John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Does the gentleman mean we will not be debating this complicated flow chart that they want to create as a matter of Federal law that is going to try to arbitrarily decide from Washington how to process these claims and kind of have a win or lose battle between doctors and insurance companies on the one hand and trial lawyers on the other hand? We would give that power to patients and let them choose?

Mr. SHADEGG. We have put up a graph here that we developed to try to graphically illustrate this point. All of the legislation that has been here on the floor of the Congress and over in the Senate talks about a process, and the process is what should we do when a patient and his or her doctor make a request of the managed care organization or the HMO for care? How do we deal with that request? How does he process that request so that you get that request processed and get the right result? I think the right result is the best possible care at the earliest possible moment. And it is true, doctors sometimes seek care that is not necessary. They seek care that the patient does not really need because they are being pressured by the patient. Indeed, someone argue some doctors seek care just to make the money from delivering that care. And I think we talked about that kind of abuse of the system. And managed care has done a good job of putting that in check. I think another abuse that occurs is that doctors sometimes are not on top of the current standard of care. They do not know what is the best treatment for a particular condition because they have not read the literature and managed care again has stepped in and said, no, we are going to require you to do what is best. But the real problem in this area is that the current structure where an HMO gets to decline a doctor who is asking for care and say, well, no, that care is not medically necessary and appropriate, the real demand for a Patients' Bill of Rights arises out of the potential for abuse, so that the managed care plan turns down the patient and his or her doctor requesting care on the basis that it is really not medically necessary and appropriate. That vague term creates a loophole through which managed care companies can deny needed medical care for reasons that are not really medical but, rather, are financial, that is, to make the HMO's profit line or bottom line better. How do we solve that? How do you correct that? Well, all of the legislation that has gone through here, the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights legislation, looking at this potential for abuse, an HMO declining care and saying it is not medically necessary and appropriate, when they are really not doing that for a good medical reason, they are doing that to save money, they are doing that to improve the HMO's bottom line. All of this legislation has talked about is structure. There should be a doctor and their patient. They make an initial claim. Having made an initial claim and assuming it is turned down, they then go to internal review. The internal review is the HMO itself taking a look at that claim, hopefully this time through medical personnel, doctors, and saying, yes, the care is needed, go ahead and deliver it, or, no, it is not. Now, everything is good up to that point. But the question is what happens if at that internal review by the HMO's own in-house doctors they say the care is not needed? Well, how do you determine if that was the right decision and the care really was not needed for medical reasons and some other care would be appropriate, or the care is not needed at all, or did they make that decision for the wrong reason? Did they decline the care just because they want to make a profit and they do not want to deliver the expensive care that is being asked for? The legislation that I believe, and the gentleman just talked about this, the legislation that we feel is the important model here, and the flaw in the Norwood-Dingell bill occurs right here, what we believe has to happen at that point is that, when the HMO and its own doctors turn you down for the care and tell your doctor, no, you cannot have the care, we believe it is vitally important that the next step that you as a patient have a right to go to and you and your doctor have the right to go to is an external review panel, right here, an external review panel made up of three doctors who are completely independent of the plan and completely independent of you and your doctor. They are totally independent, and they have the ability and the expertise to review the claim. They are essentially three independent medical arbiters who review your case, review what your treating physician said was needed, and review what the plan said and the plan's reasons for denying the care. Our goal is that that panel of three independent experts would say, you know what, this care is medically necessary and appropriate. Plan, you should deliver it. And it should be binding on the plan that they must deliver it at that point in time. That lets three independent doctors not controlled by the plan, not controlled by you and your doctor, get you the right decision at the earliest possible moment. That is a timely decision. That is a fast decision by that external review panel. If, in fact, they say the care is needed, then the HMO is bound by the panel's decision; and if you have been injured, you recover monetary damages. But the flaw in this system, the flaw that is in the other idea, is they do not want to require cases to go through this external review and that is illustrated right here on this chart of the Dingell-Norwood bill. This is a schematic, just like the other one, of the Dingell-Norwood bill. There is an initial claim just like is the case under the legislation we have advanced. Then there is internal review, and that is the next step and the plan's doctors get to review your case. Remember those are the plan's doctors. They are the ones with the incentive to deny care. That is the place where the abuse can occur. Here is the key difference and here is why that patients' bill of rights, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want, what the President wants, is a tragically flawed proposal that will not help patients and will not help doctors. Right here at internal review instead of requiring that case to go quickly to external review, to a panel of three doctors who would say you get the care or you do not get the care, and you can recover damages if you have been injured, they create a loophole and it is the lawyer's loophole, and that loophole is all you have to do is to decide to talk to a lawyer and that lawyer gets to say, you know what, I do not want an external review because that external review by three independent doctors might turn my client down and if in an external review my client is turned down, my lawsuit is gone; my monetary damages are gone; that will destroy everything I want. So what have they done? They have written into the Norwood- Dingell bill that a lawyer simply steps in right here, the lawyer simply alleges injury, hey, my client has been injured, I think he has been injured and I am ready to go to court. And at that point, the external review by doctors, the three independent doctors who are going to review that case, the three independent doctors who were going to set the standard of care and tell the HMO how they should be treating patients, that external review of doctors is gone. Instead, you know where that case is? That case is not quickly decided by an independent panel of three doctors. That case is moved into our courts, and everybody knows that courts and lawsuits take forever. It will take who knows how long to drive this case through that court and who knows how frivolous the case will be, but the lawyer now has a chance to extort monetary damages to try to make the case settle even if it is meritless. What happens to the poor patient? The poor patient waits, but the trial lawyer does well. That is the fatal flaw in the Norwood-Dingell legislation that has been put here on the floor, that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) talked about. You just have to ask yourself if you want to empower patients and doctors, then should you not give that ability to an external review panel? On the other hand, why should you let lawyers decide which cases go to external appeals or which cases go straight to court? That is the flaw that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) was talking about in the Norwood-Dingell bill. It is a bill that is designed to get patients into courtrooms, not to get them care. I think care has been a key component of what you have talked about in this important debate, and it is what the gentleman says, I think that the Norwood-Dingell bill is flawed because it will not get people care. It will get them a lawsuit.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman. It seems to me, if we can someday get to a system of choice where people can pick their own health care and fire it when it does not serve them well, whether it is an HMO or an insurance company, we will have advanced health care in America greatly. But the gentleman in his remarks made clear that he thought the legislation which had passed this House earlier and the legislation which is being talked about, indeed our Democrat colleagues held a press conference just the day before yesterday where they talked about the tragic death of a Patients' Bill of Rights and how that legislation was vitally important, and they are talking about it in all their press conferences; and the President is saying, well, this Congress failed the American people by not passing a Patients' Bill of Rights. The gentleman pointed out in his remarks, and I agree with him completely, that the Patients' Bill of Rights, which our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like us to pass, is indeed fatally flawed. And there was a good reason not to pass that legislation and it is a reason that has never been discussed on the floor of this House, and I think it deserves to be discussed; and I think the American people need to know about it, and I think our colleagues need to know about it. I put up another chart here, and it raises the same question, who should decide how doctors care for patients? Right now, as this chart illustrates, the standard of care in America is currently set by HMOs and HMO bureaucrats when they tell doctors how to care for patients. How does that happen? Well, your doctor decides to recommend a certain level of care or treatment for you. He applies to the HMO for that and the HMO says no, largely and often through a bureaucrat. The HMO says, we do not think that is the proper care. We think something else is the proper care. Well, that is a structure under which the HMO tells doctors how to care for patients. But let us talk about the bill that passed the floor here, the so- called Norwood-Dingell bill. What does that bill do? Does that bill empower doctors to set the standard of care and to decide how patients should be cared for, or does it not? The sad truth is it does not do that. The Norwood-Dingell bill would, instead of allowing doctors to decide the level of care, the standard of care, what treatment a patient should be given, it says that lawyers should make that decision. That is a tragic decision. And it does that by saying that anytime a lawyer wants to, that lawyer can simply go out and file a lawsuit. He or she does not have to wait until the case has been reviewed by an independent panel of doctors to decide if the care should have been given by the HMO or, perhaps, if the HMO made the right decision. Instead, we skip that process and let the lawyer go straight to court, which means that the standard of care in America will not be decided by doctors, it will not be decided by doctors consulting with their patients, it will not even be decided by doctors consulting with an HMO. It will be decided by doctors filing lawsuits and going straight to court. We believe, I believe strongly, where we ought to be is that the standard of care should be decided as a result of a review of a request for care by an independent external panel of doctors. I am sure the gentleman has personal experiences with HMOs denying care that he requested for his patients.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Poll through demand. We advertise to the American public a prescription drug, a drug that they can only get with a prescription, the goal being those of us sitting at home feeling some of those conditions will go to our doctor and demand that particular drug, and we see these advertisements all the time. The gentleman and I are paying for the cost of that advertising, we are paying for the cost of that doctor's visit, and we are paying for the doctor to say to us, no, you really do not need that drug, it is not right for your condition.

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me ask for a further clarification, if I might. On the screen here on the board, there are two stories, one from the Boston Globe and one from the Washington Times. I know the Times story appeared yesterday. The Boston Globe story, I believe, appeared the day before yesterday.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank my colleagues for participating in this debate. The letters that my colleague from Minnesota has pointed out have gone to people in my home State of Arizona for just having the temerity to cross the border into Mexico and buy drugs at a fraction of the cost here in the United States. I think we need to force competition on the drug companies, I think we need to put them in a position where we force them to bring down the prices. I think we need to force them to quit forcing us to subsidize drugs in other countries. I certainly do not believe, and I compliment the gentleman for the facts that he has brought to this debate, I do not believe we should make up facts, I do not believe we should use false information, but I do believe that we should make it clear that a government subsidy, a program the likes of which is being proposed by the Clinton-Gore administration which says you get one chance to opt in or opt out and that is binding on you for a lifetime, and you hand over, by opting in, the right to choose your drugs to a bureaucrat, not a doctor; take it away from yourself, take it away from your family, take it away from your physician and give it to a bureaucrat. I cannot believe that is the best public policy Congress can come up with. I think there are better plans out there. I think the plan that we voted on, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should conclude by pointing out that this is an issue that is important and we will not rest until we address this problem for the American people.

Mr. SHADEGG. But it is fair to ask, is one more subsidy going to solve the problem.

Mr. SHADEGG. Through television. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask my colleague from Minnesota who is, in fact, one of the experts in the Congress on this issue; his State borders Canada, my State borders Mexico. We have the same problem. I have people in my State of Arizona who go across the border into Mexico and get their prescription drugs at a fraction of the cost in the United States. It is shameful that they have to do that. It is particularly true that they have to do that in rural Arizona where they cannot take advantage of Medicare+Choice, where they get a drug benefit. I think it is important, and the gentleman deserves to be complimented for the work he has done to stop the FDA from sending threatening letters to these people. I would like the gentleman to explain that. I would also like the gentleman to address the issue of how will government subsidization of all drug prices in America, including the drugs for Ross Perot, for example, or Donald Trump, how will that somehow bring down the cost of drugs for the rest of us, or even for seniors?

Mr. SHADEGG. Just let me stress the point of everyone is concerned about the cost of prescription drugs. I have, as I said, many seniors in Arizona that I am deeply concerned about. My question is: How do we solve the problem, and how do we do it in a way that helps people rather than hurts them? I welcome the gentleman to the debate.

Mr. SHADEGG. The only country in the world that allows demand driven advertising.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for yielding to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I actually would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy about a number of the aspects of the Clinton-Gore plan that I think are of concern and that may need to be repeated here so they understand. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry. One of our colleagues, I think it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader, just referred to the fact that it is very important to be accurate in the facts in this debate, and that as we debate this critically important issue, we should be precise, and I believe the gentleman said that he, in fact, would read his statement so that he could be precise about, for example, the number of bureaucratic steps on the chart. I believe in the remarks of the gentleman, he indicated that it was very important in this complicated debate that we be precise in what we say and in the facts we use and marshal in support of our position in this debate. The question I want to ask is, is it true that under the rules of the House, I cannot refer to the fact that the Vice President in a speech in Florida on this issue, just a week or two ago, made up certain facts about the costs of prescription drugs imposed upon his mother-in-law, that those were not, in fact, the actual costs, that he made up some facts regarding the dosage of the drug taken by his mother-in-law and the dosage of the drug taken by his dog, and that he also made up the facts with regard to the overall costs of these prescriptions to his family? Am I correct that that cannot be referred to on the floor of the House?

Mr. SHADEGG. It appeared Monday. Both of those stories report that, in fact, the Vice President did make up these facts; the cost of the drug that his mother-in-law allegedly paid, the dosages taken by his mother-in-law versus the dosages taken by his dog. He, in fact, made up also the overall cost and did not relate whether or not his mother-in- law was paying for these drugs or whether they were, in fact, paid for by insurance and that now the Gore campaign will not relate whether or not she is insured or not. My question is, is it also true that that cannot be referred to and those articles cannot be read here on the floor?

Mr. SHADEGG. I have no desire to be personal. I do think, as I stated and as I believe the majority leader stated and as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) stated at the outset of this debate, that if we are going to debate important public policy, it is critical that we all be accurate; and I would commend to my colleagues here in the Congress both of these articles which relate that, in fact, facts were fabricated by the Vice President in the course of his campaign to win support on this issue. I would urge my colleagues that it is critical that we be truthful. It is critical that in this kind of important debate before the public that we do not make up facts or figures; that we do not mislead the American public on these issues; that we do not relate allegedly truthful stories about this issue, about family members, when we ought to know the facts, in a way which is untruthful, and that that is a discredit to this institution and a discredit to the campaign. I think it is also important that we, in the course of this debate, not allow the ends, in this case winning the debate over how do we best take care of these serious prescription drug needs of America's elderly population, we do not allow the end of winning that debate to justify means which are clearly improper, such as making up facts which are not true; being untruthful; or in other ways telling stories which are not accurate and honest with the America people, just to win support for our position in the debate. I think that is a point that is truly worth stressing. I would like to just go over with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), if we might, in a dialogue form some of the points that have been made already here to make sure that we understand. First, I want to ask the gentleman, is it his understanding of what is being proposed by the other side on this issue, by our Democratic colleagues, by the Clinton-Gore administration, that that plan would, for example, provide a subsidy for prescription drugs for people regardless of their income and therefore would provide a subsidy to perhaps Ross Perot, Donald Trump or anyone else in that income bracket?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to make sure that the American public and that our colleagues understand that point. This is demand? Is there a technical term?

Mr. SHADEGG. The gentleman used the word ``choice'' and talked about once one chooses not to participate or to participate. I think that is important. As the gentleman understands the proposal being offered by Republicans, one of the key features is choice. That is, we allow people to pick from amongst a variety of plans that meet their own needs; and in addition at least it is my understanding that as the bill we passed and the legislation we are proposing and indeed the legislation being proposed by Governor Bush would give seniors the right to not only choose amongst various plans when they join but to make choices again down the line. If they are unhappy with the plan they pick, they could make a choice at a later point to switch plans. Is that not a feature?

Mr. SHADEGG. I think you just touched upon another key point that I wanted to bring out at least in part of this important discussion. Arizona has many senior citizens. It is a great place to retire to. I hope more people retire there. But I think one of the keys that the gentleman just mentioned is we often talk about choice in the abstract. It is important, I think, for people to understand that not only under the Clinton-Gore plan do you make one choice at the outset, you either opt in or opt out and that decision is binding for life, but the second point is the one that you just mentioned and that is that if you choose to participate in the plan which the Clinton-Gore team is proposing, you are, in fact, giving away your choice, your right to choose the drug that is best for you, to a Federal bureaucrat. I know many people that work as government employees. I worked as a government employee in the past part of my life in an unelected capacity. I think they are genuine, honest and sincere; but under the Gore plan the schedule of committed drugs would be decided by someone deep in the bowels of the Federal bureaucracy. It would take choice about which drug is right for you, which drug is right for your wife or your father or your mother or your grandfather or grandmother, it would take that choice away from them as individuals and vest it in a group of, quite frankly, Federal bureaucrats who would decide which drugs are appropriate and which drugs are not, taking that power not only away from you but away from your doctor as well. Is not that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Ultimately, as a medical doctor trying to tailor the best care for your patient, you would be at the mercy of a Federal bureaucrat who would decide which drugs can be used for which purposes. Let me ask this question: let us say someone is sitting home and saying we have to make certain trade-offs. Maybe that has to happen. Somebody has to ultimately decide. Maybe we cannot afford to allow patients to consult with their doctors and decide which drug is right. Do we have any assurance, if the gentleman knows the answer to this question, do we have any assurance that under the Clinton-Gore plan that at least it would be medical doctors as opposed to nondoctor personnel that would be deciding these issues under the Gore plan?

Mr. SHADEGG. The gentleman and I have worked on health care reform a great deal over the last 6 years, and particularly over the last 2 years. I hope that the medical profession is aware that this results in a surrendering of their ability to pick the right prescription drug for their patient and a tremendous loss of choice, not just for patients but for doctors and a diminution in the quality of care.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Woolsey legislation. Let me first begin by simply addressing the former speaker's remarks. Let me make it clear that I have fought for health care reform on this floor vigorously and continue to fight for it. I have a bill with many cosponsors that I cannot get brought to the floor. It is a difficult process, but I would suggest that it is a fair process. Let me talk about the Boy Scouts. I grew up in the Boy Scouts. I was an active Boy Scout and formed an Explorer post. That organization does more to instill the proper values in young men than any organization I know of in this Nation, and what is at issue here is not sexual orientation. What is at issue here is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, thankfully, the United States Supreme Court made it clear what that amendment says. What that amendment says is private organizations, even with those with a charter, and there are others with similar charters, they have the right to define and the right to decide who should associate with those organizations. Now, here, because of that Supreme Court decision defending the First Amendment, we see legislation attacking the Boy Scouts. I think it is a tragedy that this issue should have come up. I think it is a tragedy that some want to destroy the Boy Scouts of America and want to go after them and assert upon them and enforce upon them their ``politically correct'' views. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation and defend the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my colleague on the other side, said point blank that the bill says nothing about abortion. He is simply wrong. The language of the bill clearly provides that physicians cannot negotiate in order to preclude people from providing abortion, but in fact they can negotiate to force them. The language of the bill is right here. I invite the gentleman to read it. It simply says if a doctor is licensed to perform an abortion, negotiations may not be held to preclude him from performing abortions, in plain language of the bill. I invite the gentleman to read it.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is true that doctors are not on a level playing field. I have immense sympathy for their situation. But as well- intended as this legislation is, we have to look beyond what it says to what it will do. What it will do is drive up the cost of health care. What we have done in America is we have disempowered patients. The reality is patients in America today cannot pick their own doctor because they are trapped in a health care plan selected by their employer. We need to create a marketplace in health care in America today by empowering patients. Let us ask ourselves, are doctors not powerful enough, are HMOs not powerful enough, or are patients not powerful enough? The answer is that it is the patient that has been left out of this equation. They are trapped in the health care plan. They cannot get to the doctor they want. Rather than empowering patients to go hire the doctor they want and bring down the cost of health care and get the care they need, what we are going to do is we are going to allow doctors to collectively bargain. The net effect of that will be to increase the cost of health care and, mark my words, we will have Hillary care. We will have a single- payer system within 5 years when this bill becomes law.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, this bill is clearly well-intended. It attempts to address an imbalance that exists because HMOs are too powerful. I have many HMOs in my State of Arizona. Indeed, more HMOs percentage-wise than perhaps any State in the Nation, and I have fought HMOs and I will continue to fight them through the fight on the Patients' Bill of Rights. But this bill is tragically misguided. The discussion we have heard here tonight has been about the power of HMOs and the lack of power of doctors. The reality is that there is an omitted party. The omitted party is the patients. If we empower doctors to unionize, there will be one thing that will happen, mark my words. The cost of health care will go up. I love doctors, and they will try to protect patients, but their number one motivation will be to negotiate increased fees for them. The cost of care will go up, and patients will not be protected. Many of us on the Patients' Bill of Rights Task Force, many of my colleagues on the other side who fought for patients' rights and this side who fought for patients' rights have fought this battle. We need to empower patients by giving them choice, not unionizing doctors and causing prices to go up.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should begin by pointing out that some of us believe that Indian economic development is in fact very important, but we are concerned that Indian gambling is not the best form of Indian economic development. I personally feel we ought to be doing a great deal more toward Indian economic development, and I have introduced three different pieces of legislation to do that. But I think causing the Indian reservations to be solely dependent on gambling is not necessarily prudent economic development for the Indian people nor do I believe the only thing we should be doing to assist them in economic development is to promote gambling. I want to raise a technical point. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) some time ago rose and said that in writing IGRA, this Congress clearly contemplated this situation and that in writing IGRA, this Congress specifically wrote that we would in fact allow the United States Secretary of Interior and the administration to authorize Class III gaming if a State chose not to negotiate with the tribe. That may well be true although I think it is not in fact true, but I want to make the point that in enacting IGRA, this Congress acted unconstitutionally and indeed in this very case, in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court ruled specifically that way, because in enacting IGRA, this Congress, in its attempt to advance gaming, waived the States' rights to assert their 11th amendment immunity. Under the 11th amendment to the United States constitution, States are immune from being sued. They may not be sued under the U.S. Constitution. Notwithstanding that, the Constitution says that, this Congress tried to waive the immunity. The United States Supreme Court has already said that our attempt to do so was unconstitutional. If they said that was unconstitutional, then why would we have at the same time, having said that we waived the State's right and allowed them to be sued, we are going to create a separate procedure? The reality is the litigation that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is referring to would not be going forward if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) were correct. The reality is that this issue is in dispute and that the gentleman from Florida's amendment simply preserves the status quo. I urge my colleagues to support the Weldon amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about national monuments. Every American takes pride in their national monuments. This is a debate about abuse of national monuments. I just want to harken back to the last speaker. He would not yield time to me, but he began with a passionate debate saying we cannot lock up land that we do not already own because the law specifically says the Federal Government must already own these lands. Yes, the law says that. But I would like the gentleman to tell me, was he aware that, in fact, the President is locking up lands the Federal Government does not own? In the State of Arizona, in the last 6 months, the President has created three new national monuments. Three. Count them. And he has done so by incorporating into those national monuments tens of thousands of acres of not Federal land but State land. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) was defending the use of the law in a proper fashion. This is the use of a law in an improper fashion. In Arizona, in one monument, they locked up 53,000 acres of State land, not Federal land. In another one, they locked up another 30,000 acres of State land. Mr. Chairman, I have here a map showing the thousands of acres of State land that was put into a national monument in violation of the Federal law. That is precisely why this amendment is here, because this administration is abusing the law. Indeed, here is an editorial by the leading newspaper in the State of Arizona saying that preservation requires input and that they were not given that input and says, declaring monument was not done right. The paper generally supports monuments, as I think all Americans do, but not when the process is abused. In Arizona, for example, there were no public hearings whatsoever. Now, my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), says this is a wonderful thing, all being done in accordance with the law and all a good idea and a compliment to this administration doing this in the proper order of business. If that is true, should we not ask ourselves why, of the nine national monuments which have been created by this administration, eight of the nine have been created in the last 6 months only? If these needed to be created, where were they 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago, 7 years ago? This is about abuse of this law. Let me explain this. These are the American people's lands, and they do take pride in national monuments. But 8 months ago I personally, in a formal hearing of this United States Congress, looked Secretary Babbitt in the eye, eyeball to eyeball, and said, Mr. Secretary, the people of America and the people of Arizona have a right to input in this process. Will you provide this committee with a list of the monuments you are considering across this Nation? Secretary Babbitt looked me and the chairman and every other member of the committee in the eye and said, no, a one-word answer, no, I will not provide you a list. That cuts the American people out of the process. It is an abuse of the law. I support the amendment, and I call on my colleagues to support it, as well.