Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I again ask for support of the Dingell amendment. Fifty-five sites will not be cleaned up if this amendment does not pass.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is my understanding these same managers in the 50 States have said that overall costs will increase if we do not pass this amendment, that contamination, if unabated, could spread, and that most important, surrounding communities will continue to be subjected to health risks posed from these sites. Is my understanding correct?

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday all of us across the country celebrate the 30th anniversary of the signing of Medicare. Thirty years ago, leading up to President Johnson's signing Medicare in Independence, Missouri, 93 percent of Republican Members of Congress, including then Congressman Bob Dole, a Republican from Kansas, opposed the creation of Medicare. In the 1970's and the 1980's, the far right wing of the Republican Party continued to try to dismantle and cut Medicare. Today, in 1995, literally 99 percent of the Republican Members of this body have voted to make almost $30 billion in cuts in Medicare. The fact is, prior to Medicare's creation in the mid 1960s, more than half of older Americans did not have health care coverage. Today, 99 percent of America's elderly may have health care coverage. The fact is, Medicare works. It is simply wrong, Mr. Speaker, to cut $300 billion from Medicare in order to give tax breaks to the richest American citizens. It is simply not right.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] to support his amendment. The amendment transfers $6 million from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to the Coast Guard. It is budget neutral. Those of us that are budget-cutters on this floor, that have been willing to vote to kill the super collider, kill the space station or make budget cuts across the board, understand that this is budget neutral, takes money from one part of the Department of Transportation and puts money in the Coast Guard. This amendment is about public safety. As we talk about police on the streets, we talk about making sure that the Coast Guard is there to provide the kind of public safety and public service that people that live on lakes and oceans and waterways in this country have come to expect. The Coast Guard, because it is about public safety, has rescued people that are drowning. It has rescued people in fires. It has rescued children that fall through the ice in places like the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard does drug interdiction, it enforces environmental and fishing laws, and the Coast Guard enforces and looks out for boat safety. Whether it is speeding through a harbor in Lorain or in Ashtabula, whether it is alcohol problems from boat operators, the Coast Guard is there to enforce those kind of safety regulations. There is nothing more important than public safety. It is important that we recognize that in the Coast Guard, that this funding, budget neutral, be transferred so that the money is there to keep the Coast Guard operating at full force.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. Congress, as has been said today over and over again, has never given the opportunity to vote on the Mexican bailout. Leaders in this House simply knew that a majority of Members of Congress were troubled about the bailout, had questions that people did not want to answer, and the administration and people supporting NAFTA or supporting the Mexican bailout in this institution did not want to answer those questions. Congress, as you recall, a year-and-a-half or so ago barely passed NAFTA. The public opposition to this bailout was even greater than the public concern and opposition to NAFTA. The questions about the bailout ranged all over the board about what kind of collateral there was going to be, what happens if there is default, how much money is committed, why are we doing this bailout, who benefits from the bailout, do the Mexican people benefit, do the American people benefit, do people in Wall Street benefit, where are the benefits of this bailout? None of those questions was answered in this institution, in this body, because we never had a vote. A ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman, on this Sanders amendment, is a stamp of approval for the bailout.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago this month on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson in Independence, MO, signed the legislation crating Medicare. Earlier that year, 93 percent of House Republicans, including then-Congressman Bob Dole from Kansas, opposed the creation of Medicare as we know it. Let me repeat that: 93 percent of Republican Members of the House of Representatives in 1965 opposed the creation of Medicare. In the 1970's and the 1980's the far right of the Republican Party continued to try to make cuts in Medicare and dismantle that program. Today, in 1995, the mainstream part of the Republican Party, Republican leadership, again wants to dismantle Medicare and end the program as we know it. They were wrong in 1965 when 93 percent of Republicans opposed Medicare. They were wrong in the 1970's and 1980's when the far right wing of the Republican Party wanted to cut Medicare, and they are wrong today to give tax breaks to the wealthy to the tune [[Page H 7182]] of $300 billion and cut Medicare $270 billion. Mr. Speaker, it is simply not right.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gas turbine modular helium reactor fails to meet the basic test of spending Americans' hard-earned tax dollars: Does it work? The only commercial version of this reactor closed after 16 years of operation and never achieved more than 14 years of capacity. Based on this failure, the National Academy of Sciences determined the reactor has low market potential and endorses its elimination. Even worse, as has been pointed out on the floor, the gas turbine is a budget-buster. Eliminating it will save $20 million now in fiscal year 1996 and $2.5 billion later. Several opponents of this amendment, proponents of this boondoggle, have said it does not really save $20 million now. The fact is, every time there is a huge budget-busting engineering project on this floor, whether it is Super collider, whether it is the space station, whether it is this reactor, the proponents of these boondoggles always argue ``It will not save any money today,'' and they do not talk about how much money it will save in the future. That cost savings, that $2.5- billion cost saving in the long run, is what is so important. Additionally, the gas turbine modular helium reactor, Mr. Chairman, is a potential environmental hazard. The reactor does not have a containment structure to prevent an accidental environmental catastrophe in the event of a problem. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] called the support for this by Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, as a trifecta. On this day, Mr. Chairman, of the baseball All Star game, I would use a slightly different metaphor. As six Cleveland Indians represent murderers' row in the American League this year in the All Star team, I would say that our murderers' row of Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, the National Taxpayers Union, Friends of the Earth, and Citizens Against Government Waste underscores the public opposition to this huge hunk of pork. Mr. Chairman, I urge House support of the amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will offer support to one of America's most important industries. As American car-makers face unfair competition abroad, the Consumer Auto-tax Relief Act of 1995, will give a valuable shot in the arm to the domestic auto market. Yesterday, in a dangerous game of brinkmanship, the administration and Japanese negotiators only narrowly averted an all out trade war. While I applaud the administration for taking a tough trade position with the Japanese and appreciate the promise of more accessible Japanese markets, this strategy only addresses part of the problem I want to solve. The C.A.R. Act of 1995 carefully crafts language that benefits an entire spectrum of interests. The C.A.R. Act offers us tax relief for middle-class families, support for our domestic auto industry, and a chance for a cleaner environment. By supporting this bill, we can stand up for American consumers, American business, and American workers. The C.A.R. Act is simple. It restores the deductibility of interest on loans for any car under $35,000 with at least 60 percent domestic content, according to the standards established in the American Automobile Labeling Act of 1993. Besides the obvious benefit to American car manufacturers, the C.A.R. Act benefits taxpayers by offering much needed tax relief. This Congress we have heard a lot about the benefits of tax relief, but rarely have we offered measures that benefit both business and middle- class interests. The C.A.R. Act offers us a chance to offer real relief, to real people and help the business community in a truly positive way. In 1994, the average interest payments on a new car amounted to $1,574 annually. Restoring the deductibility of these payments would make automobiles more affordable to people who depend on automobiles for transportation. Americans have a unique driving culture in that we use our cars for everything from going to work to going on vacation. Parents take their children to after school activities, students drive to school, families take road trips and employees get to work--all in their cars. The fact is, most families need a car to do even routine chores like shopping for groceries. By offering this deduction, the C.A.R. Act makes this necessary mode of transportation more accessible to everyone. This is truly a progressive tax break. In addition to making American cars more accessible to everyone, the C.A.R. Act gets older cars off our roads and gives us cleaner air. As consumers take advantage of the benefits of the C.A.R. Act, older cars will be replaced with newer, cleaner burning, and more fuel efficient models that will go a long way in preserving the quality of our air. Again, the C.A.R. Act is a common sense move, not only for American jobs, industry and taxpayers, but also for our environment. The C.A.R. Act does still more. By defining an American car by content level, the C.A.R. Act also encourages foreign owned manufacturers to purchase American made parts. Currently, most foreign cars built in the United States and Canada have approximately a 48- percent American content. In response to this initiative, foreign companies that build in the United States and Canada may choose to purchase more American made parts to allow their cars to qualify for the deduction. This represents just another benefit to America's auto industry. The U.S. Trade Representative tells us that fully one-third of all autos sold in the U.S. domestic market are foreign. Until we see corrective action to improve our trade imbalance with Japan, we must support the C.A.R. Act and other measures like it to show American auto industry workers, manufacturers, and consumers that we appreciate their efforts and care about the work they do. In my hometown of Lorain, OH, 3,800 people at the Lorain Ford auto plant(s) depend on me to do everything I can to protect American jobs, markets, and industry. The C.A.R. Act gives us all the chance to do just that. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association for responding to my calls for assistance with creating an incentive not only to buy American cars, but also to support middle-class families. Their assistance was invaluable, and I appreciate their input. They understand, as I do, that the C.A.R. Act represents an opportunity for American industry, American workers and middle-class taxpayers. It means more jobs, greater production and a boost to our economy. The auto industry is the cornerstone of the American industrial base, and it deserves our support. In 1994 alone, America's car companies contributed almost 11 percent to the growth in the U.S. gross domestic product and directly employed 2.3 million workers. Encourage consumers to buy American cars and show your support for our domestic industry by co-sponsoring C.A.R. Act of 1995. Give American consumers a break and show the world we mean business. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this very restrictive rule. Yesterday in Elyria, OH, I stood in front of 20 mostly elderly Lorain Countians to talk about Medicare cuts. They do not understand how we can spend $9\1/2\ billion more on military spending while we cut Medicare, and while we cut student loans, while we cut school lunches. They can also not understand how amendment after amendment can be denied, amendments that would cut further; 37 percent of the amendments that cut spending were denied, were not allowed under this rule. One particular amendment that was not allowed and that was especially important was to be offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], to just further study the C-17, so we did not spend the kind of money that this Congress seems to want to spend. The majority wants to spend another $15 to $19 billion on the C-17 when we have alternatives. The C-17 flies half as far, carries half as much and costs twice as much as a 747 and the alternative that we could put together. Yet Republicans on the House floor will not allow us to debate this. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this restrictive rule.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, there is an old country and western song that goes, ``She got the gold mine, and I got the shaft.'' The Republican budget would give the gold mine to wealthy special interests and give the shaft to America's elderly--$300 billion in tax breaks, $300 billion in Medicare cuts. The Republicans indignantly cry that these are not really cuts, they are only slowing the growth of Medicare. Tell that to the literally millions of people who depend on Medicare in Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and California, and all over this country, who will have $3,500 more taken out of their pocket over the next 7 years in higher premiums, deductibles, and copayments. Tell those people that these are not really cuts. The cuts in services which will pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, tax breaks for special interests, tax breaks for people who do not need these kinds of tax breaks--to people with the highest income in this country. Mr. Speaker, I support Medicare and ensuring that older Americans have access to health care services when they need them from the doctor of their choice. As Republicans move to make these cuts in Medicare, they are talking about rationing health care and limiting seniors' ability to choose their doctor. We should reject that, Mr. Speaker. We should reject this kind of thinking. It is not good for America's elderly. It is not good for the American people.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of myself and my colleague, Mr. LaTourette, to introduce legislation to ensure patient choice of medical equipment under Medicare. Under current law, the Medicare Program will reimburse beneficiaries for durable medical equipment only if they choose the basic model. Those beneficiaries who wish to choose an upgraded piece of equipment for convenience or comfort reasons must pay for the equipment themselves. In fact, some beneficiaries are forced to use the basic model of equipment even if it may make their condition worse because they cannot afford to pay the full amount for an upgraded model. I do not believe that Medicare should not be dictating choices to elderly beneficiaries, If an [[Page E1182]] 85 year-old Medicare patient wishes to use an electric wheelchair because it helps her get around better, she ought to be assured that Medicare will cover up to the amount for a basic model. During last year's debate on health care reform, one of the comments I heard most often from the families of northeast Ohio was concern about restrictions on patient choices. Health care is too personal to allow choices to be determined by Government bureaucrats. This legislation would ensure beneficiaries true choice of medical equipment such as wheelchairs, hospital beds, walkers and other aids. In addition, the bill includes measure to protect beneficiaries from high pressure sales and allows the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] to establish guidelines for the purchase or rental of upgraded equipment. Restrictions on coverage for medical equipment were established in response to fraud and abuse in the program. However, these restrictions have become outmoded and inflexible. This legislation would protect older Americans from the hard sell by equipment suppliers while providing the flexibility in their equipment choices. It is not my intent to allow the industry to oversell grandma on the luxury models of all equipment, but we need to have some common sense about Medicare coverage. Why shouldn't Medicare beneficiaries have access to equipment that all Americans do? Why should they be penalized? Furthermore, while this legislation ensures that additional choices are available to the elderly, this bill is revenue neutral to the Medicare Program. Medicare current covers medical equipment at a standard level. My legislation would simply ensure that Medicare beneficiaries could choose an upgraded model and be reimbursed from Medicare at the standard level. Thus, the U.S. taxpayer will pay no more for this choice legislation. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this necessary legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, there is an old country and western song that goes, ``She got the gold mine, and I got the shaft.'' Republicans want to give the gold mine to wealthy special interests and give the shaft to America's elderly, $300 billion in tax breaks, $300 billion in cuts in Medicare. The Republicans indignantly cry that these are not really cuts, they are only slowing the growth in Medicare. Tell that to the literally millions of Medicare people in Ohio and Pennsylvania and California and all over this country who will have $3,500 more taken out of their pocket over the next 7 years in higher premiums, in deductibles, in copayments. Tell those people these are not really cuts. These are cuts in services. These cuts in services are to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, tax breaks for special interests, tax breaks for people that really do not read those kinds of tax breaks, the highest income people in this country. Mr. Speaker, I support Medicare Select because it provides choice, but as Republicans move to make these cuts in Medicare, what they are talking about is rationing health care, and what they are talking about is taking away physician choice. We should reject that, Mr. Speaker. We should reject that kind of thinking. It is not good for America's elderly. It is not good for the American people overall.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is my pleasure to join with the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] and the gentleman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], and also the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Lewis], celebrating the second-year anniversary of one of the things that I think was very positive, one of those most positive accomplishments of this dead in Congress, and that is the National Voter Registrations Act, which is the final jewel in opening up our political system to everyone in this country. Unfortunately, there are some people that in this body want to repeal the National Voter Registration Act, and some Republican Governors around the country that do not want to implement it even though it is the most efficient, most cost-effective way to achieve universal voter registration in this society. I was Ohio secretary of state for 8 years. One of my jobs was to encourage people and do all I could to get them to register to vote. We registered literally 1 million people over those 8 years. We were able to do it by using a lot of the motor voter registration at unemployment offices, registration at restaurants, reaching out all over to people in all walks of life, and it works. Nationally, that is what is happening right now. we are reaching into all segments of the community, rich and poor, black and white, men and women, all across the board. We are seeing hundreds of thousands of people in State after State after State register to vote. If we are going to be the kind of democracy that we need in this country that we have all striven for, it means we need to expand the number of people voting so everyone has a choice in selecting the next Congress, selecting the next President. I say to the gentleman, ``I am proud to join with you, Mr. Lewis, in your efforts to get more people registered to vote, whether it is-- regardless of where those people are registered, whether it is a government office, whether it is a license bureau, whatever kind of place it might be, so that people more efficiently can find opportunities to register to vote all over our land. It has made a difference in registering millions of voters and expanding the electorate so we do, in fact, like most countries in the world, have universal suffrage so more and more people vote and choose our leaders.'' Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for his efforts in bringing us the National Voter Registration Act.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I just sat here listening for the last hour as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] did, and my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mr. Clayton] talking about environmental extremists and environmental extremism. The fact is that 70 percent of the American public wants to see not weaker but stronger environmental laws, and the real extremists and the real radicals in this environmental debate are not people that support the clean water laws and not people that support the clean air laws and not people that support public health laws, but the real extremists are a good many Republicans in this body who literally want to privatize some of the national parks, sell the national parks to large corporations, want to roll back a lot of the environmental laws, clean air laws, safe drinking water laws, laws that affect, that we have built a consensus in this country around that have given us the best public health in our history, that have given us the best, strongest laws in the world to protect our citizens against everything from breast cancer to tuberculosis. We have done that well in this country in the last 3 or 4 decades, something I am proud of. I live in Lorain, Ohio. My back door looks out over Lake Erie. Twenty years ago, Lake Erie was declared dead in many parts. Part of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught on fire. Becuase of the efforts of the U.S. EPA, because of the commitment of a lot of people in Lorain, Cleveland, Medina, and all of northeast Ohio and other areas, we as a Nation were able to clean up that lake, so my daughters, Emily and Elizabeth, can now swim in Lake Erie, and other people, we drink the water, we can enjoy that lake recreationally, and it helps create jobs. It helps attract people to the Great Lakes to build their businesses and build their industries and employ people. The extremists and the environmental issue are not those 70 or 80 percent of the American people that want clean air, pure food, safe drinking water for their children and their families and their grandchildren, but the people that want to sell off the national parks and allow the chemical companies and other polluters to write the laws that dismantle the best environmental laws in our history and the best environmental laws in the whole world, and that is what concerns me when I hear this kind of debate on the House floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, country and western singer Jerry Reed must have had the Republican budget in mind when he sang, ``She got the gold mine and I got the shaft.'' The proposed budget which the Congress will vote on today will give the gold mine to wealthy special interests while America's elderly who depend upon Medicare and depend upon Social Security get the shaft. The Republican budget cuts Medicare by $283 billion over 7 years, slashing Medicare spending by 25 percent. Out-of-pocket costs for seniors will increase by over $1,000 in 2002 and $3,500 over 7 years. My constituents have not been asking me to raise the cost of their health care to provide tax breaks for the wealthy and to escalate cold war spending. The budget also cuts Medicaid by $180 billion over 7 years and cuts Social Security benefits by $24 billion between 1999 and 2002, all to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this week we can see what the Republican majority is all about: tax breaks for the wealthy, tax loopholes for special interests, increases in military spending. How to pay for those tax loopholes, how to pay for those special interest tax breaks, how to pay for military spending increases? By cutting student loans for middle class families, by cutting veterans' benefits, by cutting Medicare. Nearly 37 million senior citizens will pay more out of pocket costs, will suffer a reduction in benefits, and will lose their right to choose their doctor. Cuts in Medicare, veterans, students, to pay for tax breaks for the rich. Mr. Speaker, I am a deficit hawk. I voted for the balanced budget amendment, but the Republican budget is a bad idea.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Republicans love to say that they are not cutting Medicare and Medicaid, they are only slowing their growth. What they do not tell us is that Medicare and Medicaid reform is actually health care rationing. House Republicans want to cut Medicare and want to cut Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, for wealthy special interests and to pay for star wars. Republicans want to force the elderly into HMO's and to health maintenance organizations which will only lead to rationing of health care and will lead to taking away of physician choice. Republicans want to do that all because some people in this House want to cut taxes on millionaires, cut taxes on millionaires forcing Medicare and Medicaid patients into rationing and taking away their physician choice. Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If the gentlewoman would yield, one of the things that Ambassador Kantor told us today at a meeting with a group of about a dozen Members is that the Japanese have found a way with fixing cars with that if you are an auto consumer in Japan, you go to get your car fixed and you have got to use Japanese auto parts.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I appreciate the work the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has done in fighting for fair trade. All of us appreciate the courage and the commitment that President Clinton and Trade Representative Kantor have shown in standing tough with Japanese. When we have a $25 billion trade deficit with the Japanese on auto-related, automobiles and auto parts, $25 billion, that costs us somewhere in the vicinity of, it is literally hundreds of thousands of good-paying industrial jobs in this country that have gone to Japan because their trade doors are closed to American goods. This standing tough that the President and Trade Representatives Kantor are doing right now will mean as they pry open, as it pries open the Japanese market, it will mean more jobs for Ohio, it will mean more jobs all over this country, good-paying industrial jobs that create middle-class families, that give people the opportunity to send their children to school, to send their children to college, to provide for their retirement, to have good-paying jobs and nice homes in nice neighborhoods and all that the auto industry can do if in fact the President and Trade Representative Kantor hang tough like you said. I think they will. All of us here in a bipartisan way would encourage them to do that. I also want to echo what the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] said, it is important that as this happens, as we stands up to the Japanese this time finally, and a President is actually doing that as President Clinton is, that auto companies do not raise prices, that auto companies expand their market share. That is what will create jobs in Lorain, OH; in Avon Lake, OH; in Twinsburg, OH, and all over the United States, good-paying industrial jobs to create a stronger better-paid middle class.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, first there was school lunches. Republicans voted to cut school lunches to pay for tax cuts for American's wealthiest citizens. Then Republicans proposed cuts in student loans to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest special interests. Now Republicans want to cut Medicare services. They want to increase premiums, and copayments and deductibles. Mr. Speaker, I am a deficit hawk. I want to balance the budget. But we cannot balance the budget, we should not balance the budget, by cutting taxes for the rich, by building star wars, and increasing military spending, student loans.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Sarah Weber Home Infusion Consumer Protection Act of 1995 in honor of Sarah Weber, a young girl from Ohio. Unfortunately, many of the most vulnerable patients who depend on home infusion therapy are currently at the mercy of certain unscrupulous home infusion providers. This legislation will ensure that patients are served more appropriately by these providers. Let me share with you Sarah's story. Sarah was a happy little girl from Cleveland Heights, OH, who suffered from cerebral palsy and a rare digestive disorder that would not allow her to tolerate food. Given her condition, she needed to be fed and medicated intravenously. Wanting to stay with her family at home, Sarah received this treatment with her mother as her nurse. It sounds like the perfect situation. Unfortunately for Sarah and her family, it was not. Instead, Marie was plagued by bill collectors once her $2 million insurance policy ran out. Sometimes, the wrong medications were delivered. Thankfully, Marie was astute enough to recognize the mistake and resolve the situation before harm could be done. Sarah was dropped by one provider, without notice, left hanging by a thread between life and death, with only a day's worth of life sustaining supplies. These are just a few of the examples of the lack of quality standards and harmful practices that exist. My bill will require home infusion companies to be licensed according to quality standards included in the law. Further, the bill would crack down on fraud in the industry by extending the current restrictions on physician referrals to companies in which they have a financial interest to home infusion companies and all payers. I believe this bill will go far to eliminate the abuses and will restore families faith in home infusion. Many seriously ill patients depend on home infusion for their medication or nutrients. In many cases, the available technology has enabled them to remain in the comfort of their own homes while they receive treatment. Yet, what good is treatment at home if it is of questionable quality? We must ensure that the care patients receive at home is of the utmost quality and that the patient's physician is involved in the process. A summary of the bill follows. I invite all my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Summary of Sarah Weber Home Infusion Consumer Protection Act of 1995 1. Licensure: Require home infusion providers to be licensed according to the standards defined in the bill. The language of the bill requires persons providing, or arranging for the provision of services, to hold a license. In this context, persons will apply to individuals or companies, whichever applies. Further, the bill defines home infusion broadly to encompass all types of home infusion providers. 2. Standards: The bill would require providers: to maintain clinical records; adhere to written protocols and policies; make services available 24 hours a day, seven days a week; coordinate all home infusion therapy services with the patient's physician; conduct a quality assessment and assurance program including drug regimen and review and coordination of patient care; assure that only trained (and licensed if necessary) personnel provide infusion products or services; assume responsibility for the quality of services provided by others under arrangements with the person; establish appropriate protocols and explain protocols clearly to patients prior to the initiation of treatment plan; and, meet other requirements which the Secretary may determine are necessary to assure the safe and effective provision of home infusion therapy services. 3. Authorizes Funds for Start up Grants to the States: The bill provides for the authorization of funds to provide assistance to the states in establishing a licensing system. It further states to require the payment of a fee for the processing and licensing of companies. 4. Restrictions on Referrals: The legislation will ban physicians from referring patients to home infusion providers in which they have a financial interest. This requirement would apply to all payers. 5. Enforcement: The bill would be enforced via civil monetary penalties determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services but not to exceed $10,000. The Secretary may also file an action to enjoin persons from violating the Act. 6. Study: The bill would require the study of the feasibility and economic impact of coverage of infusion services that may otherwise be covered in a hospital setting.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the last 2 weeks have seen the most disturbing developments of the Republican Contract on America, the worst example of Republican extremists simply going too far. Thirty- five million dollars in tax breaks for Australian-born Rupert Murdoch, $3.6 billion for American billionaires that have renounced their citizenship, $3.6 billion in tax cuts, tax cuts for people making $200,000 a year and calling them middle class taxpayers, and the elimination of a major corporate tax, all at the same time while cutting school lunches for America's school children, while cutting student loans for America's middle class families, while cutting the Summer Jobs Program. Let me make sure I understand this. We have Rupert Murdoch, a billionaire from Australia, becoming an American citizen so he can buy Fox network, buy a big book publishing house and negotiate book deals with American politicians. Then we have a bunch of American billionaires renouncing their U.S. citizenship so they can get a tax break, Mr. Speaker, in the last 3 months Republican extremists have gone too far.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Let me answer that. The fact is that, in spite of all the Republican charts, they have called people making $200,000 a year middle class. The tax cuts are mostly for them when you add in that one particular tax item plus the money for Rupert Murdoch plus the $3.6 billion that people renounced their citizenship plus the alternative minimum tax repeal. Now, I want to make sure I have this right with the Rupert Murdoch situation. You have got an Australian billionaire who has come to the United States, gotten American citizenship so that he could buy a television network and so that he could buy a major book publishing house and cut book deals with American politicians. Then you have American billionaires who have renounced their citizenship so they can get $3.6 billion in tax breaks. Perhaps if Rupert Murdoch is really, really smart, after he has become an American citizen and got this $65 million, he will be able to renounce his citizenship and get part of the $3.6 billion. The fact is, this is ludicrous. Perhaps Mr. Murdoch and perhaps some of those American billionaires that have partaken of the $3.6 billion by renouncing their citizenship will come to Lorain, to my hometown with me, and explain to students at Lorain Community College why in fact their student loans are being cut, will explain to students at Tennyson Elementary in Sheffield Lake, OH, why school lunches are being cut, will explain in Elyria, OH, to young people who have had summer jobs in the past why there are no more summer jobs programs because of these Republican cuts. It simply does not make sense. It is not fair. It is not right. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the House reconsider some of these measures that the Republican Contract With American is all about.

Mr. BROWN

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