Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support Kennedy-Kassebaum. This bill before us now is not Kennedy-Kassebaum-plus, it is Kennedy-Kassebaum-minus. In a way, this bill is the story of this session so far. When the Republicans have a chance to do something good, they ruin it by overreaching. They simply cannot resist excess, and they cannot resist turning a bipartisan bill, which Kennedy-Kassebaum is, into a partisan one. Mr. Speaker, why is this Kennedy-Kassebaum-minus? I think it is very clear, when someone who is covered by group insurance leaves and must have individual insurance, there is going to be less protection for affordability under the bill we have here than Kennedy-Kassebaum, period. It is likely that the individual will pay more. Second, they have included MSA's, which are likely to draw the healthiest away and hurt everybody else in terms of premiums. Let me just say one thing about MSA's. They are really a potential tax shelter for wealthy people, because if you put money into them, you do not pay Social Security taxes. You indefinitely defer income taxes. And if you keep them until death, you avoid estate taxes. IRA's are structured to avoid that kind of sheltering. What these MSA's, as the Republicans here in the House, once again going to an extreme, what they have done is to promote tax sheltering for very wealthy families. One last point, and we have made it a number of times, on fraud and abuse. Why make it tougher for the Government to impose civil and monetary penalties in the case of fraud and abuse? Why do that? Why do you require that the proof be recklessness instead of negligence, when the Government relies on the providers, the tens of thousands, to submit accurate bills? Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what pressure group you are reacting to, but it is bad for the public at large. So for all of these reasons, I urge that we reject this bill. Unfortunately, once again, they have gone much too far. Nothing exceeds like excess, as has been said many years ago. I think we have no alternative but then to vote for the substitute. Let us do Kennedy- Kassebaum, taking care of the self-employed. Let us not go backward. Let us not turn this into a political issue. This reform is long overdue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today as a gesture. An extreme gesture, to be sure, but a gesture nonetheless. It is not a gesture to the American people. Seventy percent of the American people support the assault weapons ban. It is not a gesture to law enforcement. Every major law enforcement group in the country wants Uzi and Street Sweepers off the streets. In fact, the Attorney General's office says that crimes involving assault weapons were down 18.4 percent during the first 8 months of the ban. It is not even a legislative gesture, because this legislative proposal is going nowhere. The Senate won't go along with it. Everyone knows that. And even if it does, President Clinton will veto it to protect Americans from rapid fire weapons designed to kill. So let's be very clear about the meaning of this gesture. It is a political gesture, because the people who currently control the House of Representatives are paying off an IOU to one interest group, the National Rifle Association. I support the second amendment. I support the exercise of rights under that amendment. The assault weapons ban does not interfere with the rights of hunters and the right of self defense. But as a number of police chiefs have told me, assault weapons involved here are weapons of war. It is an extreme position to defend their general ownership in a civil society.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as the Stagecrafters present their 40th anniversary season, I rise today to recognize the important role that this community theater has played in the lives of citizens of Royal Oak and theater lovers throughout southeastern Michigan. What began in the summer of 1956 with a production of Noel Coward's ``Blithe Spirit,'' presented in a garage in Clawson, has evolved into a large family of 250 volunteers, 2,400 season ticketholders, 21,000 main stage audience members in their own house, and a reputation as one of the finest community theater groups in Michigan. Each year Stagecrafters presents a full season of drama and musical theater. In the late 1970's Stagecrafters added the popular youth theater group for ages 12 to 18, and studio productions of nonbox office shows performed during the summer. In 1984, recognizing the need for an adequate space for both production and audience accommodation, the search began in earnest for a permanent home. The city of Royal Oak offered to help Stagecrafters purchase the historic, decaying Washington Theater. With help from the Royal Oak Downtown Development Authority and the National Bank of Royal Oak this volunteer community theater group undertook the purchase and restoration of this recognized landmark. The Baldwin Theater reopened in 1985, one of the oldest theaters left in existence in southeast Michigan and the only historic theater in operation in Oakland County, a jewel in the city's crown. Through this effort, Stagecrafters has, indeed, played a vital role in the redevelopment of downtown Royal Oak for more than a decade. Today the Baldwin Theater balcony has been added as an active second stage with its own following. The youth theater group continues to be one of the best in the State and has hosted two international community theater competitions; a sister-theater relationship has been developed with St. Albans in England. The theater features an infrared assistive listening system for the hearing impaired, and the Wurlitzer Theater Pipe Organ has been restored--the only theater organ in an open-to-the- public space in Oakland County. A capital campaign is under-way now to improve the exterior of the Baldwin Theater and install a replica of the original marquee. In this 40th anniversary season, Stagecrafters' ability to restore the Baldwin Theater building through volunteer efforts, and to consistently provide high quality dramatic entertainment at affordable prices, makes Stagecrafters unique among community theater groups in the United States.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Commissioner David E. Smith, who is retiring from public office after many years of distinguished service to the city of Pleasant Ridge, MI. Throughout his career, Mr. Smith has been an active and influential leader in civic affairs and projects, with membership on a wide range of boards and organizations. In 1981, he began his service to Pleasant Ridge as a delegate and cochair of the Ferndale-Pleasant Ridge Cable Commission. This led to his membership on the Intergovernmental Cable Communications Authority. From 1985 to 1987 he was a planning commissioner, and in 1987 he was elected to the city commission, serving until 1996. While a city commissioner Mr. Smith was a member of the Pleasant Ridge Foundation and the city of Pleasant Ridge 75th Anniversary Celebration Committee. In these positions, as others, Mr. Smith earned the admiration and regard of the city, his colleagues, and the community at large. I congratulate him on his accomplishments and thank him for his service to the community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee called this a wrap-up bill. I am afraid in certain respects it is closer to a meltdown bill. Let me say a word about title I. When it was last reauthorized, problems in that program were addressed. I was at a title I program on Monday. The teachers, everybody involved, said what a wonderful asset title I was to the children in that classroom, a very middle-America kind of classroom. Kids were getting help with reading and with math. There is talk here about economic insecurity, but what this bill does is to cut training and retraining programs. There is talk about physical security for our citizens. This cuts community policing programs and also veterans programs. The era of big government is over, but the answer is not an era of extremism. We must balance the budget in the right way. This bill does it in the wrong way.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday night I went to a school board meeting in one of my districts in suburban Detroit and talked with the school board that is working hard to make good things happen. There was real consternation about the cuts in education proposed by the majority here. Then, yesterday morning, I was at an elementary school, Pattengill, in my old hometown of Berkley, MI, and I met with kids there in grades 1 through 3, and talked to their teachers. That program is supported by title I funds. There is a teacher with partial funding. I read to and with the children, and I saw the results of an effective title I program. The test scores have gone up. The children are reading and beginning to learn basic math skills. What is being proposed on the majority side here to very much diminish the funding for those programs is only going to shortchange the children of America. We have to prevent that shortchanging.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Michigan would be remiss if it did not add its words of congratulations. I have the privilege of sitting on the Committee on Ways and Means with the gentleman from Kentucky, Jim Bunning. I just want to say to you, to Jim, he is still throwing strikes, and now and then a curve ball. I am sometimes the recipient, and all I can say is I am glad I am receiving them in the Committee on Ways and Means, rather than on a baseball team. Jim was a terrific person and a terrific pitcher for the Tigers, and brought moments of great glory to our State of Michigan. Jim, if I might speak on behalf of a lot of people, I think, from the State of Michigan to congratulate you on an award long in coming and more than richly deserved: Congratulations.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want this afternoon to talk about two issues that are related. The first one is whether the Republicans are going to try to use the debt ceiling as leverage instead of passing a clean debt ceiling bill. I read this morning there were two different sets of advices coming from within the majority ranks. One was use it as leverage for what is called a change in entitlement programs. The second that came from our colleague from New Jersey, who said, ``It is playing with fire. When it comes to this Nation's financial reputation, the stakes are simply too high. We must abandon any strategy of confrontation and resolve this critical issue in the spirit of cooperation.'' I hope the majority will heed the advice of the second person. The Republican Party was badly burned by their misguided efforts to shut down the Government with the CR but more importantly the Nation was hurt when I was in the district the last several weeks, I met among others with representatives of veterans organizations who told us the appeals process was already way behind and with the shutdown it became even more delinquent, to the terrible detriment of the veterans of this country. Second, I want to talk about one of the issues that might be tied to the debt ceiling and that relate to welfare reform. This country badly needs it. It is clear, I think, from the experience of last year, it can be achieved only on a bipartisan basis. In the last session, the Republicans tried it on a strictly partisan route. They produced a bill that did not effectively link welfare to work, and it would have hurt kids. It missed the mark by carrying out the true national interest in welfare reform, breaking cycles of dependency and helping children in the welfare system, not by punishing them but by moving their parents from welfare to work. There was no attempt, none whatsoever, to work out differences on a bipartisan basis with Democrats in the House--we do want welfare reform--or with an administration that has been active for years on this. A hearing was held last week in the Human Resources Subcommittee, on which I sit. Two Governors, among others, presented the NGA proposal. We discussed with the Governors a number of concerns about their proposals. First of all, their contingency fund, it is not going to protect against a recession. In the recession of the early 1990's, AFDC funding increased over $6 billion in 3 years. The provisions of the Governors' proposal would have much less than that, in fact a third of that over 5 years. The maintenance of effort provisions in the Governors' proposal need to be looked at further. The way they have crafted that, the result could be a far larger proportion of Federal as compared with State dollars, a substitution of Federal dollars for State moneys including in child care and overall far fewer dollars available to implement welfare reform. Welfare reform must be driven by moving people off of welfare into work. A rebalanced partnership to achieve this does mean more State flexibility, but it must be combined with State accountability and effectiveness. A third provision that needs much more work relates to fair and equitable treatment of families receiving assistance. There is a broad reference in the NGA proposal, but much more work is clearly needed to ensure that provisions are enforceable and that there are procedural safeguards for individual families seeking assistance. Likely on Medicaid the Governors' proposal would sever the assurance that when families, when people move from welfare to work, there is health care coverage for their kids. Fifth, on food stamps, the proposal of the NGA would undermine the Food Stamp Program as a safety net for the children who are covered today. There is also a clear need to review provisions in the NGA document on child care, child welfare, SSI and, clearly, benefits for legal immigrants. These concerns and others will be spelled out in more detail tomorrow in the testimony on behalf of the administration by HHS Secretary Donna Shalala. The Governors stated in their testimony last week, and I quote, that it is imperative that the congressional process be bipartisan. The House Republicans have a clear choice. They can make a good-faith effort to discuss concerns on a bipartisan basis and attempt to work out differences, or they can proceed as they did last year and as they are beginning to do this year acting on a strictly partisan basis. I finish with this. If the majority searchers for a political issue, then the outlook for welfare reform is, indeed, dismal. But if the search is for a new structure that reflects where the mainstream of America is, the outlook is more promising.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the answer is in 1993 the debt ceiling extension was part of an overall package. We were not trying to blackmail the White House. You are; you are. Look, this is nothing but a 2-week extension. That is all this is. Yes, from March 1 to March 15, 2 weeks. And why the reference to Social Security? It is because if there were no extension, Social Security payments would, indeed, be jeopardized, contrary to the earlier communications from your side. But, look, the other obligations are also going to be paid, not only Social Security. So really you are voting for a 2-week straight debt ceiling extension. You put in Social Security, because some of your extremists do not want to vote for a debt extension of any kind, and then it says in here Congress intends to pass an increase in the public debt limit before March 1, 1996. Why do you not pass it tonight? I will tell you why, you have got an addiction of some kind playing with fire. You have been burned twice in terms of the CR: You played with fire, twice burned, you want to burn yourself again. But I think the main reason is you do not know what else to do, so you are doing the same thing all over again. That is the problem. You do not have a game plan, so you punt. The trouble is this is not a game. This is the lives of Americans that you are playing with lightly. Stop the blackmail. Pass a clean debt ceiling period, and do it tonight.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about one aspect of the House freshmen and women. I would like to, if I might, talk about another one of their, I think, extreme causes. That is essentially the debt ceiling be damned. All torpedoes ahead, no matter what we are going to hit or whom we are going to hit. I wanted to say just a few words about a letter that one of my colleagues from Michigan sent to Secretary Rubin, and I quote. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] said, ``It is my understanding that you are considering withholding Social Security and other trust fund payments due on March 1, 1996, despite the positive cash-flows of such trust funds.'' There is a grave misunderstanding here. The Treasury is not going to withhold Social Security and other trust fund payments. Here is the problem: If the debt ceiling is not extended, the Treasury is going to be put in this position, as I understand it. They are not going to be able to redeem the nonmarketable funds that they have. And if they cannot do that, they have to do it by issuing marketable securities. Then they may not have the money to honor the Social Security checks that would have been mailed to millions and millions of people. So, it is not the Treasury Department that is, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] put it in his letter, withholding Social Security and other fund payments, despite the positive cash-flows of such trust funds. It would be that the Republican majority here, I think a reckless act it would be, and I find it hard to believe that they will ultimately do this, would put the Government in the position of not being able to honor these checks. Now, even if they could find the funds if cash came in, et cetera, the day that these checks were presented, if there were not enough money, if there were not enough monies to honor all the checks that came in from Social Security on that day, and every other source, none of these checks under Federal Reserve policies would be honored, none of them. There is because the Treasury Department does not at this point have the ability to segregate the kinds of checks that are paid. Social Security checks for mothers, they all come in. The software is such that either they are all handled together or they are not, under Federal Reserve rules, handled at all. That is my understanding of it. So, the Republican majority, again they have got blinders on. They are seeing only what they want to see. Here they are being terribly myopic. They are so myopic they cannot even see what is in front of them, let alone, what is far away. So, I would strongly urge that we do this: I heard a lot of the back and forth earlier on the floor, and to my colleague from Ohio, that is why I am here. I am deeply troubled. The gentlewoman referred to an example of the extremism of some of the House Republicans, especially some of the freshman, not all. I think that the ultimate example of this is playing around with the debt ceiling. There are other examples pointed out. This is the ultimate. The faith and credit of the United States, their ability, when checks are presented, including by Social Security recipients, the question of whether they will be honored. What do other people think about this? I know that my colleagues on the other side, they do not like us to call them extremists, but they ought to understand that the public is calling them extremists, because playing around with the debt ceiling is an example of it. I was reading the article on the House freshman in Business Week, the January 29 edition. it refers to a Business Week Harris Poll where 45 percent of the Americans thought of the first-termers on the Republican side as extremists. That is a huge number. They are doing so because it is based on the reality they see, extreme actions are well as rhetoric. So, my reaction to the back and forth today, and all the oratory that went on, I know that my colleagues have trouble just giving ground in terms of some of these extreme ideas. I know they want to use every leverage they can, because they hold there views so deeply. But the problem with extreme ideas is that sometimes it causes people to adopt extreme means. In this case, the extremity, the extremeness of the end leads people to justify extreme means. Mr. Speaker, playing around with the debt ceiling is an extreme means that is going to lead, I fear, if it were ever undertaken, the default, to extreme results. So, the mainstream of America, which we are part of here, those of us who are pleading that we end the leveraging with the debt ceiling, even talking about it, the mainstream of America is saying resist the temptation. They talk about people who touch a hot stove, they learn having touched it once. In this case, our colleagues on the Republican side touched the stove twice at least in terms of shutting down the Government, and they got burned, but so did America. You would think people would learn. I hope so.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I think she put her finger on it. There is an obligation on the part of some of our colleagues on the Republican side who really do not like this extremism, who have said to a number of us on many occasions privately that it is reckless, and sometimes they used the word ``crazy,'' that they now speak out publicly. We should not leave here tomorrow or the next day wit the debt ceiling issue up in the air. It could have all kinds of results. And, look, it might help us politically, Democrats, if the Republicans playing with fire unleashed an inferno, but I do not want that and my colleague does not want that. What the Republicans here should do is to say, look, we are reluctant to give up this leverage, if they think it is. It is not, and we are going to cut it cleanly. Cut it cleanly, extend the debt ceiling and let us argue out these important issues. We are in favor of a balanced budget. We are arguing out how we do it. Let that be the argument, not the debt ceiling. I deeply appreciate the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio yielding to me. I just wanted to come to the floor and to straighten out this issue about Social Security, the debt ceiling that would cause the checks perhaps to be dishonored, not because the Treasury was taking steps. The onus is on our colleagues over there, and I just pray that they will act responsibly and do it this week.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. This bill is virtually identical to the defense authorization the Congress approved last month. The bill was unacceptable then and remains so today. Like its predecessor, the defense authorization before us today calls for spending $7 billion more than the amount requested by the Secretary of Defense. Like the first defense authorization, this bill contains $493 million to begin procurement of additional B-2 bombers--a plane the Defense Department insists it does not need. In fairness to the bill's authors, the conference report before us drops the requirement that the United States deploy a national ballistic missile defense system by the year 2003. I applaud this change. There is serious doubt as to whether an effective missile defense system could be ready for deployment in 7 short years. Surely it makes more sense to continue our program to develop an effective missile defense system before we prematurely mandate its deployment. In addition, deployment of a national system would almost certainly violate the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, perhaps with the result of jeopardizing continued Russian implementation of real arms reductions called for by the START I and START II treaties. The bottom line is that this defense bill spends billions more than necessary on weapons we do not need. For this reason, I will vote against it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I come here this afternoon to express my outrage. My colleagues talk about opening the Government when they have closed it down. Some of them say they are revolutionaries. I think the question is whether they are becoming anarchists or nihilists. I have heard some say their hearts go out to the those whose services are being cut, but their fists are on their neck. Look, I like the COPS Program. It is working in the 12th District. It is working in nine different police departments and they fashion their own. Some of my colleagues may not like it, but they should not shut down the Government to carry out their point of view; they should do it through normal legislative processes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there was no 25-percent cut for these severely handicapped children, period. And what Members have done is grab $4 billion from severely handicapped kids, from low income, in order to pay for a tax cut. That is a crying shame and that is why we are going to vote ``no'' on this welfare bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let it be clear that the status quo on welfare is dead. It needs to be changed. The House Democrats put together a proposition to change it. The key is getting the parents off of welfare into work and not punishing the kids. Punishment of children is not welfare reform, it is getting their parents off of welfare into work. Here is the problem with the conference report, it is weak on work. The CBO estimates in the year 2002 that this conference report will be $7.5 billion short in terms of assistance to get people into work and child care. It is weak on work and it is tough on kids. Just read the letter signed by four, I think more than that, Republican Senators, and they pick out the food stamp cuts of $30 billion, the SSI benefit cuts of 25 percent for 650,000 kids, the foster care changes, the legal immigrant provisions. These are extreme provisions. Here is what the Republican Senators say. ``We are dismayed at what is in the conference report. We have our strong reservations about this agreement.'' Mr. Speaker, we have not worked here on a bipartisan basis. We have a highly partisan bill here that aims at a political message, but misses the key to welfare reform, moving parents off of welfare into work and not punishing their kids. We Democrats stand for that. Once this bill is turned down, and the President has said he will veto it, we will then turn and together work for true welfare reform that gets the parent into the work force without, as the Republicans do, punishing their children. Let us vote no on this conference report.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. Unfortunately, this is not a historic day. It is a wasted opportunity. Instead of a bipartisan bill that the President can sign, this is an extreme bill that my colleagues have given the President no choice but to vote. The House Democratic bill that we presented a number of months ago aimed at putting people on welfare into work. It had time limits. It had flexibility for the Governors. It had resources to make that program work. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] comes here and that key part is out of the bill and he defends his action. The CBO has said very clearly that in the year 2002 the bill is $7 billion-plus short on getting people to work within the participation rates, child care, and the work requirements. I want to say something, though. My colleagues are not only weak on work, but they punish kids. I want to say this to my colleagues very directly, because what was said a few minutes ago is simply wrong. The Republican Senators who signed that letter saying that they had deep concern pointed out their 58 billion in cuts have nothing to do with AFDC and getting parents into work as they should. It cuts food stamps mostly for kids. It cuts protective services like foster care for children. It cuts Medicaid, the link between welfare and health care. For people to get off of welfare, they need a year's transition with Medicaid and you eliminate it. You also tamper with SSI. These are kids with cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis. We did eliminate in our bill, it was not this many, 330,000, a smaller number who do not deserve to be on the rolls. We need reform, but you cut by 25 percent payment, yes, and you do, for kids with cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome. Mr. McCRRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. All of a sudden he is in the minority. Now I think some people thought John Dingell might disappear. But I think all of you admit, he has been very much on your radar screen. As the distinguished minority whip mentioned, he has been on the television screen, he has been on every screen. He has been working his heart out. He has made us feel young. He has shown that what he believes in, he fights for as hard in the minority as when he is in the majority. There is no better test of the real mettle of a human being than that he fights regardless of the circumstances. So to John Dingell, I just say, with a completely subjective feeling, but I think there is some objectivity to it, too, that your 40th anniversary here is an important event for us to note. We are deeply proud, John, of being your friend and of serving with John Dingell.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Congressman Bonior, our distinguished minority whip. I applaud you for, in your very busy schedule, taking time at this late hour to do something that you care about so personally, and that is paying tribute to a friend. We do not do that enough around here, and surely it is warranted on this occasion. If we were going to have a vote on the resolution tonight, I might have to vote ``present.'' I have a conflict of interest, in a sense. Our two families have been intertwined for a long time. I am not objective. Indeed, my first recollection of direct involvement in politics relates to the Dingell family. It is a pretty vague memory, but I do remember it. In knickers--that dates me--carrying pamphlets for John Dingell's father in our precinct. It was my first direct involvement and it was not a very major one. I do not think John's dad needed my help.

Mr. LEVIN. I confess that I am. We went door-to-door distributing these leaflets, and I do not quite remember the district number. But that was just part of our two families' interwovenness. Some of my uncles knew John's dad very well. My Uncle Bayre and my Aunt Lydia and my Uncle Theodore and my Aunt Rhoda, John's dad was close to my uncle and with his help was elevated to the Federal bench. John clerked for my uncle. So our two families have had a long history together. And our family is so proud of our relationship with the Dingell family. We might ask ourselves, what is the key to John's success? We can point, and he would, to his own family. I think we would point to his intellect, his integrity, his perseverance, his guts, many other qualities. We also would mention as we have Debbie Dingell, a tower of strength. They have been a couple that have blessed Michigan and this city. But if I might, I just want to comment on one other aspect. I had a chance to campaign throughout Michigan in the 1970's and see John in action in his district. Then when I was elected to the Congress in the 1980's, the district I represented bordered John's district. One of John's towering strengths is what I think is often overlooked. That is, no matter how powerful he became in Washington, he was still very much rooted back home.

Mr. LEVIN. I wore them. You maybe are not old enough to remember what knickers are.

Mr. LEVIN. No matter how much he rubbed elbows with the mighty here in Washington, he remembered those who were plying elbow grease back home to their own work. No matter how much he was part of the famous here, John remembered the humble families back home. That is where he came from, and he has never left them. I think that has been such a source of strength and if I might say accomplishment. David, you and I feel this so much. Industry, it is in John's blood. Jobs. Good jobs. John has been a leader in the fight to remind America that if the middle class does not grow and does not prosper, America sinks. The auto industry and the steel industry have been such a critical part of that and John has been identified: Jobs, health. Health. Even a good job is not meaningful without good health. This goes back to John's did and he has carried on this tradition, this fight, this tenacious battle to make sure that every American has an opportunity of good health. Good environment. A job. Health. People also want to live in an environment and in a hospitable environment. John has been a tenacious battler. Safety. There is no use having a good job if you are likely to be injured there. John has had a difficult balancing act representing a State with a strong auto industry and Representative Bonior and I know. Everybody always is not a sync. I see Representative Ehlers here. There are conflicts, too. Representative Chrysler, who has been part of that. You have to do some balancing. John has been such a battler in terms of oversight. Then lastly let me just mention, we all hope to grow old. John Dingell has remembered his roots. I had a chance to travel through his district in the 1970's and, as I said, represent areas right next to him. John has remembered the importance of the dignity that needs to come with old age. In talking about age, I want to finish with this, and I think our distinguished minority whip will agree: John Dingell has made us feel young, and I say this to my colleagues in the majority, and it has been commented on. I do not think for anyone here the transition would have seemed more difficult from majority to minority status than John Dingell. Just think of it. All of his years here. The position, the powerful position. We in Ways and Means sometimes thought his position was too powerful. And all of a sudden, and it was a bit sudden. Maybe some of you knew it was coming.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, in one sense I hesitate to speak on this because this is such a ludicrous proposition. I do not know why you are pursuing it. At a time when we should be talking responsibly, negotiating responsibly on a bipartisan basis, you are playing games. Why are you doing it? So far you have not fooled anybody. Not a soul. You started this in Ways and Means. The Social Security trust funds are not being raided. You know that. It is just a falsehood. In your sentence you cleverly say raiding Social Security and other trust funds, or raiding other trust funds and Social Security. Social Security has not been touched. Mr. Speaker, the GAO said in a letter of December 12 our review of Treasury records show that between November 1, 1995, and December 8, 1995, Treasury followed its normal investment and redemption policies throughout transactions affecting the Social Security trust funds. So why are our colleagues doing this? If the Treasury had not used its approach of a few weeks ago, then Social Security recipients would have been affected, and everybody else. Our colleagues were saved from responsibility for default by the action of the Treasury Department, and now they are trying to shift blame to it. This bill is what risks immediate default and financial chaos, so look. Maybe our colleagues are all going to vote kind of like robots for this. Maybe, like robots, they are going to come and vote for this, but I have to think that it is someplace in their mind, or other place, that they know this is an unwise move. As my colleagues know, it is time to stop this kind of antic. Hopefully we are on the eve of some serious negotiations. Everybody has announced they are going to start tomorrow in a more serious vein, and here, 24 hours before that, our colleagues bring up this charade. They know it is wrong, they know it is not going to go anywhere. They are trying to gain a few political points at the last minute. Mr. Speaker, Americans are losing faith in their political antics. They have been losing credibility because of devices and tactics like this. It is time for serious bipartisan negotiations in the budget and the end of tactics like this.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if I might, let me share what I learned in Bosnia. First, Dayton is a declaration of peace, not war. Second, there are serious self-interests on the part of all the three parties. The Dayton agreement was reached but not primarily made in America. For each of those parties, there is a clear self-interest. Third, the U.S. military is supported. As one general said to us, we can do the job. It is a task defined, limited and achievable, and they have authority to take whatever force is necessary to protect our troops. If Members vote to reject Dayton, what they are saying is not only no to the Commander in Chief but no to the military leadership of our nation. They helped draft this plan. There is some risk in peace. There is also risk in renewed war, the risk of a renewed war in Europe spilling over beyond Bosnia and the renewed risk of genocide. I would like to say to my friend from Indiana, yes, we have to make policy with our heads, hard-headed ways. Americans also have a heart, and the prospect of renewed genocide is something that should not be ignored. Finally, I want to say there is an exit strategy. It is very clear. If the parties who have chosen peace continue on that path, we will help them. If they choose to renew war, we are going to get out and get out fast. I urge support of Hamilton and that we vote against Buyer.