Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we are trying to get the Japanese to open their markets for American cars and American parts. We are spending a lot of time and some resources doing that. The beneficiaries, if you want to call it that, will be Ford, GM, Chrysler, they are big companies, Allied Signal, TRW, and a lot of other parts companies, which would be able to build parts here in the United States and ship them to Japan. It simply is incorrect to say because a company is large, as it would be, because a company is small, they should not do business overseas. And what OPIC does, basically, is to insure companies. And we do not need this as to Japan. We need it other places, against currency difficulties, against political violence, and turmoil and expropriation.

Mr. LEVIN. The opposite is true, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield. We want to open up the Japanese market so that the downsizing in the auto industry will stop and they can continue to begin to hire more people.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if that were the history of OPIC, I would be in favor of its destruction. It simply is not true. [[Page H 6335]]

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the insurance is not an insurance against the loss of an investment because it was unprofitable.

Mr. LEVIN. It is insurance against expropriation, against political turmoil, like a revolution, or because of currency problems, so no one could bring back their money to the United States. It is not an insurance to guarantee a profit.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is not.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say to the gentleman from Connecticut, I very much agree with that, and let me just close: Look, I think we need to get at subsidies that are unwise. I think we need to look after the taxpayers' needs. This is a shortsighted way to do it. OPIC has been insuring activity that is creative of American jobs, not destructive. I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me say to the gentleman from Vermont, just take another look at this. We are now over in Geneva trying to force open the markets of Japan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say quickly in response, if we can privatize a function effectively, let us do it. But you, I think, will have the burden of showing, the burden of proof, that this indeed can be done by the private sector, the insurance against political turmoil, currency problems, and also expropriation.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, there is a provision that if the insurance would cause job loss, it will not be provided. Now, look, everybody knows that some activities of companies overseas generate jobs in the United States. That is simply a fact. When we, for example, insure an activity, a powerplant activity in another nation for a U.S. company, that can create jobs in the United States, because it is likely that the equipment used by that power company will come from the United States. So I think what you have to use here when it comes to corporate welfare is some objectiveness, some understanding of the facts. You have to sometimes use a scalpel and not a meat ax here, and I think this is essentially a meat ax proposal. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think this is not a wise amendment. I think [[Page H 6333]] we have to protect American jobs, safeguard them in this country. I think we have to be sure that our policies stimulate growth of jobs in this country, and that is what OPIC's mission is. And while it has made some mistakes, it has done more good than it has done harm. So get at the problem, do not take this sword and cut American business and American workers, at the knees in many cases.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say in response to my distinguished colleague from Vermont, if that is what the facts were, I would favor the Sanders amendment. The trouble is, those are not the facts. The facts are that the OPIC efforts have nothing to do with the downsizing in this country, and in fact, there is a provision that will not allow insurance.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, he should read the bill that the Democrats put together on welfare reform. We address the problems in SSI directly. We believe in reform. The issue is whether we want to be blind about it, and strike out wildly, or know what we are doing. The problem with the Republican budget is this. I think for legislators there is a responsibility. If you propose, you should disclose, and you do not. You have this figure for Medicare, and do not tell the public what will be the consequences. In that sense, it is deceitful. Being bold and not abiding by the facts is foolishness, and it sells short America. Mr. Chairman, in terms of Medicare, if we assume beneficiaries will pay 50 percent of these cuts, we end up with a cut or a cost for every senior of over $2,500 in Michigan. In Connecticut, it is $3,800. In Arizona, it is $3,300 is the average out of-pocket impact. If we say that there is not going to be any impact on beneficiaries, read the communication of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] which lays out the options. It is not in the budget resolution. It talks about the impact on Seniors, and what kind of impact there might be in terms of deductibles, and in terms of copay. Mr. Chairman, I want to go beyond, for a moment, the impact on seniors, and talk about the impact on health care generally, because again, you propose but you do not disclose. The letter of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] says one of the ways to make up this huge, huge cut in Medicare is to cut direct and indirect medical education in disproportionate share. These are not only urban hospitals, these are suburban hospitals. The proposal here is to cut, or at least this is the suggestion, one of the 3 options, $6 billion in direct costs, $21 billion in indirect costs, and $28 billion in disproportionate share. For the hospitals in the area I represent, the district and beyond it, for the University of Michigan, it is a major cut. For the Detroit Medical Center it is a major cut. For the suburban Beaumont Hospital, it is a major cut. This will affect health care across the board. Be honest, tell people that it is not just a large number, but health care is going to be impacted for seniors, and also for the hospitals for whom Medicare has been a proxy in terms of residency programs and disproportionate shares. There has been a lot of talk about the boldness, but boldness without honesty is recklessness. That is the trouble with this budget, it does not tell the public what is likely to happen. That is why I oppose the Republican majority proposal. Mr. Chairman, we can do better. We must reform Medicare. We must make some changes, but we have to, as we leap, let America look into what will be the meaning of it. I therefore oppose the majority proposal.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me just respond.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my good friend from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], I think there is an understanding that there has to be consideration of where Medicare is going, but what bothers me is your message is, and I have heard the Speaker say it to seniors, you are going to get more by our providing less money, and it is not true. The document that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] put together, and you do not find in the budget resolution, provides for expanded Medicare coinsurance. It would cost seniors $44 billion over 7 years. And the direct medical and indirect medical education costs, this is what it would mean, and I will just take a second for hospitals in Michigan in my area, for Beaumont it would mean three-fifths would be cut per year, for the Detroit Medical Center about the same, $17 million, and there would be a like cut for the Ann Arbor Medical Center. So tell the facts, tell the truth to the American public.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I am glad to yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mr. LEVIN. If I may respond, do not just talk about 10 percent. Tell people what it means if you go less. Acknowledge in your letter that there would be cuts in indirect, direct medical education, a disproportionate share that comes to $50 billion or more for hospitals in suburban and urban areas, and tell the seniors that there may well be an increase in their coinsurance of $44 billion over 7 years. Do not just say you are cutting from 10 to 7. Tell people what it means to them, to them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on May 17 the Overseas Development Council will honor James P. Grant. It will do so at a dinner in Washington to commemorate its 25th anniversary and will present awards to several who have chaired ODC. Jim Grant will be honored in memoriam. If any word could characterize Jim Grant's distinguished career, and none adequately can, it might be dedication. Jim cared passionately about all the world's people and devoted his life to his dream of everyone on Earth having a real chance to enjoy its bounty. Whether one knew Jim Grant during his early years in beginning to help others, his work in the U.S. Government trying to develop American assistance that would really matter to people in Third World nations, his days providing leadership as head of the ODC, or his glorious tenure as executive director of UNICEF, the conclusion was the same for so, so many of us. There was no one else quite like Jim--in his combination of imagination, enthusiasm, drive, perseverance, intelligence, and interpersonal skills. He simply would never give up. Jim Grant would understand the impetus in our Nation to focus on improving the opportunity for the millions of our citizens who have seen their standard of living stagnate over the last decade, and in many cases decline. At the same time he would not believe that, in doing so, our Nation would want to turn its back on the plight of millions elsewhere. He believed too much in the basic decency of the people of this country, and in this sense he was in all of his bones and in his fundamental attitude very much an archetypical American. Literally, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children alive today because Jim Grant lived. Could anyone ask for more of his or her life? Jim met more of the people he cared about than do most, but most of them he never met. But he could envisage them vividly, as if part of his own family, to whom he was so close and from whom sprang much of his humanity. I had the privilege of working with Jim, also of seeing him preside over many a meeting. There was no one who could better stimulate a diverse group to work, sometimes struggle to a constructive conclusion--not infrequently the very one he had in mind from the very beginning. As the ODC notes his untimely death by commemorating his life, many who know him well join in and innumerable others who did not know him directly but benefited from his work would do so, if they could.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ferndale Adult and Community Education Program on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. At its inception in 1944, the program offered night classes at Lincoln High School in Ferndale, MI. Today the program has grown to include morning, afternoon, and evening classes at five centers and numerous other community sites. The classes range from high school completion programs to teen parent programs, vocational training programs to preschool, latchkey and senior citizen programs. This wide variety of classes clearly involves the entire community, leaving no one out of continuing education. In 1993-94 alone, the Ferndale Consortium served over 6,900 students in academic and vocational programs and an additional 3,500 in enrichment and community programs. The 414 members of the staff deserve our highest recognition, for without them this effort would not be possible. The importance of community and adult education cannot go unrecognized. Without this cross-generational programming, our community would not be as strong as it is today. My thanks and congratulations to the students, the staff, and the community of this milestone, with best wishes for continued success for the Ferndale Adult and Community Education programs.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it has become widely accepted in our Nation that when people become unemployed through no fault of their own, there should be a bridge for them and their family until a return to remunerative work. It took considerable effort to weave that principle into America's economic fabric and it has taken constant effort to maintain it. Jess Damesworth has been in the center of that endeavor. As unemployment compensation director for the United Automobile Workers for over a decade, he has devoted his [[Page E1049]] high energy and substantial talents to his work. Thousands and thousands, inside and outside of the UAW, owe a debt of gratitude to Jess' dedication. He has worked with industry to make the system work more effectively. On Thursday, May 18, a retirement dinner will be held to honor Jess' years of service. There will be words of praise from leadership and rank an file. Both will have witnessed the good efforts of Jess Damesworth. As someone who has been privileged to work with Jess over the last decade, I heartily join in the accolades to him.