Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in very strong support of the Obey amendment. I must say that I find the arguments being made against the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to be very, very curious indeed. Frankly, I think the American people will find it very difficult to understand how we as a Nation cannot afford another $6.5 billion to protect ourselves against bioterrorism, to make sure that our airlines are safe, to make sure that the people of this country have adequate health care in, God forbid, the event of a terrible attack against us. We cannot afford that $6.5 billion, but somehow or another we can afford hundreds of billions of dollars in the last year for tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population and for the largest corporations in America. Tell that sense of logic to the American people. When our people get on airplanes, they want to know that the baggage on that plane is safely inspected. When people walk into airports, they want to know that the people who are doing security are properly trained. My State borders the Canadian border. The people in Vermont and throughout this country want to know that our border security is strong. So I would strongly urge the Members to get their priorities right. If we can afford hundreds of billions in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, we can provide strong security for the American people against bioterrorism.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). Mr. Chairman, today we are talking about bioterrorism and how to protect the American people against this nightmare, and that is an appropriate subject of discussion and something that the American people want us to address. But we must be frank and say that if, God forbid, this country was ever subjected to a major terrorist attack in terms of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, we must admit that we currently do not have the public health infrastructure to deal with such a crisis. This bill contains many important provisions to fill that gap, and I support those provisions, but it still leaves a very large hole. Mr. Chairman, 44 million Americans have no health insurance or any primary care physician, and tens of millions more are inadequately insured. In the event of a national medical emergency, where would these people turn for medical assistance? How, in an orderly and effective way, would millions of people receive the medications and medical care they need on the same day? In my view, the United States Government must make certain that every community in America, in our large cities and in our rural small towns, have a public health capability for treating all people, regardless of income, regardless of geographical location. It is inconceivable to me that we can talk seriously about addressing the nightmare of bioterrorism without addressing the issue of public health infrastructure. We can have all the medicine we want, we can have all the vaccines we want, and we must have that, but they will not do us any good if there is not a public health infrastructure to make sure that that medicine is adequately and effectively distributed and that all people are able to get the health care that they need. That will not be easy. Mr. Chairman, this amendment begins to address that problem by providing $100 million in additional funding for federally qualified community health centers. The good news here is that we are not reinventing the wheel in this area, because FQHCs have already shown in urban areas and in rural areas that they can provide quality health care to all people at a very cost-effective rate. Mr. Chairman, FQHCs already exist in every State in this country and are widely recognized as doing a great job. They have widespread support on both sides of the aisle and from President Bush and Secretary of Health and Human Services Thompson. The only problem is that there are not enough of them, and if we are serious about protecting the American people from bioterrorism, we must build more. The bottom line is that every American must know that in the event of a national medical emergency, there is a public health place that they can go to get the drugs that they need and to get the health care they need that does not exist now. And in my view, by expanding the community health center program, we can go a long way in making that access available to all people. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that this is an important amendment, it is widely supported, and I would hope the membership would accept it.

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

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest to my friend that there are provisions in this bill which provide grants through the Rural Outreach Grants Program, which include dental programs, although primarily it is not dental. But I would hope that at conference committee time an effort could be made to expand funding or add funding to that in order to make sure that low-income kids in this country do not continue to have teeth rotting in their mouths.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments. I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, with the hope that all of us can focus on a major crisis that exists all over this country, perhaps most clearly in rural America, and with the hope that we can work together to begin effectively addressing this.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I am going to withdraw because I appreciate the work done by the chairman and ranking member on this issue. But I think when we talk about health care, it is important to raise the point about an aspect of health care that is not getting the attention that it needs, and that I would hope that in conference committee the chairman and the ranking member could help us address it. Mr. Chairman, that deals with the crisis in dental care in the United States of America. I am more than aware of the overall crisis in health care. I strongly support a national health care program that would guarantee health care to every man, woman, and child. I think that we need to make fundamental changes in our health care system. But having said that, it is imperative to talk about something that is very rarely talked about. And that is all over the United States of America, we have children, we have adults, we have senior citizens, who simply cannot gain access to a dental office and get their teeth adequately dealt with. I held a hearing in Montpelier, Vermont several months ago; and I was stunned to learn in my own city of Burlington we have low-income children who have teeth rotting in their mouths who cannot gain access to a dental office. There are many reasons for the dental crisis. Number one, we do not have enough dentists in this country; and many of our dentists are getting old and are retiring. And we are not bringing enough younger people into the dental profession. Second of all, the kind of reimbursement rates we have for dental care on the Medicaid are inadequate. Thirdly, the dental clinics all over this country are not giving adequate support to dentistry. So, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the chairman of the committee, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), if he could give me some assurance that in conference committee we can pay more attention than we have to the dental crisis which exists among low-income people in this country.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I will read fast. It will be done in a minute-and-a-half. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member agreeing to accept the amendment. But the point here is that the bad news, by and large, is that those drugs that were developed at taxpayer expense were given over to the pharmaceutical industry with no assurance that American consumers would not be charged outrageously high prices. The pharmaceutical companies constitute the most profitable industry in America, yet while their profits sore, millions of Americans cannot afford the prescription drugs they desperately need because of the high prices they are forced to pay. That is bad. But what is even worse is that many of these same drugs were developed with taxpayer dollars. Imagine a situation where taxpayers contribute to develop a drug, and then the person who paid taxes to develop that drug cannot afford to buy it. That is an outrage. There are many crises in terms of the high cost of prescription drugs in this country. This amendment deals with one narrow aspect of that problem. If taxpayers in America are going to contribute billions to develop drugs, then when those drugs are marketed by the pharmaceutical industry they must be sold at a reasonable price; and that is what this amendment does. I could list, but I will not, the many, many drugs that receive Federal assistance that are now sold for outrageously high prices. It is time for the United States Congress to stand up to represent the taxpayers and consumers of this country and support this amendment. Let me simply conclude by mentioning with gratitude that last year over 300 Members of this House overwhelmingly supported this amendment. I am very delighted and proud that the chairman and the ranking member are prepared to accept it and that I hope that we can go on tonight.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment to lower the cost of prescription drugs in this country. It is tripartisan and is cosponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). When I first introduced a version of this amendment in 1996, it received 180 votes. Last year, however, it passed 313-109. There is a lot of support for this amendment in this body. I offer it tonight again in the hope that the Senate will agree favorably to it and begin to lower the price of prescription drugs developed with the taxpayers' money through the National Institutes of Health. This amendment is supported by organizations representing millions of American citizens, including Families USA, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Public Citizen. Mr. Chairman, over the years, the taxpayers of this country have contributed billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health for research into new and important drugs, and that research money has paid off. It has worked. Between 1955 and 1992, 92 percent of drugs approved by the FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by the NIH. Today, many of the most widely used drugs in this country dealing with a variety of illnesses were developed through NIH research, and that is very good news for all of us.

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

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would let me finish my statement, I have 2 more minutes. And he is going to accept it. I am happy to hear that.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his strong support.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this summer. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. On Behalf of Stacey Caron and Dalaina Buffum--Regarding Freeing Families From the High Cost of a College Education, May 7, 2001 Congressman Sanders. Stacey, just bring the mike real close so everybody can hear you. This is a very important issue. Stacey Caron. Every day at school, students hear their peers here talking about where they're going to college and who is going to what college. When the students go home at night for dinner, they usually sit down to have dinner with their parents. This is a time to talk about what's going on in everybody's life. I know, when I go home, I always get asked how my day was at school, and my parents are always on my back about college. Did I fill out the applications yet or the scholarship forms? So many students go through twelve years of school and work very hard to get good grades so they can get into a good college, yet many of these honor-roll students' families don't have enough money to send their children through college. It's a complete waste of talent. There are scholarships that are offered to students who excel, but how many students are going to get these scholarships and how much money are they going to get? These questions are not questions students should be asking themselves. After all the hard work students go through in school, they should be able to go to college free of charge as long as they get accepted. Its like hard work isn't enough, you now have to pay to go to college, to get a good job, and be a success in life. To me, that doesn't seem right. Dalaina Buffum. The financial burden of college can sometimes scare students away, only because they are afraid. They aren't ready to make the commitment of leaving home, especially the financial commitment. Most students don't get out of debt until they are in their thirties. How is someone supposed to start a family and their life while they're still paying off debts? We have done research on this topic and discovered a very different system which is used over in Europe. There is a very hard test that each student that wants to go to university has to take. If you pass the exam with a certain grade, you can go to university free of charge. However, if you don't pass the exam, you can't go to college. This is very different, but at the same time proves how much a student is ready and how much they want to go to college and further their education. We believe that there should be a similar system here. This would enable more students who are qualified to go to college, and may boost a student's motivation to succeed in high school so they are ready for the test. We feel that this is an important issue that is worth looking into.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this summer. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. I am asking that these statements be printed in the Congressional Record, as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. On Behalf of Blake Kinkaid, Craig Stevens, and Brittany Chandler regarding tobacco prevention--may 7, 2001 CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: Now we are going up to the Northeast Kingdom and the Northeast Kingdom Youth Services. Who is going to begin? BLAKE KINKAID: Blake Kinkaid. BRITTANY CHANDLER: Brittany Chandler. CRAIG STEVENS: Craig Stevens. BLAKE KINKAID: That's a pretty tough act to follow, you guys. I have been watching it. The whole Napster thing. That is awesome. The cannabis thing. It is kind of hard to follow up on, but Josh, the whole tobacco thing killed a lot more people. He said that cannabis hadn't. Tobacco kills one person every fourteen seconds, different related disease such as cancer, heart disease, or anything like that. My dad, he has been a smoker ever since he was 14. And it has been a big shock to me. Last night, he was put in the hospital because of his heart. He is 40 years old. He just turned 40, and he is having heart problems through all the smoking. It scared the crap out of me, because it is exactly what my grandfather did when he was on his deathbed. Well, emphysema. He had smoked all his life too. And I just realized: Oh, my god! I wonder how many other people have to go through this every day. And it is really hard. and our group, we belong to a group called OVE, Our Voices Exposed, that helps get the prevention world for tobacco. Brittany is a new member who just started, and Craig is with me from the beginning. And we help put out the word about prevention, such as we give kids an alternative activity to do to keep them out of trouble. And Craig will elaborate on it. CRAIG STEVENS: We are going to be having a dance coming up this Friday. CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: Try to speak a little bit louder. We don't have a mike. Sorry. CRAIG STEVENS: We have going to have a dance this Friday, and we have had--what?--three dances in the past. BLAKE KINKAID: Five. CRAIG STEVENS: Five. We had five dances. We have had sliding parties, bowling, pizza parties. We have had a whole lot of stuff I can't remember. BLAKE KINKAID: We have had cookouts at Lake Willoughby and Harvey's Lake sometimes. We have had jamborees down there in the summer, having a battle of the bands, and we had a haunted house that brought over 300 people. Everything we do has a nonsubstance theme. We have these things to try to keep kids off tobacco, and we try to give them something to do. I found the biggest cause of smoking and all other substance use in boredom. that is why I started, just boredom, pretty much. CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: Brittany, do you want to add anything? BRITTANY CHANDLER: Well, most of my friends smoke, and I have noticed that my friends that do smoke, most of them don't do activities and stuff. And so they have nothing to do with their time, and just sit around and smoke and everything. And most of the people are around people that smoke, like their parents and stuff. On Behalf of Danielle Harvey, Andrea Shahan, and Stephanie Gray Regarding OPPOSITION TO PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR ABORTION--May 7, 2001 DANIELLE HARVEY: This year, the Vermont House has discussed the question of making parental notification for abortion a requirement. We feel that this would be making a big mistake. Having to tell your parents you are sexually active is hard enough; having to tell them that you are pregnant as a result could be dangerous, maybe even life-threatening. For this reason, as well as others, some girls delay in telling their parents about the predicament, which could cause some major health risks, such as: When someone goes out of state to avoid parental involvement laws, they are putting themselves at risk during the trip home, because there may be long stretches where medical care is not readily available. Parents who are opposed to abortion Might force their daughters to carry the babies to Term, regardless of any possible or known health or life risks. Or a woman who is pregnant and a few months short of her 18th birthday may wait until she is 18 to have the abortion. A delay of even five days can cause major complication in a procedure. If the government and the state of Vermont, as well as the national government, wants what is best for the nation's youth, they should leave parents out of a girl's decision to have an abortion. The decision is hard enough to make on her own, and adding parents to the situation makes it almost impossible. STEFANIE GRAY: If a child is forced to tell her parents that she is pregnant, then her parents would know that she is sexually active. Most of the time, parents don't approve. Finding out she is sexually active and pregnant could cause verbal or physical abuse by her parents. The girl's parents may force her to go through with the pregnancy, or they may even kick her out. Family breakdown is a major result from girls telling their parents that they're pregnant and want an abortion. Girls that don't have a good relationship with their parents to begin with will probably make it worse and risk abuse. Families with good relationships don't need the law, because they are supportive. Then again, you might lose the family trust. In unsupportive families, the law will be ineffective because the families would be more likely to be abusive and add to the family's problems. ANDREA SHAHAN: Some supporters of parental notification concede that some parents can become abusive when they learn their daughter wants to receive an abortion, and they have offered an option of going before a judge, instead of their parents, to get permission to receive an abortion. This option is known as the judicial waiver. Women who live in sparsely populated areas usually have difficulty receiving a judicial waiver, since easy access to a judge is not possible. Women who live in large cities, however, have easy access to courthouses, therefore not making it fair to many women in the U.S. In receiving a judicial review, confidentiality is not guaranteed. Many teens lack the knowledge and experience of court procedures to obtain a waiver. Students who need to attend their hearings will not be able to do so during school hours. Many of the court judges are very strongly pro-life. Even though the Supreme Court requires judges to issue a waiver if the teen is mature or if an abortion is in her best interests, several judges still deny them a waiver. Judge Nixon, of the District Court in Tennessee estimated that, even under the best Circumstances, the judicial waiver process would take 22 days to complete. This becomes a significant problem, given the time-sensitive nature of pregnancy, and the risk involved in later abortions. Representative Sanders, we oppose any efforts to put into effect parental notification under Vermont law, and we hope that you will oppose any efforts at the federal level as well. Thank you, Mr. Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do remember that. I would ask my friend, yield to him briefly, would he be so kind as to withdraw his objection at this time?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as an act of comity, the gentleman who originally raised the point of order will withdraw it at this time so that Members who feel strongly about this issue will have a chance to debate a life and death issue for hundreds of thousands of family farmers in this country. We understand the germaneness issue, but common courtesy would indicate that you allow many Members to come to the floor of the House and debate this issue. I do not know what my friend from Maine was going to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I have the feeling that he may have asked him how many hearings were held on this issue despite the fact that 165 Members of the Congress, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, Progressives are fighting for this issue. I think he might have asked the gentleman how many hearings were held when 25 States, half of the States in this country, voted to do something for their dairy farmers in supporting the dairy compact. We can argue the merits or the demerits of the dairy compact. It has worked. I am a strong proponent of it. It has helped save family farms. But the more important issue is basic fairness here on the floor of the House. How do you turn your back, especially, I might say, those who believe in devolution, those who say, let the States have power, how do you say to those 25 States who are seeing their family farmers go out of business, their rural economies suffering, how do you say to those people, you cannot even get a hearing on the floor of the House. You cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House. If the Members are so sure of the righteousness of their our ideas, debate the ideas and bring a vote to the floor of the House. Mr. Chairman, I would at least ask as an act of comity, may I have a dialogue with my friend who raised the point of order?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, he yielded. He did not yield back his time. He yielded to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we begin this discussion, I think tonight about the family farmers in the State of Vermont and throughout this country, people who are farming land which has often been in their family's possession for generations, people who work 7 days a week and want nothing more than to leave the land that they own to their kids, some of the very best people in this country. This amendment is being brought forth to help those people not only in the Northeast, but all over this country. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my colleagues from the Northeast, from the Midwest, from the South and other regions of this country for their help in shaping this bill. Let me be frank about saying that this bill is not perfect. It still needs work. But given the crisis facing family-based dairy farmers all over America, given the huge loss of farms that we have all experienced, it is a major step forward and it deserves the support of this body. It is my belief that the Senate is prepared to consider similar type legislation, and that some of the concerns that Members may now have about this bill can be worked out between this time and conference committee time. I will do everything in my power to work with Members to make that happen. Mr. Chairman, in every section of our country, family farmers are being driven off the land because the prices that they receive for their products are woefully inadequate. This is bad for rural America, which is losing its agricultural base. This is bad for the environment, as more and more open land becomes parking lots and shopping centers. This is bad for the consumer because, with fewer farms producing food, prices are more and more dependent upon the whims of a few large corporate interests who are increasingly controlling the industry. Mr. Chairman, we must preserve family-based agriculture in this country by making certain that dairy farmers all over America receive a fair and stable price for their product, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. Many of my colleagues know that dairy legislation has been very hotly debated in this Chamber and in the Senate for a number of years. There has been a lot of bitterness and contentiousness. In that regard, let me be clear in stating that I am a very strong supporter of the Northeast Dairy Compact which, in fact, originated in the State of Vermont. I believe that the compact has worked well for the six States who are in it and for farmers in neighboring regions who sell their milk into the compact area. I am proud that 25 States in this country voted for dairy compacts and that 163 Members of this body support the concept of a dairy compact. But, Mr. Chairman, there are people in this body who disagree with me and with the other 162 Members who support the compact. They have argued that a compact in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic States and in the South and in other regions would hurt their family farmers in the Midwest and elsewhere. I happen not to agree with them, but that is what they believe. Now is not the time to argue whether my view is right or their view is right. What this amendment does is to say to farmers in the Northeast, in the Midwest, in the South, in the West, family farmers all over this country, that we must come together, stop our fighting and pass a bill that will work for every region of this country. I am very proud, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation is absolutely nonpartisan, Democrats, Republicans and independents will vote for it, as will Members from the Northeast, from the Midwest, from the South and from every other region of this country. In fact, I believe some of the fiercest opponents of the dairy compact concept will be supporting this effort, and I am delighted to have them on board. Let me very briefly tell you, Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does. This legislation creates a new national voluntary countercyclical program made up of participating States. It is voluntary. But upon enactment, all States who have already voted to participate in the dairy compacts are automatically approved. Those States are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. Those States, because they have already approved the concept of a compact, are automatically in the program. But any other State that chooses can join and we expect that the vast majority of the States in this country will do so. This legislation establishes a national dairy trust fund which does not cost the taxpayers of this country one penny. What it does do is establish a mechanism through which dairy processors pay into the fund an equal amount to the differences between the class 1 market price paid to the producer and $17.50. This amendment establishes a cap which limits the amount of support any one farm can receive. The money acquired by the fund will then be distributed nationally to newly created regional boards based on the overall production of all milk, all milk, in the region. This mechanism addresses the major concerns that our friends in the Midwest have had whose farmers only sell 15 percent of their milk for fluid purposes as opposed to the 40 percent average that exist nationally. In order to make certain that farmers do not overproduce, the newly created regional dairy boards may use a portion of the funds they receive for incentives to manage the supply of milk produced in the region. Importantly, these boards are responsible for reimbursing the Federal Government for any additional surplus purchases that result from the program operating in their region. In other words, we have built in a strong supply management component. Mr. Chairman, this bill says to farmers in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, in North Carolina, in Florida, in Idaho and Utah who have 100 cows, that they will receive the same help that farmers in Vermont and Maine and Massachusetts receive. It says that every region of this country is in danger of losing its family-based agriculture, and that we need a national approach to protect them. If you are one of the over 160 Members of the House who are cosponsoring the dairy compact legislation, you should support this bill. If you are from one of the 25 States in the country that have voted to support the dairy compacts, you should support this amendment. If you are from the Midwest and have seen thousands of your family farmers go under because of the unstable, inadequate prices, you should support this bill. If you are interested in conservation and the environment, you should support this bill, because it keeps our farmland open. And if you are from urban areas and you want to make sure that your constituents will continue to receive healthy and fresh dairy products at a reasonable price, you should support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) who has an amendment that I am supportive of. Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter to Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Mr. SANDERS. Yes. If California voluntarily chooses to come into the program, the answer is yes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, he has my absolute assurances.