Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who is a leader on this issue and has a related freestanding bill which I am happy to have cosponsored. The purpose of this amendment is simple. It will reverse an ill- conceived policy at the VA to forbid outreach to veterans who may be eligible for VA health care. This policy is unacceptable. The men and women who have put their lives on the line for this country should be fully informed of the benefits that their service has earned them. Finally, let me thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, who I understand have agreed to accept this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

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

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my colleague for his statement. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the priorities of this country when we have men and women who have put their lives on the line, who in Vermont and all over this country are on waiting lists, people who served this country and who are thrown off of VA health care. When we talk about giving huge tax breaks to people who do not need it and then say that we do not have $1.8 billion for our veterans, that is absolutely outrageous. And I want to commend my friend for his efforts.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much and I thank the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, as the first Member of the Congress to take constituents across the Canadian border in order to purchase safe and affordable medicine, I have been involved in the issue of reimportation for many years; and the reason for that is, I will never forget the look on the faces of Vermont women who went with me across the border, who were struggling with breast cancer, and they were able to purchase in Canada Tamoxifen, the widely prescribed breast cancer drug, for one-tenth the price that they were paying in the United States, women fighting for their lives, same product, same company, one-tenth the price. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what this debate is all about. Those of us who are sick and tired of seeing Americans being forced to pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs are taking on the most powerful lobby in the country. In the last several years, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their profits the highest of any industry and to make Americans pay the highest prices in the world. If people are on Capitol Hill today, they will see a swarm of hundreds of paid lobbyists trying to defeat this legislation. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that the pharmaceutical industry lies and lies and lies again. Whether it is telling Americans that this issue has something to do with abortion, it is a lie. Whether it is telling advocates for low-income people that a two-tier prescription drug system will be set up, it is a lie, and the safety issue is a lie. They are going to bring out their charts of rat-infested laboratories where medicine is made. It is a lie. Today, Mr. Speaker, we eat food, pork bellies and beef that come from Canada, vegetables that come from Latin America, food products that come from China. We can safely import FDA-safety-approved products, and that is what we have got to do.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I became involved in this issue several years ago when I took women who were struggling with breast cancer across the border from Vermont and they were able to purchase the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen for one-tenth of the price that they paid in the United States. Mr. Speaker, tonight we must end the national disgrace of Americans being forced to pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Tonight, in terms of safety, we must understand that one million Americans have gone to Canada to buy their medicine without one death, without one problem. To the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), yes, the death of one baseball player is a tragedy; but it is a far greater tragedy that millions of elderly people in this country are suffering, and in some cases dying, because they cannot afford prescription drugs. And the issue tonight is do we stand up to the money interests and protect the American people or are they going to buy the House of the people? Let us stand tall.

Mr. SANDERS

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I do understand, the gentleman is quite right. This is not the cleanest way to address the issue. I would have preferred to do it yesterday; but as the gentleman knows, because of an agreement that was reached, a number of Republicans and those of us on this side were unable to offer the amendments that we wanted to offer. I think there may be a few other speakers who would like to speak to this issue, and I thank the chairman very much for his support.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if I understand it, my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has agreed to accept this amendment. I thank the gentleman very much for doing that and I appreciate it.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment on a very important issue, namely, the government's authority under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to access library circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet records, book seller sales records, or book seller customer lists. Specifically, this amendment bars the State Department from providing support for an application under section 215 to get library and book seller records. Mr. Chairman, this is a version of the amendment that I attempted to offer yesterday and am offering it tonight. Mr. Chairman, in the United States today, there is a great concern about terrorism. All of us are concerned about terrorism. Our country suffered a dastardly and horribly destructive attack on September 11, 2001; and every Member of this body is determined to do all that we can to fight terrorism and to apprehend those people who are at war against our country. But many of us believe that that fight against terrorism must be waged in a way that does not undermine the basic constitutional rights and protections that have made us a great and free country. The very good news that I bring to my colleagues tonight is that all across the United States, more and more citizens, including thousands of librarians and book sellers, are speaking out against the extremely antidemocratic elements of the USA PATRIOT Act legislation that was hastily passed in the wake of the September 11 attack. And just yesterday, in an amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), this House overwhelmingly said that we will deal with that issue piece by piece. I am proud of the effort that the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and many of us made to say, yes, we will fight terrorism; but we will do it in a way that protects our Constitution. Mr. Chairman, specifically, under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the government can get a search warrant for any tangible thing. They can go into a library and say, we are doing an investigation on international terrorism. And having said that, a judge in a secret FISA court is obliged to give them a warrant to go into a library, to go into the bookstore, so that they can secure the reading habits, the books taken out, the books being purchased by any American. All of us want to support law enforcement going after terrorism, but we do not want to give the FBI the opportunity to go into a fishing expedition. Mr. Chairman, all across this country, people are saying ``no'' to this aspect, section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The underlying legislation that I have introduced has 129 bipartisan cosponsors, some of the most conservative Members of the House, some of the most progressive Members of the House: Democrats, Republicans, Independent. This concept has been supported by 20 newspapers, major newspapers: the Los Angeles Times, the Detroit Free Press, the Christian Science Monitor, the Honolulu Advertiser, and on and on. This legislation, this concept has the support of librarians all across the country, including the American Library Association. It has the support of book sellers all across this country, including the American Book Sellers Association. The bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, is that 129 Members of this House have said, yes, we will fight terrorism; but, no, we will not undermine the basic constitutional rights that make us a free country. Over 125 communities, large cities, small towns, have come on board this issue. Libraries in California and elsewhere have been forced to put up signs saying: library patron, we cannot protect your privacy. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that I speak for the majority of the Members of this House who say, yes, let us fight terrorism; but let us do it in a way that keeps our country free, that does not have the United States Government and the FBI looking over our shoulders as we take our books from the library or purchase books in a bookstore.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the reality here is that throughout this country today, over 100 cities and towns have spoken out, including three States, with deep concern about various aspects of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. For many people, conservatives and progressives, the decline of civil liberties in this country and the ability of the FBI to go into libraries and bookstores is an issue of enormous concern. It is beyond my comprehension why that issue cannot be debated on the floor of the House. Maybe my amendment would win. We have 130 cosponsors. Maybe it would lose, but when we talk about the democracy, how can we not debate an issue of enormous consequence regarding civil liberties, and that has been my simple request.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I think the problem, Mr. Chairman, is when the gentleman indicates that other people are also impacted negatively by this process. It suggests that the process we worked on today, or that my colleague and others engaged in, was a faulty process. It is not my intention to bring this body to a halt, and I will not ask for another motion to rise; but I must say, nobody should be happy that the American people are not going to have a debate on one of the most important constitutional issues facing this country. This process was very, very faulty; and I think it is unfortunate that that occurred.

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

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would allow me to make the point.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me review the situation and set the facts right. Number one, historically, it has been my experience, and I think the experience of many Members, that when one files an amendment, when it is placed in the Congressional Record, that, in every instance that I can recall, when one asks for unanimous consent to make a minor modification, that unanimous consent is granted.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, no, that is not correct.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I find myself feeling good that once today I can agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and that is that the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has brought forth a very important amendment which is addressing an issue that I believe millions of Americans from very different political perspectives, whether they are conservatives, like the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), or progressives like myself, or people in between, are demanding a tough examination of, and that is the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. Everybody in our country knows that on 9-11, 2001, a dastardly attack took place against our country and 3,000 innocent people were killed. And every Member of this Chamber pledges to do everything that we can to protect the American people from other acts of terrorism and to do everything that we can to wipe out terrorism throughout the world. But what some of us very strongly believe is that we should not be undermining basic American constitutional rights in the fight against terrorism. We have strong law enforcement capabilities in this country to fight terrorism, and we have to support our law enforcement officials to do that. But we can fight terrorism without denying the American people their basic constitutional rights, and that is the point that I think the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is making today. As my colleagues know, I am very disappointed on a similar issue, section 215, which deals with the FBI going into libraries and book stores all over this country with virtually no probable cause. That issue is not being debated. But I applaud my friend from Idaho for demanding that this body begin, just begin to take a hard look at the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which passed so swiftly through this body where I think many honest Members will acknowledge that they really did not have the time to look at all aspects of that legislation. So I rise in strong support of the Otter amendment, and I hope that it carries.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment, which is, in many ways, consistent with legislation that I introduced which has 90 cosponsors. Mr. Chairman, I think Thomas Jefferson, Tom Payne, James Madison, and some of the other Founding Fathers of our country understood the issue that we are discussing today very well. It is a problem in our society that in industry after industry fewer and fewer large corporations control those industries. I think that is a very serious economic problem for this country. But it is a very different and even much more serious problem when a handful of large corporations control what the American people see, hear and read. This is not just an economic problem. This is a problem that gets to the root of American democracy. How can we vote intelligently? How can we come to reasonable positions on all of the important issues facing America unless we hear a diverse point of view? I think most Americans understand that there is something profoundly wrong. For example, one example, in a Nation which is politically divided, where Al Gore got more votes than George Bush, where if you turn on talk radio in America the only debate that you hear on corporate radio is a debate between the right wing and the extreme right wing. That is not, in my view, an accident. I think that many Americans understand that some of the most important issues facing our country, the devastating loss of manufacturing jobs, the fact that the minimum wage has not been raised in many, many years, the fact that we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major country, the fact that we are the only major nation on Earth that does not have a national health care program, the fact that we have so little discussion about these important issues certainly is related to the fact that the people who own our television industry are, without exception, major multinational corporations. We have General Electric owning NBC, Disney owning ABC, Viacom owning CBS, the right-wing millionaire Rupert Murdock owning Fox, Time Warner owning CNN. I would remind Members of Congress never to forget that in the waning days of the authoritarian Soviet Union, there was not just one television station or one radio station or one newspaper, there were hundreds of radio stations and television stations and magazines and newspapers. The only problem was that all of that media was controlled by either the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the Government of the Soviet Union. So the idea that we have many, many newspapers or magazines or cable television stations is meaningless when we understand that virtually all of them are owned by a handful of large corporations who have enormous conflicts of interest. What the Hinchey amendment is saying, and I think the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with him, is that it will be a very dangerous day in this country when people who live in midsize cities find that one company owns their television station and their radio station and their local newspaper. Is that, my friends, what American democracy is supposed to be about? I think most of us think that it is not. Now, I have heard some discussion about political tactics, about how dangerous it would be to pass this amendment. I would suggest that those people who are talking that language are playing inside-the- Beltway baseball and they are forgetting about the heat and the passion and the concern that tens of millions of people on the outside feel about this issue. I can only tell you of my own experience in Vermont. We held a town meeting with Michael Copps of the FCC, and 600 people came out. We held another meeting where 400 people came out. And I believe that this feeling of concern about growing media consolidation exists all over the country. When the FCC allowed for people's opinion to come forward, 750,000 Americans contacted the FCC and 99 percent said, do not go forward with more media consolidation. In my own city of Burlington, we used to have a number of radio stations reporting local news. Today there is one. Let us support the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me express my disagreement with my good friend, because let me tell him this. I want the President of the United States to go in front of the national media and say, I am vetoing this bill because I believe in more media consolidation. I think fewer large corporations should control what we see, hear, and read. I want the President of the United States to do that. Mr. Chairman, I think he is smart enough not to do that.