get a personal meeting with Speaker Gingrich and a deal. 
The doctors got it. I guess we should say God bless the doctors. They 
know how to work this system. But the seniors, obviously, have not 
figured it out. They still think this is on the square. They think you 
walk into a hearing room and learn what is in the bill and debate the 
bill and ask tough, yes, sir, tough questions. They were escorted out 
in handcuffs.
  Thank goodness, the charges were dropped on them. But consider the 
embarrassment to these people who took time out of their own busy lives 
at a point in their lives when they are retired to come to the U.S. 
Capitol here to be arrested.
  Now, the Speaker tells us if he does not get his way on this bill, he 
is going to shut down the Government. He is going to shut down the 
Government. Well, I have got a bill that I would like him to consider 
then if he would like to shut it down. If he wants a train wreck, it is 
called no budget, no pay. It says if Members of Congress are witnesses 
and part of a train wreck, then as the train crew, they are not going 
to get a paycheck.

                              {time}  2015

  That's right. We close down the Federal Government. We close down the 
paychecks for Members of Congress starting with the Speaker of the U.S. 
House of Representatives. If we think we can be that irresponsible, to 
jeopardize critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid in the Federal 
Government, we do not deserve a paycheck. That is my bill.
  I hope Members on the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, who are joining in 
this special order will try to address the central theme here, the 
central question: If the so-called proposal to save Medicare is so 
good, so right, and so timely, why are the Republicans hiding it? Why 
will they not bring it out in the public for us to have a hearing? Why 
can we have no more than 2 hours of debate on the floor?
  I will tell my colleagues why. Because these crazy ideas cannot stand 
the glare of sunlight. They cannot make it in the court of public 
opinion. And the bottom line is, Americans 

[[Page H 10034]]
know, as sure as I am standing here, we are cutting Medicare for a tax 
cut for the wealthiest people in this country. It is Republican 
trickle-down economics. It is good news for doctors in big business, 
but not good news for grandparents.
  I thank the gentlewoman for taking the special order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois, and It is the question of----
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield 1 minute?
  Ms. DeLAURO. What is before the light of day and what are we going to 
show to the public so that they can have an opportunity to be heard.
  I understand that my colleagues want me to yield. I do have folks 
that want to have an opportunity, and they have been here for a long 
time to get to speak, so I want to accommodate them and then I will be 
happy to entertain your comments.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. If the gentlewoman would just yield for 15 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for 15 seconds.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. My recommendation, and I have done this before, is 
instead of having the taxpayers pay for an hour of one side of the 
issues is to engage in debate, to have an actual discussion.
  The facts presented about the arrest yesterday, if one iota of what 
has been said tonight was true, we would be joined together. The fact 
of the matter is, it is completely untrue. If we would share time over 
the next hour and a half, Americans could learn the truth. If my 
colleagues do not want to share time, it is sort of like saying they do 
not want the truth to be known.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, and I 
have the highest regards for my colleague, except that those of us on 
this side of the aisle have been calling for hearings, for debate. We 
actually had an amendment on this floor of the House where we said let 
us go for 4 weeks of hearings.
  We have had 6 days of hearings on a highway bill, 28 days on 
Whitewater, 10 days on Ruby Ridge, 10 days on Waco, and yet we were 
only allowed 1 day of hearings in this body on Medicare, and I might 
add, on Medicaid, zero hearings. So that I am pleased that my colleague 
has come down, but the long and the short of it is, it is truly 
disingenuous to come down and ask for time when this is our time to 
talk about this issue and we have asked over and over and over again.
  I would like to really ask, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee], who wants to get involved in this discussion, to make her voice 
heard on this issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut for her leadership, and I comment as well on the colleague 
on the other side of the aisle, with great respect for wanting to air 
fully a matter that really Democrats have been calling for a full 
airing for months and months and months.
  Be it briefly, I am just going to comment and draw the attention of 
the American public to what I think visually they saw yesterday. I am a 
little surprised and taken aback that we can explain everything further 
than what the cameras visually showed, and that was that an elderly 
citizen--and I think that we have missed the alphabet. Children, c-h-i-
l-d-r-e-n, taken care of by Medicaid. And then our senior citizens, s-
e-n-i-o-r-s, seniors who have given to this country. We have missed our 
learning in school. We have them in handcuffs.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more we can explain than that this 
senior citizen, who was handcuffed in the hearing room, was simply 
trying to express her opposition to the fact that she would be paying 
higher premiums; that she would not be able to choose a physician that 
she had developed a confidence in.

  Yesterday and the day before was a slam dunk, not for cancer 
prevention, but I guess for the proliferation of cancer. When we deny 
women the opportunity for a mammogram right in the Halls of Congress, 
where we were trying to attempt to reform health care and provide 
incentives for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, we slam dunked cancer 
screening, slam dunked preventive activities by refusing amendments 
Democrats had offered.
  Likewise, while this woman was handcuffed, rather than respond to an 
amendment by the Democrats that offered opportunities for better rural 
and urban health care, giving incentives to primary care physicians who 
went into areas that were little utilized, or provided little service 
in terms of medical care, that too was slam dunked; that too was 
refused by the Republicans.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here where my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle is claiming that there is an explanation to a 
lady in handcuffs. I do not understand that, because it clearly shows 
someone who was trying to express their views on Medicare, the 
opposition, to the hidden and covert Republican plan, taken away by 
Gestapo-like tactics.
  I am not reflecting on the great policemen we have on Capitol Hill. 
They were following instructions. But they were taken away when they 
were simply trying to say give us an understanding, have a hearing and 
let us have input. Let us not cut $270 billion from Medicare on the 
basis of giving tax cuts to those making over $100,000.
  Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from Connecticut I simply wanted to 
say to her that this is appalling. This is one that should incense all 
America. This is not a question of whether we should have a reasonable 
debate. We had hearings out on the grassy area in front of the Capitol 
because the doors were closed to Democrats to be able to hear from 
constituents about these issues.
  I think now the point is the Republicans have presented their case 
under cover of cause. We are here now tonight shedding light and asking 
the American people to stand up along with us to bring back reality and 
reason to Medicare reform and health care reform and realize that our 
children and our seniors, the alphabets, count in America today. And I 
yield back my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas, 
Sheila Jackson-Lee, for her eloquent statement and remarks. She has 
been very, very active in this area over the last several months.
  To shed some further light on what is going on with seniors and the 
intimidation, I would like to yield time to my colleague, David Skaggs, 
from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 
the chance to participate this evening.
  I do not know what may have happened in the hearing room yesterday, 
it is an unfortunate scene, obviously, but it is, I think, not 
coincidental that the day before we are to take up floor consideration 
of this legislation next week, there will be a hearing in a 
subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at 
which the National Council on Senior Citizens has been called to 
testify.
  They have become essentially the favorite whipping group of many who 
are masquerading a new piece of anti-first-amendment legislation, a gag 
rule for nonprofits and many other people in this country. The National 
Council for Senior Citizens have really been the whipping group for 
their effort to silence people who want to participate in the political 
life of this country.
  Interestingly, the National Council has received a questionnaire, as 
did previous witnesses called before this subcommittee on the so-called 
Istook-MicIntosh-Ehrlich proposal, a questionnaire that calls them to 
account for all of their political activities over the last 5 years, 
State, Federal, and local, and all of the political activities of any 
organizations that may be affiliated with them.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, just stop and think what that sounds like. At least 
it brings back memories for me of the early 1950's in this country in 
which free American citizens were hauled before committees of Congress 
with the full power and authority, and the chilling effect that that 
can have if that authority is improperly used, and taken to task for 
the exercise of their rights, using their time and their resources, 
their rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.

  Now, we have had a lot of things going on in this place that many of 
us disagree with this year, but if we start 

[[Page H 10035]]
tampering with the lifeblood of this democracy, which is the free flow 
of information, the full participation in the political life of this 
country of every American and every group of Americans that has a claim 
to make, an argument to make, a case to make before their elected 
representatives in the Congress of the United States, we are in real 
trouble.
  That is the corrective device for this democracy, is the free flow of 
ideas and information and, yes, indeed, criticism. It can be awkward at 
times, it can be unpleasant and offensive at times, ideas that we 
disagree with often are, but when we start to impede that fundamental 
tenet of free political expression in this country, and that is what is 
at issue here through the McIntosh-Istook proposal and its application 
to groups like the National Council of Senior Citizens, we are in 
trouble. Beware. Stand up for your rights.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleague 
from Colorado, because in this Chamber he has an outstanding reputation 
for someone who is vigilant about the Constitution and the rights of 
the people in this Nation. We are all, and everyone should be very, 
very grateful to him for being that kind of a watchdog.
  We cannot really see these constitutional rights erode, because 
vigorous informed debate and differences in ideas is what makes this 
Nation great. I share your concern, because for people who are living 
this every day, the way we have, we are seeing that if the majority 
does not agree with a point of view, they do not agree with a piece of 
legislation, it is either not discussed or it is given short shrift, or 
it is given 1 or 2 hours of debate, or it is taken up in the middle of 
the night so that there cannot be that free and informed debate on 
issues that are vital to this Nation's survival.
  This in particular, the National Council of Senior Citizens, has been 
the most vocal group, in fact, about what will happen if we have $270 
billion in cuts for Medicare, and $182 billion cuts in Medicaid.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is 
especially ironic, I think, that a citizens group wanting to present 
their views, to lobby, if you will, are subjected to this kind of 
regime and the effort to silence them is being characterized, or 
caricatured, as lobbying reform. Meanwhile, the real lobbying reform 
that needs to go on in this place is shunted off as something we simply 
do not have time for, even though we have already passed it last year 
twice.
  It really gives us reason to stop and think where are the values 
here? Who is being heard? Whose lobbying is being preferred, I would 
ask the gentlewoman?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, that is true. We voted that twice last 
year, and Democrats have brought the issue of lobby reform and gift ban 
to this House probably five times in the last several months. Each time 
we are told that there is no time to do it, we cannot take it up. In 
the one instance where it did come up, it was voted down. It is now 
going to be postponed until some other time, and when a lobbying group, 
just in a week, in the face of seniors who were arrested, came in and 
within 2 days time, within 2 days time, changed their tune and were 
rewarded for doing that.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his vigilance.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, not only was I 
in that committee room, I am a member of this committee and we, the 
Democrats on that committee, have asked over and over and over again 
for hearings on the Medicare bill because we are very concerned that 
there is stuff in there that nobody understands.
  We wanted a hearing with the trustees. We hear the Republicans talk 
about the trustees' report. We asked for a hearing with them. We asked 
for a hearing with seniors. We thought that maybe we could have the AMA 
there. We could have everybody there to talk about this bill. But we 
were refused a hearing.

                              {time}  2030

  Now, yesterday before the markup, the markup on a 400-page bill, of 
which there have been no hearings on that particular bill, a group of 
senior citizens came into the hearing room, into the markup room. They 
had respectfully asked, no, I would say they begged for answers.
  They said, What is this bill going to do to our health care? They 
begged. They said, Just tell us, give us some time, talk to us about 
what is in the bill. And they were a group, some very, very senior.
  I would like you to look at this picture here of this lady. In this 
picture, that police person is not putting a bracelet on that lady's 
arms. He is putting handcuffs, handcuffs. Her name is Roberta Saxton. 
She is age 67.
  Now, I am a senior. I understand how frightening that must have been.
  Well, what happened in that committee room was quite extraordinary 
and quite horrifying. All the Republicans left the room. The lights 
were turned off in that room. It was pitch black, except for the lights 
of some camera people.
  We called for the lights to go on again. This was the people's House. 
This is the place where things are supposed to be out in the open, out 
in the sunlight. The lights did go on finally. The Republicans returned 
to the committee and called for arresting of these seniors, seniors 
like Roberta. There were two people in wheelchairs. There were some who 
were 90 years old. These were people asking about their health care.
  We then had an extraordinary event. The press were asked to--no, they 
were told by the police to leave the room.
  The press are the eyes and the ears of the American public. They were 
asked to leave the hearing room. And then the police were told by the 
chairman, I presume, to begin arresting, arresting these seniors. I and 
four other Members, Democratic Members, went with the seniors, as they 
were pushed out in wheelchairs with canes, they were there to ask, tell 
us what is in the bill. And what did they get? They got arrested.
  We went with them, some of the Members, just to see that they were 
all right. These were old people. These were frightened people. These 
were people, American people.
  Well, we know what is in the bill. There are $272 billion of cuts, 
$272 billions of cuts. What do those cuts mean? Well, obviously, they 
are not going to mean huge cuts for the doctors because the doctors got 
a hearing. They got a hearing. The seniors did not.
  Now, is it not interesting, why we did not have a hearing? We were 
told there was no time for a hearing. And yet today in that same 
committee we had a hearing, oh, there was a hearing, oh, yes, there was 
time, on the cellular industry. Well, that is fine. That is very 
interesting. But the cellular industry does not affect every senior in 
this country, and Medicare does, except it vitally affects seniors like 
this lady in the photograph, this lady here. You see the photograph. 
She came to talk to her representatives. She was arrested.
  But the special interests were not arrested. The lobbyists were in 
the room all through the markup. The AMA got a meeting. Why did not the 
seniors get a meeting? Why did not the Democratic Members get a 
meeting? We asked for a hearing. Why was the press removed from that 
room? Why was the public thrown out? Why were seniors in wheelchairs 
removed?
  Well, as I say, I went with them and other Members went with them, 
because you know what they were there to do. They were there to do 
their duty. It is the duty of the American people to come to their 
elected officials and say, Tell us, tell us what is in here.

  Well, I guess in our committee we have found that we have lots of 
time, lots of time for the special interests. But we have no time for 
the special people, the seniors of America whose Medicare is being cut 
every minute we sit here and pass this bill with no hearings.
  I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to tell what happened when I 
was there, what happened to senior Americans who came to the people's 
House to ask that their questions be answered and instead they got 
arrested.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oregon for the 
eyewitness account and really for her concern and her compassion in 
accompanying Theresa McKenna and others who were taken away. It is a 
gesture of the kind of concern and the kind of individual the 
gentlewoman is and the kind of representative the gentlewoman is, of 
the interests of the people 

[[Page H 10036]]
that she represents and all people who come here who ought to be 
treated in a very, very special way. Because without the people who are 
out there in each of our districts, we do not serve in this people's 
House. We only serve at their pleasure, and we need to keep that very, 
very much in mind when we are supposed to be doing the people's 
business in this House every single day.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], to join in this 
discussion. I thank the gentlewoman for her continued interest.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
and thank her for arranging this opportunity so that our colleagues and 
the Americans can understand what we are really talking about here 
today. We are really talking about opportunity for all Americans to 
have access, to have access to express their views. I think yesterday 
we understood how democracy worked well for some and not well at all 
for others.
  If you have a lot of money and you are very wealthy and influential, 
you get a hearing, but also you get a great deal, too. But if you are 
an ordinary citizen and you have faith in your government and come to 
express redress, they simply wanted to find out what was going on. They 
wanted to say to the committee how health care is so important. They 
wanted to know how that plan would enable them to provide for their 
health care, because many of them, as you know, are people who receive 
less than $25,000 a year, average $13,000, because they have to make 
choices, choices whether they will be able to have food or 
prescriptions. They simply wanted to have an opportunity to redress.

  This is a slippery slope we are going on. It is a dangerous 
prescription for democracy, if indeed we are going to reward those who 
are willing to support certain legislation with great deals; and, yet, 
those who want to express their opposition, we reward them by having 
them arrested. This is a democracy. We should be outraged at that.
  We should really be outraged at that, that the average American, in 
particular senior citizens, people who are going to be impacted more 
than anyone else simply wanted to have an opportunity to see their 
government working, this is democracy at its best and at its worst. It 
works well if you have money. It does not work so well if you do not 
have money.
  Let me just say one final concluding statement. They would have said, 
if we had listened to them, that they are not statistics, they are 
people, they are grandmothers, they are aunts, they are grandfathers, 
they are people we know. They are people who are struggling. They are 
families in this country who really want a chance to have just an 
ordinary life. That is not too much to ask of people. And it is not too 
much to ask of us as legislators to be responsive to those individuals. 
In fact, in North Carolina there are 999,000 Medicare patients, 985,000 
Medicaid recipients.
  If you combine that, North Carolina will lose $15.5 billion over a 7-
year period. That is a lot of money to pull out of the infrastructure. 
That is going to affect a lot of Americans. We have not had hearings on 
that. We are about to vote on something next week that is going to be 
very, very dangerous.
  I want to thank, again, the gentlewomn from Connecticut who has 
provided outstanding leadership in bringing the clarity of the issues 
and the impact.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the remainder of my 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Congress punished senior citizens who 
challenged cuts in Medicare and rewarded physicians who cut a deal on 
Medicare.
  Something is wrong with those priorities.
  When those who voice their opposition are silenced and only those who 
surrender support are promoted, we have a dangerous prescription.
  The proposed cuts in Medicare is a glaring example of the politics of 
division and dual standard.
  Mr. Speaker, the seniors who visited the Commerce Committee wanted an 
opportunity to speak about the plan that we will vote on next week, 
because many of them will not be able to afford health care, will get 
less quality care and will lose the security of a system that has 
served millions of Americans well for 30 years.
  That is because the majority wants to cut the funds for Medicare by 
$270 billion.
  These cuts go too far, and would not be necessary, if the majority 
would simply put off their plan to give a free tax ride of $245 billion 
to the wealthiest Americans.
  The cut that is being proposed is roughly three times higher than any 
previous cut.
  This cut will reduce the overall size of the Medicare program by 25 
percent--raising the cost of premiums and copayments to each of North 
Carolina's 999,000 Medicare beneficiaries by more than $2,000, over the 
next 7 years.
  And, when the Medicare cuts are combined with the cuts in the 
Medicaid Program, Federal health care dollars coming into North 
Carolina will be reduced by more than $15 billion.
  The Medicaid cuts affect North Carolinians of all ages--the elderly, 
children, the disabled, the poor. There are some 985,000 Medicaid 
recipients in our State. We would be forced to eliminate coverage for 
almost half of those Medicaid recipients.
  If we had taken the time to listen to the seniors who visited 
Congress on Wednesday, they would remind us that these are not just 
numbers. These are people.
  These are grandmothers and grandfathers. These are families, 
struggling to survive in an ailing economy. These are not just faces in 
the crowd. These are neighbors--people we know.
  The Medicare cuts will be especially painful, since more than 8 out 
of 10 of all Medicare benefits go to senior citizens with incomes of 
$25,000 or less!
  Those who are pushing these plans fought the creation of Medicare in 
1965, and now, in 1995, are seeking to do what they failed to do in 
1965--cut the comfort of retirement from our senior citizens.
  It is estimated that these plans will cost North Carolinians a loss 
of over $3,000 for each Medicare recipient in North Carolina between 
now and the year 2002, and a loss of some $900 for each recipient each 
year thereafter. And while Medicare support is declining, the 
population in North Carolina is growing.
  This year, we have 6.6 million people. Soon, we will have 7.2 
million. Thus, more people will be forced to depend on less money for 
adequate health care.
  Medicare beneficiaries will be forced to pay more and get less and 
they will have far less choice in their health care providers. These 
so-called savings that will come from Medicare will actually be paid 
out of the pockets of seniors and working families in America.
  Rural North Carolina, where health care is already behind, will be 
especially hard hit by these cuts.
  Medicare spending in the rural areas of North Carolina will be cut by 
$3.3 billion--a 20-percent cut in the year 2002 alone. Worse, rural 
North Carolina will lose some of the limited number of hospitals we 
have.
  Because of poverty, rural hospitals lose money on Medicare, while 
urban hospitals make a small profit. Medicare accounts for between 50 
and 80 percent of the revenue of rural hospitals.
  The typical rural hospital, under the majority's plan, will lose some 
$5 million in Medicare funding, over 7 years. That kind of loss can not 
be sustained.
  Rural hospitals already need 5,084 more primary care physicians to 
have the same doctor to population ratio as the Nation as a whole.
  Yet, with the proposed, severe cuts, according to the American 
Medical Association, the institution that yesterday made the deal, the 
cuts ``will unquestionably cause some physicians to leave Medicare.''
  We all support the concept of a balanced budget, and acknowledge that 
some sacrifices must be made; but we should not place the burden solely 
on those who can least afford it and let those who can afford it get a 
free tax ride! Where is the balance in that kind of budget?
  During the last Congress, the very people who now seek our trust in 
their Medicare and Medicaid cutting plan rejected every initiative that 
would have strengthened the Medicare Trust Fund even further.
  The fact is that they are using the trust fund solvency issue as a 
smoke screen.
  They are using the Medicare program as a bank for the best off, so 
that they can fulfill their campaign promise--a tax cut for the 
wealthy.
  If they dropped the idea of a tax cut for the wealthy, they would not 
need to make such deep cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  The so-called looming Medicare bankruptcy is more fiction than fact. 
It is a very convenient myth, but it is not reality.
  The fact is that, with the proposed cuts in Medicare, senior citizens 
will be seriously hurt, while not one penny would be contributed to the 
trust fund.
  This plan will mean tougher times for families and especially for 
senior citizens--those who have labored a lifetime under the belief 

[[Page H 10037]]
that they truly had a Contract With America. They can barely afford 
health care now.
  When the majority adds $2,400 to their health care costs by the year 
2002, many will have to choose between heat and health, a warm coat or 
a trip to the doctor--many may have to even choose between eating and 
health.
  Something is wrong with those priorities.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], the chief deputy whip, the minority whip. There are not many 
words to say what kind of strength and deliberation he has brought to 
this discussion and of the serious cuts in Medicare.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I thank my 
colleague from North Carolina for her words this evening and my friend, 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], for his thoughts on this 
important issue, the arresting of the seniors who were trying to 
express their views on an issue that is critical not only to them but I 
believe to the rest of the country as well.
  I am going to demand an apology from the Speaker and the Republican 
leadership to these seniors. Nothing short of that is in order. It 
seems to me that that was one of the most disgraceful exhibitions of 
thwarting democracy that I have seen in my years in this institution.
  I was not shocked and I was not surprised because, quite frankly, 
this whole experience over the last year has been a narrowing of voices 
in this institution. It started off at the beginning of this Congress 
when the Black Caucus was disbanded, the Hispanic Caucus, the 
Environmental Caucus, the Women's Caucus, and then it continued when 
they took away our research arm, the Democratic Study Group of the 
Democratic Party. And then it continued further with closed rules where 
we could not debate fully the issues at hand. And then it continued 
further as we took on the most important issue perhaps of this 
Congress, Medicare and Medicaid both. We got a total of one hearing. 
There is a narrowing of voices.
  Then we read today in the newspaper that the Speaker is going to 
close the place down because he cannot get his way. He has told the 
committees to close up shop. I am going to make the deals for you. They 
are going to come out on the floor of the House with my imprimatur on 
it or nobody's imprimatur on it.
  I would like to talk about a couple back-room deals here this 
evening, particularly the one that was cut with the AMA, the American 
Medical Association, recently.
  I want to trace that for just a second this evening because it is 
worth going over. After sharply criticizing the Republican Medicare 
plan last week for including price rollbacks that will impact on 
the quality of care, the American Medical Association quickly changed 
its tune. What caused this change of heart, it was a back-room deal 
with the Speaker which limits Medicare's planned fee rollback for 
physicians. In a closed-door meeting which occurred late at night while 
the committees, by the way, were busy, the Committee on Ways and Means 
was busy working to pass the Medicare plan, Speaker Gingrich cut a deal 
that brought the support, bought the support of the AMA.

  The details of this secret deal have remained closed to the public, 
but according to an AMA official, the deal is worth billions of dollars 
to doctors. Let me say that again. According to an AMA official, the 
deal is worth billions of dollars to doctors. In simple terms, the AMA 
named a price, and the Republicans met it.
  Let me trace exactly what happened here over the past week. On 
Wednesday, the 4th of October, there was criticism. James Stacey of the 
American Medical Association is quoted in the New York Times as saying: 
This Republican Medicare plan causes real problems for the AMA. It 
would be a major blow to the traditional fee-for-service Medicare 
program.
  Tuesday afternoon, October 10, less than a week later, more 
criticism. Kirk Johnson, AMA General Counsel, quoted in the New York 
Times: What we cannot agree to are price rollbacks that will impact on 
the quality of care.
  The reductions were so severe, he said, that they will unquestionably 
cause some physicians to leave Medicare.
  Tuesday afternoon, October 10th, the deal is struck. Johnson and the 
AMA officials meet with the Republican leader in the Speaker's office. 
The AMA calls the press to the Speaker's office to announce their 
support for the Republican Medicare plan. On Thursday, October 12, the 
details emerge. The Wall Street Journal reports on the AMA-Gingrich 
secret deal. And I quote: ``Kirk Johnson, the AMA's general counsel, 
suggested to several reporters that the improvements would be worth 
billions of dollars to physicians.''
  The New York Times quotes Johnson commenting further on the secret 
deal, and I quote: ``It's wrong to suggest that the AMA endorsement was 
contingent on billions of dollars. There isn't a precise figure. We 
don't know the amount.''
  So what we have here is the Republicans and the AMA coming together 
and refusing to disclose the final details of the deal. What we can be 
sure of is that doctors got what they wanted while seniors, like the 
two that we were talking about this evening, were left out in the cold, 
were taken handcuffed by authorities out of a committee room and were 
not allowed to speak.
  I want to talk about the Speaker's own words, because I think they 
are instructive here this evening.

                              {time}  2045

  On Tuesday, Speaker Gingrich sealed his backroom deal, as I said, 
with the AMA, and the deal occurred while the Committee on Ways and 
Means and the Committee on Commerce were acting on the GOP Medicare 
plan. But history buffs will no doubt remember these immortal words to 
live by that were uttered by the Speaker when he appeared before the 
AMA on March 24, 1993, and I want to quote what the Speaker said. He 
said, ``If I had one plea in mind, it would be for simple honesty. The 
American people deserve to be told the truth. They deserve to be told 
the truth by the President. If I had a second plea, it would be for 
openness.'' That is what he said. The Speaker said, ``It would be for 
openness. The American people, when you are dealing with their lives, 
when your dealing with 14 percent of the gross national product, 
deserve to have an open opportunity to understand who is in the room.'' 
Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people did not see what was in the room 
when you cut the deal that was worth billions of dollars to the docs in 
the country. They did not see what was in the room when you made a 
special deal on your medical accounts and, for those who are not 
familiar with that, these medical savings accounts come at a price as 
well.
  The main advocate for the medical savings account was a gentleman by 
the name of Mr. Rooney, who has Golden Rule Insurance, and a CBS News 
analysis of Golden Rule and Rooney and associates' donations to 
Republican causes are as follows: Gingrich campaign, $45,000; 
Republican Party, $1,200,000; GOPAC, $157,000. These are the 
contributions by Mr. Rooney and Golden Rule Insurance Co.
  So the deals have been cut. The seniors have been left out in the 
cold, and as my colleagues have suggested, this is a shameful episode 
in the history of this Congress.
  The thing that just drives me to the wall, quite frankly, is that we 
are talking about people here who make a very meager amount of money. A 
report issued a month ago by our Labor Department said that the seniors 
in this country, 60 percent, I want to repeat this, 60 percent of the 
seniors in the United States of America have incomes, combined incomes, 
retirement and Social Security incomes of $10,000 a year or less. Sixty 
percent of combined incomes of $10,000 a year or less, combined 
retirement and Social Security.
  They are asking, the Republicans are asking those folks to pay an 
extra thousand bucks out of their pocket while the docs get billions of 
dollars' worth of deals that have been cut. Mr. Rooney and his 
insurance company are going to make millions, if not billions, of 
dollars on this.
  Something is wrong in America, ladies and gentlemen, when we are 
doing that to the most vulnerable of our society, the seniors and the 
young people who are taking the hit on Medicaid.

[[Page H 10038]]

  Medicaid provides health care for two out of every five children in 
our country, and that is being cut by $182 billion.
  So I thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro], for taking this time and for giving me the opportunity 
to express my concerns and outrage over what we have seen here in the 
Capitol in the last several days.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], for making his comments. Clearly, those children 
were not in the room. Seniors were not in the room. Working 
families were not in the room. But Mr. Rooney and the AMA are in the 
room, and I think you were very clear in delineating how that process 
has worked here over the last several days.

  I might just add one point to what you have said. Our Republican 
colleagues have said that they are going to save the Medicare Program, 
and they make reference to the trustees' report of what is needed and 
what is necessary to save it, and the trustees, what they do not pull 
out from what the trustees have said is that $90 billion would be the 
amount of money to take us to the year 2006 and so forth. What is 
happening with the additional $180 billion?
  Mr. BONIOR. It is going to a tax cut that will benefit primarily the 
most wealthy individuals and corporations in our society.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Furthermore, what they will say, our colleagues will 
say, and probably say here this evening, is that we do not have a plan. 
Well, first of all, Medicare is a plan, if we can fix some portions of 
it, which we need to and are willing to, without destroying it, and 
there are a number of suggestions in which to do that.
  Second, in the Committee on Ways and Means there was a Democratic 
alternative that was put forward. It was for $90 billion to cover what 
the trustees have talked about, and that was voted down, and that gives 
me an opportunity to have my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Stupak], join this debate.
  Mr. STUPAK. Two points I would like to make, really, three points.
  First of all, you say, no plans. Democrats offered two plans in 
Committee on Commerce last night. Both were shot down on parliamentary 
rules only. I offered one plan, only 39 pages long, which cuts out 
fraud and abuse. We can save the system there. Also, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman] offered a plan. Never a comment on it. We were 
just ruled out of order. I defeated one of the parliamentary inquiries 
on my legislation. Then they brought up another one, because I used the 
word ``hospital,'' hospital trust fund, which is part of Medicare, 
because I used ``hospital,'' part A. We have jurisdiction over part B. 
They ruled me out of order and silenced my plan before we could even 
have a vote.
  The other point I would like to make, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior] mentioned the MSA's, medical savings accounts. You know, 
even Ross Perot says this is dangerous, go slowly, do not do it too 
quickly. We offered a proposal to do a pilot program on MSA's. Again, 
that was defeated.
  These figures you mentioned, I say to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior], about the payment due in 1996, $3.1 billion, then again a 
total over 7 years as we are trying to save Medicare, $15.3 billion. 
Understand, folks, that comes immediately out of the Medicare trust 
fund. There will not be a bill to the American people. It is a bill to 
the seniors who have paid into the Medicare trust fund.
  As soon as these seniors sign up for the medical savings account, you 
have to transfer. Here is a trust fund they are claiming is going to go 
bankrupt, so let us further bankrupt it by taking out these MSA's, 
medical savings accounts, before anyone even knows if they work. In the 
private sectors they have not worked.
  As I said, even Ross Perot said do not do it, go slowly, you are 
playing on thin ice here. You can bankrupt, a spiraling bankruptcy, 
into the Medicare system before it ever even gets going, instead of 
needing $90 billion to save the system. If the MSA's come out, we will 
need at least $105 billion plus. They may work, but do we have to throw 
all of our health care system, the seniors, health care system, to an 
MSA plan and try to force them into these medical savings accounts 
without even knowing if it is going to work? Is Medicare not a valuable 
program that helps our seniors? Do they want us to gamble with their 
health care system on a system that is not even tried, a system that 
will immediately start draining the Medicare trust fund? That does not 
make sense.

  Mr. BONIOR. These medical savings accounts, they are for the healthy 
and the wealthy, basically. These insurance companies are not going to 
take care of you if you have got a preexisting condition. They cherry-
pick. That is how they make their dollars. So we are going to be 
providing hard-earned Medicare dollars in our trust fund to people who 
frankly will not use it, will not need it, and the deductible is 
$10,000 on this thing.
  You know, it is something that we ought not to be fooling around with 
at this time because of its very nature and who it is targeted for. It 
is not targeted for the average person who needs it, and it benefits a 
few insurance companies that basically are going to be cherry-picking.
  Ms. DeLAURO. That point that you made about the $10,000, that is in 
the very fine print. An insurance company under these medical savings 
accounts could charge up to $10,000 deductible, and that is truly 
incredible with what the seniors would have to go through. But once 
again, you are taking a look at a special interest that would derive 
real benefit from this effort at the expense of seniors who are on 
limited incomes.
  Mr. STUPAK. You mentioned earlier, you were talking about the 
incident that happened on the Committee on Commerce. I sit on the 
Committee on Commerce. I am a former police officer. I spent 12-13 
years in law enforcement. In fact, one of my posts was with Michigan 
State police at the State capital post. We had to go periodically to 
demonstrations outside the capital hearing rooms, things like that.
  I would say in this picture here, you see a police officer putting 
what we call flexicuffs on this individual. That is a standard 
operating procedure.
  I want to say that Capital Police who were put in a tough, a very 
difficult situation, handled themselves very professionally. They were 
very courteous.
  Not only was I at the committee, but I went down to where this 
photograph was taken in the basement of the Rayburn Building, as they 
were loading the individuals in the squad cars to take them to the 
booking station. I went down to the police captain, police 
headquarters, where these people were being booked, and observed the 
procedure. Having been a former police officer, needless to say, I was 
somewhat interested.
  I also wanted to go because I had offered my seat on the Committee on 
Commerce to one of those seniors who was standing there, and when the 
commotion broke out, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the 
chairman, sort of adjourned the committee, and my Republican friends 
all left, and then they turned off the lights so everybody was sort of 
in the dark.
  Then a few minutes later, now they abandoned the committee room, they 
turned off the lights, a few minutes later they come back in, and they 
are told they will have to sit down and be quite or face arrest.
  Most Members were standing up, so I offered my seat to the lady 
standing next to me, Barbara, I forget her last name. She was from 
Maryland. I went with her. She was quite concerned. She had never been 
arrested. They were fingerprinted, photographed, handcuffed, actually 
put in a holding room until later that afternoon they were allowed to 
bond out before a magistrate. You could not just get an appearance 
ticket like a traffic ticket, which is an acceptable thing, but because 
this is a bondable offense, they actually had to be held at the 
District of Columbia court and bond out later that afternoon.
  The police officers again did an excellent job under some tough 
circumstances. But I do not believe in, having been a police officer 
and having dealt with civil disobedience in government, I do not 
believe the arrest was necessary, especially after we abandoned the 
hearing room, the markup room, if you will, turned off the lights, come 
back, tell them to sit down.
  This lady that I assisted did sit down, and then she faced arrest 
when she sat 

[[Page H 10039]]
down in my chair after I gave her permission.
  The part that bothers me, the earlier, a week ago, last Monday, we 
started this so-called markup, the National Council for Senior Citizens 
came in with mail bags, invited in by the Republicans, dumped 100,000 
mailgrams in front of all of us. This gentleman in the group was 
allowed to make a speech. There were not supposed to be witnesses, but 
he was allowed to make a speech as they were dumping the mail. Then 
they grabbed a handful of mailgrams. As what has happened so often in 
the past, they were false, fictitious, 75 of them my staff and I went 
through, and again, being a police officer, I was rather curious. I 
started to go through them. Two were from people who were deceased. 
Their family members wrote back and said ``deceased,'' and gave the day 
they were deceased. One died in September 1994, but they counted them 
as supporting the Republican Medicare plan. Another five were unsigned. 
One was addressed to ``contributor.'' Apparently, this individual 
contributed to some campaign or something through this organization. So 
it was addressed to ``contributor.''
  Three of them had written comments on the back, just destroying the 
Republican Medicare plan. One of them wrote on there, ``I do not want 
to be forced into managed care.'' Another one said, ``I want the 
Federal employees' health benefit like you have.'' Another one said, 
``Why do you take these pay raises? Give us what you have.'' They were 
anything but ringing endorsements of the Republican plan.

  I think what is going on here is groups who speak up are subject to 
silence, either through not allowing the groups to have their voices 
heard or, when they try to be heard, maybe even face arrest. They bring 
forth mailgrams which people do not exist, they are unsigned, they are 
in complete opposition.
  I am very concerned about the image that is being put forth that all 
of these people support it. The only ones we hear from are people who 
are supportive of the plan, or allegedly supportive of the plan, and 
the other thing that bothers me is when we did tort reform, started out 
being medical security reform earlier in the committee, there were 
actually highly paid lobbyists sitting in the top row of the dais while 
the hearings were going on. They approved the amendments being offered 
by both sides. These people came in to have their voices heard are not 
allowed to sit in the committee room, even in my chair. How could 
lobbyists be allowed to sit at the top of the dais and review the 
amendments and give their ``yes'' or ``no''?
  We need fairness. We need openness, much like the Speaker said. I 
would invite him or anyone to have that fairness and openness in all 
committees. Let us no longer do any legislation without hearings.
  I thank you for allowing me to say a few words this evening.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Our time is just about concluded. I want to thank all my 
colleagues who came out tonight to engage in this discussion.
  The long and the short of it is that this is a serious debate. It is 
one that all Americans ought to be able to have their voices heard. 
What we have found out is that only some of the voices have been heard. 
The voices of seniors, the voices of working families have not been 
heard in this process, but the voices of special interests have been 
heard.
  We need to have a safe and secure Medicare system.
  The Democrats have an alternative. They presented that alternative in 
committee. It was voted down, and open hearings and open debate on this 
issue have been curtailed to only those who support the majority 
position or who have a financial interest in what does finally happen.

                          ____________________