Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If I recall, he said he had corrected it initially. Then a staff person said, ``Newt, come over here,'' and he explained he had not. And he ignored it and said, ``We will take care of it later.'' It has not been. Fortunately, a Presidential veto stopped it from happening.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I think it is important to remember that the people that need help on paying their Medicare premium, the $46 a month, are not usually people that have been on welfare all their lives. They are usually people that have been working all their lives, that never made a lot of money, that want to live their last year in dignity. I remember in the Committee on Commerce the gentleman and I and others worked on an amendment to at least, as bad as the Medicare bill overall was, to at least put that part of the Medicare law back into place, that Government would help those people that worked all their lives in perhaps minimum wage or slightly above, to help them with their Medicare premium, so they in fact would qualify for Medicare. If I recall, that was voted down on a party line vote because Speaker Gingrich did not want it in the law.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. In other words, that $46 payment, if you are especially poor, that $46 payment the government will help you with so you can qualify for Medicare.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I would add, before yielding to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], that it is important to keep in mind what he said when he talked about Marjorie in Macomb County, or I talked about people that I know in Lorraine or Medina or all over my district, that the proposal last year would have raised premiums, the monthly premium, from $46 to $85 or $90. It would have raised the deductible, now $250 a year, somewhat higher, and would have raised the copays, which are typically $5 or $10, to some higher amount. What is important about that is that they were cutting Medicare $270 billion to pay for a tax cut of about that amount. Senator Dole proposes twice the tax break, again, mostly for the wealthy. Does that mean the premiums are going to go up from $46 to $110 or $120 or $130 a month? Does that mean that the deductible will go from $250 to $400 or $500, or the copays will go to $15 or $25? We do not know that. They are not telling us. In order to pay for a tax break of $550 billion, it is pretty clear the Medicare premium is going to go well over $100 a month, and you are talking, what Mr. Bonior said, that 60 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are living on less than $10,000 a year. While going from $46 to $100 a month might not be very much for Mr. Armey, who talks about Medicare being socialism, or Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Dole or a Member of Congress, it is a lot for somebody living on $10,000 a year. I yield to my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, who has done more to protect Medicare and fight these cuts and Newt Gingrich's ``wither on the vine.''

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Florida. There have been efforts by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and me in the Committee on Commerce, and by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] to deal with the fraud questions, because we can save $80 or $90 billion in the next 7 years simply by attacking fraud, waste and abuse in a systematic way. That is the first step, not making these major cuts in Medicare in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] was here in 1965 when Medicare was created. At that time, half the senior citizens of America had no health insurance. Today only 1 percent of senior citizens have no health insurance because of Medicare. Medicare clearly has worked. You look at what Speaker Gingrich has said about Medicare, that he wants to see it wither on the vine, and those are his words, not mine. You look at what the next top- ranked Republican in Congress has said, Mr. Armey, that in a free society you would not have Medicare. You look at what one of the top Republicans in Ways and Means has said, he calls it socialized medicine. You look at what Senator Dole said. He said, ``In 1965 I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, 1 out of 12, because it wouldn't work.'' It is clear when 99 percent of the elderly in this country have health insurance and can live the last years of their life with dignity knowing that most of their health care will be taken care of that it is a program that works. I resent, as I think everybody on this floor resents, the kind of talk that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Armey and some of the others have said when they belittle Medicare and belittle what it has done for people in this country. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Retaking my time for 1 moment, to my friend from Texas, that is exactly the point. Last year they proposed $245 billion in tax breaks, mostly for the wealthy, and the way they wanted to pay for those tax breaks, cuts in Medicare, going right to the heart of cutting student loans, and cutting environmental programs, they could not do because the public rose up in opposition to it. This year Senator Dole, former Senator Dole, wants to give a tax break, again mostly to the wealthy, of twice that amount, but they are not telling us how they are going to pay for it. It is clear the only way they are going to pay for it is go twice as hard at Medicare, twice as hard at student loans and twice as hard at the environment. But they look at us and say, ``Trust me until after the election is over, we'll tell you after the election.'' It is clear what they are going to do, go after the same programs the public would not stand for in 1995 and 1996 which they shut down the Government over, saying if we cannot have our Medicare cuts we are going to shut down the Government. What is this crowd going to do? If Senator Dole wins the election and Gingrich and the Republicans in the Senate take control, how are they going to run the Government then? Go right after Medicare, student loans, and the environment one more time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The same folks who brought us the Government shutdown, the two Government shutdowns earlier this year and late last year, are back. Former Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich are bringing us a $500 billion economic package, have proposed a $500 billion economic plan tax break package, mostly for the wealthy, that will result in more cuts to Medicare, more cuts to student loans, more cuts to Medicaid, and more cuts to environmental programs. Mr. Speaker, let us look at a bit of history as we discuss this Dole economic plan, and as we discuss the cuts in Medicare and what all of that means, and what that meant last year. Last year the plan of the Speaker, the Gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], and Senator Dole was to give some $245 billion in tax breaks mostly for the wealthy, and they planned to pay for this plan by making $270 billion of cuts in Medicare and several billion, about $180 billion cuts in Medicaid, several billion worth of cuts in student loans, and several billion of cuts in environmental protection. This $245 billion tax break mostly for the wealthy, which would result in the $270 billion in Medicare cuts, was the beginning of the unraveling of the Medicare Program. Let me quote what Speaker Gingrich said about Medicare, and let me quote what then-Senator Dole said about Medicare. Last October Speaker Gingrich, speaking to a group of insurance executives, all of whom would benefit greatly from this dismantling of the Medicare Program, said, ``Now we didn't get rid of Medicare in round one, because we don't think that is politically smart. We don't think that is the right way to go through a transition. But we believe that Medicare is going to wither on the vine.'' The same day, speaking to another group, a group called the American Conservation Union, then-Senator Dole, who was leading the fight for the Medicare cuts in the Senate, said, ``I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, one of 12, because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' Since that time, the same people that tried to, on the one hand, say they are here to try to defend Medicare and save Medicare, are attacking Medicare under their breath, attacking Medicare behind closed doors in Republican caucuses, and occasionally letting it slip and attacking Medicare in public. One prominent member of the Committee on Ways and Means called Medicare socialized medicine. The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], said that in a free society Medicare would not exist, whatever that means. Other prominent Republicans have labeled Medicare a program of socialism, a program that does not make sense for people, a program that we simply do not need. Mr. Speaker, the point is that this crowd, Gingrich, Dole, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, the leadership of the Republican Party, not mainstream Republicanism, which most people in this country that are Republicans I think are more likely to believe in, and not the mainstream Republicanism that supported Medicare in past decades, but this new extremist crowd of Gingrich and Armey and the gentleman from Texas, Tom Delay, and some of the other leaders in the other House are simply opposed to Medicare. They wanted it to wither on the vine. They bragged about voting against it. It is pretty clear that this $245 billion tax cut they proposed last year and paid for by the $200-some billion tax cuts in Medicare are the way they can end the program of Medicare, end the programs of student loans, end some of the environmental protection measures. That brings us to the point today, to the Dole program today he has proposed in the Presidential race. I might add that Senator Dole and his running mate, Mr. Kemp, came to the Republican Caucus today to talk about how they were going to pay for the major tax break, mostly for the wealthy, and talk about how they were going to do the Medicare cuts. A few Republicans have stood up and been honest about what the Dole economic plan means. If you are going to provide $500 billion in tax breaks, mostly for the rich, then you are going to have to cut Medicare even more than then-Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich proposed last year. That simply means that if it was $270 billion in cuts in Medicare last year, they are going to propose even more cuts this year, once they are honest with the public. What that really means is those senior citizens that are now paying $46 a month for Medicare premiums will have their premium at least doubled, to $90 or $100 or maybe $110 a month to pay for their premium. It also means that deductibles will be higher. It also means that copays will be higher. So that this party, this Gingrich-Dole party that says they are against tax increases, clearly want to put this senior citizen tax on Medicare beneficiaries. It is not $46 a month, which is what it used to be, or $5 or $10 copayments, what it used to be, or $50 deductible, what it used to be. All of a sudden it is probably going to be double that in order to pay for this huge $500 billion in tax breaks, mostly for the wealthy. At the same time they are going to go right at the heart of student loans and end the student loan program that students in this country have been accustomed to, raise the prices on other kinds of student loans and student grants, cut student grants and raise the prices on other student loans, and in order again to pay for this $500 billion boondoggle, mostly for wealthy taxpayers, to go after programs that protect the environment, something the American people clearly will not stand for. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have been here before. The same folks who brought you the Government shutdown are back. Speaker Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, and others want a $500 billion tax break, mostly for the wealthy. What does that mean? It means more Medicare cuts, higher even than the $270 billion that the Gingrich-Dole plan originally gave us. It means a doubling of premiums. Where premiums are $46 a month for senior citizens for Medicare, those premiums will go to $90 or $100 a month, perhaps even $110 a month, to pay for the tax break for the wealthy that Mr. Dole and Mr. Gingrich want to bring to us. It means higher deductibles and higher copayments for Medicare. It means elimination and cutting back of the student loan program and higher costs for those student loans that still remain. Mr. Speaker, these tax breaks for the wealthy mean more Medicare cuts, more student loan cuts. They are simply not what the public wants.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the folks who brought us the Government shutdown are back at it. Cut taxes on the rich, they say, and cut Medicare and student loans to pay for it. The Dole-Gingrich tax plan, some $600 billion in tax breaks mostly for the rich, will mean ever bigger cuts in Medicare, ever bigger cuts in student loans, ever bigger cuts in environmental protection than the original Gingrich plan. The Gingrich-Dole plan will mean fewer Medicare services and fewer student loans. The Gingrich-Dole plan will mean higher Medicare premiums, higher Medicare copayments, higher Medicare deductibles, and higher costs for middle-class students getting student loans. The Dole-Gingrich plan will mean Medicare beneficiaries who are now paying about $46 a month in premiums will see their premiums approaching $100 a month. Mr. Speaker, not cuts in Medicare and student loans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. It simply does not make sense.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments of my friend from Connecticut, especially when instead of Gingrich Republicans cutting Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, cutting it to the tune, originally they started out at $270 billion and finally reacted, when the public reacted so much against these major Medicare cuts in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy under the Gingrich Medicare plan, instead of letting the Gingrich Republicans make those cuts to do that, we should be going after fraud in Medicare, the whole balanced billing issue that Ms. DeLauro mentioned that will cause more waste in Medicare and will cause more Medicare beneficiaries to have less services at higher cost. What they tried in the Medicare and the Medicaid bills, what the Gingrich bills on Medicare and Medicaid said last year and this year, that to allow physicians to refer for any kind of services, diagnostic services, MRI's or others to facilities that those physicians own, we have in this body, long before any of the three of us were here, tried to go after some of those fraudulent aspects of Medicare anyway, to make sure that people really were getting their dollars' worth and doctors were paid properly, that hospitals were reimbursed properly and that patients had an opportunity to get good health care at the lowest cost possible. Now we are opening the floodgates, when there is already, according to the GAO, already something like $100 billion in fraud in Medicare over 7 years that we could recover, they are opening the floodgates more so we could have maybe twice as much fraud. The fact is, instead of giving these tax breaks, instead of cutting Medicare and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country, as Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans want to do, we should be going after these in a variety of different ways, some of these fraudulent practices that have happened in Medicare, go after some of the double billings and some of the problems that we have seen, not opening up the floodgates so there can be more. It is clear that that is the way to deal with the Medicare, that is the Medicare solution for now, rather than making major cuts and saying, you are trying to save it, when clearly it is almost comical, if it were not so serious, when Speaker Gingrich and the leaders in the other body stand up and talk about, we are going to cut Medicare $180 or $270 billion, whatever their number of the day is in order to save it, it is almost comical, if it were not so serious, except that in the sense that these are the people that voted against Medicare when it was created. These are the people that have never tried to fix the program when it has needed minor fixing. These are the people that called it a socialist, no-good program. Citizen Dole has said that Medicare, he was proud of being one of 12 people that voted against Medicare because he knew it would not work, he said. Speaker Gingrich has said over and over that Medicare will wither on the vine under the Gingrich Republican proposals. It is clear they have never had any interest in this program. They are not trying to save it. They are trying to privatize it and ultimately turn it into a welfare program that simply will not serve the 99 percent of the senior citizen population of this country that Medicare now services.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And yield a moment further. Not only did that company give a whole lot of money to the Republican campaign funds, all of their different funds and all of their different guises that Speaker Gingrich has set up, but the Speaker has absolutely gone to the wall for this concept for this company, medical savings account, time after time after time when we have tried to pass legislation that would deal with preexisting condition. We have tried to pass legislation that deals with portability so someone can move from one job to another job and without losing their insurance. Every time we have tried to legislatively find a solution to that, which we have been able to do in both Houses in a bipartisan way, the Speaker is always saying we have to have medical savings accounts as part of this deal, and that is how it has failed because medical savings accounts do not work, particularly in Medicare they do not work, and it will ultimately cause the Medicare withering on the vine. The withering on the vine statement by Speaker Gingrich is because of medical savings accounts, and the reason that will work that way is Medicare beneficiaries that are particularly healthy, that are 80, 68 years old and in very good health might leave Medicare temporarily to join a medical savings account, will not cost much to insure that person in those years, and the sickest people will stay in Medicare, and the Government will pay more for those people that are the most ill. Then, when that 68-year-old gets to be 75 and begins to get sicker, that woman or that man would go back into Medicare, and the Government would have to pay more and more money to insure them while the insurance companies--company or companies that write these medical savings accounts will reap all kinds of benefits from the Medicare Program. So in addition to that $180 billion that Gingrich wants to cut Medicare, you are going to see more money of what is left going into these insurance companies through these medical savings accounts and the elderly and the beneficiaries for Medicare will have fewer and fewer dollars, will pay more and more for those benefits as they continue to decline and wither.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I would add, if the gentleman would yield, to what the gentlewoman from Connecticut said about the efforts to hold costs down or to cut the growth in Medicare. I mean I have heard over and over and over again from the most conservative people in this House, who on the Republican side have always opposed any program like Medicare, calling it socialism, saying it is a terrible program, it is big government, all of that. They have all said we are not cutting Medicare, we are slowing the rate of growth, and that is what they say over and over and over again and try to drum that into the heads of America's elderly, saying we are not threatening Medicare. The fact is slowing the rate of growth when more people are on Medicare means less money for each older beneficiary. It also means there is a higher cost for medicine which goes up and for health care. It means less per person, and third what it means, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut was alluding to, is as special interests cash in more and more on the Gingrich Medicare plan, it means less monies available. So you already have a shrinking pot of money for America's ever increasing number of elderly, and that pot shrinks even further when more people are, to mix a metaphor, when more people are at the trough, more special interest groups that have fought to have all of these antifraud provisions taken out. So we are going to see more fraud. While Gingrich is trying to cut Medicare, if he is successful, and the number of dollars does not go as far as they do today, we are also going to see more special interests feeding at the trough and taking even more dollars away, which will mean ultimately fewer dollars for Medicare beneficiaries. It will mean fewer services. It will mean higher premiums and copays and deductibles. It will mean ultimately a privatization of Medicare which spells the end, and that is why Speaker Gingrich talking to that group of insurance executives, talked about Medicare withering on the vine. If you remember what he said when he was talking to insurance executives who salivate in a sense over what he wants to do with Medicare so insurance companies can get more and more, as Medicare is privatized under the Gingrich plan insurance companies can get more and more involved in it. That is why the Speaker said: We didn't get rid of Medicare in round one because we don't think that's politically smart. We don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine. And under his plan he is right. It will wither on the vine as more and more private interests, special interests, get involved in Medicare and take more money out leaving less money for the beneficiaries that have paid into Medicare their entire lives leading up to their retirement and continue to pay into Medicare through their whole lives into part A and part B. That is in the end; right. The Gingrich plan is bad for older people. It is bad for Medicare; ultimately bad for all of us as a country to just give up on our elderly like that, which is what will happen if it withers on the vine.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. All you have to do is look back 30 years, 31 years in the celebration today of the 31 years since Medicare was signed. Thirty-one years ago half the people in, half the elderly in this country had no health insurance. This is a Government program that works. Ninety-nine percent of America's elderly now have health insurance. We can make it better, but do not dismantle it, do not privatize it, do not turn it over to these special interest groups, these big insurance companies that have given a lot of money to politicians just so they can play with this huge program that has served the American public well. We have got to deal with costs, we have got to deal with some of the difficulties of Medicare, but it is a program that works. It is a program that has taken care of our parents and our grandparents, and we have got to make sure it takes care of them and it takes care of our generation and the next generation, and we can do that. But it works because it is universal. It works because it insures everybody. It insures black people, and white people, and brown people. It insures Republicans and Democrats. It does not matter, the rich and the poor. It insures everybody, and it works because it is a broad-based insurance program. Do not let insurance companies peel off the most healthy people and let them benefit from that and leave everybody else in a sinking ship. Medicare works because it is universal, because it helps everybody in this country, and we just should not mess with it that way.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, every year China promises to open its market to American products. Every year Congress grants most-favored-nation status to China, yet nothing seems to change, and we are about to do it again. MFN is a job killer for America. MFN is a job killer for America because China refuses to open its markets. MFN is a job killer for America because China uses slave labor and prison labor camps. MFN is a job killer for America because China uses child labor to make things, like this Mattel Barbie doll and this Spalding softball. Twelve-year-old Tibetan boys and girls in Chinese slave labor camps making these softballs for 12-year-old American boys and girls to use on America's playgrounds, Chinese children making these Barbie dolls in sweatshops so American children can play with them in their bedrooms. When will this stop? When will we in this Congress say enough is enough? Kill MFN.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, most-favored-nation status for China giving trade advantages to that Communist dictatorship will cost millions of American jobs. Our trade deficit with China, almost nonexistent only a few years ago, has climbed to $32 billion and is rising, and within a couple of years, it will surpass that of Japan. How much more can China do to its people and how much more can China do to the rest of the world before we finally say ``no'' to MFN? Massacring students in Beijing, selling nuclear technology to rogue nations, slave labor camps, illegally smuggling 2,000 AK-47's into the United States, forcible seizure of Tibetan children from their homes, 12-year-old children in China making toys for 12-year-old children in America and 12-year-old children in China in labor camps making toys for 12-year-old children in America. Mr. Speaker, when will it stop? When will we in this body stop it? Defeat MFN.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, get in line. Even West Georgia State in the Speaker's home State is investigating the charitable activities of Speaker Gingrich. Newspaper after newspaper, conservative and liberal alike, have questioned the Speaker's activities and his fundraising apparatus. West Georgia College Foundation oversees the Speaker's reading charity, something called Earning by Learning. That charity pays schoolchildren to read books, and Speaker Gingrich has said the charity is all volunteer, with all proceeds going directly to children. But let me quote from Speaker Gingrich's hometown paper, a paper which has supported him regularly. The vast majority of the charity's money was paid not to children but to college instructor Mel Steely and several of his colleagues. Steely, who served as Gingrich's campaign manager in 1986 and a congressional aide in the 1990's, is the charity's coordinator. Some of the work done by Steely and paid for with charitable funds apparently focused on Gingrich's reelection chances and was written on the Marietta Congressman's campaign stationery. Madam Speaker, that is simply wrong.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the rule. As the gentleman from New York, Chairman Solomon, pointed out, this MFN resolution should be given 20 hours of debate, guaranteed by statute. But in a phenomenal show of arrogance, the Republican leadership has said no. This MFN debate reminds me a little bit of the Medicare debate; Republicans choking off debate, the Gingrich leadership team cutting back-room deals with powerful interest groups, consideration of the legislation in the middle of the night. This bill will cost millions, will cost millions of American jobs. Our trade deficit with China, as my friend from California said, almost nonexistent only a few years ago, has climbed to $32 billion a year and rising. Within a couple of years it will surpass that of Japan. MFN is an economic loser for America. We sell more to Belgium. As a Nation we export more to Belgium than we do to China. Conversely, 40 percent of all of Chinese exports are sold into the United States. Simply put, China needs us more than we need them. How much more can China do to its people and how much more can China do to rest of the world? How many more times can they stick their thumbs in the eyes of their people and the rest of the world before we in this body finally say to MFN? Massacring students in Beijing, selling nuclear technology to rogue nations, slave labor camps, illegally smuggling 2,000 AK-47s into the United States, forced abortions and sterilizations, forcible seizure of Tibetan children, forcing 12-year-old Chinese children to make toys for 12-year-old American children. It is time we say no to MFN. It is time we say no to the Chinese government. It is time we say no to those abuses. Vote no on the rule, vote no on MFN.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank Chairman Lewis and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, and the gentlewoman from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, on the Committee on Appropriations, and most importantly, the 600,000 veterans and their families in northeastern Ohio for their support for a new veterans cemetery in Guilford Township, Medina County, OH. Ohio has only one national cemetery. It is located in Dayton, in southwestern Ohio, over 200 miles from the 600,000 veterans who live in northern Ohio. The Dayton cemetery is expected to reach its 35,000 gravesite capacity in less than 2 years. Once filled, Ohio will be without an active national cemetary. These veterans and their families will be faced with a choice of cemeteries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, or Michigan, all places too far to visit the gravesites of loved ones. The veterans of northeastern Ohio who braved fire on the beaches of Normandy and the jungles of Vietnam risked everything so our children and grandchildren could live free. By providing the necessary funds to begin the work on this cemetery, we can offer a small down payment on the tremendous debt we owe these people. Again, special thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for their support of this cemetery.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Members of this body will soon be asked to vote on most-favored-nation trading status for China. Mr. Speaker, this softball, this Barbie doll, and this figurine from ``Beauty and the Beast,'' are all manufactured in China with cheap labor, maybe by prison labor, maybe by child labor. Children in China making ``Beauty and the Beast'' figurines, children in China making Barbie dolls for children in America, 12-year-olds in China making softballs for 12-year-olds in America. China has run up a huge trade surplus with the United States. By the U.S. Commerce Department's own calculation, that surplus will cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs. This deficit is growing every month and soon will exceed Japan's. The result is the death of American jobs. Hardship for American families, distress in American communities. Mr. Speaker, China does not play by the rules. Children in China making softballs and Barbie dolls for children in America. Kill MFN.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I had planned to hold up a toy assault weapon when I spoke today on the House floor. House rules suggest I not do so. This toy gun was made in China. It is only a toy. But the 2,000 assault weapons that the U.S. attorney in San Francisco found last month were not toys. They were the real thing, smuggled in by the Chinese Government or a company controlled by the Chinese Government. It is sometimes hard to tell the difference when you are dealing with a Communist country that uses slave labor. The assault weapons in California kill people. Those toys made by the Chinese in Chinese slave labor camps kill jobs, American jobs. The trade deficit with China is $34 billion a year and growing. Before long it will be greater than the deficit we have with Japan. MFN, most- favored-nation status, is not fair to American workers. Kill MFN.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The same group that shut down the Government last winter has given us a budget that is way out of balance. The Gingrich Republican budget cuts Medicare, cuts Medicaid, increases by $12 billion the military budget, more than the Pentagon asked for, and increases taxes on people making $15,000 to $30,000 a year, at the same time swelling the budget deficit, all to give tax breaks to the richest people in this country. Three years ago the budget deficit was $290 billion. This year we have got it down to $130 billion. We have cut it in half. Unfortunately, the Gingrich budget increases the budget deficit to $153 billion next year and a comparable amount the following year instead of bringing the budget deficit down. At the same time it cuts Medicare by $162 billion, it cuts Medicaid $72 billion, again all to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in this country. Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. What has happened on this very simple bill? Kassebaum-Kennedy was a simple bill that dealt with two problems. It dealt with the problem of preexisting condition and the problem with portability. Then Speaker Gingrich and Republican leaders have chosen to attach to this bill all kinds of special-interest provisions for the largest insurance companies in America. All we are asking simply is that the House pass, that we instruct conferees to do what the Senate did when the Senate passed this bill unanimously a hundred to nothing and when the Senate defeated medical savings accounts. All we are asking is that Kassebaum- Kennedy be dealt with cleanly and simply, that we have a ban on preexisting condition and that we deal with the problems of portability so people can move their insurance from one employer to another employer. All Speaker Gingrich wants to do, what he wants to do is load up this bill with special-interest provisions to pay back big insurance companies that have helped Republican campaigns in the last couple of years. The choice is clear. Vote ``yes'' on health reform. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Burton amendment. It is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. The issue, Mr. Chairman, is that there has been, particularly over the last 5 years, there has been great progress in India. There has been progress in the area of human rights. Time and again we hear about the national human rights commission that the Indians have established, that they have actually prosecuted human rights violations, some 200 in India, that they have had it up to human rights commission with a former justice of the Indian supreme court, that our State Department has recognized progress in Indian human rights. In the last 5 years India's economy has liberalized greatly; market reforms, free and open markets. It is a country that has welcomed American investment to the tune of $5 billion. I have been to India, I have been to Bombay, and Delhi and Amritsar and seen the kind of progress they have made both in human rights by talking to people at the Golden Temple in Amritsar and talking to people, as my friend from New York, Mr. Ackerman said, that are opponents of the Indian Government, but nonetheless will say that, yes, in fact major human rights progress has been made. The same people who again are opposed to the present government in India as of 3 months ago, the Congress party, will again talk about the progress that has been made in economic liberalization. There has also been major progress in India in the last 5 years in building a stable democracy, as has been pointed out on the floor over and over and over again. India just conducted the largest, the greatest election, the most wide-ranging election, the most participatory election in the history of humankind. Some 500 million people voted. That says to me again in the last 5 years India has made major progress. The other area of great improvement in India the last 5 years is what India means to the United States. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] talked abut the major players in Asia or India in China. India is a much more reliable ally. India is a country that, as has been said repeatedly, is the largest democracy in the world. India is a country that we can rely on for strategic reasons for the United States. This is just putting the thumb in the eye of the Indian people and a thumb in the eye of the Indian Government by sending this message to India that, no, the United States does not appreciate the kind of progress that India has made in the last 5 years. Again it is the second largest democracy--it is the largest democracy in the world; it is the second largest nation in the world. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said, it is very, very important strategically for us as a nation in South Asia and what that means to us. And India, again, is a democracy. We do not treat a democracy this way; we work with that country, we see the kind of progress that India has made in the area of human rights and the kind of progress India has made in their economy and the kind of progress India has made as a democracy and the kind of progress India has made as a friend of the United States.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Taking back my time, Mr. Chairman, I absolutely reject that thinking, when India has become a more and more liberalized economy, an economy much more in line with ours, an economy which has welcomed $5 million in American investment, an economy in which, if we continue to sell arms to Pakistan, a whole other debate, then perhaps we might drive them a little more away. But the last time I checked, the cold war was over. We need to make friends with these countries like India that were not necessarily our friends before. This is a golden opportunity to reach out to India and make friends with India. If we pass the balanced budget amendment, and the Soviet Union is reborn in some form, as the gentleman suggests, he can be sure India will turn back to them. Do not let this opportunity pass to be friends with them in a bigger way.