Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have listened in the course of this debate to several speakers say that we must stop Federal funds from being used for assisted suicide. I would reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in current law permits Federal funding of suicide, including assisted suicide. Tax dollars are not used for this purpose. There is no intention from anyone in this body, there is no intention to change that long-standing policy. In short, this bill prohibits absolutely nothing. Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, Indian Health Service, in each case money to be spent for assisted suicide are prohibited. Even in the committee report, Mr. Speaker, I would quote from it briefly: Medicare statute limits Medicare coverage to items and services that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury, or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. Physician-assisted suicide, even if allowed under State law, does not meet these statutory criteria. As such, the program is prohibited from making payment for it under existing law. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that in this rush to actually do something in this session of Congress, that Congress today has missed a golden opportunity to help very sick, terminally ill patients. We missed an opportunity to reduce the tragic conditions that often lead to suicide in this country: People that are especially ill, people that are frail, people with disabilities who are in great pain. People who are seriously ill deserve quality of life at the end of their lives. We had a chance today, Mr. Speaker, to take steps to make that happen. We had a chance to say to medical schools in this country, ``Yes, you should teach better pain management; you should teach your young medical students more about treatment of depression to help those people in those last days of their lives, in their most difficult days of their lives, so that they do not have the desire to commit suicide, to ask their doctor for some sort of assistance.'' It would have been good policy; it would have been the right thing to do. That was the way, Mr. Speaker, we could have achieved the purpose of this legislation: To prevent assisted suicide by preventing the conditions that cause it. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the bill. I also ask, Mr. Speaker, that we think more seriously about this issue in terms of doing the right thing, this issue in terms of making sure that our medical schools do the right thing, train their medical students in helping those people in the sickest and most painful days of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today prohibits Federal funding for assisting an individual with suicide. The bill's rhetorical nature implies the taxpayers may be paying for something to which they strongly object, and that citizens should fear some insidious incursion into their pocketbooks for a wholesale tax-funded Kevorkian-like scheme. However, there is little basis either for this fear or for the rhetoric that drives it. Nothing in current law prohibits Federal funding of suicide, including assisted suicide. Nothing in Federal law permits Federal funding of suicide. Tax dollars are not used for this purpose today, and there is no intention to change that longstanding policy. The Government already prohibits Federal funding of any physician- assisted suicide through Medicare, through Medicaid, through Indian Health Services, through the Veterans Administration. In short, this bill essentially prohibits nothing. It is typical, Mr. Speaker, of the last two Republican Congresses, legislating a solution in search of a problem. In a hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce, religious leaders, health care professionals, and patient advocates testified about the seriousness of this discussion and debate. Their testimony made clear to all of us who heard it that what we do has profound implications for people whose lives are already nearly intolerable because they are suffering from severe disability or incapacitating illness and the psychological trauma and depression that often accompany the realization that death is near. All of the witnesses suggested that the medical profession needed to do more to train physicians and health care providers to recognize and treat those very factors that cause suicide. The Committee on Commerce should have adopted an amendment offered during the committee's deliberation on this bill. That amendment was simple. It simply required medical school training programs in those medical schools that receive Federal grants to include training in the care of dying people. Admittedly, it would have been a small step, but it would have been effective in prompting needed changes in health provider training. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to do something real with this bill, but instead it is nothing more than a hollow exercise, probably designed to fill a massive hole in the do-nothing 105th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill, but then again, why not? A vote for this bill merely means that we agree with the system that has been in place for many years. Assisted suicide is not now nor has it ever been financed by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that this Congress has failed to seize that opportunity to reduce the tragic conditions that often lead to suicide in our country. People with disabilities, frail seniors, and people seriously ill and in great pain deserve quality of life at the end of their lives. We had a chance to take some small steps to make that happen. It would have been good public policy. It would have been the right thing to do. That is the way to achieve what should have been the purpose of this legislation: to prevent assisted suicide by preventing conditions that cause it. It is too bad this Congress, Mr. Speaker, has failed to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall]. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 968. The Committee on Commerce has acted on this bill twice, first in September 1996, and then in March 1997. This legislation is also supported by the administration and was proposed by the President and Vice President through the reinventing government initiative in 1995. Nurse aide training programs play an important role, not only by preparing students to care for patients, but also by helping to meet the patient's needs in staffing health care facilities. The failure to make these changes for training programs could have dire consequences in terms of a nursing facility's ability to provide quality care for its patients. This bill will allow certain facilities to continue nurse aide training programs, particularly in rural and other areas which lack training alternatives. Mr. Speaker, I recommend we pass this bill today.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Department of Commerce released yesterday more bad news on trade figures and more bad news for American workers. Trade figures show that this past month we had a trade deficit of $12.7 billion; setting records, again breaking records, bad news records month after month after month after month. Again, Mr. Speaker, with the countries that we have had the most problems with in terms of our trade numbers, in terms of loss of jobs, the countries where most of our trade policy has been directed, Mexico and China were where the worst news came from. The trade deficit with Mexico went up 50 percent from 12 months ago this month, with those trade figures costing, again, thousands of American jobs that have gone south. The trade figures with China, the trade deficit has gone up a billion dollars over 1 year ago in the same month. Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to go down the path of free trade with larger and larger trade deficits, with a situation that is clearly costing us thousands and thousands of American jobs. At the same time, we are seeing a push from the administration and from Republican leadership in this House asking for fast track for Chile so that we can negotiate another trade agreement, another trade agreement that will not work, another trade agreement that will cost us jobs. We are seeing the administration push for negotiating for Chinese admittance to the World Trade Organization. Again, a step that clearly will cost more American jobs. Our trade deficit with China has grown to the point that within a year or so it will overtake our trade deficit with Japan, yet we continue to give most favored nation status recognition to China and continue to give China more trading privileges, as China continues to violate international trading norms, international human rights norms, international norms for all kinds of behavior in the world community. Just to take a few examples, Mr. Speaker. As we talk about entry into the World Trade Organization, and as we talk later about China getting more trade advantages from this country, as we have unfortunately done year after year, China is a nation that when threatened by free elections in neighboring Taiwan, sent missiles into the straits of Taiwan, shooting in the water near the country of Taiwan, sending them a message about free elections. China is a country where a relative of the prime minister smuggled some 2,000 AK-47's into San Francisco, in obvious direct violation of American law. China is a country that sold nuclear technology to rogue nations in south Asia, again in violation of international norms. China is a country that has violated all kinds of human rights with slave labor, with child labor; a country where 12-year-old children in slave labor camps make toys for 12-year-old children to play with on America's playgrounds. It is clear that this is not a country we should reward with continued most-favored-nation status, with continued trade advantages. This is not a country we should allow into the World Trade Organization until they improve their policies on human rights, until they improve their policies on the CD roms that they have stolen, intellectual property rights that they have violated across the board. Indeed, these last numbers from the Commerce Department show clearly again the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that our policy with China has cost American workers. It is a nation that has violated all kinds of human rights, ignored international norms, has violated all kinds of standards around the world, yet we continue to offer them most-favored-nation status and the administration continues to negotiate with them on admittance to the World Trade Organization. Congressman Gephardt, the minority leader, has introduced legislation with several others of us that Congress should be part of this negotiation, that Congress should have to vote on admittance of China to the World Trade Organization. I would hope that the Speaker and the leaders of this House would see fit that we should, as this body, have input into this decision whether China, whose trade deficit with us continues to mushroom and who continues to violate all kinds of world standards, that we get the opportunity to vote on whether China is admitted into the World Trade Organization. I ask the Members of this body, particularly on the other side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, to push their leaders into bringing this to a vote so we in this body can have some input and help make that decision whether we admit China into the World Trade Organization.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor on House Joint Resolution 1. It was placed there accidentally, and I ask that it be removed.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio and add my support for naming the Cleveland courthouse after my friend Carl Stokes. When I was, I believe, a teenager either in high school or perhaps college, I read ``Promises of Power,'' the story of Carl Stokes and how he overcame adversity and made so much of himself. He was elected to the State legislature and then moved on to become mayor of one of the great cities of this country. I never had the honor of knowing Carl Stokes when he was mayor. I got to know Carl Stokes after he became a judge and knew him obviously as Judge Stokes and saw the great kind of public service that he gave to northeast Ohio, to his city of Cleveland. Carl was elected mayor before his older brother, Lou, I believe, ever ran for anything. One of the highlights of this year for me was actually going to Carl Stokes' funeral, which was not a mournful time; it was a time of celebration in a lot of ways. I remember that Lou, and older brother, stood up at Carl's funeral and he said, and for those who knew Carl Stokes and those who know Lou, they know that Carl was very outgoing and very colorful and very outspoken and sometimes got a little carried away, and Lou is much more reserved. Lou is every bit as smart, but much more reserved and much quieter and lends his leadership in a different sort of way. I remember the highlight of the funeral probably was when Lou stood at the podium, and he looked up and he said Carl never really understood what it was like to be a younger brother. Again, one had to know both Lou and Carl to understand that. But while Carl was great in his way, of the kind of charismatic leadership that the time demanded, it was Carl, the younger brother, who always looked to Lou, the older brother, I think in quieter times. I do not think Carl would ever have admitted that in public, but the leadership they have both shown and given to this country is remarkable. I am pleased to lend my name and support to this resolution and to honor Carl Stokes for the work he did for Cleveland and the work he did nationally for this country and for our communities.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, seven times the half Republican, half Democrat Ethics Committee has found speaker Gingrich guilty: of using the House floor, this Chamber, to advertise his 1-800 number, guilty; using his office to commingle political and office resources, guilty; using the House floor to advertise his Political Action Committee, guilty. The bipartisan Ethics Committee rebuked Speaker Gingrich because he, and I quote, ``capitalized on his office and exploited his office for personal gain,'' when he signed his $4 million book review with a major Republican contributor. Now taxpayers have spent $500,000 to investigate his other activities, yet Speaker Gingrich has squelched this Government report; $500,000 of the taxpayers' dollars spent on the investigation, yet Speaker Gingrich has squelched this Government report. Mr. Speaker, show us the report. Release the report.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership, and that of the gentleman from New York, and the work they have done on continuing to get education finally on the right track in this country. We as a nation have come to a consensus pretty much about the role of local, State and Federal Government in education. No one in this body, certainly on the Democratic side, but I think on the Republican side, too, thinks that the Federal Government should come in and take over the schools and run all the schools' programs. But we have come to a consensus in that local government, by and large, controls the schools. State government does much of the funding for education. But the Federal Government's role is very important and very precise. It is some support for Head Start, it is student loans, it is programs like drug-free schools. It is helping community colleges from time to time with Federal money. But it is limited. What we have done is, we have protected, tried to protect that consensus. The leader of the other body, Mr. Lott's comments were particularly amazing when he talked about education and job training as garbage amendments that Democrats want to put in bills. I do not quite understand what he meant, but I understand his attitude. His attitude is that programs like drug-free schools and programs to help community colleges, like Lorain County Community College in my district, which is really the jewel of our county in terms of training a lot of people that are not just in their teens but in their twenties and thirties, going back, working full-time, going back to school and preparing for the future. That is so important. We are finally, with the President's leadership and people like the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, in this House, aiming education in the right direction: giving tax breaks to people for college tuition, so middle class families can send their kids on to school; providing student loans and strengthening the direct loan program, as you suggested, Mr. Pallone, so the middleman is cut out, and we can give those loans directly and not see banks and others basically take their cut off the top of these student loan programs or of these student loans. One of the things that the President said, I think that makes the most sense with the Families First agenda and in the President's agenda, in the President's plan, is a 2-year college scholarship for students who maintain a B average. In Elyria, OH, in my district, there is Lorain County Community College. That opportunity for students has given Lorain County the highest rate of 2-year associate degrees of any county, I believe, in all of Ohio. It has prepared people for all kinds of good employment, given people all kinds of opportunity. I also know people that are going to LC, to Lorain County Community College, that have really struggled, because they have not been able to put together the money and raise their children while they are working. They have done all they could do to come up with money to go to school. They sometimes have been in and out of Lorain Community College and not been able to continue their education, uninterrupted. The President's program will make sure that we are on the right track to be able to do that, so Lorain County Community College can continue to provide the sort of opportunities to get people, to get them into the middle class, to allow them to continue to stay in the middle class when their job is downsized and their company cuts back, as is happening all over this country. For us to follow Mr. Lott, the Republican leader of the other body, his idea to just junk some of these education programs and this job training, makes no sense. If we are going to compete internationally, if we are going to compete around the globe, we cannot cut education. We cannot end the student loan program. We cannot cut out the Pell grants. We cannot cut out the drug-free school programs and defund Head Start and some of these programs that have really simply provided an opportunity for America's middle class and poor kids. There is nothing more important that government can do than provide opportunity, nothing. The best programs that come out of this institution, the best direction of government, is to help people have opportunity. Lorain County Community College has done that in Elyria, OH. All kinds of community colleges and other schools around the country have done that. We have no business ever restricting opportunity. We should work toward expanding opportunity with student loans and tax breaks for parents in middle-class families to send their kids on to school, whether it is a 4-year university or a community college. It just does not make sense to do anything otherwise.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman said this benefits the community at large. There are about 40 million Americans today who have gotten some student loan or grant assistance from the Federal Government to further their educations. Some 40 million Americans have gotten this, whether it is the GI bill, Perkins, or some other program, direct loan, through the Federal Government, sponsored by the Federal Government, whatever. Think, if the Government had not been involved in any of these, the GI bill or the student loans of any kind, or Perkins or whatever, think how many of those 40 million would not be able to contribute to the community the way they are doing. They are scientists, teachers, nurses, people who are working as electricians, people doing all kinds of things to make this society a better place. If we had not provided those loans from the 1940's on, or those grants from the 1940's on, where would we be as a society? For us, all in the name, as Mr. Hinchey said, in order to give tax breaks to the richest people in those countries, the only way to pay for those tax breaks, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] has said on the floor, would be to cut Medicare, cut student loans. It is unconscionable. To give tax breaks to the tune of $500 billion, as Mr. Dole is suggesting, or the $300 billion that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has suggested, and tried to get through this House time after time after time, and actually shut down the government over, to give those tax breaks to the wealthy, the only way to pay for it is cuts in Medicare and student loans. Why would we sacrifice potentially tens of millions of students who could benefit in the next decade or so, who could benefit from student loans, direct student loans, and various kinds of Federal grants and loans, why would we sacrifice them so we could give a tax break, mostly to people who do not need it, people making $250,000 to $300,000 a year? Also they could give this break and really restrict the opportunity that millions of Americans, middle-class Americans and poor kids, would have in the next decade or so.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is so shortsighted to think about making cuts in education, whether it is the student loan, the drug free schools program that, while Senator Dole runs around the country talking about drugs and illegal drugs that we have got to deal with it, and he votes and leads the charge against with Mr. Gingrich, the leader of this House, to try to cut back on the drug free schools program, it is just so shortsighted. When you think of what, as a nation, are we going to do if we cut these kinds of programs, these kinds of opportunities for kids to go on to school, whether it is a 2-year school, a 2-year community college, or 4-year degree at a State university or whatever. Interestingly, one of the things, as Mr. Dole has gone around the country talking about his $550 billion tax break, which is going to make these education cuts even worse that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dole have already tried to pass through this institution that the President has vetoed, but as he has gone around the country talking about this $550 billion tax break, mostly for the wealthy, he has also promised group after group after group that he is not going to cut them. He has said to military groups, I am going to increase military spending. He says to veterans groups, I am not going to cut you. But the other day he said most interestingly, I am going to double the amount of money that the Federal Government spends on prisons. So he is going to keep increasing this, this, this, and this, and what is left to cut? The only thing left to cut unfortunately is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, student loans, environmental protection. That is about all that is left in all the things he has talked about because he has promised every other group he is not going to cut them. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to juxtapose cutting education, putting it next to increasing money on prisons. If we are going to cut education, we are going to have to build more prisons. If we are going to restrict opportunity for middle-class kids, for working class or poor kids, we just better start planning to spend more money on prisons, more money on alcohol abuse programs and drug abuse programs, and all of that if kids do not have the opportunity when they are 18 or 22 years old when they finish school. Again, it is so shortsighted. To restrict kids' opportunity, to restrict people when they are 30 years old that are working in a job, and trying to go back to Lorain Community College or somewhere else and simply cannot scrape the money together, and the Government is not interested in helping. What are people going to do to stay in the middle class, to achieve middle-class status and lifestyles and stay in the middle class? To me, our country in all the opportunities we have provided with things like the GI bill are to build a strong middle class. If we are going to just throw up our hands as a government and say, sorry, no more, the Government is no longer on the side of helping to provide opportunity for young people, we are just going to give up, give tax breaks to the wealthy and forget about opportunity and forget about education, I wonder what is going to happen to this country. It is a scary thought.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, former Senator Bob Dole has unveiled his new economic plan to the American people. He has outlined a $550 billion tax break, mostly for the wealthy, but he had not told us how he is going to pay for that $550 billion tax break. One of Bob Dole's advisers said, ``He has no plans to describe specifically what Federal programs he will cut until after the election.'' Former Senator Dole, Citizen Dole, is going around the country speaking to organizations promising each of them: I will not cut your programs. In fact, maybe I will increase your programs, one group after another. Yesterday, talking to some people about crime, he said: You want more prisons? I will double the amount of appropriations for Federal prisons. So at the same time Senator Dole has said he will increase military spending to the tune of perhaps $30 or $40 or $50 billion a year over the next 5 years, he wants to build star wars. He wants to give this major tax break, increase military spending, increase money for prisons, increase this, increase that, but he will not tell us how he is going to pay for these hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks that he says he will give the American people. I think it is important then, Mr. Speaker, to look at where in fact this money will come from. I think we only have to turn the calendar back about 1 year to figure out where Senator Dole will get the $550 billion to pay for the tax break, some couple hundred billion over 4 or 5 years, to pay for military spending increases; the tens of billions to pay for more prison construction; the other billions of dollars that Senator Dole has promised. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to look back 1 year, turn the calendar back 1 year to figure out how he is going to pay for it. All of us remember about 14 months ago Speaker Gingrich unveiled the Republican plan to give a $200-and-some billion tax break mostly for the rich, and to pay for it with $270 billion in Medicare cuts, a tax break mostly for the rich paid for by $270 billion in Medicare cuts. At the same time in this legislation were major cuts in student loans for middle-class families, major cuts for environmental protection, to pay for inspectors, to pay for enforcement, to pay for environmental cleanup. All of that was in order to pay for the tax break to go mostly to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Speaker, it got so bad, as we recall, several months ago that Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole shut the Government down because President Clinton vetoed their tax break, mostly for the wealthy paid for with Medicare cuts. President Clinton said: I will not give that kind of a tax break mostly to the rich. I will not give the rich a tax break paid by Medicaid and Medicare and student loan cuts and cuts in environmental protection. It simply did not make sense. Mr. Speaker, the President was right. Those of us who stuck by the President on this side of the aisle were right, and clearly that is what the American people reiterated over and over and over again. We do not give tax breaks for the rich and cut Medicare and cut Medicaid and cut student loans and cut environmental protection to pay for them. The same folks who brought us the Government shutdown, the same folks who tried last year for a major cut in Medicare are back this year. Last year the tax break was about $250 billion for the wealthy. This year the Dole tax cut is twice that, and he is not telling us how he is going to pay for it. So it is clear the way that Senator Dole is going to pay for this major tax break is to go right at the heart of Medicare and right at the heart of Medicaid and right at the heart of student loans and also right at the heart of environmental protection. That is clearly not what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, the American people last fall, early this winter, blamed Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole for the Government shutdown because they did not want to see these major cuts in Medicaid and Medicare and student loans and the environment. Here we go again. Senator Dole wants to give tax breaks of twice that size, but Senator Dole has learned something from his mistake because this year in this campaign, at least before the election, he will not tell us that that in fact is what is going to happen; that it is going to be cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in student loans, and cuts in environmental protection. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we understand Senator Dole's and Speaker Gingrich's attitude toward the Government program that has probably been the best program Government has ever put together, and that has been the Medicare Program. Thirty years ago in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare, only 46 percent of America's elderly had health care insurance; only 46 percent 30 years ago. Today, 99 percent of America's elderly have health care insurance. Mr. Speaker, Medicare has worked, but we would not know it from listening to Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole. Senator Dole and Mr. Gingrich have made it clear that they oppose these programs. They want to give tax breaks for the wealthy and pay for it with Medicare cuts.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I think, in summary, we have a couple more minutes, thinking about the bridge to the future and making the student loan program, particularly the direct loan program, work, make it available to people, make Medicare continue to improve Medicare and Medicaid so that we can deal with the increasing costs but continue to cover people and continue to give people, lift people out of poverty, as we have done, contrasted with this bridge to the past that we have talked about where we do not want to go back to the days when, before the GI bill, when there were not opportunities for middle- class families to send their children or themselves to college. We do not want to go back prior to the 1930's, when there was not a Social Security Program. We do not want to go back to the period before 1965, when there was not Medicare or Medicaid, when 50 percent, 54 percent, I guess, of senior citizens in this country had no health insurance prior to the mid-1960's, and now only 1 percent has no health insurance. There is no reason to go back. That is why we need to look forward. I think the commitment, certainly from all four of us and many others here, is to continue to improve Medicare, continue to improve Medicaid, continue to improve the direct loan program, student loans overall, student grants, to take care of the elderly and to protect our natural resources by good environmental protection measures and to continue to give students opportunities, middle-class families, poor kids, give them opportunities that they can produce and they can give back to society. I think that is what we are asking, and it is a rejection of these tax breaks for the rich to make all of these cuts in programs that matter, Medicare, student loans, environment, but instead to make these programs more efficient, make them work, bridge to the future so that students will have that opportunity so all of us can grow together. I thank my friends from New Jersey, Michigan, and Connecticut.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And to ultimately save money so the 12-year-old child with the cold will go to the family doctor rather than waiting until she is sicker and going to an emergency room.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. There are the intellectuals, quote unquote, in the Gingrich revolution that sit over at the Heritage Foundation or sit over in their ivory towers and somewhere around the Capitol in one of these really fancy buildings and think up all these great ideas and are totally out of touch with Margie in Macomb County and totally out of touch with the woman that Ms. DeLauro talked about, that have real problems, living on $8,000 a year, that struggle, that were able to send their kids to college on student loans, that need their Social Security, that use Medicare in the last couple of decades of their lives. They are coming up with these ideas and then these are the ideas they are trying to foist on the American people out of some think tank. The Social Security, Medicare, student loans, we are going to keep fighting for it because those are important and those have made millions of Americans who have brought them into the middle class and kept them in the middle class. That is what all of us should be here for.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Think about the programs, and there are certainly Government programs that have wasted dollars and Government programs that have not worked, but think of the two programs we are talking about most today, a couple or three programs, Medicare and student loans. Medicare has lifted millions of the elderly out of poverty in the last decade or two or three of their lives. Student loans have provided opportunities for millions of middle class families to send their children to college. Both programs obviously can use some adjustment, but it is clear from what Mr. Dole's campaign manager said, Senator D'Amato said, what Mr. Kemp, what Mr. Dole, Mr. Gingrich said, that they really want to eliminate these programs in the next decade. They are two programs that work so very well for middle class America, for poor America, for everybody.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The same thing, only worse, I would add, because now the tax break mostly for the wealthy is twice the size Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dole originally planned, which means, I guess, they will not tell us, but we have to figure it will mean twice as large a cut in student loans, twice as large a cut in the environment and twice as large a cut in Medicare or Medicaid or twice as large an increase in premiums, deductibles and co-pays. They simply will not tell us. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend from Connecticut, who has done such a marvelous job in showing leadership, in not just protecting Medicare against major budget cuts from Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Dole, but also offering alternatives to strengthen Medicare and make it work for the next generation. I would add on one thing to what the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, when she talked about holding down costs. Mr. Gingrich, in talking about Medicare withering on the vine and Mr. Dole saying it would not work when he voted against it 30 years ago, and Mr. Thomas calling it socialized medicine, and on and on and on, they want to increase costs to senior citizens. They want to double the premiums and copays and deductibles. But they really see Medicare as sort of a piggy bank, that you have this big pot of money, a slush fund or piggy bank, whatever term you want to use. Medicare is a big program. A lot of money goes through Medicare every year in taking care of tens of millions of seniors' health care. What has happened is they first want to raid this piggybank or slush fund to the tune of $270 billion in tax breaks, mostly for the rich. Now that Mr. Dole has proposed a bigger tax break, they want to cut it even more. Mr. Speaker, they also want to raid it in another way, and that is some of the programs they have, so that Medicare does in fact wither on the vine. Mr. Gingrich has proposed something called medical savings accounts, which allows insurance companies to raid this piggybank or raid this slush fund. It is no secret or it is no coincidence, I should say, that, when Mr. Gingrich made his little speech about Medicare withering on the vine when he said we did not get rid of Medicare in round one because we did not think it was politically smart to do that, and we do not think it is the right way to go through a transition, but we believe it is going to wither on the vine. When Mr. Gingrich said that back in October of 1995, he was speaking to a group of insurance company executives, all of whom will benefit from his Medicare plan. So, first of all, he takes money out of Medicare to go to a tax break for the richest Americans. Then the money that is left in Medicare will not be spent on senior citizen health care to the same degree that it is now. The money that is left, much of it will go to those insurance companies for bigger profits and more money for them. So we see already a declining amount of money in Medicare as a result of the Gingrich tax breaks for the rich. We see a further diminishing of this Medicare pot that should go to people like Margie in Macomb County, or people like the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] was talking about. Instead of going to them, it is going to insurance executives. It is going to the people at Golden Rule, in Indiana, to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Those are the people that Mr. Gingrich was speaking to that day. It is one thing after another that way. Mr. Speaker, the reason Medicare will wither on the vine under the Gingrich plan is he will cut the amount of money in it with the tax breaks. We will see more of the health care dollars going to insurance companies so that senior citizens will have even less, and then the system literally does wither on the vine. He was speaking correctly when he said it would wither on the vine under his proposal. He was not lying to the American people if he gets his way. But he is not going to get his way because the four of us and dozens of others in this body will continue to fight that. The President will continue to fight that. Clearly, the American people have been on our side because the Republicans shut the Government down in order to give this big tax break and make Medicare cuts. So it is clear that the more people know about the Gingrich-Dole plan on Medicare, that they want to double premiums and increase copays and increase deductibles, the more the people will be unhappy about it. I yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, taking back my time for a moment, the changes that Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Dole put into the Medicare and Medicaid bill, will go the exact opposite direction of where we wanted to go in detecting fraud, waste, and abuse, rooting it out and eliminating it. There is the balanced billing issue, there is the issue that allows a doctor, which is prohibited now under the law, but which they want to allow a doctor to be able to refer a patient to an MRI facility or some other diagnostic or clinical facility that the doctor owns, and then go ahead and charge the Government for the referral and the original visit, and then the diagnostic equipment and treatment at that center. It was one issue after another issue that they opened up to more fraud, waste, and abuse, in a system that already has 10 or 15 percent fraud, waste, and abuse. The first thing we need to do with Medicare and Medicaid is not make cuts to pay for a tax break for a relatively small number of very wealthy people. The first thing we need to do is root out the waste, fraud and abuse. Then we can deal with the fiscal issues with Medicare. But do not charge senior citizens, raise their premium from $46 to $110 a year, and raise the deductibles and copays.