Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which allows for open debate, and in support of the general direction of this bill. I think we have had too many job training programs that have been duplicative, that have been overlapping. I think the concept of this bill is a good one in merging those, a concept that supports some of the evaluation that, frankly, has not occurred in the past with reference to many of these programs. The one very significant exception though that I would note to that support and on which I would focus public attention is the way that we handle the training programs for people with disabilities across this country. I believe that the amendment that my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, will offer to except vocational rehabilitation from the coverage of this one-stop bill to deal with some of the unique problems that our citizens with disabilities have is the approach that we must adopt. I am sure that there are people that are involved in one training program or another that have views on this subject. I have heard from some of them. But the most compelling stories are the stories that I have heard from people with disabilities themselves. They have been coming out to see me as I visit around my home of Austin, TX. This last weekend, recognizing that the Federal building may be a bit pretentious, I took my office out to the neighborhood and held office hours on a Saturday morning in front of a grocery store. I had a number of people with disabilities who came out. I expect they were concerned mainly about the way they are going to be hit on Medicare, since they, along with seniors, rely on Medicare, and it will reach into their pocket with this Republican plan to require that they pay more and get less under Medicare. But the second concern that they voiced, and a very real one, is having vocational rehabilitation lumped into House bill 1617. Last Saturday one of the people who came and talked to me during these grocery store hours in north Austin was Doris Varnell. Doris is a woman who lives in Austin, and who at age 40 was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Despite the debilitating effects of this terrible disease, she was determined to continue to work. She told me that without the support of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission, TRC, as we call it in Texas, she is not sure that she could ever have made the first tough job search. You see, she was accustomed to being a person without disabilities, and like any of us, who are just one accident or one unfortunate illness away from a disability, she was a person who lived without disability and now confronted disability and had to adapt to that and find out how to overcome that disability. She turned for the first time at a very scary time in her life to the Texas Rehabilitation Commission and found a way to avoid painful discrimination and found a way to benefit from the special services that have served her and have served literally hundreds of thousands of Texans, as they have served millions of Americans across this country. In fact, during the time the vocational rehabilitation system has been in effect in America, it has served and gotten into our work force some 9 million Americans. Every year, vocational rehabilitation gives 200,000 more Americans the opportunity to serve in the work force, despite of and in fact overcoming their disabilities. We hear so much in this Congress about the SSI Program under Social Security. Well, 40,000 people come off of SSI every year as a result of the services of vocational rehabilitation. All of this has been accomplished with a network of State vocational rehabilitation services, recognizing some of the unique needs of people with disabilities. In essence, we already have a block grant program for vocational rehabilitation. I fear that some have taken such a blockheaded approach to block grants that they are now going to block grant a block grant program. This is a solution without a problem when it comes to people with disabilities in Texas. We already have a Federal block grant program going to the Texas Rehabilitation Commission. It provides unique services to meet the needs of people with disabilities. It does it well. It does it efficiently. It does it with local input and support and consultation with local groups involved with people with disabilities, and that is the way it ought to continue to occur. I realize the appeal of a one-stop career center, and I think that that is appropriate for people who are unskilled, who are undereducated. But I am concerned that someone who faces multiple sclerosis, who has some other type of mental or physical disability, needs more than one stop. They may need extra assistance to deal with their disabilities and find a way to convince employers of how much they contribute. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that we have a system that works very well right now to meet the needs of people with disabilities. It involves people who are skilled as counselors in working with people with disabilities, and in the course of adopting a bill that has much merit, let us not destroy this hope that is out there of meeting the special needs of people with disabilities. Let us support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas Mr. Gene Green, to preserve a system that works and works well for people with disabilities.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for participating tonight, and particularly my Republican colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood. Under the procedures of this House, he and his party now have a full hour in which to present their plan, and I hope they lay it out line by line so that the American people can see what is in this plan. They have yet to lay it out, perhaps, to some of their own Members who do not understand the details, and as the morning's papers seem to indicate, do not know, themselves, how they are going to fill the great void that is there in their plan, and how it is they are going to provide a $270 billion cut in Medicare, without demanding that America's seniors pay more and get less. We need a full and thorough debate; not just in their forum tonight, but with a series of hearings and a full open rule when this matter comes before the House. I hope the presence of my Republican colleague here tonight is an indication that the Republican leadership is going to change its ways, just as he says they have changed their ways on some of the increases that they were originally contemplating in taking out of the pockets of our senior citizens, that they will change their ways and that they will not fade the heat any further from the American people, but will instead give us a full, fair and open debate in committee and on the floor of this Congress. If we do that, if we have the kind of bipartisan exchange, then the American people will know what is about to happen to them. They can understand the full consequences of having to take from seniors in order to afford a tax break to the most privileged few in our society. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will see that happen and hope that our Republican colleagues in the hour that they now have, will indicate to the American people that we will have that kind of full, fair and open debate, unrestricted in terms of time, unrestricted in terms of amendments, so we can really get about the job of improving and strengthening the Medicare system instead of taking away from it.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. DOGGETT. Reclaiming my time, I am so pleased to hear those comments from the gentleman tonight, because everything you have assured us that this plan will not do is what as you know one newspaper after another has reported was the plan of the Republican task force before last week. Thank heavens we are having some impact in educating the American people about the dangers of this Republican plan. Apparently there are at least some members of the Republican Party that are backing away from raising deductibles, not in the U.S. Senate where they propose to double them under the Republican Senate plan. There are some who may be backing off copayments. The problem is, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut has pointed out with yesterday's Washington Times, hardly a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, that you have a giant gap in your plan. That giant gap is proposed to be filled by what you call a look-back provision. That means that at the end of the year, if you do not get the savings necessary to get the tax break for the privileged few, you are going to have some bureaucrat in Washington reach back and cut in the program. When that cut occurs, it is going to be even more difficult for people to find a health care provider that will provide them Medicare. I know from my own community that there are many citizens right now that have difficulty finding a provider that will take Medicare. Fortunately you did provide some detail last week, and I am referring to the House Republican leadership packet, the so-called information packet, which is a bit of a contradiction because there is not much information in it, but in that packet you said that it was a myth that you would chase doctors out of Medicare. Your answer, though, was that doctors today are turning away Medicare patients, which is true, and that doctors under your plan could choose to participate in what you call Medicare Plus. But Medicare Plus is not the Medicare system that people have relied on for the last 30 years, and which you say you would continue to give them the right to participate in. I do not think the Republican Party, tonight or in their so-called information packet or at any other time, has provided any genuine assurance to the American people that they are not going to be forced out of a Medicare system, and whether they are going to have providers who will provide them Medicare in the traditional way. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a question to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOGGETT. I have just one response to the gentleman's observation, because I think it is an important one. That is that there may be some younger people that are watching and observing the debate going on across our Nation over Medicare, feeling that they do not have a stake in this. As you pointed out, many of those young people at the beginning of their earning power, working people in this country, the folks out there working for an hourly wage, are about to get hit with a tax increase by the Committee on Ways and Means under the Republican leadership. But they also stand in the course of this Medicare debate to suffer as well. One recent study that was done by Lewin VHI has pointed to the danger of cost shifting as a result of this Medicare plan and has suggested, and I quote, that lost wages in increased premium contributions would equal about $1,000 per covered worker over the 1996-2002 period. So those same workers that we are talking about, that are about to get a Republican tax increase with the changes being made in the Committee on Ways and Means, are also people that stand to lose about $1,000 from cost shifting under one study because of a Medicare plan that is being done in isolation from the rest of the health care problems of this country. That may simply cause hard-pressed hospitals and health care providers to shift more cost to those who are under 65 to try to recoup some of the losses that will occur to them if this plan goes into effect. I know my colleague from New Jersey has arrived and that he has a number of questions and has spoken out eloquently on this subject. I yield to him.

Mr. DOGGETT. That the House Republicans want to pass.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we use tonight as an opportunity to share with colleagues across this House, because we are being denied an opportunity to have a full and fair debate in committee this week, so I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] for any questions or observations.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman's comment about the number of hearings that have been held, because we went through the same problem with the budget resolution, where one ``think tank'' person after another was brought in to talk in theory about the budget, but no hearing was held on the specific proposal. To date, we have not even had the gentleman or one of his colleagues come down here and outline the proposal and say how much higher the premiums will be, how much higher the deductibles and copayments will be, and the other changes. It is hard to have a really meaningful hearing, or for that matter, a really meaningful bipartisan debate, in which the gentleman has said he wishes to engage tonight, without having the details of that plan laid out before us.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DOGGETT. I appreciate your questions, and I have only about a minute left, but I would yield for observation briefly to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am here again tonight, as I was last night and this morning, to talk about the future of Medicare and specifically to discuss the new Republican Medicare plan, which is the pay-more-get-less plan. In the event that anyone has not gotten all the details, that is really what it boils down to. But we will spend the next hour discussing the details of the impact of this plan. Why is it that having discussed this plan to some extent already, that I am back again talking about it some more? Well, I can tell you that the reason is because on Thursday of this week, the day after tomorrow, just a few hours away, the Committee on Ways and Means will have 1 day of hearings, 1 day for all of the people in America, all of the experts on this subject, and let me assure you that some of the best experts on Medicare are the 37 million Americans who depend on Medicare for their health care, but 1 day in the entire year in which that committee will take time to hear what should the future of Medicare be, what should the specifics of legislation be. And in that 1 day and that 1 day only, will they focus on what ultimately could be the beginning of the total destruction of Medicare as we have known it for the last three decades. So it is critical to take every opportunity to focus attention and to advise the people of America on what is about to happen with reference to this critical Medicare system. Now, I have to say to those who may have concern as to whether this message is getting out and whether people are hearing about it and really realize the impact of these drastic changes on them, that I believe the answer is a strong yes; that indeed the attention that we as Democrats have focused on the plan that the Republicans have to grab $270 billion out of the Medicare system in order to fund their tax breaks for the privileged few in this country, has already had a big impact. It was a little over a month ago that the Washington Post stated, ``Medicare premiums would soar under new options in Republican plan.'' They point out that under all three versions of the Republican working documents that have been leaked to the press, Medicare premiums would go up, Medicare deductibles would go up, and Medicare copayments will go up. I can recall seeing some of those leaked documents and knowing that there were Republican Members actually advocating that we needed to discourage the seniors from having what is called Medigap insurance. That is to pick up the cost of what Medicare does not pay through private insurance. And it was part of this Republican theory that our seniors are simply not paying enough for their health care. Even though they have to pick up the costs for their prescriptions, even though we have no effective long-term health care plan for those seniors who might face the possibility of a nursing home, even with all of the things not covered by the Medicare system, as good as it is today, the Republicans say they are not having to pay enough and we need to find a way to actually discourage them from having this private Medigap insurance. Well, when the plan was unveiled, to the extent the veil has been pulled back, and it is only a partial lifting of the veil that we have had in the last few days, when the plan was partially unveiled, the Republicans began to back off from this theory and began to say well, we really do not want to increase deductibles, and we are not sure we want to increase copayments, and yes, it is OK to have Medigap insurance. So as they have heard from Americans across this country, as members of the Democratic Party have had the courage to stand here on the floor and speak out about this plan, they have begun to back off. I cannot help but think if we continue to speak out, even though they accord us only 1 day of hearings, if we continue to speak out at every possible opportunity, they will yet rethink the pay-more-get-less plan and recognize that it is not in the best interests of the American people. Of course, with reference to the plan that they have unveiled in seeking 1 day of hearings, there have been a number of people, and not just Democrats, who have been critical of that. As I think about Republican-oriented newspapers in this country, I can think of few that are more Republican-oriented than the lead paper in the city of Dallas, in my home State of Texas, the Dallas Morning News. I want to quote briefly from an editorial that they had on this subject of limiting the right of the American people to know the details of this. I say almost the most Republican paper in this country, because undoubtedly the most Republican paper is the American Civilization Newspaper. It is the newspaper of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which was founded by our Speaker, Newt Gingrich. As you will recall in February of this year, the lead editorial from that foundation was entitled ``For freedom's sake, eliminate Social Security.'' In that lead editorial in February, the editorial derided Social Security, in addition to Medicare, and it said that ``It is time to slay,'' and I am quoting, ``the largest government entitlement program of all, Social Security.'' It said, ``Social Security must be abolished.'' It is that kind of extreme ideological thinking that I think is behind the effort to first subvert and weaken the Medicare system with the pay-more-get-less system, and then to go after the weakening and the eventual destruction of the Social Security System, as the Speaker's own newspaper advocated back in February of this year. But returning to Texas and returning to the very Republican-oriented Dallas Morning News, on September 10, under a title ``Changing Medicare, public will need time to grasp reforms,'' the Dallas Morning News says, Remember last year when the Democrats tried to rush final health plan through Congress just before the August recess? At that time the Republican congressional leaders said look, these reforms are too complicated. The American people need time to absorb them. Let's break for August and let the American people digest and debate them. They say, ``The Republican response was appropriate.'' Of course, you would expect that from a Republican-oriented newspaper. But then they go on to point out this. They say, ``but now their memory,'' referring to the Republicans, ``seems short, if not selective. One year later, Republican congressional leaders are trying to rush their own health care reforms. Here comes the hypocrisy,'' they say. Republicans want Congress to vote on the reforms within 10 days to 3 weeks. That is misguided. Congress soon must finish its plan to achieve a balanced Federal budget. Medicare, after all, is a lifeline for many senior citizens.'' They say, ``changes should not be rammed down their throats.'' That is what this discussion tonight is about. I was quoting the Dallas Morning News that changes should not be rammed down the throats of our Nation's seniors. Then they go on to point out, ``Let's not revisit the mess of last year. Republicans must listen to their own counsel.'' That is what we are calling for. Do not just devote 1 day to wrecking a program that it has taken 30 years to get in place, a program that over 9 out of 10 of every Republican Member of the Congress, back when President Johnson signed Medicare into law, opposed. Let us focus attention and provide for detailed analysis. After all, the Republicans in this House thought that the Whitewater affair was deserving of 28 days of public hearings, and yet when the issue is a whitewash for an attempt to undermine the Medicare system, they seem unwilling to devote more than a day. Now, I see that my colleague from Texas, the gentlewoman from Houston, TX [Ms. Jackson-Lee], is here. I know she had the occasion to sit through some of those hearings and to know about these matters, and perhaps she has some observation about the impact of this kind of pay- more-get-less plan and rushing it through in a single day.

Mr. DOGGETT. I have yielded for a comment to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], and I will continue to yield to all of those here for questions and observations, but I would ask that you have the opportunity to finish, and that the rules of the House be enforced, and that we have regular order, if the gentleman would proceed.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. DOGGETT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman is, why is it that you are having only one day of hearings? And his response is, we are having hearings and it is near the end of the fiscal year. The hearings he is having are taking less than 1 day. The reason we are near the end of the fiscal year is that he has drug out throughout the course of this year this proposal. He still has not come to the floor of this House and outlined the details of the proposal, and proposes to rush it through on the eve of the close of the fiscal year, not because we have a crisis, but because I genuinely believe our Republican colleagues want the American people to know as little as possible over as short a time period as possible what this plan really does.

Mr. DOGGETT. But not on this plan.

Mr. DOGGETT. I would be glad to have not only one of you, but 100 or 200 more here to debate fully and thoroughly. But I am concerned that what is going to happen, given the example of limiting these hearings to 1 day and 1 day only, that the idea will be to compress the real debate that occurs, once we have all the details of the plan, into the same limited time so people learn as much about it or as little about it as possible. Perhaps the gentleman could tell us why there is 1 day and only 1 day of hearings once the plan is outlined, if he is indeed interested in a bipartisan presentation.

Mr. DOGGETT. I would like to respond to that because I am so very pleased that you raised it. The impression that has been created over the last few months and certainly in the last few days is that, if we do not rush through what I think is fairly referred to as the pay-more- get-less plan, that suddenly this system will go broke and no one will have anything. I do not think that could be any further from the truth. If this Congress did not act, I am not advocating that, I would like to see action, there is going to continue to be a strong Medicare System next year and for a number of years to come. There is no reason that this has to be rushed through with 1 day for hearings. But I do want to respond fully to your observation, because it is one of the most important. With reference to the Medicare trustees report, you will recall in the Committee on the Budget, in the early part of this year, I pointed out that the report we got in the spring for this year was verbatim, the report that we got, I think with one or two words difference, last year. Our party was concerned long before I got to Congress in addressing this problem. This trustees report is not anything new, nor does it provide a justification for raising premiums on part B. There are, as the gentleman well knows, an A part and a B part. And raising premiums in part B, as apparently is being proposed, is not going to do anything to strengthen this fund. In fact, I think one of the real problems with the approach that many Republicans have advocated at least quietly in the halls and the back rooms of this Chamber is that they want to increase premiums, deductibles, and the like with reference to part B. We could raise them 1000 percent instead of just 100 percent, as has been advocated, and it would not make the Medicare trust fund one penny more secure than it is tonight. So this use for the Medicare trust fund report is really very deceptive in terms of giving and misleading the American people into thinking that we have a crisis that demands rushing through a bill that is not being done to secure the Medicare trust fund. Indeed, the other point that has to be made, and I think it is a very important one, is if there was real concern about the security of the Medicare trust fund, surely our Republican colleagues would not have come through with one of the provisions in their so-called Contract With America to actually take money out of the trust fund, with the changes that were made last year, to provide tax revenues to help protect and advance and secure that fund. Yet that is exactly what has happened. All that our Republican colleagues have done so far, other than this generally veiled plan, in the legislation this House has approved over my objection, is to weaken it and have less money available. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. DOGGETT. Certainly. In fact, just in response to that, I appreciate your presence. I have been one who had been hoping that Members of the Republican Party would come. Our Republican colleagues could use time like their special order time and use the opportunities we have here to speak and outline the details of the plan that you are advancing. More importantly, I think it is important for us to come together and reach a bipartisan resolution to this problem. There are some areas that we have common agreement on: fighting fraud and abuse within the Medicare System, working to improve the Medicare System. But I think the problem has been, and I do not say this is necessarily an individual problem between you and me, but the problem has been one of from where we start in this debate. This debate began back in the fall on the Committee on the Budget. People came and said, after a series of secret task force meetings, we need $270 billion out of the Medicare System. It began not with how can we improve and strengthen that system but where can we get the money from the Medicare System to do some other things that do not have anything else to do with Medicare?

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for a question.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, which is good legislation, but also in support of this amendment, which will make it a much better piece of legislation. I have been amused at the suggestion by some of our colleagues that we should just ignore what the Governors say. You see, we have been through this before in Texas. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] when the issue of the formula for welfare came up during the welfare reform effort, pointed out that Texas was about to get hit and get hit hard by virtue of that formula. Our Governor sat on his hands and did not want to get involved. But thanks to the efforts of Congressman Green, he has finally gotten motivated and gotten involved and recognized what a devastating effect that would have on the State of Texas, and we are beginning to get some change, belatedly, but finally. I think the same thing will be true with reference to the gentleman's efforts on this question of vocational rehabilitation. The approach being taken here with this piece of legislation here today is really only taking a Texas idea and bringing it to the national level, because we have already done essentially the same thing in the last session of the Texas legislature that is being done in this bill. That is to merge our job training programs and to recognize we can do more for those who need work force development, job training, if we merge programs together, eliminate some of the inefficiencies. But when we did that in the State of Texas, we specifically excepted vocational rehabilitation, because it is a unique area. When you are dealing with persons with disabilities, they have some special needs in order to be able to achieve to the full extent of their ability. I think that the gentleman, through his amendment, recognizes that, and as that message gets out I am sure somewhere in the legislative process the Governors of Texas and other States are going to join in recognizing in the State of Texas we have one of the most outstanding rehabilitation programs that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] and I have both had occasion to work with when we were in the State legislature, and it is not only the people that work as the rehabilitation experts, but the individuals with disabilities, who I know in my case, came out, a number of them, this past weekend, when I held office hours in a grocery store, to tell me of their very great concern about this piece of legislation, and that when you merge what is in essence already a block grant program and you merge that into a bigger block grant program, it may not be a merger. It may be a submerging of the particular needs of individuals with disabilities. I know the gentleman has some more thoughts on this. I do, too. I would be glad to yield to you if you want to respond to some of these concerns, and then I want to add a further comment about the impact on Texas of making this kind of mistake.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as this House was concluding its business last night, I was discussing the concerns that every senior across this country should have about what is about to occur on Medicare, and indeed, listening to the remarks of my colleague from Kansas just now, I would say that if seniors are not scared, they ought to at least be very concerned about what is happening on Medicare, and I would think that any senior who has been observing closely what is occurring with reference to Medicare would be very near scared at the consequences that are about to befall them. You know, we have awaited a Republican plan and now another day has passed. It is September 19, and we have yet to have any member of the Republican Party come to the floor of this House and spell out the details of their plan. All that American seniors know about this Republican plan is that it boils down to: Pay more, get less. That is what the Republican plan is, the pay more, get less plan. Mr. Speaker, it was curious that the gentleman from Kansas just now would refer to the Washington Times because yesterday's Washington Times, the banner first page story was: Republican Medicare Savings Doubted. And it refers to the gaping budgetary hole in the Republican plan. It talks about the fact that it is gimmickry, that over a third of the so-called savings the Republicans have in their pay more, get less plan has not yet been spelled out. Of course, instead of being candid with the American people and telling them how far they are going to reach into the pockets of seniors in reforming, as they call it, Medicare, instead of explaining the details of the hit on America's seniors, on America's disabled population, our Republican colleagues come back and say, ``Well, where is your plan? If you don't like our pay more, get less plan, why don't the Democrats come forward with a plan?'' I would say that if what they are waiting for is a plan from the Democratic Party to take $270 billion in cuts from Medicare, they are going to wait forever because we are not going to have that kind of plan. If what they are waiting for is a plan from the Democrats to take money out of Medicare in order to fund tax cuts, tax breaks for the most privileged people in our society, they can wait a long time because we are not going to have that kind of plan. Mr. Speaker, they have talked so much about a trustees' report and how they have to secure Medicare from bankruptcy, and yet the premium increases that they are proposing, what they have never told the American people, they are going to raise the cost of health care in their pay more, get less plan in part B, but not one penny of the premium increases that they propose is going to be contributed to the Medicare trust fund that they seem so concerned about. Not one penny of those premium increases that they ask America's seniors, that they ask America's disabled population to contribute in escalating health care costs, not one penny is going to secure or prevent any troubles with the Medicare trust fund. The Democrats are ready to come together to secure the trust fund. We were ready last year in that regard, certainly my colleagues. I was not here at that time, but they worked to secure the trust fund. What did the Republicans do? What has been their contribution to secure and prevent the bankruptcy of the trust fund? In their so-called Contract With America, they made the trust fund less secure. They took revenues that would go into the trust fund, that were contributed by the most wealthy of our seniors, and they took those revenues in the contract bill out of the trust fund so that it will be less secure if their proposals are adopted than if we keep on the existing law. I believe that we need bipartisan support to have genuine reform with Medicare. The gentleman from Kansas referred to waste and fraud in the system, and there are seniors all over this country that can point to examples of mismanagement in the program. We need to ferret that out. We need to find ways to improve the efficiency of the system. But you do not begin that process by setting some imaginary $270 billion figure that you need in order to fulfill campaign promises. You do not begin there. You begin in a bipartisan, respectful manner consulting with our Nation's seniors, consulting with the experts and trying to reach a balanced proposal designed to improve Medicare, not to destroy it. It is a lot like a fellow that got lost over in east Texas and he was looking around and trying to get directions and he said, ``How do you get from here to Oklahoma?'' And the farmer that he came onto said, ``Well, I don't know the precise path to get there but I sure wouldn't start from here.'' The Democrats are saying, do not start from the premise that you need to take $270 billion out of the pockets of American seniors. Do not start from the premise that you need to take money from Medicare in order to fund a tax break for America's privileged few. Start from the premise that we need to improve and strengthen Medicare so that we will be there for generations to come, so that it can serve the next generation of Americans in just the way it has protected America's seniors for the last 30 years since Lyndon Johnson signed it into law, a system that is one of the grandest accomplishments of this Congress that is out there delivering health care to 99 percent of Americans today. Let us preserve and protect that plan. As America's seniors find out about it, it is upside down, but so is their plan. The pay more, get less Republican plan must be rejected.