Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate WWJ Radio in Southfield on its 75th anniversary. Four generations of listeners in Metropolitan Detroit know first hand that WWJ is a powerful force in Michigan. What many people don't know is that WWJ Radio has made history over and over during the course of its 75 years on the air. WWJ was the first radio station to broadcast news--on August 31, 1920. And on the same day it became the first to broadcast election returns. Radio sportscasts aired for the first time in the United States the following day--also on WWJ. Soon, the station pioneered play-by-play coverage of Detroit Tigers baseball, Detroit Lions football, Detroit Pistons baseball, Detroit Red Wings hockey, and dozens of college games. Regularly scheduled religious broadcasts also got their start on radio at WWJ. WWJ's legacy is not all serious, though. Two of America's greatest entertainers--Will Rogers and Fanny Brice--got their start in radio at WWJ. Both were stars who had captured Americans' imagination--at least those Americans who were lucky enough to see a Ziegfeld Follies production. But it wasn't until WWJ aired Fanny Brice on the radio, in 1920, and Will Rogers, in 1922, that they reached a broad audience. Fanny Brice was the original ``Funny Girl,'' an outrageous redhead who made people laugh for more than four decades. She is known for many things, but none better than Baby Snooks, the precocious brat that she invented for vaudeville and brought to radio's Ziegfeld Follies of the air. Will Rogers ``never told a story in my life,'' he would tell his audiences, assuring them that in his appearances--first in vaudeville shows, then on the radio, then as one of Hollywood's top stars--he ``just played his natchell self.'' Rogers personified the wonderful collection of character traits that Americans celebrate as uniquely our own. He was a Democrat because ``it's funnier to be a Democrat,'' he said--but no politician was spared Will Rogers' arrows. ``The United States never lost a war or won a conference,'' he warned diplomats at the talks following World War I. Rogers became Beverly Hills' mayor by popular acclaim--but soon gave it up for ranch life and the movies, radio, lecturing, and writing that made him the highest paid entertainer of his times. ``Cowboy philosopher'' is the way Rogers' job title read--but for the millions of Americans who counted themselves his fans, he was the common sense and the contradictions that make us Americans. Both Will Rogers and Fanny Brice were common people--and they aimed to please the common people who tuned into their shows by the millions. And, just as WWJ gave listeners their shows, today WWJ continues to get comprehensive, reliable news to the millions of people who spend hours each week commuting to their jobs. I don't remember a time that I didn't listen to WWJ, and I don't ever expect to hear anything else on FM 950. I commend the stations to my colleagues when they travel around Detroit. And, to the hundreds of Michiganians who work at WWJ, now and in its long 75-year history--to the tens of thousands of Michiganians who depend on WWJ Newsradio 950 for up-to-the-minute information--I wish another 75 years of success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not get it. How does giving more power to parents mean less responsibility on their part? Does a remote control mean less responsibility? More stations only increases the need to equip parents. I am fed up with TV violence. Support the Markey-Burton amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about the bill before us. Both on substance and on process, this is the wrong way to go about overhauling our Nation's communications laws. Let me be clear that I support comprehensive reform of our Nation's telecommunications laws. I support deregulation. I support increased competition. I personally feel the time has come to free the regional Bell companies to enter the long-distance, manufacturing, and video markets. However, this legislation is seriously flawed. How can you go home to your district and explain to your constituents that you voted for this bill? How are you going to explain that you voted for a bill that gives cable companies the green light to raise rates through the roof without first requiring them to give up their monopolies? Fifteen months after this bill becomes law, cable rates are going up. How are you going to explain it? How are you going to explain that you voted for a bill that fails to empower parents to control the amount of sex and violence their children watch on television? In the very near future, the number of channels available to every home in America will jump from a few dozen to as many as 500 channels. I'm fed up with TV violence. We must give parents a tool to block objectionable programs they don't want their children to see. For a modest cost, a computer chip can be added to new televisions that empowers parents to do this. How are you going to explain that you voted for a bill that's a blueprint for unprecedented media concentration? Under this bill, a single company or individual can buy up most of your town's mass media, including an unlimited number of radio stations, two TV stations, and even the town newspaper. The process under which the House is considering this legislation is also flawed. Large portions of this bill were developed in secret, behind closed doors. This bill will profoundly affect the shape of telecommunications in this country for years to come. It will impact every person in the country who owns a telephone, watches TV, or listens to radio. We shouldn't debate such a far-reaching piece of legislation in a few short hours, under a closed rule, without adequate time for debate or amendment. Surely, this is no way to legislate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to these unwise and unwarranted cuts to the future of our country. By cutting funds to [[Page H 8344]] student aid programs we are dulling the edge of our Nation's future competitiveness. This bill decimates the Perkins Loan Program for our neediest students. In my district 682 students at Macomb Community College alone may be forced to leave school. This bill takes seed money away from the Michigan Competitive Scholarship Program, which provides college assistance to disadvantaged students who show unusual academic promise. Isn't academic promise what we're trying to encourage? And 250,000 currently-eligible students will be denied a Pell Grant. This is not progress, this is moving backwards. Finally, for our youngest kids, Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding is reduced by more than 50 percent, cutting $9.2 million from my state's DARE and school-based anti-drug efforts. Why is this happening? Because Republicans have put a priority on tax cuts for very wealthy families that just don't need it. These priorities are backwards and just plain wrong.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the explanations for the majority position. Your bill is extremism run amuck. It rips whatever mask is left off of so-called concern about the people of this country. I want to speak to the millions of Americans who will be permanently laid off in the next 2 years. To 46,000 of you, the Republican majority says ``Forget it, no training in employment services.'' To 84,000, the Republican majority says ``Tough luck, no training grants for you.'' And what does the Republican majority have for the kids of America? Your training grants are cut 80 percent; your summer jobs are eliminated. I have seen training work in Michigan in the Transition Program, those laid off who were building tanks for this country, nowhere to turn. The transition center in Sterling Heights has helped these people get back on their feet. And you come here today and mock those programs. Shame on you.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I do think we have to consider who shot whom and who is raping whom. In a word, we have to step up to Serbian aggression. While there is a clear difference of opinion in our Nation let me ask this: Would the Bosnian Serbs prefer this resolution pass or fail, that the arms embargo be lifted or continued? I suggest that they will deem a positive vote today as another indication of determination to stop Serbian aggression. Any course does carry a risk. Past policies have risked continued aggression and mass murder, and they have paid the consequences. It is time, indeed long overdue, to try a new course. I support this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of a new home for Temple Shir Shalom of West Bloomfield, MI. Temple Shir Shalom was founded in June 1988 with just 30 committed families. For the past 7 years, congregants worshiped in rented space in an office building at the same time promoting and planning for a permanent home. Today Temple Shir Shalom is the proud congregation of 650 members, and their new home reflects the commitment and diligence of the entire congregation--the clergy, the staff, and the congregants. I commend them on their achievement of reaching the day they had looked forward to for so long. To everyone at Temple Shir Shalom, I extend every good wish for many, many fruitful years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Stokes-Boehlert. If Members do not need any reason other than this, look at the headline from the Macomb Daily a few days ago: Consumers of Great Lakes Fish at Medical Risk. They are talking about a Centers for Disease Control study showing children who eat Great Lakes fish have four times the amount of PCB's and three times more DDT in their bodies, and other factors. There has been an effort to counteract this in the Great Lakes water quality initiative, to cut the amount of mercury, to cut discharges of lead, to cut dioxin levels. Now we have, tucked in this bill, a plan to begin throwing all that out the window, leaving the Great Lakes at the mercy of those who dump mercury and lead and dioxin into drinking water. The Great Lakes are an irreplaceable treasure that should be protected. Let us not roll back a decade of progress. Support the Great Lakes. Support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the five Great Lakes contain 95 percent of the fresh surface water in the United States. Fresh surface water for drinking, for fishing, and recreation for millions of Americans. And for the last 9 years, the States bordering the Great Lakes have worked together to find new ways to reduce toxic chemicals dumped into the lakes. Two years from now, the result of this work, this bipartisan eight- State effort known as the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, will be done. And we will actually begin to: cut the amount of mercury dumped into the Lakes; cut discharges of lead; and cut dioxin levels, and those of 19 other toxics in the five Great Lakes of the United States. But today, the majority party wants none of that. Tucked into their bill is a Republican plan to begin throwing all that work out the window, leaving the Great Lakes at the mercy of those who dump mercury, and lead, and dioxin, into drinking water. Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous chemicals. These chemicals pose a risk to human health. These chemicals will be controlled unless the majority kills this initiative. Let me give you an example. Today, the level of toxics like mercury and PCB's is so high in Lake Michigan that women of child-bearing age, pregnant women, and young children are advised not to eat more than one fish meal per month. Studies link even small amounts of these chemicals to increased risk of cancer in adults and birth defects in children. The Centers for Disease Control have just released a study showing that children who eat Great Lake fish have: four times the amount of PCB's and three times more DDT in their bodies; lower IQ's; and growth stunts and lingering development problems. Imagine the future if we continue to allow polluters to dump mercury and PCB's into the Great Lakes--with untold human toll, huge medical and educational costs--and yet, under the Republican proposal, the EPA would be barred from even providing advice to States as they develop their water quality programs. That's why I rise in support of the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. The amendment is needed to strike irresponsible provisions of this bill that would block the implementation and enforcement of our Nation's most important environmental laws. The Great Lakes are an irreplaceable treasure that should be protected. Let's not roll back a decade of progress. Support the Great Lakes. Support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is really damage control that they are engaged in. Those who are trying to cut Medicare massively are now trying to cover their tracks with deception. The majority party is now working with a group calling itself the Senior Coalition and it is passing around what they call ``the Pledge to save Medicare.'' Testimony from this group a few weeks ago before the Committee on Ways and Means came out in support of $270 billion in the Republican cuts, though they did not know what was in the cuts. This pledge says: ``Let's increase Medicare spending for beneficiaries, even though the $270 billion cut would increase copayments and deductible for seniors.'' This so-called pledge talks about maintaining the current Medicare fee-for-service system, even though the $270 billion in cuts would squeeze the option of fee-for-service for seniors. The majority party is on the run. There is no place to hide; surely not behind a cloud of deception.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is the first time I have spoken on the floor this year about a statement of the Speaker, but I feel compelled to do so today. His comment yesterday that he is not convinced that Vincent Foster committed suicide was highly irresponsible. There is no evidence to support the notion that the death of Vincent Foster was not a suicide. It is not a subject to inquiry in the hearing now under way in this Congress. The Speaker has shot from the hip before, but when it comes to matters of life and death, there is no good excuse. No one, especially a Government official and surely the Speaker, can be too busy to think about the ramifications of what he says before he talks. I urge the Speaker to reflect further and withdraw his comment. We need to appeal to the better instincts of our citizenry and not to reinforce or encourage, inadvertently or not, those who try to spread paranoia or unfounded conspiracy theories for whatever purpose, political or otherwise.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the Byrne program is built on one of the strongest principles I know: United we stand; divided we fall. It helps us fight the scourges of drugs and crime united as one. DARE is a good example of a partnership that unites parents, teachers, students, and police to keep our kids off drugs. When I was in the Sterling Heights DARE class some time ago, I saw a young officer with enormous energy who had developed personal rapport with the kids in his class. DARE means a lot to the children in my home communities. It also supports multijurisdictional task forces which unite law enforcement from all levels: county, State, and local. Criminals do not respect city limits, so these partnerships, like our local Combined Oakland-Macomb Enforcement Team, otherwise known as COMET, and our Narcotics Enforcement Team, otherwise known as NET, enable our law enforcement officials to pool resources and information across city lines. Last year, my friends, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], and I gathered support of over 150 Members from both sides of the aisle in support of this program. I understand the need and Federal responsibility for criminal illegal alien incarceration. There is an increase here of 250 percent. So, as a matter of priorities I believe we can afford this modest increase in Byrne without losing anything vital in our commitment to assiting the States with criminal illegal alien incarceration. We must never forget the frontline local enforcement people working to make our towns and our cities safer; to give our kids the heroes they deserve. Vote for the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, what is the majority party's response at this point to the COPS program? It is a cop-out. A block grant. A block grant that assures no more cops on the beat; not a single additional cop guaranteed. The issue is not about flexibility. This bill provides a lot of flexibility. I say this to the gentleman from Florida, it is about priorities. There is a national priority in terms of more police in local communities. And the gentleman mentions about small and large. I do not understand why small communities in his district, and in others represented here, have not taken advantage of this program. The local communities in the 12th District, small and large, have. Center Line has an application. It has a small population; less than 10,000. We have a letter, on the other hand, from Warren from the city police chief, 145,000. He says, ``Save this program. It has added six police in the community and now we hope to obtain more.'' The same is true of Berkley and Huntington Woods, small communities in the 12th District. And the bill, the COPS bill, allows communities to combine together, under an amendment that I proposed, to have regional task forces to get at the needs within those communities. Mr. Chairman, what does the majority proposal at this point suggest? Throw it to the winds. There is no accountability. I am proud to stand here and say there is a national priority and that is more police in our communities; flexibility for communities to use it as they want. Mr. Chairman, I am not saying Washington knows best, but what I am saying is, listen to the local communities who have applied and who support this program. The formula of the majority party is going to hurt suburban communities like I represent. They have an ingredient in there that is going to hurt suburban communities like I represent. The COPS program is working; their program is a cop-out. I am glad for the Mollohan amendment. Let us go across partisan lines for once and support it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I think everyone here on this floor should be proud that we are debating this issue of human rights in China. Indeed, if all the other democracies in this world were having this kind of a debate, I think this situation might be different. A major problem with the use of MFN in this instance is, and has been, that we have been alone and other nations have not followed suit. Indeed, they have simply stepped into the vacuum. And so, then the issue is this, I think: If we are not going to use MFN, how are we going to be sure that we do not leave a vacuum in several key areas; human rights, and the critical trade issue? In the human rights area, I think this country, the administration, has been taking steps in the right direction. For example, it forced a vote at the United Nations recently to condemn China's human rights record. That failed by 1 vote, as I understand it. And I think today we are calling on the administration to continue these efforts in the United Nations; indeed to intensify them. In the critical area of trade, as our trade deficit with Japan continues to grow, I understand the President is going to announce soon the appointment of a commission to look into Asian Pacific trade and investment policies. We need to confront, with China, trade issues as we did intellectual property. If not MFN, we have to find another method, other instrument, to make sure that there is free and fair trade with China. So, Mr. Speaker, as we join together to support this resolution, let us be sure that it is followed up by steps both on human rights and on trade policies.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I just think we have to be careful about our deductions sometimes, and I am on the gentleman's side on this one, but I do not think the people who disagree with me are bashing Mexico. I was with them on NAFTA, and I was not bashing Mexico, and I would still vote against NAFTA if it came up today. I think the jury is out. But, look, this amendment is not a wise amendment. First of all, it is much too broad. It would prohibit, in essence, any use of the fund to bolster any foreign currency. Now, we have done that 90 times in the last decade, 90 times. Are we going to insist there be a congressional vote every time the fund is going to be used for stabilization? Now, this is 90 times to bolster a foreign currency. That is what I understand from Treasury. Now, this is not wise. Sometimes bolstering a foreign currency is in the advantage of the United States of America. It better be, or else we should not be bolstering that foreign currency. We should have bolstered the yen 15 years ago. We would have been much better off without a strong dollar. So this amendment is much, much too broad, and I think sometimes these broad swings are going to be misunderstood, and in this case, I think it would be. Let me also point out, this is not the use of $20 billion like foreign aid. This is a loan guarantee, in essence, and so no one should misunderstand that we appropriated $20 billion to go to Mexico. That is not what happened. Now, third, let me say just a word about what has happened in terms of Mexico and U.S. economic relationships. I am concerned about the trade imbalance that is growing, but if the Mexican economy had collapsed, if you want to put it this way, NAFTA might have turned out even worse. The trade imbalance could have become even more serious. It was important for the United States that the peso collapse be addressed. That is why we did it. And it was not only for a few small big investors. There were pension funds that had large-scale investments in Mexico. Average Joe and Jane Public had their money at stake here. So I say to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], it is useful to discuss this rather unusual case of using the ESF on a long-term basis. That is somewhat unique in its history. But taking the ax to the ESF is not a wise approach. Let us raise this problem. Let us do it in an intelligent, in an intelligible way. Let us not cut off our nose to spite our face. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, with some reluctance, out of respect for the author, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not think, by the way, it is fair to say that he is bashing Mexico. I think that is, if I might say, very unfair. We ought to be able to talk on the floor of this House without saying that someone who disagrees with us is bashing this or that. I think reasonable people can differ. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, very respectfully, and I tried to be respectful, but it is always whenever anything related to Mexico is brought up, it is basically the same people. So what deduction can we get from that, regardless of the mainstream issue? I thank the gentleman, appreciate his comments.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me read from the dissenting views of the minority on the Archer amendment so we are reminded. It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who have patience. That means they can wait it out. It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who plan ahead. They can plan and get out of this. It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who have foreign assets. It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who have U.S. assets with enough wealth to use the present loopholes. [[Page H 7235]] It is not administrable. It does little to prevent avoidance of estate and gift taxes. The Archer amendment, more than anything else, pussyfoots on this issue. The Ward amendment would hit it directly. I urge support of the Ward amendment and that we vote against the Archer amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendments before the House to further cut funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. I have received literally hundreds of letters from the people I represent in support of continued Federal support for the arts and humanities. One of my constituents from Southfield, MI, wrote and told me how much our Nation's art and culture meant to her immigrant grandmother during the Great Depression. She writes: Rep. Levin, how well I remember my immigrant grandmother taking me for a walk on Sundays during the depression, and pointing out with great pride the museum (Detroit Institute of Arts) and the Main Detroit Public Library in her own language. We'd go in and spend hours gazing at the paintings. My grandmother would ask me to read the names of the artists for her since she was unable to read or write English. She soon learned the names by heart and as my younger sister and brother grew older and joined us, she was able to tell them the names of many artists and paintings. I hope I have, in some way, convinced you that these institutions, aforementioned, are absolutely necessary to maintain our standard of achievement in the humanities which is so important for an enlightened society. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed by the misplaced priorities of this Congress. This House recently voted to build two more B-2 bombers at a cost of over $1 billion apiece. The Secretary of Defense does not want these planes. the B-2 is expensive, unneeded, and, according to recent news reports, the B-2 may not be nearly as stealthy as advertised. The House is willing to spend billions on a bomber we do not need that does not work. At the same time, beginning in just 2 years, the majority is unwilling to spend even a dime on our country's arts and humanities. These are not my priorities and I don't think these are the priorities of the vast majority of the American people.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, what is behind the Republicans' wild swings at Medicare? In part it is to finance a tax cut for the privileged few, but it is also a reflection of a basic Republican dislike of Medicare. Words can be very meaningful, and look at what the majority leader said yesterday about Medicare: I would like to be free to choose not to become in any extent a ward of the State. Americans are not wards of the State when they receive Medicare. Indeed, Medicare helps make seniors independent, not dependent. Medicare helps seniors avoid becoming wards of the State and wards of their children. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are scaring the seniors of this country, and seniors have reason to be afraid of what the Republicans are doing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution conference agreement. I am committed to balancing the budget. That requires difficult choices, and over the years I have not shied away from the tough votes to cut spending. In fact, I have voted for every serious comprehensive deficit reduction proposal--under both Republican and Democratic Presidents--since coming to Congress. But this budget proposal, although well-intentioned, is poorly conceived. This resolution calls for making $270 billion in cuts from Medicare, yet, the Republicans have not produced a single specific proposal on how to achieve these savings. When taken together with the $180 billion in cuts to Medicaid, these cuts could jeopardize the well-being of the best health care system in the world, to say nothing of what it can do to the affordability of health care for seniors, the ability of seniors to use the doctor of their choice, and the viability of teaching hospitals and the medical education programs they support. Finally, the ability of the aged and the disabled to receive the nursing home care they so desperately need will be jeopardized. And why would we place Medicare and Medicaid including long-term care in such peril? So that the Republicans can pay for an ill-conceived tax break mainly for the privileged few. At a time when U.S. income inequality is the worst among industrialized nations and is at [[Page H 6589]] its greatest level since records have been kept, this budget handsomely rewards the privileged few at the expense of everybody else. The Treasury warned that over half of the benefits of the original House plan would go to the top 12 percent of taxpayers, and there's no indication that this package will be any different. Yet this is the only group whose incomes went up and whose effective tax rates went down over the past decade and a half. The rest of America, whose incomes stagnated or declined during the same period, not only get the crumbs in terms of tax breaks, but bear the brunt of paying for the whole tax package through greater cuts in Medicare, student loans, veterans benefits, and other middle-class programs. Further, this budget will dull the edge of America's future competitiveness by gutting our Nation's investment in education across- the-board, at a time when more and more jobs call for greater skills and abilities. And for what? I am willing to accept a modest increase in inequality if there's a reasonable prospect of significantly greater economic growth for all. But these tax cuts can't deliver. Treasury, CBO, CRS, and Joint Committee on Taxation, and a host of economists across the political spectrum have all concluded that the benefits, if any, are likely to be quite small. Finally, I think the American people have the right to know the exact price for these tax cuts and for balancing the budget generally. Republicans claim that they've paid for the tax cuts and that they've committed themselves to achieving a balanced budget by 2002. The truth is that the major offset in the bill is a promise to cut spending in the future, and that the commitment to balance the budget rests still more promises to cut in the future. None of these promises are backed by specific spending cuts. To make matters worse, Republicans have gerry-rigged the tax cuts so that most of the revenue loss comes in the years beyond the budget window, so under House rules they don't have to pay for the full cost of these tax cuts. I am all for real, responsible deficit reduction. But this budget in many ways is not real, and in any event is not responsible. That is why I am voting against the budget resolution conference agreement.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I, with some reluctance because of my deep respect for the sponsor of the amendment, rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This will, in a word, lose jobs. It will not gain them. I am in favor of eliminating unnecessary subsidies to business. I think where the private sector can do it, it should be able to do it, and it should be left to do it. But I think we have to be careful how we apply it. I believe when we talk about corporate welfare, and we need to look at it, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have to look at business subsidies, but with some care, and not with simply a sword that cuts off some assistance where it is necessary. Where does the purpose of OPIC lie? What does it do? Mainly it insures. And what does it insure against? Expropriation, currency problems, political violence. You cannot go to the private sector and get that kind of insurance. Period. The purpose of OPIC is not basically to give money to corporations to go overseas to do research and development. That is not its basic purpose. It was founded to provide insurance so that American companies could compete with companies of other countries and be insured against contingencies where they could not cover those problems themselves. Now, let me just say a word about what other countries are doing. They are providing this kind of insurance. Our competitors do that. So if you eliminate OPIC, what you are simply saying to the companies of the United States who are trying to do some exporting, trying to operate overseas, not to take jobs away from this country, but to help to create them here, is that they will not have the same kind of facility as is available to companies from other countries. Now, let me say a word about job loss. Look, let us not confuse the issue. OPIC specifically provides, the statute does, that no money can be given, no insurance can be provided, where there would be a negative effect on U.S. jobs. Our companies do operate overseas. When they do it appropriately, they create jobs here. Simply to say there will be no insurance available to them is going to result in job loss in the United States. About 25 percent of the companies that now are insured by OPIC, as I understand it, are small businesses. So I do not think it is fair to simply take the big business label and simply to throw it around and say, ``This is a way to get at big business.'' Look, I do not like the downsizing, but the downsizing has nothing to do with OPIC. I do not like the downsizing when it comes to job loss. But OPIC's insurance activities have nothing to do with that downsizing. Indeed, what we need to do is to stimulate American companies to compete with their overseas competitors.

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