Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Indentured child labor is one of the ugliest forms of slavery that exists in this world. This Congress should stand up for those children. We should not be importing products made by indentured child labor, and I thank both parties for their support.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that both the majority and the minority have accepted this amendment and I thank them.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to address one of the most important issues facing American veterans and one of the great medical dilemmas facing our entire country, and that is that over 70,000 veterans of the Persian Gulf war, including hundreds in my own State of Vermont, continue to suffer from gulf war illness, and 6 years, 6 years after the completion of that war, there is still no understanding of the cause of that illness and no effective treatment for it. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, has held 10 hearings on gulf war illness since March, 1996. As a member of that committee, I cannot begin to express the frustration that many of us feel regarding the ineptitude of the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration in responding adequately and effectively to the needs of those veterans who continue to hurt. Pure and simple, the bottom line is that 6 years after the end of the Persian Gulf war, the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration still have not developed an understanding of the cause of gulf war illness or an effective treatment protocol. In fact, their record has been so inadequate that several weeks ago the Presidential Advisory Committee on Persian Gulf War Veterans Illnesses indicated that it will be recommending to the President that an independent agency outside of the Pentagon take responsibility for investigating the health effects of low level chemical and biological weapons exposure. According to Arthur L. Kaplan, a bio-ethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and a member of that panel, ``The Pentagon is not credible to continue inquiries that veterans and the public do not find persuasive.'' The New York Times writes in discussing that issue: A special White House panel said today that the Pentagon had lost so much credibility in its investigation of the release of Iraqi chemical weapons in the 1991 Persian Gulf War that oversight of the investigation must be taken away from the Defense Department permanently. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform my colleagues that there is language in the committee report of Labor-HHS, which passed the House today, language which I introduced, which funds an independent, scientific research program, into how chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf relate to the illnesses suffered by 70,000 of our veterans. This research program is to be implemented through the Secretary of Health, with the National Institute of Environmental Health Science as the lead agency. The committee has agreed to appropriate $1.1 million for next year and $7 million over a 5-year period. What is important here, and it is very important, is that for the first time a governmental agency outside of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs is going to take a hard look at the role that chemicals may have played in causing gulf war illness. This is a major breakthrough, and we have to continue in that effort. This report language is strongly supported by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the National Gulf War Resource Center. Veterans and Americans all over this country are, to say the least, less than impressed about the role that DOD and VA have played in this entire process from the very end of the war until today. Mr. Speaker, the military theater in the Persian Gulf was a chemical cesspool. Our troops were exposed to chemical warfare agents, leaded petroleum, widespread use of pesticides, depleted uranium, and burning oil wells. In addition, they were given a myriad of pharmaceuticals as vaccines. Further, and perhaps most importantly, as a result of a waiver from the FDA, hundreds of thousands of our troops were given pyridostigmine bromide, which was being used as an antinerve gas agent, had never been used in this capacity before. Under an agreement between the DOD and the FDA in regards to this waiver, the DOD was required to collect data on any use of pyridostigmine bromide. However, they failed to do that. Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to make some progress by going outside of the DOD and the VA. It is a breakthrough. We have to continue in that direction in order to address this enormously serious problem. For 5 years, the Pentagon denied that our soldiers had been exposed to any chemical warfare agents. Finally, after being forced to admit that there were exposures, they suggested that the exposures were ``limited''. The DOD's first estimates were 400 troops exposed, then 20,000 troops. In July of this year, the DOD and DIA gave us their best estimate--that as many as 98,910 American troops could have been exposed to chemical warfare agents due to destruction of ``the Pit'' in Khamisyah, an Iraqi munitions facility. Mr. Chairman, I would not be surprised if this estimate is revised upward in the not too distant future, as more information is gathered regarding other incidents of chemical warfare exposure. Mr. Speaker, an increasing number of scientists now believe that the synergistic effect of chemical exposures, plus the investigational vaccine pyridostigmine bromide, may well be a major cause of the health problems affecting our soldiers: Dr. Robert W. Haley of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center concludes that the gulf war syndromes are caused by low level chemical nerve agents combined with other chemicals, including pyridostigmine bromide. Doctors Mohammed Abou-Donia and Tom Kurt, of Duke University Medical Center, in studies using hens, found that a combination of two pesticides used in the gulf war, in combination with pyridostigmine bromide causes neurological deficits in test animals, similar to those reported by some gulf war veterans Doctors Garth and Nancy Nicolson have completed research which concludes that gulf war veterans' illnesses may be due to combinations of chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf. Dr. Claudia Miller reports that there are similarities between the gulf war veterans' symptoms and those of some civilians exposed to organophosphate pesticides, carbamate pesticides, or low levels of volatile organic chemical mixtures. Dr. William Rea concludes that neurotoxic environmental exposures and other personal exposures prior to and during deployment in the gulf may have resulted in chronically deregulated immune and nonimmune detoxification systems, resulting in multi-symptom illness. In addition, a number of these scientists and physicians have devised treatment protocols for gulf war illnesses and some are reporting success in their treatments. These are the types of research programs and treatment protocols which our Government should be aggressively pursuing for the sake of our veterans, and what I hope will be accelerated as a result of this language. The National Institute of Environmental Health is eager and ready to begin research and to provide its results to Congress in an expedient manner. This research program will address three areas of which are necessary to better understand the nature of the problem. These are: First, capitalizing on the existing body of knowledge of a similar disorder called multiple chemical sensitivity, second, defining individual genetic differences in the ability to metabolize environmental agents commonly encountered during Desert Storm, and third, developing a better understanding of how multiple exposures interact to exert their toxicity on an organism. Moreover, the research program is to include an investigation of treatment protocols which are being developed in the public and private sectors for illnesses resulting from chemical and other environmental exposures.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that American workers must compete for jobs with as many as 200 million defenseless children working around the world today without any hope of ever seeing the inside of a classroom. Many of these abused children are making products exported for sale in our shopping malls, sporting goods stores, and oriental rug shops all across America. Even some of our Fourth of July fireworks were most probably made by children in India, China, and elsewhere. Consider the plight of millions of child laborers, some as young as 4 years old, who are sold into virtual slavery, that is, bonded and indentured laborers, and chained to looms for 14-hours a day hand knotting the oriental rugs that grace the foyers and living rooms of countless homes and offices all across our country. Exploited children toil in factories, mines, fields, at looms, and even in brothels, sacrificing their youth, health, and innocence for little or no wages. They are hand-stitching the Nike and Adidas soccer balls that our kids practice with every day. The very same soccer balls that were used at the Atlanta Olympics last year. They are sewing the blouses and slacks that Kathie Lee Gifford was paid $7 million a year to promote for Wal-Mart stores until she was embarrassed last year. They are making Mattel Barbie dolls that little girls all across America play with every day. Sadly it took Kathie Lee's embarrassment in the national media last year for many Americans to confront this dirty little secret of the global marketplace: millions of Americans are buying soccer balls, toys, and clothing for our own kids that are made by brutally exploited children in many of the foreign countries with which we have growing trade deficits. This situation is totally unacceptable and there are actions we can take to stop this affront to basic human decency. That is why I am sponsoring legislation--the Bonded Child Labor Elimination Act--to prohibit the importing of any products made by child slaves. This bill deals with one of the most outrageous forms of exploitation in international trade today--imports made by bonded children who are sold into slavery, some as young as 3 years old. It would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 which for decades has banned the importing of products into America that are made by adult prison or forced labor. It would simply extend that ban to products made by bonded child labor. I firmly believe trade is not an end in itself, but a means toward attaining more economic justice, social responsibility, and environmental sustainability in the U.S. and the global economy. To knee-jerk free traders, I say that hundreds of millions of children working in hazardous jobs in back alleys instead of going to school is unacceptable. That these defenseless, exploited children should be forced to work under brutal conditions that can kill or maim them for life is outrageous. That most adults turn a blind eye to this cruelty and provide a market for this suffering is inexcusable. The fact that current trade rules at the GATT and World Trade Organization go to great lengths to protect property rights, while ignoring the rights of working people, especially children, says much more about the heartless priorities and greed of doctrinaire free trade advocates than their logic and ethics. Inside and outside the halls of Government, we have the power to change this sorry state of affairs. Access to the American marketplace is powerful leverage that should be used to encourage foreign producers and importers to treat defenseless children with dignity and not contempt. We cannot accept any longer the shameful, outdated trade policies that force American workers to compete with exploited children. Ask yourself this question: what does it say about our country that we have numerous import laws and consumer campaigns to protect endangered plants and animals, but we have no law or consumer campaigns to protect children consigned to practical slavery? Some teenagers in Vermont have already begun to speak out and demand action in defense of kids overseas who cannot help themselves. I applaud their human rights leadership and hope more of you will report on their efforts and get involved yourselves.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, 6 years after the Persian Gulf war, 70,000 veterans of that war, including hundreds in my State of Vermont, continue to suffer. Six years after the Persian Gulf war, the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration acknowledge that they do not know the cause of that illness and have not developed an effective treatment protocol. Six years after that war, the General Accounting Office and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illness have discussed at length the ineptitude of the DOD and the VA in addressing that issue. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that within the Labor-HHS bill there is now an appropriation of $7 million over a 5-year period to go to an outside agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, so that they can begin to study the cause of the chemical impact on gulf war illness and hopefully develop a treatment. It is about time we went outside of the DOD and the VA. It is a major step forward, and I thank the chairman of that committee for his effort in this direction.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Porter, Congressman Bill Young, ranking member Dave Obey, and their staffs at the Appropriations Committee for all of the help that they have provided me in attempting to address one of the most important issues facing American veterans, and one of the great medical dilemmas facing our entire country. And that is that over 70,000 Persian Gulf veterans, including hundreds in my own State of Vermont, continue to suffer from gulf war illness, and that 6 years after that war's completion, there is still no understanding of the cause of that illness or an effective treatment. As you know Chris Shays, the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee has held 10 hearings on gulf war illness since March 1996. As a member of that committee, I cannot begin to express to you the frustration that many of us feel regarding the ineptitude of the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration in responding adequately and effectively to the needs of those veterans who continue to hurt. Pure and simple, the bottom line is that 6 years after the end of the Persian Gulf war, the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration still have not developed an understanding of the cause of gulf war illnesses or an effective treatment protocol. In fact, their record has been so inadequate that last week the Presidential Advisory Committee on Persian Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses indicated that it will be recommending to the President that an independent agency, outside of the Pentagon, take on responsibility for investigating the health effects of low level chemical and biological weapons exposures. According to Arthur L. Caplan, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the panel, ``the Pentagon is not credible to continue inquiries that veterans and the public do not find persuasive.'' And the New York Times writes, ``a special White House panel said today, that the Pentagon had lost so much credibility in its investigation of the release of Iraqi chemical weapons in the 1991 Persian Gulf War that oversight of the investigation must be taken away from the Defense Department permanently.'' Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform my colleagues that there is language in the Labor-HHS Appropriations Committee report which funds an independent scientific research program into how chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf relate to the illnesses suffered by as many as 70,000 of our veterans. This research program is to be implemented through the Secretary of Health, with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as the lead agency. The committee has agreed to appropriate $1.1 million for fiscal year 1998 for this important research, and has committed to fund this research program at a level of $7 million over a 5-year period. What is important here is that for the first time, a governmental entity outside the Pentagon or the Veterans Administration will be looking at the role that chemicals may have played in gulf war illness--and that is a major breakthrough. This report language is strongly supported by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the National Gulf War Resource Center. Veterans and Americans all over this country are less than impressed, to say the least, about the role of the DOD and the VA in this entire process. Mr. Speaker, the military theater in the Persian Gulf was a chemical cesspool. Our troops were exposed to chemical warfare agents, leaded petroleum, widespread use of pesticides, depleted uranium, and burning oil wells. In addition, they were given a myriad of pharmaceuticals as vaccines. Further, and perhaps most importantly, as a result of waiver from the FDA, hundreds of thousands of troops were given pyridostigmine bromide. Pyridostigmine bromide, which was being used as an antinerve gas agent, had never been used in this capacity before. Under an agreement between the DOD and the FDA in regards to this waiver, the DOD was required to collect data on any use of pyridostigmine bromide. However, the DOD failed to keep this data and in many cases, there are no records to indicate who even took this investigational drug, how much they took, and under what conditions they took it. For 5 years, the Pentagon denied that our soldiers had been exposed to any chemical warfare agents. Finally, after being forced to admit that there were exposures, they suggested that the exposures were limited. The DOD's first estimates were 400 troops exposed, then 20,000 troops. In July of this year, the DOD and CIA gave us their best estimate--that as many as 98,910 American troops could have been exposed to chemical warfare agents due to destruction of ``the Pit'' in Khamisyah, an Iraqi munitions facility. Mr. Chairman, I would not be surprised if this estimate is revised upward in the not too distant future, as more information is gathered regarding other incidents of chemical warfare exposure. Mr. Speaker, an increasing number of scientists now believe that the synergistic effect of chemical exposures, plus the investigational vaccine pyridostigmine bromide, may well be a major cause of the health problems affecting our soldiers. Dr. Robert W. Haley of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center concludes that the gulf war syndromes are caused by low-level chemical nerve agents combined with other chemicals, including pyridostigmine bromide. Doctors Mohammed Abou-Donia and Tom Kurt, of Duke University Medical Center, in studies using hens, found that a combination of two pesticides used in the gulf war, in combination with pyridostigmine bromide causes neurological deficits in test animals, similar to those reported by some gulf war veterans. Dr. Satu Somani and Doctors Garth and Nancy Nicolson have all completed research which concludes that gulf war veterans' illnesses may be due to combinations of chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf. Dr. Claudia Miller reports that there are similarities between the gulf war veterans' symptoms and those of some civilians exposed to organophosphate pesticides, carbamate pesticides, or low levels of volatile organic chemical mixtures. Dr. William Rea concludes that neurotoxic environmental exposures and other personal exposures prior to and during deployment in the gulf may have resulted in chronically deregulated immune and nonimmune detoxification systems, resulting in multisymptom illness. In addition a number of these scientists and physicians have devised treatment protocols for gulf war illnesses and some are reporting success in their treatments. These are the types of research programs and treatment protocols which our Government should be aggressively pursuing for the sake of our veterans, and what I hope will be accelerated as a result of this language. The National Institute of Environmental Health is eager and ready to begin research and to provide its results to Congress in an expedient manner. This research program will address three areas of which are necessary to better understand the nature of the program. These are: First, capitalizing on the existing body of knowledge of a similar disorder called multiple chemical sensitivity, second, defining individual genetic differences in the ability to metabolize environmental agents commonly encountered during Desert Storm, and third, developing a better understanding of how multiple exposures interact to exert their toxicity on an organism. Moreover, the research program is to include an investigation of treatment protocols which are being developed in the public and private sectors for illnesses resulting from chemical and other environmental exposures. Once again, I'd like to thank Chairman Porter and the Appropriations Committee and staff for their cooperation in this effort. I look forward to learning about the progress of this research program as it is implemented, upon enactment of this bill.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about some report language and then enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by very much thanking the gentleman from Illinois, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and their staffs for all the help that they have provided me in attempting to try to address one of the most important issues facing American veterans and one of the great medical dilemmas facing our country, and that is that over 70,000 Persian Gulf veterans, including hundreds in the State of Vermont, who continue to suffer from Gulf war illness. Mr. Chairman, 6 years after that war's completion, there is still no understanding of the cause of that illness or the development of an effective treatment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, has held 10 hearings on Gulf war illness since March 1996. As a member of that committee, I cannot begin to express the frustration that many of us feel regarding the ineptitude of the Department of Defense and the VA in responding adequately and effectively to the needs of those veterans who continue to hurt. Mr. Chairman, pure and simple, the bottom line is that 6 years after the end of the Persian Gulf war, the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration still have not developed an understanding of the cause of Gulf war illness or an effective treatment protocol. In fact, their record has been so inadequate that last week the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illness indicated that it will be recommending to the President that an independent agency outside of the Pentagon take on responsibility for investigating the health effects of low-level chemical and biological weapons exposures. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to inform my colleagues that there is language in the committee report which funds an independent, scientific research program into how chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf relate to the illnesses suffered by as many as 70,000 of our veterans. This research program is to be implemented through the Secretary of Health with the National Institute of Environmental Health Science as the lead agency. The committee, as I understand it, has agreed to appropriate $1.1 million for fiscal year 1998, and has committed to fund this research program at a level of $7 million over a 5-year period. What is important here is that for the first time a governmental entity outside the Pentagon or the VA will be looking at the role that chemicals may have played in Gulf war illness, and this is a major breakthrough. Mr. Chairman, this report language is strongly supported by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the National Gulf War Resource Center. Veterans and Americans all over this country, to say the least, are less than impressed by what the DOD and the VA have done and are looking for an alternative methodology for getting some real research into the cause of that terrible problem. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Let me begin by saying once again that I would like to thank the gentleman for his cooperation in this important effort. The report language is an important step in the effort to understand the health effects of chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf. The report language does not address specifically what amount of money is to be appropriated for fiscal year 1998 for this research program. It is my understanding from discussions with the Committee on Appropriations staff that the committee intends that $1.1 million be spent for this purpose in fiscal year 1998. It is also my understanding that the committee intends that $7 million be allocated to this program over the next 5 years. Mr. Chairman, I would like assurances from the gentleman from Illinois that these are the amounts which the Committee on Appropriations is committed to providing

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Illinois very much for his help on this important issue, and I thank his staff as well.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Does my friend from California, and I will have to ask him to use his own time to answer the question, really feel that it is appropriate that when last year the average American worker saw a 2.8 percent increase in his income, which means that millions of workers in the so- called boom saw a decline in their real wages, do you really think there is something appropriate or right about our economic system when one man saw a $24 billion increase in his income while millions of working people saw a decline in their real wages? This, I should tell my friends, is in the midst of an economic boom. Do we think it is appropriate that the United States continues to have by far the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world, with the richest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent? Is this something we are proud of? The fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty while millionaires and billionaires in the country proliferate and that this tax bill would only make that gap between the rich and the poor even wider?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me give my colleagues several reasons why we should defeat this tax proposal, bring it back to the drawing board and come up with something new. No. 1, if we are interested in a balanced budget as quickly as possible, vote ``no.'' Without this tax proposal, economists tell us that in 1 year or 2 years, we will move toward a balanced budget. With this proposal, the deficit will go up in the next several years and it will take us 5 years to move toward a balanced budget. So vote no if you want to get toward a balanced budget as quickly as possible. The second issue, and that is what this chart deals with, is that, if you are interested in helping middle income and working families rather than the rich and the superrich, you should also oppose this legislation. Last year Bill Gates had a good year, a very good year. His personal wealth went from $18 billion to $42 billion, an increase in wealth of $24 billion in 1 year. Putting that into perspective, if you are an average American worker and you saw a 3-percent increase in your compensation, that would mean that you earned $1,000 more last year. That means that 24 million American middle-class workers saw an increase in 1 year equal to what Bill Gates saw an increase in his income last year; 24 million workers, middle-class workers, not low wage workers, end up seeing an increase collectively compared to one man. The issue we are debating is who do we want to help with this tax proposal. If you want to help Bill Gates and his friends, vote ``yes''. But if you want to help middle-income and working families, vote ``no''. It is wrong that the upper 1 percent receive more in tax breaks than do the bottom 80 percent. Vote no.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, yes, I also am opposed to this absurd bill. I think that millions of Americans will wonder why many leaders in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have come together on such an unfair piece of legislation which primarily benefits the very rich at the expense of millions and millions of other people. Let us take a hard look at the two proposals that this Congress dealt with yesterday and today. First, in order to cut spending, the Congress yesterday voted to cut $115 billion from Medicare over a 5-year period and $385 billion over 10 years. That means that elderly people all over this country will see a lower quality of health care at a time when many of them cannot even afford their prescription drugs. Furthermore, Congress yesterday voted to cut the administration of Social Security by 23 percent, or a billion dollars, which means that when the elderly people and others want information or want to get on Social Security, it will take them longer to do that. Further, Congress voted a $13 billion cut in Medicaid over 5 years. That money goes to hospitals that are primarily serving low income people, exactly the hospitals that are having financial difficulties today. Congress voted to cut veterans benefits. Thank you, veterans, for putting your life on the line. Voted to cut discretionary health programs by 16 percent, voted to cut community and regional development by 29 percent. The result of those cuts means that for senior citizens and for others, life will be harder. Were there positive programs passed yesterday? Yes, there were. I support those positive programs. But today let us look at why we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security administration and the veterans. What are we going to do? Why did we cut? Well, it looks like today we are going to be dealing with a tax package. What is in that tax package? Well, under this tax package the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans will receive almost half of the tax cuts. The upper 20 percent will receive over 70 percent of the benefits. What is going on in America today? Everybody in the world except the leadership of Congress understands. The rich are getting richer. The middle class is being squeezed. Low income people are working for lower wages than was the case 20 years ago. Last year our friend Bill Gates, having a tough time, his income, his wealth went from $18 billion to $42 billion, a $24 billion increase for one man's wealth, $24 billion. Bill Gates will do very well by this tax bill. Good luck, Bill, maybe you will make even more than 24 billion next year. But if you are a single working person or you are a family that does not have any kids, guess what? You are not going to do very well by this tax bill. The fact of the matter is that the average tax break for middle- income families will be about $200. But, this is the Congress after all, we know where the money comes from to elect people. If you are among the richest 1 percent, you are not going to get a $200 tax break, you are going to get a $16,000 tax break. The wealthiest 1 percent will receive more in tax breaks than the bottom 80 percent. Vote ``no.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the legislation that we received this morning. On principle, nobody in this House should vote for legislation which he does not understand, has not seen, and contains hundreds and hundreds of pages with many provisions that we know nothing about. But Mr. Speaker, we do know some of the aspects that we are going to be asked to vote on. We do know that in a time when millions of elderly people are unable to pay for their prescription drugs, when they are paying more and more for private insurance to cover what Medicare does not cover, we do know that we are going to be asked to cut Medicare by $115 billion. That is wrong. We also know there are significant cuts in the Social Security Administration and in veterans programs. That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, in order to pay for the cuts in Medicare, in the Social Security Administration, and in veterans programs, what the Congress is proposing is to provide huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, unfortunately; precisely the people who do not need it. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans will receive almost half of the tax cuts. The upper 20 percent will receive over 70 percent of the benefits. The upper 1 percent, when this plan is full-blown, the upper 1 percent will receive more benefits from this package than the bottom 80 percent. So the people who really need the help are not getting the help. The people who do not need the help are getting more help than they are entitled to. Under this plan, the average tax cut for middle-income families and individuals will be less than $200. The wealthiest 1 percent, however, will receive over $16,000 in tax breaks. As the New York Times said today in an editorial, and I quote: Even after last minute horse trading around the edges, the deal remains unfairly tilted in favor of the better off citizens of society. It drills scores of new loopholes into the tax code, mostly for the benefit of very wealthy families at the cost of opening up large deficits early next century conveniently beyond the 10-year period that the deal tracks. In other words, what is going to happen is, 10 years from now, when we have all of these loopholes for the wealthy and for large corporations, we are going to be back here again with another huge deficit and we are going to have Members here saying, we have got to cut more into Medicare, more into Social Security, more into veterans programs, more into housing. So my friends, before we pass a budget like this, first of all, have the courage to look at it and, second of all, let us not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable in order to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of Congress to take a hard look at reality, at what really is going on in this country. Do we want the United States to have the strongest military in the world? I think we do. Do we already have that capability? Have we already, along with our other NATO allies, greatly, greatly, many times overspent all of our potential enemies? And the answer is yes. I ask my friends who are opposing the Obey-Dellums amendment to think about priorities. If they want the strongest military in the world, OK; but are they happy with the fact that we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world? Is that something that Members of this Congress should be proud of? Should we be talking about spending over a period of years $27 billion more for B-2 bombers, and then telling millions of kids who are ill-fed, ill-housed, ill- educated, that in this great Nation we do not have the resources to help them, but we can build B-2 bombers? My answer is, no, those are absurd priorities. There are people here who day after day talk about the national debt and our deficit. They say we have to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid and education. Let me tell them, spending $27 billion for B-2 bombers also runs up the national debt. That is real money. Recently we have been talking about major cutbacks in Medicare, $115 billion. There are some who say we should charge low-income senior citizens $5 for every home health care visit, which can amount to some $700 a year for a low-income senior citizen trying to get by on $9,000 a year. People say, yes, that is what we have to do to balance the budget. Then the next thing, they come back and say, oh, yes, but we can spend $27 billion for B-2 bombers. I think those are very false priorities. Let us talk about job creation. All of us want job creation in America. Do Members know how we can do it? We can do it by putting more money into school construction. We can do it by building roads and bridges and protecting our infrastructure, which is falling apart all over America. We can do this by educating more people. When we talk about national priorities, let us understand, there are millions of middle-class families who today cannot afford to send their kids to college. What we are saying to those people is no, we do not have enough money to make sure that your kids can go to college so they can make it into the middle class, but yes, no problem, over a period of time we can build nine more B-2 bombers that the Pentagon says they do not want, for a cost of $27 billion. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to understand that we are playing with a zero-sum game. We just cannot print more and more money. Let us get our priorities straight. Let us support the Dellums-Obey amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would just ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] if he thinks that is enough time to accommodate this side to make their presentations.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am bringing forth is a very simple amendment. It is a chance for Members in the House to support their National Guard to increase funding for an educational program that represents just the kind of policy initiatives we need for young people in this country. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States, will increase funding by $2 million for the National Guard star based program, bringing the program up to the President's request of $4 million. The star based public outreach program is administered by the National Guard and targets youth in grades 4 through 6, it is the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, to learn, hands on, with Guard pilots and technicians about math, science, and technology and to stay off of drugs. Mr. Chairman, the star based program, my amendment brings funding for the National Guard star based program up to the $4 million requested by the President. This is, I think, exactly what we want to do in our communities. We talk a whole lot about asking kids to stay off of drugs. What this program does is have people from the National Guard interact with young people, explain to them the planes in the air work for certain reasons and get young kids excited in math and science, and the studies that have been done on the results of this program are excellent. More and more kids have an interest in math, they have an interest in science. It is a wonderful program for the National Guard, and it has been very successful.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida very much and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.