Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 278, the importance of education, early detection and treatment, and other efforts in fighting breast cancer. I will be brief because I believe we will have a handful of speakers that want to talk on this. As my friend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said, October is National Breast Cancer Month. One out of eight women in this country will at some point in their lives be diagnosed with breast cancer. Nothing is more important than early detection. Clearly, we know that nothing is more important than education and women doing everything from self-examination to mammograms to making sure that they make frequent visits to the doctor and especially examinations after the age of 40. We founded in Ohio some time ago, about 6 or 7 years ago, the Northeast Ohio Breast Cancer Task Force. That task force has been especially active in working with local physicians and nurses and working with other providers and especially has been active in educating women of all ages throughout Northeast Ohio in terms of education and in terms of self-examination and all of that. So, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is important for all of us. It is important for our daughters and for our wives and for our mothers and for our sisters and for our families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments. The Congress is considering H. Res. 278, which it is late in the session, and this is a good thing. As I said, I support it. I am a cosponsor. It seems like if we look at this, virtually every Member of the House almost is a cosponsor. But this is a resolution that other than saying, we are against breast cancer, we are fighting against breast cancer, we as a body want to go on record saying we think breast cancer is a bad thing, encouraging women to do self-examination beginning at the age of 20, encouraging women between 20 and 40 to get every-three-year examinations from their doctor, encouraging women from 40 to get annual examinations especially if they have a family history, all of those things, and this Congress has not, Mr. Speaker, tackled the real issues in health care. We still have not passed a prescription drug bill through this Congress. We still have not passed a Patients' Bill of Rights through this Congress. It is locked in conference committee. We still have not sent to the President the Ryan White bill. We still have not sent to the President the bill on health disparities. The real issues that we ought to be addressing we have simply shunted side. We are passing this resolution. Again, I support this resolution. But we are passing resolutions that say nice things and tell us all to do good things, but we simply are not moving in the direction this Congress should move. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of this resolution, and I also ask that Congress move on the conference committee on the breast and cervical cancer bill. Public health officials want us to move on the Senate version of the bill. We should not bog this legislation down in this argument that we heard today. We should move forward, pass this legislation, and also move forward and pass the Millender-McDonald resolution Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that this year alone 15,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer. More than 4,500 women will lose their lives to it. It is tragic that cervical cancer remains such a virulent killer when it is within our power to prevent it. In my own State of Ohio, over 200 deaths each year are attributable to cervical cancer. Experts believe that cervical cancer deaths can be virtually eliminated through behavioral changes, early detection, and timely access to treatment, all of which hinge on public awareness. The public needs to know that safe behaviors and proper screening can reduce cervical cancer death rates dramatically. The public needs the facts about screening test accuracy, new detection methods and about treatment breakthroughs so that all of us can play an active role in prevention and in treatment decisions. The public needs to know about initiatives like the CDC's breast and cervical cancer early detection program, which has reached millions of uninsured women with free screening tests. Public awareness can help us garner the resources needed for CDC and its State and local partners to do more than scratch the surface of this problem. As currently funded, the CDC program can only reach 15 percent of uninsured women. Unfortunately, because of congressional inaction, we make the early detection almost a cruel hoax on uninsured women, because we have not funded well enough the treatment for these women if early detection actually shows cervical cancer. We can do much better than that. Mr. Speaker, knowledge fuels advocacy, and in the case of cervical cancer, advocacy can save countless lives. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) affirming that principle. I thank my colleague from California for her excellent work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I would add that I would hope that Congress, while passing this resolution, would do its job and move forward on other health care legislation that has the force of law, that sends money where it is needed, that changes laws where they are needed, that can help with prescription drugs, that can help with the Patients' Bill of Rights, that can help with Ryan White, that can do all the things that this Congress in the health care areas all too unfortunately bottled up. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Taiwan's 40-year journey toward democracy is one of the 20th century's great success stories. The people of Taiwan have proved to the whole world that freedom and democracy are not just American ideals; they are universal principles that apply to every individual, to every community and to every Nation. We must take steps to reward nations like Taiwan that are making such great progress towards democracy. Mr. Speaker, I dream of a day when Taiwan is a contributing member of the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations. I dream of a day when the U.S. will replace its one China policy with a policy of one China, one Taiwan, one Tibet. H.Con.Res. 390 recognizes that Taiwan and its 23 million people deserve to participate in the UN and other international organizations, such as the World Health Organization. The U.S. should fulfill its commitment made in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review to more actively support Taiwan's membership in organizations such as the UN and the WHO. This legislation has received broad bipartisan support, 86 colleagues from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored this bill. Taiwan's growing regional and global significance demands a more active and thoughtful U.S. policy. Our ties with Taiwan must encompass all aspects of Taiwan's security, trade relations and support for the right of self- determination for the people of Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when the people of Taiwan replace their observance of 10-10 with President Lee's July 9 call for state-to-state relations with the People's Republic of China. One day I hope July 9th will be as important to the Taiwanese people as July 4th is to us. Mr. Speaker, so much still remains to be done. If the U.S. believes so strongly in self determination and the freedom for all people, we must support Taiwan in its struggle to become an independent democracy. The U.S. must immediately abandon its misguided one China policy. Mr. Speaker, I ask support for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. Russian sales of Moskit antiship missiles to the PRC pose a great threat to the security of Taiwan and to our country. These missiles arrived in China at a time when the mainland has enormously increased the number of other types of missiles on China's coast facing Taiwan. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and a key economic player in the Asia- Pacific region, and it is unacceptable that the PRC continues to boast to the world about its missile threat to Taiwan and, by extension, of the United States. When this legislation was first marked up in our committee, we expressed concerns that the bill did not give the President sufficient flexibility to balance the national security implications of this complicated situation. On one hand, China's possession of these missiles poses a danger to our Navy and the Taiwan Straits. On the other hand, Russia may need to seek a comprehensive multilateral agreement to deal with its debt burden in the future, without which it may face the prospect of default to key western governments. A Russian default could even force the Russians to sell more missiles to China and to other countries which obviously are of a concern to the United States. We must balance, Mr. Speaker, the national security implications posed by Russia's missile sales to China with those posed by a further destabilized economic situation in Russia. For this reason, the committee agreed to an amendment giving the President the national security interest waiver. This waiver allows the President the flexibility to protect adequately U.S. national security interests in this situation. Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that the President will not need to use this waiver. Russia should take a careful look at the strong support for this legislation in this House and decide the continued sales of Moskit missiles to China are not in Russia's interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, colon and rectal cancers are the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. This year alone, more than 130,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colon cancer and colorectal cancer. Ninety percent of these cancers occur in people over the age of 50. Six percent of people age 75 to 80 have had colorectal cancer at some point in their life; one out of 16. The good news is that the odds of beating colorectal cancer go up significantly with early detection. With that in mind, the American Cancer Society recently updated its screening guidelines to increase early detection. In addition, Medicare has expanded coverage of screening tests. It is hoped these changes, along with new screening methods being tested, will prompt more people to talk with their doctor about screening. These are positive steps, but we clearly have more to do. In many ways we are just starting to spread the word about colon cancer. Madam Speaker, I fully support passage of this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his good work on this resolution, and this resolution affirms our commitment to fight this disease until we eliminate it. At the same time, while this Congress again today passes a resolution exhorting people to get tested, exhorting early detection and education and all the things that we need to do, this Congress has again failed to pass prescription drug legislation; it has again failed to pass Ryan White; it has again failed to pass a Patient's Bill of Rights, and failed to provide funding for breast and cervical treatment, precancer treatment, which is a cruel hoax on those without insurance who have been tested and screened for breast and cervical cancer and, where it has been detected that they actually have cancer, there is no money for the actual treatment. Madam Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 133; and I urge its adoption. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in this town, it's difficult to take action in any direction without creating controversy. Consensus is a rarity. This legislation bucks the trend. It reflects consensus around a common-sense principle. If we can protect children from needless surgery, preventable disability, premature death--we should do it. That's what this bill is all about. We are placing our hope and trust in the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, HRSA, and other federal agencies that have responsibility for improving our nation's health. We are asking them to intensify their efforts in areas of children's health including juvenile arthritis, muscular dystrophy, asthma, and Fragile X syndrome. This bill provides screening and health care services for infants and children at risk for heritable disorders, and it implements organ donation policies that recognize the unique needs of children. We have done a lot in this bill to help young victims of childhood illness and disease. But we in Congress should not take the credit. Parents and other advocates for children throughout the United States should. I especially want to acknowledge the parents. I've met with many parents this year, and I am proud that this bill translates their straightforward and eminently justifiable goals into action. These parents want to see children's health research given the priority it deserves. We invest generously in our children's basic needs, their education, their happiness . . . we should invest at least as generously in the kind of research that can protect and restore their health. Many of the parents I spoke with were bringing their stories to Congress not for themselves, not for their own children, but for children and families they will never meet. These parents are working to prevent others from experiencing the trauma and pain a childhood illness can inflict on a child and their loved ones. I want to thank the parents for their hard work, dedication and unwavering conviction that we can do much, much more to ease the way for our children. This same conviction underlies the portion of the Children's Health Act that reauthorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). In this year's reauthorization of SAMHSA, we do more to address substance abuse and mental health issues as they relate to children-- under age drinking, children and violence, and fetal alcohol syndrome, to name a few. To the extent we can protect our children from alcohol and substance abuse, we reduce their chances of addiction or abuse as adults. We owe them that. This is a great success, but once again, it's the public's accomplishment. Substance abuse prevention is a public priority and has garnered overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. We have been asked to make this, as well as children's health, a priority for this Congress. I am pleased to be among those helping to fulfill those wishes.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the threat of tuberculosis is spreading rapidly throughout the developing world. TB is the greatest infectious killer of adults worldwide, and it is the biggest killer of young women. More people died from tuberculosis last year around the world than any year in history. It kills 2 million people per year, one person every 15 seconds. Not surprisingly, the statistics on access to TB treatment worldwide are pretty grim. Fewer than one in five of those with tuberculosis are receiving appropriate treatment, something called Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course. Based on World Bank estimates, DOTS treatment is one of the most cost-effective health interventions available, costing as little as $20 in developing countries to save a life and producing cure rates of up to 90 to 95 percent, even in the poorest countries. We have a very small window of opportunity during which stopping TB would be very cost effective. If we wait, if we go too slowly, more strains of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, so-called MDR-TB, will emerge. It will cost billions to control with no guarantee of success. Multidrug-resistant TB has been identified on every continent. According to the World Health Organization, MDR-TB ultimately threatens to return TB control to the pre-antibiotic era, which older people in this country are familiar with, where no cure for TB was available. In the U.S., TB treatment, normally about $2,000 per patient, skyrockets to $200,000 to $250,000 per patient when that patient is infected with MDR-TB, and treatment then may not even be successful. The Prime Minister of India visited the United States recently and spoke in this Chamber. During his trip, he and I discussed the growing threat of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases in South Asia. India has more TB cases than anywhere else in the world. Each day, 1,200 Indians die of tuberculosis. The disease has become a very major barrier to social and economic development, costing the Indian economy an estimated $2 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, 300,000 children are forced to leave school each year because their parents have tuberculosis. More than 100,000 women with TB are rejected by their families, due to the social stigma attached to it. A recent World Health Organization study in India found that in areas where effective tuberculosis treatment was implemented, the TB death rate fell 85 percent. India has undertaken an aggressive campaign to control tuberculosis, and they need the world's help. TB experts estimate it will cost an additional $1 billion each year worldwide to control this disease. In the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, international tuberculosis control efforts have been allocated bipartisanly, $60 million towards that $1 billion world effort. This is a significant improvement from last year where TB control received $35 million, and 3 years ago, when there was no money provided to TB at all. Gro Bruntland, the general director of the World Health Organization, said tuberculosis is not a medical issue, it is a political issue. Getting Americans engaged in an international medical issue like tuberculosis, even when addressing that issue serves our international humanitarian interests and our domestic practical interests, is an uphill battle. We have an opportunity in this country and in this Chamber to save millions of lives now and prevent millions of needless deaths in the future.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, a confidential document prepared for House Republicans somehow found its way into the public realm. It was not big news at the time, just some talking points. They were prepared by a Republican polling firm in response to the Democrats' Medicare prescription drug proposal. According to their analysis, an effective way to create opposition to the type of proposal offered by the President and House Democrats is to call it a ``one-size-fits-all'' plan, a ``big government'' plan, or worst of all, a ``one-size-fits-all big government'' plan. One cannot blame the public for reacting to these phrases. I do not know anyone who likes big government simply for big government's sake. However, one can blame politicians for exploiting these terms instead of confronting the fundamental differences between the Democrat and Republican prescription drug proposals. The Democrats' plan would add an optional drug benefit to Medicare. The Republican plan would bypass Medicare and subsidize private stand- alone insurance plans instead. It is difficult to conceive of a program offering more choice than Medicare. The Medicare program covers medically necessary care and services. Beneficiaries can see their own health care professional and go to the facility that they choose. Under the prescription drug plan, similarly, enrollees could go to the pharmacy of their choice. FDA-approved medications prescribed by a physician would be covered without regard to formulary restrictions. Given this level of flexibility, how would a legion of new private plans enhance a beneficiary's choice in any way that matters? It is more likely these plans, like any other managed care product, would find ways of restricting choice which would, indeed, enhance something, their bottom line. Medicare is a single plan that treats all beneficiaries equally and provides maximum choice and access for patients and doctors. The Democrats' prescription drug proposal embraces the same choice principles. Under the Republican prescription drug proposal, Medicare beneficiaries would choose between private stand-alone insurance company prescription drug plans. Ostensibly, this would enable seniors to tailor their prescription drug coverage to their particular needs. But what exactly would distinguish one private insurance plan from another private insurance plan? Realistically, the key differences would have to relate to the generosity and restrictiveness of the benefits, how many pharmacies would be covered, how stringent is the formulary, how much cost sharing would be required by the patient. None of these plans could responsibly in any way, theoretically or practically, provide more choice than the Democrats' proposal in terms of which medications are covered, since the Democrats plan covers all doctor-prescribed medications. None of these plans could provide a broader choice of pharmacy, since the Democrats' plan does not restrict access to pharmacies. It appears that ``choice'' is actually code for ``wealth.'' Higher- income seniors could afford a decent prescription drug plan under the Republican plan, one with the same level of coverage that would be available to all beneficiaries under the Democrats' plan. In other words, if one is wealthy, one can get as good a plan as the Democrats' plan. But under the Republican plan, lower-income enrollees would be relegated to restrictive alternatives. Some choice that is. When opponents of the Democrats' prescription drug coverage plan berate it for being ``one-size-fits-all'' and ``big government,'' they are actually berating Medicare itself. In fact, the Republicans' prescription drug proposal, which ignores Medicare to establish new private insurance HMO policies, is an insult to the program. Their plan pays homage to those Members of Congress who favor privatizing Medicare, turning Medicare over to this Nation's insurance companies. I might add, Mr. Speaker, I have yet to meet anyone outside the Beltway who favors such a plan to privatize Medicare. It is no coincidence that the only way a Medicare beneficiary could avoid carrying multiple health insurance policies under the Republican proposal is to join a private Medicare managed care plan. As Congress and the presidential candidates debate the merits of competing prescription drug coverage proposals, watch for allegations like ``one-size-fits-all'' and ``big government,'' and the like. When applied to insurance coverage offering maximum choice in the areas that matter, choice of provider and access to medically necessary care, choice of prescription drug, pharmacies, and formularies, these terms simply fall flat. Bear in mind also that more than the structure of a prescription drug benefit is at stake during these debates. The future of Medicare may, in fact, also hang in the balance.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last year taxpayers spent $3 billion more on people enrolled in Medicare HMOs than if they had remained in traditional Medicare. It cost the public more to pay managed care plans than to pay for the same plans financed through traditional Medicare. I do not recall Medicare managed care plans offering to give back the excess dollars they were paid then. I do recall them unceremoniously dropping 200,000 seniors that year, claiming the Federal Government was underpaying them. Now Medicare HMOs and Republican leaders are asking Congress to devote $15 billion, three-fourths of the dollars set aside for Medicare funding increases this year, to Medicare HMOs. They serve 14 percent of the Medicare population; they want 75 percent of the money. They want $15 billion. That is $15 billion that Republicans want to give to the managed care industry after they abandoned 900,000 seniors; not because these plans were going bankrupt, but because other lines of business were more profitable for insurance companies HMOs. It is incomprehensible to me, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues and the Presidential candidates are trying to sell the public on privatizing Medicare. It is a bad idea.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Robert Perez, who dedicated his life to law enforcement and assisting people in need. At the age of 24, Trooper Perez died in the line of duty as a result of a roadside fatality. Known and respected for his integrity, dedication and ability, Trooper Perez distinguished himself as a community leader and devoted family man. Trooper Perez began his law enforcement career as a Vermilion Ohio Police Explorer, where he had the opportunity to accompany police officers and gain first hand experience. After graduating in the 132nd Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy Class in 1999, he served at the Highway Patrol Post at Freemont and then Milan, Ohio. He was also involved in the Ohio's Trooper Coalition, the Ohio State Trooper's Association for Safer Ohio and Ohio Trooper's Caring. Trooper Perez also served as a Member of the Army National Guard and was a Lorain (Ohio) Corrections Officer. Trooper Perez took great pride in helping his family. From an early age, he took care of his brother, sister and mother by mentoring his siblings and giving his earnings to his mother. Trooper Perez's willing and giving heart made him a son and brother his family will always be proud of.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for Indian- American relations. For the first time, a Hindu priest has given the opening prayer at a session of Congress, and the Prime Minister of India later this morning will address a joint session of Congress. India and the United States share the bonds of history and culture. Our two great nations share a commitment to both the ideals and the practice of democracy. The close ties between the world's oldest democracy and the world's largest democracy are invaluable to encourage free and fair elections throughout the world. The United States is also home to an Indian-American community of 1.4 million people. I requested the House Chaplain and Speaker to invite Mr. Samuldrala to give today's prayer as a testimony to the religious diversity that is the hallmark of our great Nation. I want to thank Mr. Samuldrala for his thoughtful prayer that reminds us that, while we may differ in culture and traditions, we are all alike in the most basic aspiration of peace and righteousness. I thank the House Chaplain for inviting Mr. Samuldrala and look forward to future efforts to strengthen the bonds between our two great nations.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the public learned something about presidential candidate George Bush last week. Actually, the word ``important'' is an understatement. We learned something crucial. We learned his plans for Medicare. Every senior citizen, every person with a family member covered by Medicare, every taxpayer in this country needs to understand this. George W. Bush believes Medicare as we know it should be replaced by private insurance plans. That is not conjecture. It is fact. It is what he tells us. It is clear as day if one looks at his prescription drug plan. The first part of his proposal features a transitional program designed to give a special commission time to come up with a private sector alternative to the Medicare program. Mr. Bush goes so far as to avoid the obvious. That is adding prescription drugs to the list of health care services and supplies that Medicare covers. He actually advocates a transitional prescription drug program feature with mini- bureaucracies in each State to administer temporary prescription drug welfare programs. If one is opposed to big government, this part of his proposal is their worst nightmare: 50 State bureaucracies. His welfare-type program approach, which would cover the lowest- income seniors only, is also sorely inadequate. Nearly half of all seniors who lack prescription drug coverage would be left out in the cold. The first part of his proposal may simply be ill conceived. The second part is simply irresponsible. Under that section, the Federal Government would begin to subsidize part of the cost of private prescription drug coverage, but only after the Medicare program as a whole undergoes a transformation. That transformation, not surprisingly, features private insurance-type HMO health plans. Privatization of Medicare is not a transformation. It is an oxymoron. Private insurance plans cannot replace Medicare. Private insurance plan HMOs, their loyalty is to the bottom line. How many times do we have to intervene when a managed care or other insurer plan messes? Up how many times do we have to intervene on behalf of our constituents before the industry's loyalties become clear to us? The loyalty results in decisions that are not in the best interest of enrollees. That loyalty is what creates the need for a Patients' Bill of Rights, which this House of Representatives and the other body should pass and send to the President. That loyalty, the bottom line, explains why health insurers market to the healthiest individuals and do everything in their power to avoid the sick. That loyalty explains how private, managed care plans, how private insurance company HMOs, contracting with Medicare, could enroll seniors one year, promising them all kinds of benefits, and unceremoniously drop them the next year; promise supplemental benefits they cannot deliver and then blame the government for problems that they created. The traditional Medicare program is different. It is universal. It is reliable. It is accountable to the public. It has 1 to 2 percent administrative costs. Medicare's loyalty is to beneficiaries and to taxpayers. It is an undiluted commitment. Medicare offers choice in ways that actually make a difference in terms of health care quality and patient satisfaction. It does not tell beneficiaries which providers they can see and which providers they cannot see, like Medicare HMOs do, or provide financial incentives to discourage proper care, again as Medicare HMOs do, or interfere with the doctor/patient relationship, as Medicare HMOs do. Medicare does not tell beneficiaries any of those things. Having your choice of private health plans under the Bush plan, under private managed care, does not mean much if those plans all restrict access to providers and erect barriers to medically-necessary care. Medicare offers reliable coverage that does not come and go with the stock market, that does not discriminate against beneficiaries based on health status or any other criteria. So George W. Bush has decided to join his Republican colleagues to promote the privatization of Medicare, to end Medicare as we know it, and to provide a new market for private insurance plans. And when it comes down to it and prescription drugs, whom do you trust? Do you trust Medicare, traditional Medicare, that served the public well for 35 years? Do you trust Medicare to provide these benefits to the public with prescription drugs, or do you trust private insurance HMOs who have pulled out of county after county, made promises they have not kept? It is a question of trusting traditional Medicare or, again, do you trust private insurance HMOs?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the final 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the author of the first Ryan White Act a decade or so ago.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who has been a leader in fighting for health care for the disadvantaged.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, not long ago this House debated a prescription drug coverage bill, not a Medicare prescription drug coverage proposal but a bill endorsed by the Republican majority that features private stand-alone prescription drug coverage for seniors. It was the only bill we were permitted to consider. I joined many other Members of this House when I questioned the logic of this proposal, the feasibility of this proposal, the arrogant anti- Medicare message of this proposal. Our concerns are not theoretical. It turns out that Nevada has adopted a prescription drug program almost identical to the Republican plan. It is not working. It is not working for the same reason the Republican plan will not work, because insurers refuse to participate. They say the risks and the costs of providing individual insurance policies for prescription drugs are simply too high. We do not actually have to implement the national proposal to see whether insurers will participate. They have already said they will not. This House raised the hopes of millions of seniors by passing prescription drug legislation, legislation that was forced upon this body by a majority unwilling to consider any other plan, any other bill, any other approach. Republican leadership forced this House to take seriously a proposal built on false hopes and vague promises. The majority in this House saw a political opportunity and seized it. They decided it was time to associate themselves with the prescription drug issue. After all, Medicare beneficiaries and their families are a huge voting block, and the majority is up for grabs. To my Republican colleagues, more power to them. If the media plays their bill right, maybe they will hold onto a few more seats, except for one thing. This is not a token issue. When Members play the prescription drug issue like a game, they are playing with the lives of real people. They are playing with the quality of those lives and the length of those lives. To the 84-year-old woman eating 1 meal a day so she can afford the arthritis medication that permits her to walk, this is not a game. To the 67-year-old man who cannot afford to fill a blood pressure prescription that could keep him alive, this is not a game. To the adult sons and daughters wondering whether they are going to be able to find money for their parents' prescriptions, this is not a game. Last week was the 35th anniversary of the Medicare program. The American public has financed that program and benefited from that program for 35 years. Various private insurance companies have come and gone. Private health plans have evolved from true insurance programs, where everyone paid the same rate and everyone was eligible for coverage, to selective organizations favoring the healthiest enrollees. Medicare does not play favorites. It provides reliable coverage to all seniors. The original Medicare program is available to everyone. It never skips town. It never ratchets down benefits. It does not charge different premiums to different people based on different circumstances. It enables seniors to see the provider of their choice. No wonder it is the most popular political program, public program, in the Nation's history. But to keep up with modern health care, the Medicare benefits package needs to be modified to include prescription drugs. Updating the Medicare benefits package, that is what the debate some weeks ago should have been about. It was an insult to the public, that instead we debated a bill that makes no sense unless the goal is not to provide a prescription drug benefit plan, but rather, to set the stage for a massive overhaul of Medicare; unless the goal is to promote privatization of Medicare. After all, if we privatize one benefit, like prescription drugs, we might as well privatize them all. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to change course. I urge them to shift their support towards legislation that updates Medicaid and Medicare instead of spurning it. If we work together on a proposal like that, we can do the right thing for the American people. But if my Republican colleagues continually insist on going down this dead end street, they should not be surprised if come November it is the American voter who says, game over.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 544 congratulating Vicente Fox and the Mexican people for this very successful election. Vicente Fox as a candidate was in the Capitol some months ago and I talked to him about Chiapas, the very poor state in southern Mexico, talking about rural development, about health care in Chiapas, and especially about the military occupation from the central government of many of the rural areas of Chiapas. Once a year a Cleveland doctor friend of mine, who practices in the inner-city clinic in Cleveland, goes to Chiapas for a month and practices in a rural Catholic hospital. She has worked on several patients with tuberculosis. She tells me that in order to treat tuberculosis, someone needs to visit a doctor or a health clinic, or the health worker needs to go to the person's home and take medicine there every day for 6 months. The problem in Chiapas is that patients simply cannot get to and from a clinic, nor can the workers in the clinics get to the patients' homes, because of the check points and the military occupation in southern Mexico in Chiapas. President Fox, back then Candidate Fox, pledged to me and several others publicly and privately that one of the first things he would do is negotiate with those indigenous peoples to get the military out of southern Mexico to get the military occupation out of Chiapas. Mr. Speaker, that is a very important issue for the health of many of those people in rural southern Mexico, many of the indigenous people. I hope he follows up on that promise. Second, very quickly, Mr. Speaker, President Fox talked during his campaign, and since, about beginning to put together if you will a European Union style deepening of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Many of us have mixed feelings about the success of NAFTA. I feel it has not been a success at all, unlike the previous speaker. Nonetheless, if he is going to pursue an EU-style, European Union style deepening of NAFTA, customs issues, currency issues, things like that. It is important that he also with that, as the Europeans have done, enact strong labor standards, strong environmental standards, strong food safety, truck safety standards; all the issues that will raise Mexicans up, not bring American food safety and environmental standards down. That will help build a prosperous middle class in Mexico so we can have real trade between the two countries. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Mr. Fox's election and applaud the Mexican people for their success. I ask Mr. Fox and again urge him in terms of the indigenous people in Chiapas and the military occupation and the EU-style deepening of NAFTA.