Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, yesterday for the first time in 34 years, voters in Oregon elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate. Despite being outspent over 3 to 1 and largely from Washington special interest money, Democrat Ron Wyden was elected to replace Republican Bob Packwood. Why? Because Oregon voters are sick and tired of Speaker Gingrich shutting down Government in this country, not once but twice, and voters are sick and tired of Speaker Gingrich threatening over and over to force our Nation into bankruptcy, all because the Speaker wants his extremist agenda enacted into law in this country. People all over the country are rejecting this kind of thinking. They are rejecting cuts in Medicare to give tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals in this country. Voters are rejecting cuts in student loans and cuts in environmental programs in order to give tax breaks to the largest companies in America. That kind of extremist thinking is not what the American people want. Let us have a balanced budget that protects Medicare, protects the environment, and does not give major tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country that do not need it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio. When he talks about the prospective default, never before have I heard political leaders in this country that are responsible leaders with titles like Speaker of the House and majority leader of the House make threats about default similar to the threats that were made about closing the Government down. You can say it was the President's fault that the Government shut down, but the fact is it was written on the sleeve of the Speaker and lots of other leaders that ``If we do not get what we want, we are going to shut the Government down. If we do not get what we want, we are going to force a default.'' That kind of discussion, those kinds of statements, send all kinds of uncertainties and tremors through the financial markets, something that is not good for the country, something that makes the United States look weak rather than strong, something that, frankly, scares a lot of people in this country.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 349 for a couple of reasons. Part of it is that this legislation does not at all resemble what the subcommittee worked on for this bill, and the problems that the subcommittee addressed. Even more to the point, and I have great respect for my friend from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bliley, this legislation was introduced only 2 hours ago, as the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, said. This legislation clearly does not deal with many of the problems that a lot of districts and a lot of taxpayers have around this country. Putting this legislation forward after being introduced only 2 hours ago, having no hearings on this bill, reminds us of the way that these committees and this Congress have dealt on issues like Medicare and Medicaid, where there might be a hearing, there might not be a hearing, the vote comes to the floor, we vote it up or down without people reading the bill, without people understanding what we are voting on. In district after district in this country taxpayers will be left out in the cold, instead of, for example, in my district in Medina County, OH, instead of issuing bonds to construct its facilities, Medina County entered into an $8 million cooperative loan agreement with the Ohio Water Development Authority. Taxpayers in Medina County will lose, will be left out in the cold because of this bill, the way this bill is written.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ohio is actually my mother's Congressman, but she taught me a long time ago that I should take care of a problem when it is there. I do not think that the kind of back-room deals that were made in this bill with lobbyists and special interests writing these bills, whether it is Superfund or Medicare or this legislation, that we really want to just say, trust us, we will take care of it in conference committee. People in Medina County stand to lose $8 million under this bill. People in Arkansas and people in Virginia and people of this country stand to lose lots of taxpayers' dollars. We should protect their investment, take the bill back to committee, have hearings, let us write a good bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate India on the 46th anniversary of Republic Day. For 46 years India has been showing the world that an extremely diverse democracy can work. With over 52 major languages, 950 million people, in a country geographically much smaller than the United States, India has upheld the ideals of judicial review, multi-party elections, secular government, and a peaceful transfer of power. For 46 years India has encouraged higher education and self reliance. Today India is one of the world's largest software manufacturers and has put rockets into space. Their entire domestic market has developed indiginously. Now India is considered one of the most important emerging markets in the world. For more than 46 years Americans of Indian descent have been leaders in their communities. Indian-Americans represent one of the best educated, financially secure populations in the United States. Now our two nations are beginning a new path. America has begun to look to other nations to do business. India has begun a remarkable economic liberalization process which has opened up one of the largest consumer markets in the world. United States companies are already the largest source of foreign investment in India and will continue to be a major provider of goods and services. I congratulate India on their success as the world's largest democracy, and look forward to our two nations becoming ever closer in the future. I join with my colleagues here in wishing India continued good fortune for the future.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, An editorial in the New York Times this morning reads ``China Threatens Taiwan.'' My Taiwanese-American constituents are extremely concerned about this news. And so am I. According to yesterday's New York Times, Beijing has redeployed forces from other parts of the country to the coastal areas facing Taiwan and set up new command structures for various kinds of military action against Taiwan. The article quotes a Chinese official as asserting that China could act military against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United States because American leaders care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan. This statement can be interpreted as an indirect threat by China to use nuclear weapons against the United States. This past July and August, China already carried out a series of surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, live artillery, and joint air and sea forces combat exercises in the seas 80 miles off the coast of Taiwan. And China now vows to hold more rounds of military exercises. Allegedly, the People's Liberation Army has prepared plans for a missile attack against Taiwan consisting of one conventional missile strike a day for 30 days. These strikes will take place just after this March's Presidential elections. The first democratic and direct Presidential elections in Taiwan's history. Indeed, China has threatened to use force against Taiwan under various scenarios, including the election of a President who does not support unification with China, and second, a declaration of independence, even if that declaration is the outcome of a democratic process such as a plebiscite or democratic elections. The United States must reject military bullying from Beijing. Not only that; in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, any threat to the peace and security of Taiwan is of grave concern to the United States. The act explicitly states that the United States is obliged to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient defense capability. Article section 2(a)(5) of the act reads, and I quote, ``It is the policy of the United States, to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character.'' Peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits is in the political, security, and economic interest of the United States. United States interests are served by supporting democracy abroad. It is therefore necessary that the U.S. reaffirms its safety and security commitment to the people of Taiwan. The U.S. should declare that any attempt by China to threaten the peace and security of Taiwan is a threat to peace and security in the Pacific and a matter of grade concern to the United States. The United States should call upon the President of the United States to review the defense needs of Taiwan, under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, and act accordingly. The United States should reaffirm that it is the right of the people of Taiwan to determine the future status of Taiwan without any interference from China.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, one day the House leadership says it will not force the United States into default. The next day the House leadership says it might force the United States into default. The majority leader says yes; the budget chairman says no. Mr. Speaker, nothing good can come from holding America's credit rating hostage to ideological extremism. The cost of credit to American business is at risk by reckless statements about forcing the United States into default. Threatening to force the United States into default is reckless and irresponsible. It makes it impossible for businesses throughout the country to plan for their needs in the credit market. We hear a lot of talk these days about our children's future on the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, threatening to force the United States into default risks our children's future because it jeopardizes the gold-plated creditworthiness of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, please do not hold the Government hostage again to ideological extremism. And, Mr. Speaker, please do not force the Government into default because of this extremism.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1058. Many of us on this side of the aisle have opposed extreme tort reform because we want consumers and workers protected through sensible regulation and through the specter of potential lawsuits. H.R. 1058, however, does provide that investor protection. H.R. 1058 is a jobs protection bill. I represent an area in northeast Ohio which is a hotbed of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. Exporting is important, small business is important, high-tech companies are important. H.R. 1058 is a mechanism, as a bipartisan effort, to create jobs in my district and throughout this country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as Americans celebrate the holiday season with their families and friends, my thoughts turn to the family of a young man in my district in my hometown of Lorain, OH. This Christmas season will be an especially difficult time for Steven Roulette's family. Steve, a seemingly very healthy 23-year-old, was playing basketball with friends when he collapsed. He died a short time later. It is always disturbing when a young person dies. In Steve's case it was even more tragic. A native of Lorain, Steve believed in giving back to his community. He worked diligently in my campaign in 1994. Prior to that, he had worked at the Nord Family Foundation that supports social services in Lorain County. Steve Roulette believed in public service in the best sense of the term. He always had a twinkle in his eye and a passion in his voice when he talked about commitment, when he talked about involvement, when he talked about helping his fellow men and fellow women. He cared deeply about his family and passionately about his community. So many in Lorain whom Steve's life touched were so saddened by his untimely death. I would like to offer at this Christmas season my sincere condolences to his family. Steve left behind his fiancee Denise, his parents Orah and Kathryn, his stepmother Alice, his brother Alan, and his sister Angela. As a father of two young daughters, I cannot begin to imagine their grief but my thoughts and prayers are with his family and his friends during this holiday season.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The untold story of the Gingrich budget process is that this Congress simply did not get its work done on time. Thirteen appropriations bills were supposed to be completed by October 1. Not one of them was signed by the President into law by that deadline. This Congress has been badly run, poorly administered, extreme and radical. That is why we now have this absurd Government shutdown. The other reason American taxpayers have had to bear this ridiculous Gingrich Government shutdown is that the Speaker personally threatened over and over and over to shut down the Government so he could have his way to have a massive shift of money and resources from the poor and from the middle class to give to the rich; Medicare cuts so we could have tax breaks for the rich; student loan cuts so we could have tax breaks for the largest corporations in this country; education and environmental cuts so we could have tax breaks for billionaires who renounce their citizenship. It is wrong, and the Gingrich Republicans know it is wrong.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the defense authorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I have sat on this floor and listened to the Gingrich Republicans talk about a balanced budget day after day after day. Where are they today? The Gingrich Republicans want to cut Medicare and increase military spending. They want to cut student loans and increase military spending. They want to cut Medicaid and increase military spending. They want to cut education and increase military spending. Billions of dollars for new and expanded weapons systems, the B-2, the C-17, Seawolf, Trident, and on and on and on and on. Think about it. You simply cannot increase military spending, give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and balance the budget. Speaker Gingrich's math simply does not add up. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the Gingrich budget, makes $270 billion cuts in Medicare, as you have pointed out, makes about $180 billion in cuts in Medicaid. Much of that, much of those cuts, will be money taken from senior citizens that may live on 10, or 12, or $15,000 a year. Much of the Medicaid cuts come from people who have spent down the money that they might have and have a husband or a wife in a nursing home, and, as you point out, might lose their home that they have paid for over 35 or 40 years of marriage. But all of this to pay for this tax break for the wealthiest people in the country, a tax break eliminating a tax on corporations that required some minimum payment dealing with some overseas tax issues that will ultimately hurt, cost American jobs, and it is, as you said, it is a tax break mostly for the richest people in the country, and then I hear our friends, some of the Gingrich freshmen, as they are termed around here, that are on the floor a moment ago talking about how the Democrats always engage in class warfare. Well, the fact is when you increase taxes on people making $15,000 a year, and then you cut taxes on people making 10 times that, $15,000 a year, that is the most insidious kind of class warfare. You take money from the working poor people that are working at Wal-Mart, or working at Kmart, or working at a minimum-wage job, and maybe her husband or wife are working in similar kinds of jobs, and their taxes are increased when they are playing by the rules. They may not even have health insurance with their full-time jobs, and they have a tax increase at the same time somebody making 2, or 3, or $400,000 a year gets a tax break that amounts to in many cases $20,000. At the same time they cut Medicare, they cut Medicaid, much of which goes to not just elderly people in nursing homes, but goes to disabled kids and other people that have some sort of disability that they have very expensive medical care, and that is, as I said, the most insidious kind of class warfare where people playing by the rules and working hard have their taxes go up. They may not make much, they have their taxes go up, and people that are getting much, much more get a whole lot more tax breaks, and I do not think that is the values that this country represents, to penalize those people who are struggling, and playing by the rules, and barely making it without health care, trying to raise their kids, not be on welfare, working hard. Their taxes go up, and this whole Gingrich budget is taking money from the middle class and the poor and transferring that money to the richest people, people that do not even live in my district--I have a lot of wealthy people in my district. They are not coming to me saying, ``Hey, give us a tax break for the wealthiest of us.'' They are saying, ``Get this budget balanced, and don't hurt Medicare and Medicaid doing it,'' and that is what troubles me the most about this Gingrich budget is that it is waging class warfare on the most vulnerable people and people that are working hard, and trying to pay their bills, and trying to buy a house, and trying to save a little money for their kids' college, and then giving money, taking that money from the working poor in many cases and people of the middle class and transferring that money to the richest people. It simply does not make sense.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. About 500,000 in Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, that is exactly right. If you are making $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 a year under the Gingrich plan your taxes will go up on the average of about $25 or $30 a month. Similarly, if you are now a Medicare beneficiary, your premium in this Gingrich budget plan will go up about $40 to $50 a month. Now to a Member of Congress, whether it is Newt Gingrich or any of us as Members of Congress, $25 or $50 a month probably does not matter much, and that is unfortunately the way, I think, that the people that voted for this bill think about it, that it is only $25 a month or $50 a month. It is $25 a month for that family making $20,000 a year; it is only $50 a month for that senior citizen that brings in $10,000 or $12,000 a year. But the fact is, that is a lot of money if you are in that income bracket. Twenty-five dollars a month for some family making $20,000 a year means new shoes for their kids in September when they go to school, it might--it means maybe once in a while taking their kids to a ball game, it means a lot to a family like that. Fifty dollars a month for a Medicare beneficiary means medicine, or means paying for a rent increase, or means paying if it is a particularly cold winter and paying those heating bills, and that is what the Gingrich plan, the people for that plan, do not think about, is that $25 increase, $25-a-month tax increase for somebody making $15,000 a year, is pretty hard on them. That $50 premium increase, that monthly $50 premium increase for a Medicare beneficiary, that hits them pretty hard when they are seeing the cost of prescription drugs go up and they are seeing their own heating bills go up or whatever--whatever difficulties they are facing. That is why this is wrong in order to give that big tax break to the richest people in this country. That is wrong.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker says one thing and does another. He said he wants to save Medicare, yet Speaker Gingrich speaking to a group of insurance executives said he wants to let Medicare wither on the vine. He says he wants a balanced budget yet the Gingrich plan cuts $270 billion from Medicare to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. The Speaker said he wants opportunity for future generations. Yet the Gingrich plan cuts billions in student loans for working families. He said he wants to give a tax break to the middle class. Yet the Gingrich plan raises taxes on 13 million working families. Sure, Mr. Speaker, listen to what the Speaker says, but more important pay attention to the Gingrich plan. It cuts Medicare, it cuts student loans to middle-class families, it raises taxes on working families, all to give a tax break to the richest people in this country.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the Speaker. So I can talk about section 1862 and Medicare?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. We want to see it passed. The gentleman from California, Mr. Stark, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, and the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Ward, that have spoken on this side of the aisle, all of us that are on the Commerce or Ways and Means committees that supported this bill want to see it passed. We simply wanted, and I guess it was just too touchy an issue in this body, [[Page H 12212]] we wanted to debate perhaps the greatest Government program ever, Medicare, that has been with us for 30 years, that where 50 percent of the people in this country were not covered, did not have any health insurance, 50 percent of the elderly in 1965, today only 1 or 2 percent of the elderly do not have coverage because of Medicare. Yet this Gingrich plan will increase people that are uninsured by as much as 50 percent according to nonpartisan experts. More to the point on section 1862, by striking subsection (h) which is what we should do, repealing that but not repealing and allowing Medicare to wither on the vine, the poorest elderly are going to have a $700 out-of-pocket expense to pay for these pacemakers because of the Medicaid reforms on something called QMB that the Gingrich plan has allowed. Madam Speaker, I support this bill, I do not want to see Medicare wither on the vine. I hope that down the road we can have a real Medicare debate where people are not interrupting one another to say that it is not germane because the American people deserve that. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2366. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, again I am pleased to support repeal of 1862(h) but oppose the Medicare withering on the vine as the Speaker has reminded us that his plan does. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2366, which we on this side of the aisle support, is about Medicare, and it is about repealing a part of Medicare. That is within the entire structure of the Medicare bill. When I hear the Speaker of the House on October 24 make a statement about Medicare withering on the vine, it also includes H.R. 2366, a part of the Medicare bill. H.R. 2366 includes section 1862, because the Speaker said, ``We don't want to get rid of Medicare,'' and also section 1862, ``We don't want to get rid of it in round one because we don't think that is politically smart, and we don't think that is the right way to go through a transition.'' Again the Speaker is talking about this section, 1862, talking about the Social Security Act, talking about Medicare. The Speaker says, ``We don't want to get rid of Medicare in round one because that's not politically smart. We don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe that Medicare is going to wither on the vine,'' again talking about section 1862 and talking about the Social Security Act, talking about Medicare. That is very debatable on this floor because that is a serious attempt to dismantle Medicare, Madam Speaker. point of order

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am glad we are having this debate today. I think it is important certainly to pass this bill, as we talked about, because I think it is an unnecessary regulation, and that makes sense for every standpoint, from a government standpoint, from industry standpoint for Medicare, for consumers, for Medicare beneficiaries. I am glad we are having this discussion about Medicare and Medicaid because we have had so few chances, Madam Speaker, to talk about this legislation on the floor. We had 1 hour of general debate on the reconciliation bill in the Committee on Ways and Means of the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], and there was only 1 hour, there was only one hearing on Medicare in that committee, is my understanding, and the committee I am on, the other committee of jurisdiction on Medicare and Medicaid, we had no hearings whatsoever on either of those issues. We simply marked the bill up, generally on party line votes where [[Page H 12209]] every Republican in the committee almost on every vote voted with whatever Speaker Gingrich wanted. That was disturbing, but it gives us an opportunity today during this corrections day to talk about a couple of issues that are particularly important. One of them is the part B increase in Medicare. People right now, Medicare beneficiaries in this country, are paying $46 a month for part B Medicare. Under the Gingrich plan, this will be increased; we will see a 25-percent increase. That is why the President vetoed these two bills this week, the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling increase, because of increases in Medicare premiums. points of order

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is the sort of bill that is appropriate for a corrections day calendar. It truly corrects a legislative oversight, and does nothing more or less. This bill was introduced by my colleague, Mr. Waxman, with Representative Vucanovich, in response to concerns of both the administration and the pacemaker industry about duplicative reporting requirements. When section 1862(h) was added to the Social Security Act about 10 years ago, there was a need to identify and keep track of defective pacemakers. In particular, there was a need to identify circumstances in which a defective pacemaker was surgically implanted in a patient, and then surgically removed, with both procedures being paid for by Medicare. One of the main reasons for this early pacemaker registry was that there was no good way, in 1984, to track defective implantable medical devices, and no viable way for HCFA to recover costs in those circumstances where a defective product was used. At that time, it made both fiscal and public health sense to require health care providers to report information about pacemakers and pacemaker leads, including information about device defects and costs recovered from manufacturers. Since enactment of this provision, HCFA has collected the required data and provided the information to FDA, which maintained the pacemaker registry. However, in 1990, Congress passed the safe medical device amendments, which included broad requirements for medical device tracking and reporting. These more comprehensive provisions superseded the requirements of section 1862(h), but did not repeal those requirements. However, without repeal of section 1862(h), FDA still must maintain a separate pacemaker registry. Further, providers and manufacturers must report essentially the same information to both HCFA and FDA, for two separate registries. This duplication of effort is not necessary either for budget reasons or for public safety. HCFA does not need the separate registry to assist in recovering costs, and FDA maintains a master registry of all implantable medical devices, which can be used in cases where there are health concerns about particular products. Both HCFA and FDA have suggested this repeal. I am pleased to support it, and urge my colleagues to do likewise. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] to continue to make the nexus on 1862 and the Speaker wanting Medicare to wither on the vine.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And I had the nexus, Madam Speaker?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier today in this Chamber we debated a bill that was sponsored by the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and also the gentleman from southern California [Mr. Waxman]. It was a bill to make minor changes in the law regulating pacemaker safety to make sure that over the years that Congress has been very involved in that issue, to make sure that Medicare does not overpay for defective pacemakers, that pacemakers that are implanted in people are indeed safe. It was a simple bill, a noncontroversial bill, a bill that had bipartisan support, and a bill ultimately that passed by voice vote or passed pretty much unanimously. I have been a Member of this body for 3 years representing a district in northeast Ohio, and something happened during that debate that troubled me as we discussed this bill. Some of us wanted to talk about Medicare as a whole, about the Gingrich $270 billion cut Medicare plan, about Medicaid and all that this pacemaker issue included in other issues that Medicare--that revolve around Medicare, and clearly when any of us goes home and goes to our district, it is pretty obvious that Medicare is on the minds not just of people that are Medicare beneficiaries, of actual beneficiaries today, but of their children. It is on the mind, Medicaid is on the mind, of people that have to place their parents or grandparents in nursing homes, Medicaid is on the minds of people that--whose families might have Alzheimer's. It is Medicaid and Medicare issues that people want to hear about, and want to talk about, and want to see Congress debate, and unfortunately today, Mr. Speaker, as a couple of us wanted to talk about Medicare, especially specifically, and also Medicaid, there were Members of the majority party that--who supported the Gingrich plan that did not even want us to discuss it, that continue to say, ``You're out of order,'' and try to get--try to stop us from discussing Medicare as a whole. Mr. Speaker, the reason we wanted to discuss Medicare is that in this Chamber during the day when we are actually debating legislation, not in the evening in these special orders when few Members sit in this Chamber, but during the day; we only had 1 hour of general debate on the whole Medicare bill, and even worse perhaps, in committee. I sit on the Committee on Commerce, others that sit on the Committee on Ways and Means, and saw Medicare and Medicaid pass through those two committees with only one hearing in the Committee on Ways and Means and no hearings in the Committee on Commerce. We passed legislation changing a $200 billion or a $180 billion Medicare bill program that is $180 billion a year spent on Medicare, about $80 billion a year spent on Medicaid; we changed those two programs in a big, big way, markedly, with no real committee hearings. And what bothered me is today we try to talk about nursing home standards, how this Congress wants to roll back all Federal nursing home standards that have made a big difference in dealing with the problems of oversedation in nursing homes, made a big difference with the problems of neglect in nursing homes, made a big difference with the problems that nursing home patients, the most defenseless people probably in society have faced in the Federal Government involvement 10 years ago. These nursing home standards that this Congress passed, signed by President Reagan at that time, made a big difference in these people's lives in the twilight of their years, yet this Congress and the Gingrich plan repealed all of those nursing home standards. We also wanted to talk about the premium increases. Under the Gingrich plan, $270 billion in Medicare cuts and $180 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next 7 years will mean doubling of premiums from $46 a month up to almost $100, will mean an increase in deductibles from now $100 perhaps up to $150, to $200, maybe $250, and it will mean an increase in co-pays in some versions of this bill which will be voted on for a second time in the next month. They also did not try to--tried to call us out of order when they talked about how Medicaid has written out the disabled, and again some of the most vulnerable people in society, and they also--we wanted to talk about the spousal protection where if an elderly man's wife ends up in a nursing home, and paid for by Medicaid, that the husband can still live in his modest home without spending, selling the home, and having all the money go to the nursing home. All of those kinds of issues were so important, and perhaps what they objected to the most was when I quoted Speaker Gingrich when he said the response to criticisms about this Medicare bill, about the $270 billion in cuts and when he obviously wanted to go much further in Medicare. He made a statement to a bunch of insurance executives, most of whom, is not all of whom, will benefit mightily monetarily, their companies and they individually, from this $270 billion Medicare cut bill. Speaker Gingrich said, ``Now we don't want to get rid of Medicare in round 1 because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think it's the right way to go, but we believe that Medicare is going to wither on the vine.'' Two hundred seventy billion dollars in cuts for a tax break of $250 billion for the wealthiest people in society with the hope that Medicare is going to wither on the vine. Mr. Speaker, it is simply not right.