Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, under the Gingrich Medicare plan, the hospitals in and around the district of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] will lose $64 million over the next several years to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Under the Gingrich Medicare plan, the district of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Frisa] will lose $262 million, again to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country that do not need it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. Mr. Chairman, we have listened to the Republicans talk over and over about what a great plan this is, how it expands choice. The fact is senior citizens in this country now have full choice with Medicare. Yes, under the Gingrich plan seniors will have their choice of a plan, but they lose their choice of doctor. The Gingrich plan gives physicians financial incentives, the New York Times calls it ``bribes for doctors,'' to move out of traditional fee- for-service into HMO's. Medicare beneficiaries therefore will be pushed out of traditional fee-for-service and forced into HMO's, forced into managed care. This is purely and simply a political payoff to big insurance companies. We know it, Newt Gingrich knows it, the Republicans know it, and the American people know it.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] mentioned he has other figures and he did not believe these figures. Under the Gingrich Medicare plan, the hospitals in and around the gentleman's district, my friend from New York, will lose $167 million over the next 7 years. I would ask if he would come back in the well and perhaps tell us what the numbers he has that are different from [[Page H 10340]] the numbers that we have been recounting, because we have heard no debate or no questioning of those numbers.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. None of this would have happened, I think, if we had had hearings. There were dozens of hearings on Waco and Randy Weaver and Whitewater but no hearings on Medicare and Medicaid which affect everybody in this country. I think the Speaker misspoke and was probably confused but sort of attacked our friend from Massachusetts by name. Surely if we had had hearings and not had these late-night deals and really, as a country, really discussed Medicare, Medicaid and what it means to senior citizens, you do not cut $270 billion to give tax breaks to the rich.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today in this House many of us opposed a very bad bill, the Medicare ``reform'' bill that cut Medicare $270 billion to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. It weakened fraud provisions in a series of back-room deals with the AMA and with other organizations to roll back a lot of fraud provisions that would have allowed us to more aggressively go after those people that cheat the system. The Inspector General's office has said that 10 percent of Medicare expenditures go to fraud, waste and abuse. We need to aggressively go after that. Instead, this House today turned its back on that. So, at the same time as this House made Medicare cuts, it weakened fraud provisions. It gave $245 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals in this country and the largest corporations in this country. Perhaps equally disturbing as the bill itself, which I think is a disaster, was the process that led up to this vote today right up until we actually cast our votes. Some weeks ago, the Speaker and the Republican leadership simply said there were going to be no hearings on this issue, no hearings in committee on Medicare, no hearings on this issue on Medicaid. We tried over and over asking for hearings, requesting of my committee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], in the Committee on Commerce. The same went on in [[Page H 10468]] the Committee on Ways and Means. They simply turned a deaf ear not just to us, maybe we do not matter much, but turned a deaf ear to the American people, the people that wanted to come in and talk about what this Medicare bill was really about. So while there were back-room deals, the American Medical Association and other groups got into the back room with the Republican leadership, the elderly were not even allowed in the hearing rooms to testify on this bill. One lady in the Committee on Commerce a couple of weeks ago came in, tried to testify, was gaveled down. Eventually, within a few minutes, 15 elderly people, some in wheelchairs, some with canes, all of them I believe over 70 years old, were arrested and hustled out of the committee room, taken down into the basement. Several of them were handcuffed. All of them were taken to the police station in paddy wagons and fingerprinted and mug-shotted. It was a pretty amazing spectacle. Then today, almost as disturbing, the Speaker of the House stood on this floor and said something, and I am sure he did not knowingly do this, but said something that clearly was not true about a provision in the bill that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] had talked about, a provision in the bill that has been removed from the Medicaid bill that allowed elderly widows, some 11 million in this country that literally had their Medicare premiums paid for because they were so poor that they could not pay for them, and particularly when they go from $46 to $90 or $100, whatever the Gingrich Medicare bill ends up raising them to, that money was taken away from them. The Speaker may have been confused or it may have been bad staff work. It may have simply been all the late-night deals that were cut as the bill was changed as late as last night in the middle of the night, and he was simply confused. I have only been here 3 years, but there is this new arrogance to this place that I have never seen and heard of before, but it is particularly disturbing when those kinds of things are said on the floor because of either confusion or bad staff work, but the process has been so closed that people have not had a chance to really learn about what is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have had lots of town meetings in my district. I hear the anger from senior citizens and from their families about the $270 billion in Medicare cuts in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and about the Republicans idea to give people the right to choose health care plans but take away their right to choose a doctor. What I am also hearing from senior citizens is they are particularly concerned about fraud in Medicare. The inspector general said that as much as $200 billion, as much as $200 billion of fraud over the next 7 years in the Medicare plan. Yet the Republicans bill actually promotes fraud, waste, and abuse. The New York Times had an editorial called Bribes for Doctors talking about the midnight deal, that the Speaker's deal made Medicare substantially worse. It is clear that as bad as the fraud is, it does not make sense to give tax breaks to the wealthy of $245 billion while you are cutting Medicare $270 billion and taking away the ability of government to fight fraud and investigate and prosecute fraud.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have conducted numerous town meetings and hearings in my district on Medicare. As my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], just said, unfortunately, hearings have not taken place in this institution in this body for the public to hear them. But at these hearings which I have conducted, and in town meetings, I have heard over and over again people's anger about the $270 billion in Medicare cuts in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens in this country, the people who need them the least. But what also concerns me and what troubles me is something else that I hear at these hearings, these town meetings, and that is people believe there is a good deal of fraud in the Medicare system. That fraud is something we have to aggressively pursue and prosecute and root out and do something about. That is why it particularly troubles me and concerned me to see an article in USA Today, an editorial on Friday, and the headline reads, ``Medicare Reform Invites Doctors To Bend the Rules. Easing Limits on Physicians' Self-Referral Is Bound To Cost the Medicare Program Billions of Dollars That It Can't Afford.'' USA Today goes on to say: No wonder the American Medical Association has signed on to Medicare reform, with the deal that they made with Republican leadership. The Republican Medicare bill actually promotes fraud, waste and abuse in several areas, particularly in its weakening of the ban on physician referral of Medicare and Medicaid patients for tests and treatment in places where the doctor has a financial interest. Another newspaper talking about this agreement made between Republican leadership and the American Medical Association says: Regrettably the Speaker's concessions made an already bad Medicare bill substantially worse. The Gingrich bill was never designed to give the elderly high-quality health care. It is less likely to do so now. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation, this Medicare bill which the American people have not been able to find out much about, because there have not been hearings in this institution, that Gingrich Medicare bill eliminates fraud by legalizing it. It simply makes things legal that were not legal before. It encourages more fraud, instead of less. Not too long ago, about a week ago, in the Committee on Commerce, a committee on which I sit, the committee that heard the Medicare and Medicaid bills. Rather, did not really hear them, because we were not allowed to have hearings, but a committee that discussed Medicare and Medicaid and allowed amendments and we talked about the bill, my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], offered a substitute bill that would have, instead of cutting $270 billion in Medicare in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest citizens in this country, would have gone directly after fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. Unfortunately the chairman of the committee ruled the Stupak substitute out of order. We were not able to debate this or discuss this and we were not allowed to vote for a bill, instead of $270 billion in cuts to Medicare beneficiaries and to give tax breaks to the wealthiest citizen, instead it would have devoted resources to rooting out fraud. The Office of Inspector General reports that every year for every $1 spent on going after fraud and investigators and inspectors and prosecutors, that $80 is recovered that can go back into the Medicare system. So why are we cutting $270 billion out of Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and why are we cutting back on the enforcers and the investigators and the prosecutors and the people that for every dollar spent can recover $80? I think it goes back to that editorial in USA Today about the arrangement that the American Medical Association made with the Republican leadership in this House. It is troubling to me that we could save much more than even the trustees said. They said that we need to cut $89 billion in order to keep Medicare strong for the next decade or [[Page H 10124]] so. We are saying that pursuing fraud the way that we can can save almost $100 billion. The inspector general says that 10 percent of Medicare moneys are fraudulent, that over the space of the next 7 years, $200 billion will be lost to fraud. If we can go after that fraud, whether it is durable medical equipment reform, whether it is putting in civil penalties for kickbacks, whether it is strengthening conflict of interest rules, whether it is grand jury disclosure, increased subpoena authority, all these together, if we can only save half, if we can only recover half of the fraud in the Medicare system, we will have more than enough to meet the trustees' recommendation, to keep Medicare strong for the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense to make these cuts in Medicare to give tax breaks to the wealthy. We should go after fraud aggressively. We should crack down on fraud, not cut senior citizens' ability to get health care.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in an editorial on Friday, USA Today said: Medicare reform invites doctors to bend the rules. Easing limits on physicians' self-referral is bound to cost the program billions it cannot afford. USA Today called the deal cut between the American Medical Association and the Speaker a payoff to the AMA. It simply eliminates fraud by legalizing it. Another newspaper said the Speaker's concessions made an already bad Medicare bill substantially worse. This bill was never designed to give the elderly high-quality care. What concerns me most about that, Mr. Speaker, is that we can save, and this is a conservative estimate, we can save $100 billion over the next 7 years by going after fraud. Instead of cutting Medicare $270 billion to give tax breaks to the wealthy, we should go after fraud aggressively. Crack down on fraud, that is what the Medicare debate should be about, not cutting Medicare, raising people's premiums and deductibles and copay $1,000 per person per year so we can give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago the American Medical Association cut a back room deal with Speaker Gingrich for them for $15 billion out of the Medicare fund because the AMA contributes $1 million to Republican political campaigns. Yesterday an elderly woman came into the Committee on Commerce on which I sit and simply stepped forward, said she wanted to talk about Medicare and was told she could not speak and then she was arrested, taken out of the room with a dozen other senior citizens, handcuffed, fingerprinted at the police station and booked. Think about it. Lobbyists in the back room cutting a deal with Newt Gingrich, senior citizens not even allowed in the committee room simply because they want to talk about Medicare, and they are arrested. Lobbyists in the back room cutting deals with the Speaker, multi- billion-dollar deals, senior citizens in the hearing room arrested because they wanted to talk about something that mattered every day in their lives, all in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, late last week the Committee on Commerce passed the Gingrich Medicaid plan. There were no hearings on this bill similar to the restricted small number of hearings, one hearing in fact, on Medicare. There were no hearings on the Gingrich Medicaid plan. The plan was given to us, the actual legislative language, was given to us less than 24 hours before the hearing. There was no public input, because no one anywhere from the country really knew much about the plan, and members of the committee on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, had little opportunity to read the bill and to become familiar with the details of the Gingrich Medicaid plan. Unfortunatelyd, though, Mr. Speaker, that Gingrich Medicaid plan cuts Medicaid money that goes for nursing homes for the middle class and all of our parents, many of our parents and grandparents. It is money for children in Health Hill Hospital in Cleveland, many poor kids, many middle-class kids, upper-class kids that have been injured in tragic accidents, with serious brain damage, whose families are saddled with $20,000 a month hospital bills. That is paid for with Medicaid. It is funding for poor children for prenatal care, for well baby care, for all the kinds of things that are important in our society. Nonetheless, that $180 billion cut in the Gingrich Medicaid plan is going to be used to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Equally as unfortunate, this bill and this Gingrich Medicaid plan in the committee on commerce, everything passed by a party line vote. They eliminated quality care standards in nursing homes on a party line vote, coming down from Gingrich's plan that was simply approved on a party line vote. They eliminated breast cancer services, mammograms and other breast cancer services, again on a party line vote. They eliminated prenatal care and well baby care and protection for children, again, those programs on a party line vote, all ratifying what the Gingrich Medicaid plan had written. There is an old Mark Twain line said many years ago, that when two people think alike all the time, one of them ain't doing much thinking. Unfortunately, that is what this Gingrich Medicaid plan is all about. It was a plan not written by the committee, not written with public input, not having any hearings held for the public to understand it, to learn about it, to talk about it, to persuade Members of Congress that this might be good or that might be bad. It was simply a piece of legisation handed down and voted on quickly. What is particularly of concern to a lot of us on that committee that oppose this $180 billion in cuts for Medicaid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans is that these quality care standards for nursing homes were eliminated; where we can remember 10 years ago, 20 years ago, reading in the paper almost every month some scandal in a nursing home, some number of patients were abused and restrained and medicated, and people that were about as defenseless as anybody in society, people that are typically very old in nursing homes and cannot take care of themselves, and the Federal Government enacted standards to make sure that those kinds of abuse do not take place in nursing homes. Now we are saying it is OK for the States, it is OK for local governments, it is OK for these nursing homes, to not live up any longer to these Federal standards. The same with breast cancer services. My part of America, northeast Ohio, has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the country. I am concerned when the Federal Government says, ``No longer is Medicaid going to cover breast cancer services, mammograms.'' First, that is inhumane, not to cover mammograms. Second, it is just stupid. The Republicans simply have failed Economics 101. If you do not detect breast cancer early, you are going to pay a lot more for a lumpectomy or a mastectomy, and the Government is going to end up paying for it. It is inhumane, and it is just bad economics not to move forward and continue to cover those breast cancer services. This money will be turned over to the States in the form of block grants, this money, again this shrinking number of dollars, in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. This shrinking number of dollars will be grabbed up by as many interest groups in the States as possible. Nursing homes will have the first round, the first shot, at so many of these dollars as they shrink. And because nursing homes are better organized and better lobbyists and more effective and a stronger interest group on the State level than are groups that might advocate breast cancer services or groups that might advocate on behalf of nursing home patients, that money will likely go to those interest groups that fight for a wealthy group of people rather than people that really do represent those women that have breast cancer, represent those people that are victims of problems and care in nursing homes. Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense to make these cuts all to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call our colleagues' attention to the latest in the tragic series of events that have plagued the Punjab region of India for more than a decade. On August 31, 1995, Chief Minister Beant Singh, a leading advocate of peace in the Punjab region, was viciously assassinated by Sikh terrorists. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for every Member of this House to condemn these violent acts perpetrated by Sikh militant factions. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues have chosen to carry the banner for the Sikh militants in Punjab by working closely with the so-called Council of Khalistan. Perhaps this latest tragic act will be enough to convince those Members that support for groups that promote violence only begets further violence. Responsible Members of this House must condemn each and every terrorist act perpetrated by these militants. We must also challenge our colleagues who support the Council of Khalistan because it benefits their own domestic political needs to realize that their support for the council is furthering a terrorist agenda in India. While fighting terrorist, Chief Minister Singh also worked simultaneously to bring the people of Punjab back into the mainstream political democracy upon which the nation of India prides itself. Mr. Singh was duly elected by the people of Punjab in 1992 and he dedicated his life to maintaining democracy. Mr. Speaker, as the relationship between our country, the world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's democracy, continues to flourish and expand, let us support unequivocally the advocates of peace in Punjab. And, without fear or hesitation, I would hope that every Member, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, would join me in condemning those enemies of peace who assassinated the Chief Minister and his staff.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, three things will happen if the Republicans get their way with Medicare. No. 1, senior citizens will pay more in premiums. Hold on to your wallet, because House Republicans under Newt Gingrich have proposed a 100-percent increase in the monthly Medicare premium. That is right, a 100-percent increase, the largest premium increase in Medicare history. The second thing that will happen is senior citizens will find it harder to choose their own doctor. Senate Republicans would try to push people into managed care, taking away their right to physician choice. The third thing that will happen, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans get their way with Medicare, is that the American middle class will subsidize a huge tax break for the richest Americans. We are starting to see the main effect of the Contract With America, a shift of money from the middle class to the rich. The Gingrich gravy train means at least $245 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. And guess who pays the bill? Mr. Speaker, Gingrich Republicans want to give the American people the largest Medicare cut in American history. It is simply not right.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, hold on to your wallets, middle America. The Republican proposal to cut billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid is Robin Hood in reverse. It takes from the poor and the middle class to give tax breaks to the richest people in America. Senior citizens will pay higher premiums and higher deductibles if the Republicans get their way with Medicare. The Senate Republicans, meanwhile, would force America's senior citizens into managed care plans. I have introduced a bill that would protect the right of patient choice so you can choose your own doctor instead of being forced into managed care. Everybody agrees that we need to put the Medicare Program on a strong actuarial basis. But the Republican proposal just does no get the job done. The Republican plan deserves to go down to defeat.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Congress is about to embark on major reforms of the Medicare Program--ostensibly to ensure Medicare patients more choice. But I believe that the reforms we will be considering will offer patients less choice, not more, unless we take action to ensure that their choices are protected. Many of the so-called reform plans include efforts to increase the use of managed care for Medicare patients. I believe that these plans must include safeguards to protect Medicare patients' ability to choose the person who provides them health care services. For this reason, today I am introducing legislation to guarantee older Americans a point-of-service option under Medicare managed care plans. The Medicare Patient Choice Act provides true choice by allowing Medicare patients to go outside of a network when they need services. In addition, the bill would establish safeguards under managed care arrangements to ensure that patients are treated fairly and that they have recourse if they are dissatisfied with the care they receive. In addition, the bill prohibits the use of financial incentive plans which discourage providers to refer patients for specialty or other types of health care services. Further, this legislation ensures that patients get what they pay for under managed care arrangements by requiring plans to return to patients at least 85 percent of the aggregate premiums received in health care items, services, and treatment. Finally, the legislation would apply its requirements to the so-called Medicare Select plans. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation provides essential protections for Medicare patients and I hope that many of my colleagues who are concerned about the quality of health care provided to senior citizens will sign on as cosponsors. A summary of the legislation follows: Summary of the Medicare Patient Choice Act Introduced by Congressman Sherrod Brown The Medicare Patient Choice Act would: Require all Medicare managed care organizations (MCO) as a condition of participating in Medicare to offer enrollees a point-of-service option. Require MCOs to meet a loss-ratio (aggregate benefits to premiums) of 85 percent. Require MCOs to issue an annual report to members providing quality, access to services, enrollee's rights to benefits and out-of-area coverage. Assure beneficiaries timely access to services, continuity of care and the option to receive care out-of-the network. Establish grievance and appeals processes for both patients and providers if they have a dispute with the MCO. Prohibit MCOs from discriminating against certain providers based solely on their license or certification as provided under state law. Ensure that Medicare network health plans include a sufficient number, mix and distribution of health professionals to meet the needs of their enrolled patients. Apply conditions of the Medicare Patient Choice Act to all Medicare Select plans. Apply all requirements of physician incentive plans under current law to all providers participating in Medicare managed care plans.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Pensions, under the gentleman's amendment, pension fund managers are going to be able to have leeway to make these decisions? Correct?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Green amendment and in strong support of American jobs. Let me understand this bill the way that it is written now. Pension funds collected from American workers are often invested in American corporations doing business abroad or foreign corporations in other countries. These pension dollars, these pension fund dollars, are attracted to low wages in other countries, are attracted oftentimes to weak environmental laws in other countries and nonexistent worker safety laws in those countries. These dollars taken from American workers are invested in these companies, American or foreign companies, doing business abroad because they see great profits in these businesses doing business in Mexico, or doing business in Taiwan, or doing business in low-wage countries. Mr. Chairman, the problem with that is that the end of that, the complete circle, is that those companies, often American companies doing business in other countries, manufacturing in other countries, those businesses then taken those same jobs from American workers. I have money taken out of my wages into a pension; that money is invested in another country, often an American business or foreign business; that comes back and takes my job away. Some pension fund managers, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] asserts, would like to consider that issue; that if we are going to invest in pension funds around the world, that that money not come back and steal American jobs. I do not know how in this Chamber my friends on the other side of the aisle can explain to American workers that we sent their money overseas so that it could come back and take our jobs. The interesting thing, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle, many of them, not so much the ones in this debate, rail about the evils of NAFTA, which I agreed with them on; the evils of GATT, the evils of extending NAFTA to Chile; the evils of the Mexican bail out. They were right about that. Now they want to allow these pension dollars to go abroad and be invested in companies doing business in countries where they do not pay very much, where they have weakened environmental laws and nonexistent labor laws and it comes back and steals Americans jobs. You cannot have it both ways. If you think those trade agreements are bad, as most of them have been, they you do not want our pension dollars subsidizing jobs in other countries so they can come back and take our jobs as American workers. I say to my colleagues to go back to their district this weekend and explain to them, if they vote ``no'' on the Green amendment, and explain to them how they said go ahead and invest my pension dollars in enterprises in other lands that turned around and took my job. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that my colleagues want do to that. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Green amendment.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my dismay at the ongoing assault taking place on some of the most important educational programs in this country. Student loans are under attack by Republican budget cutters who want to give the wealthy a huge tax break. The Republican plan cuts $10 billion in the Stafford Loan Program over the next 7 years. These cuts will add an additional $3,100 to undergraduate costs and $9,400 to graduate students. The Republicans want to knock 157,000 students out of the Perkins Loan Program, denying these low- and middle-income students these loans; 280,000 students will lose Pell grants. Prevention programs such as the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, will be cut by 60 percent. Even programs like Head Start will not be safe from the Republican budget ax. Why these cuts, Mr. Speaker? The simple answer to that is Republicans are making these cuts to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. Giving tax breaks to $200,000 incomes is wrong, Mr. Speaker, while cutting education.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Last month, Mr. Speaker, I listened to Ohioans in the 13th Congressional District in a town meeting in Newton Falls, at county fairs in Medina County, Portage County, at a supermarket in Sheffield Lake. People could not believe the Republicans' plan to cut $270 million in Medicare and at the same time turn around and give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans of the same amount. I say to my colleagues, if you make $300,000 a year, you save $20,000 a year of your taxes under the Republican plan, while, as a Medicare beneficiary, it will cost you $1,000 a year. If you are paying right now as a Medicare beneficiary a premium of about $46 a month, under the Republican plan you will pay somewhere in the vicinity of $110 a month. Mr. Speaker, that extra $60 or $70 may not sound like much per month to a Member of Congress. But if my colleagues are making $10,000 or $12,000 a year, and they are retired, on Social Security, paying that extra several hundred dollars, $700 or $800 a year, for medical care is an absolute back breaker, and it does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, to make Medicare beneficiaries pay a thousand dollars more a year, all so they can give tax breaks to the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation along with my colleagues Mr. Dingell of Michigan, Mr. Gephardt of Missouri, Mr. Borski and Mr. Klink of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rush of Illinois, Mr. Stokes of Ohio, and Mr. Manton and Mr. Towns of New York, to address the dire need for the development of so-called Brownfields. Those of us who have seen industries come and go in our congressional districts know the problems resulting from land that had been used for industrial purposes which is now abandoned--left barren and often contaminated--with no hope of productive use. Our legislation will address this problem in four important ways. First, the bill would establish a grant program for local communities to use to determine the extent of the contamination of the property. While many sites could be re-developed with a minimal investment, local communities cannot be sure of this until the assessment is done. This bill offers these communities an opportunity to assess the situation so that prompt action can be taken to clean up the site. Second, this legislation would establish a revolving loan fund for local governments to fund the actual clean-up actions. Mr. Speaker, we know it is essential that we be fiscally responsible in the development of new Federal programs. For this reason, we established a loan program for the local governments to assist them in getting the land to a place where it will begin to produce revenue. But we require the loan to be repaid over 10 years--a time frame which allows them the opportunity to begin to recoup their investment. Third, the bill would protect the purchaser of such properties as long as the purchaser does due diligence to find the problem and cooperate with the clean-up response. Under the current Superfund law, purchasers could be liable for clean-up even if they did not own the land when it was polluted. This provision should help attract new purchasers to these lands and encourage the voluntary clean-up of sites. Fourth, and finally, the bill would protect the lending institutions from becoming the deep-pockets at sites where their participation was limited to the lending of money. Unfortunately, the current laws has allowed innocent lenders to be held liable for the clean-up of properties for which they provided the financial backing and nothing more. It is contrary to the intent of the Superfund Program to discourage voluntary clean-up actions such as those that would be backed by financial institutions. Yet, that is the result of the current law. Institutions are afraid to lend the financial backing when they could be held liable for millions in clean-up costs. Mr. Speaker, I believe our legislation will provide a boost in the arm to local communities across this nation which are struggling to re- create productive properties. It will revive local economies, reduce threats to public health and improve the environment. I hope my colleagues will offer their support by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the Congress is about to embark on major changes in Medicare. These reforms we will be considering will offer patients less choice, not more, unless we take action to ensure that their choices are protected. Many of the so-called reform plans include efforts to increase the use of managed care for Medicare patients. A study released last week found that three-fourths of Americans age 50 and over said they would not join a Medicare managed care plan without the freedom to choose their doctor; 82 percent believe that the freedom to choose out-of- network physicians or specialists would be ``very important'' or ``critically important'' to their decisions about whether to join a Medicare managed care plan. The message is simple. Choice is essential to older Americans. A point-of-service option provides true choice by allowing Medicare patients to go outside of a network when they need services. This option should be built into every health plan involving Medicare patients. Madam Speaker, $270 billion in cuts in Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the rich is wrong. It is equally wrong to force America's elderly into managed care and take away their choice of physician.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], in large part because there will not be one new started cleanup, not one new cleanup if this amendment does not pass. This amendment ensures 55 important projects currently slated to begin in fiscal year 1996 can go forward. It is fully funded through an offset in funding for FEMA, which currently holds nearly $1.8 billion in unobligated funds. In Elyria, Ohio, in my district, hundreds of homes and businesses have been affected by application of methyl parathion, a toxic pesticide which can damage the central nervous system and the brain. This pesticide was illegally applied by an unlicensed exterminator, affecting many Ohio communities. Short-term effects of exposure to methyl parathion include headache, vomiting, lung damage, mental disorder, coma, paralysis, heart failure, and even death. As little as a teaspoon can cause serious illness, especially in children or elderly who are particularly vulnerable. This cleanup in Elyria is ongoing. As of June 10, 105 units were decontaminated, 75 residential homes restored, 430 residents were temporarily relocated, and 225 returned to their homes. But these numbers represent only 50 percent of what needs to be done. Contaminated homes are still being identified. The situation is dire in Lorain County and needs continued attention. This is only one example of the 55 sites which would be restored by this amendment, and I repeat what the gentleman from Michigan said, that if this amendment does not pass, none of these cleanups will begin. Certainly we must reform Superfund to ensure that it cleans up more sites rather than continuing to line lawyers' pockets, but the projects that will be eliminated by cutting funding included in this bill pose an imminent threat to the health of human beings in our communities. This is the very goal, obviously, for which Superfund was created. The funding cut will halt the progress that we have made. It will tie the hands of the EPA. It will punish residents in Lorain County, Ohio, and 54 other communities, including one in Richland County in the district of my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. Furthermore, the longer we wait the more expensive the cleanup will become. As pesticide leaches into ground water, rivers, streams, and contamination spreads, cleanup costs will only increase. The language of the report accompanying H.R. 2099 seems to say that it is OK to finish studies but not to design the remedy. It is OK to finish the design but not to proceed with cleanup. It is OK to prohibit EPA from overseeing cleanups being undertaken by private, responsible parties, and it is OK for Congress to tell our communities that we will just have to wait indefinitely for this cleanup. Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. It is not OK to ask our communities to wait for us to address the toxic chemicals that [[Page H 8019]] contaminate our homes and schools and businesses. The Dingell amendment simply makes sense so our communities do not have to wait for this cleanup. If the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] would engage briefly in a colloguy, is it correct, I ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], whether State cleanup managers of the 50 States strongly support this amendment restoring cleanup money now for fiscal year 1996?