[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 112 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8686-H8687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DEMOCRAT CENSORSHIP OF GOP VIEWS OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, when I served in 
this House the first time around, the Cold War was still ongoing, and 
there was a term that often appeared in the press. It was called 
Samizdat, S-a-m-i-z-d-a-t. That word was used to describe 
communications which conveyed the opinions of people disfavored by an 
oppressive regime. It was the personally published commentary among 
peoples who felt they were oppressed in Communist countries. Why? 
Because their opinions were not allowed to be expressed in the official 
press.
  Today, we have a situation in this House in which Mr. Herger, Mr. 
Lamar Smith, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Olson, Mr. 
Shuster, Mr. Roskam, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Fleming, Mr. 
Boustany, Mr. Conaway, and Mr. Price thus far have been refused by the 
majority permission to express their points of view with respect to one 
of the most critical issues facing our country, that of reforming our 
health care system.
  One of the most distinguished Members of this body, a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Kevin Brady from Texas, in 
working with the Republican economic staff of the Joint Economic 
Committee, came up with this chart, outlining what we believe to be the 
bureaucratic nightmare contained in the majority's proposal for health 
care.
  Now, the majority disagrees with our interpretation of the facts, and 
that's part of politics. That's part of this body, but the majority has 
now said we will not allow you in the minority to use any official 
communications mechanisms to share your views of the impact of this 
legislation on your constituents.
  Now, why does this seem strange?
  Well, it just happens that, in 1993, we were faced with what later 
became known as HillaryCare, an attempt by the Clinton administration 
to take over health care by the Federal Government. At that time, 
Republicans also came up with a flowchart that showed the bureaucratic 
morass that would result from that proposal. I have with me a copy of 
the permission from the franking commission at that time that this be 
allowed. The only difference I can see between the two charts is that 
one is in black and white and that one is in color.
  What has happened in the interim? Well, HillaryCare was defeated. The 
President said we can't stand to defeat his particular proposal, that 
they somehow have all of the answers.
  Now, some people may say, ``Well, what is it that the franking 
commission is supposed to do? What are your rules?'' The rules have 
been established essentially to make sure that Members do not abuse the 
right of communication by turning their publications into campaign 
pieces, so we limit the number of pictures one can have there, the 
number of references that can be made to the Member, himself or 
herself.
  To give you an example of what we on the Republican side have 
approved, I have a newsletter that has gone out by one of the Members 
on the Democratic side in which the claim was made that the stimulus 
package has helped create and save 3.5 million Americans jobs. I think 
that's absurd; I think that is a point of argument, but I don't believe 
that we ought to stop a Member of Congress from the Democratic side 
from making that assertion to his constituents.
  I have another one with me that was approved in which a Democratic 
Member has claimed that 3.5 million jobs nationwide have been created--
215,000 jobs in New York and 7,200 jobs in her particular district.
  Then I have a copy of a letter that was approved last year from the 
Speaker, herself, in which she says that the New Direction Congress--
that's how she defines it--also fought to increase compensation for our 
troops in the face of opposition from the Bush administration. It then 
goes on to criticize the President even though he signed it.
  We disagree with the characterizations that were in Speaker Pelosi's

[[Page H8687]]

letter, but we didn't think it was our purpose to censor her. Let's get 
rid of censorship and allow the American people to hear the facts as 
they are argued on both sides.

                          ____________________