Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Mr. Dingell today as an original cosponsor of legislation to make it a Federal crime to misappropriate a person's name in connection with lobbying Congress. I want to commend Mr. Dingell for bringing this important legislation to the floor. During the recent debate on the telecommunications bill, Members of Congress were deluged by thousands of telegrams in opposition to the measure. It turns out that most of the telegrams were sent without the knowledge or consent of our constituents. Their names and addresses were wrongfully expropriated by opponents of the telecommunications bill as part of a massive lobbying scam. Before the extent of this fraud was uncovered, my office responded to 650 telegrams. I subsequently wrote these constituents a second letter, informing them that their names may have been used without their knowledge. I received dozens of replies from constituents who were outraged that a lobbying group would use their names without permission. I would like to read just one of them to you: September 29, 1995. Hon. Sander Levin, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Levin: I found the attached letter at my father's home while sorting through his things following his recent death. He had written my name on the envelope, so I assume he wanted me to handle this matter for him. The letter you sent was not addressed to my father, but to my brother. My brother died 13 years ago. I don't know where the list firm would have gotten his name. I personally had his name withdrawn from the voters rolls many years ago to avoid the somewhat painful mail being delivered to my parent's home. I believe I can guarantee you that [my brother] did not authorize a telegram to be sent to you in support or opposition to any legislation Good luck in your investigation. Sincerely, Thomas H. Shields. Mr. Speaker, this telegram lobbying campaign was a blatant attempt to mislead the House of Representatives. Congress should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this abuse from happening ever again. That's why we're here today. This legislation makes this type of misrepresentation a Federal offense punishable by up to 1 year in prison, fines, or both. Another one of my constituents hit the nail on the head. Referring to lobbying firms such as the one that orchestrated the telegram scam on the telecommunications bill, she wrote, ``I hope ya get the stinkers.'' This legislation is a good start.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there are many key lessons of the last week. A key one is that we must have a balanced budget. Americans also care deeply about how it is done. They do want us to focus on the overall budget numbers. They also want us to look at the faces behind those numbers, at the faces of 70 percent of Michigan seniors with annual incomes less than $15,000 who would be hurt by doubling Medicare premiums as proposed by the majority; the faces of seniors who would lose quality care and choice of provider if hospital reimbursements were so drastically reduced as originally proposed, and those with private insurance to whom these costs would be shifted; at the faces of 8 million working people whose taxes would be raised by the [[Page H 13352]] present proposal to cut the earned income tax credit by $32 billion, those working people who have three or more kids, those with a small amount of Social Security payments or who are childless and earn less than $9,750 a year; at the faces of 500,000 hard working families with incomes under $29,000 who have a seriously handicapped child and would see their SSI benefits reduced by 25 percent; at the faces of 119,000 students in Michigan alone who might see the cost of education go up because of cuts in student loans. It is not just the public that is concerned about the faces behind the numbers. More and more mainstream economists share this concern, as evidenced in the New York Times of yesterday. Since coming to Congress, I voted for every major deficit reduction package signed into law by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. It is interesting that so many of those who now say they champion a budget, a balanced budget, were champions of the policies in the 1980's that were a substantial cause of raising the national debt by four times. It is time to finish the job of balancing the budget and rightsizing Government. We must stop mortgaging the future, but we will get to the zero in the long run if we ignore the faces behind the numbers in the short run.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a Member of the Republican Party say that no family would be hurt by the $32 billion in EITC cuts when combined with the child credit. I want everybody to know that is simply not true. Hurt would be, for example, families with more than two children; families who receive Social Security; and also would be hurt would be childless workers earning less than $9,500. Treasury said there would be 8 million net losers under their bill. Workers. The truth is the Republican plan hurts working people, period.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this Nation badly needs welfare reform, a system that moves the parent from welfare to work without punishing the child. The interdependency is indeed so vital for the parent and for their dependent children. This goal is so vital that it must be shaped essentially by what will make a new system really work, not overwhelmingly by what will save money in the short term in order to plug a big number into an overall budget package. It is so vital that it must become law, meaning sufficient bipartisan support to be enacted and signed by the President. These welfare provisions fail in both regards. Absolutely failing to even consult, let alone work on a bipartisan basis, the majority has crafted a bill with provisions too weak on getting people off welfare into work and are very potent in hurting kids. Instead of moving toward the Senate bill and improving on it in several important areas, it embraces House provisions that will hurt kids more than putting their parents to work. This bill, among other things, would cut food stamps by $34 billion, substantially cut payments to 500,000 needy families with seriously handicapped kids, weaken even further than the Senate bill, State maintenance of effort provisions, thereby reducing the likelihood of moving people into productive work. It would prohibit payments to even very elderly, needy legal immigrants and school lunches to kids of such immigrants, and leave working families out in the cold in times of recession. It is time to work on a bipartisan basis. House Democrats showed their commitment to welfare reform when we voted unanimously for a bill that was strong in getting people off of welfare into work, with clear time limits for people to do so without punishing their children. It provided for broad State flexibility as to how to carry out the national interests in moving parents off welfare into work. The legislation that we pass must reflect the values and beliefs of the American people. We can and must do better. We must put together a bill that will reform our broken welfare system.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the Hefley proposition. It is not a vote to send troops, it is a vote to let the parties in Dayton develop a peace agreement, if they can, and then we will take a look. I voted to lift the arms embargo. I voted twice, as I remember, maybe it was three times. I felt, like those who voted to lift the arms embargo, deeply about what was happening there, not to send American troops, but to take steps that we could to try to help end the conflict there. I do not understand really how people could vote for lifting the embargo and now vote for Hefley. If we had succeeded at that point and arms had been sent there, no one thought that it was likely that the Moslems would overcome and win on an unconditional basis. We thought there would be a negotiation eventually if the Moslems could defend themselves, and if we had succeeded and there had been a negotiation, then they probably would have said to NATO, we need somebody to enforce it, and they would have said, ``Look, you sent us arms. Now help us enforce it.'' We would not have been a neutral party then under those circumstances. We are not one now. So, look, my colleagues, let us give negotiations a chance and then take a look. Do not pull the rug out from under those negotiations. We have been on this floor talking about the tragedy, the tragedy of Bosnia, and that it is. Do not make that tragedy worse.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, there are critics of lobbying reform who hold the cynical belief that if this bill can be amended, it will get bogged down in the Senate, and lobby reform will die. That would be tragic. I very much believe in the open, democratic system in our Nation where people can communicate with their elected representatives, directly or through others. To do so is an important aspect of our democracy. I also believe the American public is entitled to know who is lobbying whom, and who is spending how much. But today the lobbying disclosure system we have is chaotic and badly broken. It has so many loopholes that the public has no clear idea whatsoever about how lobbyists are spending millions of dollars. If you take the long view, this is our best chance since 1948, when President Truman called for reform of the lobbying disclosure law, to do the job, and do the job right. This bill is a good bill as it stands. The Senate supported it unanimously and its leaders on this issue played an indispensable role in its design and passage. The administration today said the President will sign this bill in its current form. And now, it is our turn. If we do this right, the American people will be able to know what they are entitled to know: Who is paying how much, to whom, to lobby Congress and the executive branch. All week long, the American people have been given one reason after another to wonder if there is any issue on which the Senate, and the House, and the President can cooperate. This is surely one such issue. Put that together with gift ban we passed earlier tonight, and I believe we will have taken two very important steps toward restoring trust in the integrity of Government. I sincerely hope campaign finance reform will be next, and soon.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder, really wonder, why the Burton substitute is before us. The American people know what they want. They want a restoration of trust in the integrity of government. They want an end to business and usual. They want an end to ski trips and golf tournaments and retreats in the Bahamas where Members cozy up to the special interests. Today, after nearly a year of stalling, the Republican leadership has finally given us two very clear opportunities to meet those expectations. House Resolution 250 bans charity junkets, imposes though new rules on meals and tickets, and restricts the largesse of lobbyists. We may also apparently have before us a bill banning all gifts, a bill which essentially tracks a rule I have in my office. But we may never even get to vote on either of those measures. Because the Republican leadership, after trying for nearly a year to dodge this issue, has allowed the gentleman from California [Mr. Burton] to first offer a far more lenient measure. If Mr. Burton's substitute passes, the bad old status quo would be replaced by a bad new status quo, under which Members could continue to take unlimited $49 meals, day after day after day, because gifts under $50 wouldn't count. And if Mr. Burton's substitute passes, Members could take travel and lodging to golf and tennis tournaments, ski vacations, and fishing trips, so long as the trip is sponsored by a charity and raises at least $1 for the charity. Do those who back the Burton amendment really think they can fool the American people that golf tournaments and ski events are ``substantially recreational''? Do they think they can fool the American people that these events aren't paid for by special interests? Do they think they can fool the American people that there will be no lobbyists on the tennis courts? I want to change the status quo. House Resolution 250, of which I am a cosponsor, shatters the old ways. Even the proposal offered by Mr. Gingrich is, for once, neither too extreme nor too ideological. But the Burton proposal is simply the status quo in a new wrapping. There is no way I can support it, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the Burton substitute.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Republican majority, you are really playing games, and it is time to blow the whistle. I want to repeat, there is no authorization under law for the President of the United States to use Social Security funds. None. And he has said in no event would he use Social Security funds. So, why are you doing this? The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] says to put the President between a rock and a hard place. But trying to do that, you are going to put the American economy on the rocks, default, and it is going to hurt everybody in this country, those who use credit cards, those who have adjustable rate mortgages. [[Page H 12237]] Why are you doing this? It is because you look vulnerable on Social Security and Medicare, so you are looking for cover. And to do that, you are going to blow the lid and cause a default? You are trying to cover your fingerprints on legislation that will weaken Medicare and the Social Security COLA. And to do that you are going to tie the hands of the President? I say to the American people, this cannot happen. We are going to defeat this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, this is indeed an unhappy day, and I think to get out of this quandary it might be useful to note how the Government got to this point. [[Page H 12198]] I heard the majority leader say this morning that the President has not engaged, he has not negotiated, and the opposite is really true. The Republicans have been negotiating with themselves. They forgot that they needed to negotiate with Democrats, including the President. Why this failure on their part? In part I think it is the arrogance of power. They have been engaged in a power play. Also, the radical right that controls this House thinks it is always right. They are know-it- alls who sometimes have sounded like know-nothings. We see in recent days the Speaker, who is the father of this all, now kind of blaming his children that he cannot control them. An example is welfare reform. I saw this morning in the National Journal Congress Daily this headline, ``Welfare Bill Conferees Set To Unveil Compromise Today.'' Compromise? This is a compromise by Republican conferees meeting with themselves, among themselves, shutting out Democrats, including the President. Congressional Republicans continue to function as if Congress is a partisan fiefdom. It is now 47 days since House conferees were appointed on the welfare reform bill and in those 47 days there has been no serious effort by the Republicans at bipartisan negotiations. They have been going it alone. I want welfare reform, I have been working on it for years since the mid-1980's. Democratic conferees have expressed our interest in working with the Republican majority and in a letter we sent on Friday laid out critical areas that should be addressed. But regrettably instead of negotiating a bipartisan bill, the Republicans have been busy producing a bill that moves in the wrong direction in critical areas such as the level of funding by the States in child care. It is now clear that the bill they are producing is unacceptable to the President. On Sunday the Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said the President is prepared to veto this legislation. I say there is a way out. True bipartisanship. The Republicans have to end their arrogance of power. Medicare, they want to stuff into the bill a proposal that would move this country on the path toward doubling the premium on Medicare in the next 7 years. I say to the Republicans: Look. You have decided you control this House and the Senate and to go it alone. You have sent this country into a perilous course. You must pull back.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, there is nothing you can do that will mask what you are doing here. Nothing. The Social Security argument is a complete sham. The gentleman was there when the Treasury Secretary assured, through his representatives, this country under no circumstances will touch Social Security. The gentleman got up here and made that argument. [[Page H 12108]] It is a sham. Look, we are also talking about the debt. We could stand here and argue for hours who caused the debt. I was here during many, many sessions when we passed bills less than the Republican President asked. During the 1980's, the total amount that was spent was less than requested by Republican Presidents. That is not what the public wants to argue about or hear about. They are impatient with you. You are playing politics with their checkbooks. You are playing brinkmanship. It is not pressure. It is a pistol you are putting to the head of the presidency. And who will suffer if you succeed, if there is default? Those who have adjustable mortgages, those who have credit card payments to make. Your extremism is already seeping into the attitudes of the public, and that is why they reject this Republican Congress. The Speaker should not blame the freshmen. He is the leader of that gang. He is the pied piper. He is going to lead his troops over the edge and take our colleagues with him, but the trouble is he will take the country, and all the taxpayers and the hard-working families with him, and that is why in the end our colleagues' brinksmanship will fail. It is a miserable tactic shrouded with miserable arguments. Turn down this miserable bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is not a balanced budget and it is not a short-term extension to achieve it. Democrats favor an extension to help achieve a balanced budget. Most of us are willing to vote for a clean, short-term extension. Now, why are the Republicans not proposing it? Why is this layered with all of these additional proposals? There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, leverage on the President. Now, look, I am in favor of pressure. But this goes beyond pressure to try to create a pistol, and I suggest it will not work, it will backfire. The second reason there is not a clean extension is to satisfy some internal pressures within the Republican House Caucus. So they have added a provision on the Department of Commerce and one on regulatory language, a huge bill that few, if any, have read. Why are they doing this? The Senate Republican leadership has made clear that they will not buy the Commerce Department provision, so you are doing this to have some satisfaction internally within the Republican House Caucus. The Senate is working on regulatory reform. So what the Republicans are really doing here today is to play games, but going beyond it and playing with fire. What they are going to do through this, if it were ever to succeed, is to limit the management ability of the President to manage, to manage this situation, to manage this debt. Secretary Rubin has said very clearly, this legislation severely limits options the Secretary has under current law to relieve pressure and to avert default. Let us stop playing with fire with the debt. It would increase the interest rates. It would increase the interest rates for people with variable mortgages, with credit card debt. Look, what you are doing through this kind of proposal is linking chaos in this House with crassness. It will not work. What you should be doing here today is joining on a bipartisan basis to pass a short-term extension of the debt period. That is going to happen sooner or later; let us do it now. I urge defeat of this. Let us get to our senses and work on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last night Democrats were called to the Committee on Ways and Means to mark up debt ceiling legislation, but it immediately became clear we had been called to a holdup, not a markup. No responsible Member of Congress wants the Government to default, but the Republican debt ceiling proposal makes default more likely because it would tie the President's hands in managing the debt. Why are Republicans going to the brink to put heat on the President to accept their extremist agenda? In a word, to blackmail the Presidency. Republicans are playing with fire but the whole Nation could be burned. Adjustable mortgage rates would go up, then fixed mortgages, car loans, credit cards. Democrats never tried to tie the hands of a President like this. The Nation's full faith and credit is too important to be a political pawn for the extremist agenda of the Speaker. The Speaker is toying with the unspeakable. So let us say no to default. Say no to extremism. Say no to the Republican holdup.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it depends what year we take. And the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] can argue whether or not they are increasing. They are. But the gentleman should not deny that what the gentleman and his colleagues are doing is raising the part B premium. They are doing that.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the majority is very touchy when we raise the Medicare part B issue, and for good reason. Mr. Speaker, I would like the facts to be clear. They do not need to be embellished. The premium is now $46.10. There is no reference in the law now to 31.5 percent. It works out that the $46.10 comes out at 31.5 percent, because the costs of health care were less than expected. Under current law, the premium next year would go down to $42.50, because 25 percent is written into the law. There is no 31.5 percent. My Republican colleagues change current law and write into the bill 31.5 percent. That will raise the premium to $55.10, under their language in the continuing resolution; under the reconciliation bill, $53.40. Those are the facts. What this is is the first step toward embodying what is in the Republican reconciliation bill, in the bill that has previously passed here, that would practically double the part B premium by the year 2002. The estimate is $88. It is now 46.10. Those are the figures. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side are sensitive to it, they throw up all kinds of smoke screens, but those are the facts. They say, by the way, AARP supported 31.5 percent. I challenge them to find that anywhere. They have not done that.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, being at the funeral on Monday was one of the most moving and troubling experiences in my life. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin was a personal, and national, and an international tragedy. The national aspects were so well, so well spoken, at the funeral, as were the international aspects, by King Hussein, and President Mubarak, and President Clinton. But those of us who were there and those who listened also were struck by the personal aspects. The granddaughter reminded the murderer and the world that when he murdered the Prime Minister he not only killed a great statesman, a great leader, but a grandfather. What is there left for us to do? To grieve and to recommit ourselves to peace and the battle against extremism.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1833 would criminalize the use of one medical procedure, but not others, utilized rarely in cases where the health or life of a mother is at risk or a fetus is diagnosed with severe abnormalities. By making this procedure a crime, H.R. 1833 would subject doctors to prosecution for offering to a woman a chance to save her life. Further, H.R. 1833 is inconsistent with present law which allows States to ban abortions after viability except where the woman's life or health is at risk. This kind of decision barring women from utilizing a procedure when their health and life are involved does not belong in Washington, DC. I cannot support limiting a patient's right to receive medically necessary care, especially when her life is at stake.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a provision in the foreign operations appropriations for fiscal year 1996 conference report that weakens current law prohibitions on direct aid to Azerbaijan. During conference, a provision was added that will weaken section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, prohibiting direct government-to-government assistance between the United States and Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockade of Armenia. This provision was stripped from the House version of this bill after a lengthy floor debate that went on for over 2\1/2\ hours. In recognition of the House's firm action on this matter, the Senate opted not to include similar language in their version. The disregard of the will of both the House and Senate on this matter by the conferees is simply unacceptable. Until the devastating blockade being imposed on Armenia by its hostile neighbor Azerbaijan is lifted, we cannot afford to compromise our principles by relaxing restrictions under section 907 to allow aid to Azerbaijan. The government of Azerbaijan has taken no steps to lift the blockade or even allowed the transport of humanitarian aid to Armenia through its borders. Given these facts, I firmly believe that a change in the law is unwarranted.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some sounds of reasonableness from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and from a few others. But we have also heard tonight some notes of meanness. Let me say a word about the pension issue, for example. Look, the Democrats have not asked that any fund be able to spend this money for public housing, as stated. All we have said is let management-labor trust funds spend money within the industry in which they labor, and we have said to you, do not let employers take back money that employees earned for their pensions. That is what we have said. I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means, and why was the $40 billion proposed? In order to raise $10 billion in taxes. I think it is mean to steal pension money from people who worked for it in order to pay for a tax cut for very wealthy Americans. Let me say just a word about this corporate welfare suggestion to the gentleman from Connecticut. Look, there is not an attack on corporate welfare here. Sixty-nine percent of this is EITC pension and low income housing credit programs. EITC is not giving money back to people. They worked for it. It is not the government's money. Now some are proposing to reduce it. What we are trying to do through this motion is to bring some common sense to this process, and to take America back from the extremism that we have brought to these deliberations. Vote for this motion to instruct. The Senate did better, but we have to send a message to the House and Senate conferees: Do not listen to the extremism in this budget. Vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution, but I think we should understand what is really happening here. The Republicans, I think this resolution shows by its timing, are squirming on the hook, on the hook of rising anger against their entire budget resolution. It is going to hurt kids, millions and millions of kids. It is hard for them to speak. It is going to hurt working families of this country, but many of them are too busy working and do not have the resources to lobby this Congress. It is going to hurt seniors, and they are speaking more and more. This is a resolution to try to cover the tracks of the majority here. In the contract, they promised seniors that they would raise the earnings limit. How did they propose to do it? By raiding the Medicare trust fund, by robbing Peter to pay Paul. How they are saying ``We will do it later.'' Do we trust them? The majority leader on the Senate side said yesterday ``I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, one out of twelve because we knew it would not work in 1965.'' It worked in 1965 it worked in 1975, Medicare worked in 1985, it is working in 1995, and now the Republicans proposed to wreck it. This resolution is an effort to cover their tracks. I do not think it is going to fool anybody.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the gentleman from Ohio talk about keeping promises. Keeping promises is important. So is looking at the content of those promises. If the content is harmful, there is no great honor in keeping misguided promises. That is what is true here today. Yesterday, this was said on the floor of the Senate: As much as I want to reduce the size of government, I question spending cuts directed so disproportionately against the elderly, the young, and the infirm. That did not come from a Democratic Senator. It came from a Republican Senator, Arlen Specter. There is a great unease in this country about this Republican package. I think it is the source of the low popularity ratings of the Speaker. It is because I think people in this country feel this budget is not so much courageous as it is callous, reducing by $23 billion the earned income tax credit for working families, having a tax cut. Two- thirds of the tax cut go to those with incomes above $75,000. That is what the Treasury Department says. But I want to go beyond those figures, and I want to talk, for example, about SSI for handicapped kids. These are kids with serious handicaps in families that are low, middle and low income, earning $28,000 and less. Mr. Chairman, this budget eliminates the cash payment for 700,000 families with seriously handicapped kids. We have to get the budget under control. We have to eliminate this deficit. But I plead, how we do it is also important. This is a budget that is a callous budget. It deserves to be rejected. I am sure it will be vetoed by the President, and then we will get down to a bipartisan negotiation as to how to turn around the budget deficit in America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 1995, the Alzheimer's Town Meeting in Troy, MI, will give family members who care for Alzheimer's patients a chance to share with others the physical and emotional challenges they face daily. They will have the opportunity to learn more about the options and resources available to them. And they will be able to share experiences with sympathetic listeners who know too well the devastation of the disease. Alzheimer's does not discriminate. In America, 1 in 10 people know someone suffering from the disease. In metro Detroit, 60,000 people have Alzheimer's. Their families know that caring for an Alzheimer's patient is a supreme challenge. The tireless effort put forth by caregivers is remarkable and an example for all. These caregivers have been called the hidden patients of Alzheimer's, and I agree. I commend the Alzheimer's Association for making this effort available and for raising consciousness about Alzheimer's in the metro Detroit area. We must continue our fight against this painful disease. Through research, financial aid for Alzheimer's families, and a health care system that works for Alzheimer's victims, we can provide the best possible support for everyone affected by the ravages of Alzheimer's.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, clearly the issue of fraud and abuse is a sensitive nerve on the majority side, and it should be. Mr. Chairman, the Inspector General and the Justice Department have said my colleagues on the other side are going to cripple efforts under Medicare, and they are. The Republican side called these efforts to weaken the fraud statute salacious. It is. What they inserted last night was a provision that does not touch their weakening of the fraud and abuse provisions. They have weakened them, and they have told Members maybe they will fix them later. Why did they do this? And nothing they did last night can cover it up. What they did last night may be a small step forward in some areas, but it is five steps backward in terms of fighting fraud and abuse against Medicare. That is what they have done and it is shameful.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the majority likes to quote the Trustees. They never say this. Here is what they say. The majority is asking for $270 billion in Medicare cuts, almost three times what is necessary to guarantee the life of the hospital insurance trust fund. As this chart shows, our substitute extends it for the same period as they do. Second, there is a critical fact: Without the Medicare cuts there is not the money for the tax break, period. Third, they talk about Medicare fraud and abuse. They should not brag about increasing penalties when their bill makes it more difficult to convict anybody. We can have life imprisonment. In their bill, we cannot convict anybody. Fourth, you talk about market-driven forces. Seventy percent of your savings comes from old-fashioned price controls, 17 percent comes from hitting seniors. In fact, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] likes to brag that he is a radical. I would say to the gentleman, he can have that label. We Democrats want reform, not radical change.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me read some of the gentleman's specific words a year ago. ``Make no mistake about it. For the elderly in this country, these cuts are going to devastate their program under Medicare.'' Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is moving in a 180-degree different direction. The reason for it is because my colleagues on the other side have got a $245 billion tax cut for very wealthy families, and they have to find a way to pay for it, and it is on the backs of the seniors of this country. That is not fair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain, so that everybody understands, why this is such an extreme proposal. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] referred to this chart. And what it does is to show how the projected or the capped expenditures on Medicare are below the projected rate of inflation. Now, those numbers do not come from the gentleman from Washington. They do not come from Democrats. They come from CBO, which is essentially controlled by the Republicans. And there is nothing that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], or anybody else can say that changes that. Mr. Chairman, this resolution assumes an inflation rate under 4.9 percent. Under 5 percent--4.9. The CBO figure is 7.1. And that is why, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] says, we end up with this gap of $1,000 per beneficiary in the year 2002. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] asked where are the changes in benefits? The answer is, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] said, when we have a $1,000 shortfall, something has to give. And who is going to give are hospitals who are underfunded, who are, in turn, going to either shift it to the private sector, or are going to close emergency rooms, or who will have to cut benefits. That is the problem. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want us to refer to history. My friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], does not like me to quote his previous statement. I understand that. ``Make no mistake about it,'' he said just a year ago, ``for the elderly in this country, these cuts are going to devastate their program under Medicare.'' Our Medicare cuts in the resolution about which he was talking were $168 billion, and most of that was plowed back into the Medicare System. Here we have a proposal for $270 billion, and what they are saying is it is going to save Medicare. We need to save Medicare from the Republican majority of the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I want to read from the gentleman's minority views, if the gentleman does not like my reference to his words. This is the minority views about our Medicare proposal, which is much less and most of it plowed back into the system. And I quote, For more than a decade, Congress has cut back on payments to doctors and hospitals until they no longer cover the costs for Medicare patients, and the additional massive cuts in reimbursement to providers proposed in this bill will reduce the quality of care for the Nation's elderly. Mr. Chairman, will reduce the quality of care, the gentleman was saying, for the Nation's elderly. There will be no place else to shift. I do not expect the Republicans to eat their words in public, but we are not going to let them gobble up Medicare on this day, October 1995.