Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may know, tragically millions of American citizens cannot afford the outrageously high costs of prescription drugs in this country. Some of these people die, others suffer, and still others take money from their food budgets or other basic necessities of life to buy the life-sustaining drugs that their doctors prescribe. Tragically, and I think many of us are fully aware of this now, citizens of the United States pay by far, not even close, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Some of us have taken our constituents across the Canadian border, others have gone over the Mexican border and have found, for example, that tamoxifen, a widely- prescribed breast cancer drug, sells in Canada for one-tenth of the price, one-tenth of the price that it sells in the United States. And this is for women who are struggling for their lives. But it is not only Canada that has lower prescription drug prices. For every $1 spent in the United States for a prescription drug, those same drugs are purchased in Switzerland for 65 cents, the United Kingdom for 64 cents, France for 51 cents, and Italy for 49 cents. Meanwhile, year after year the pharmaceutical industry appears at the top of the charts in terms of profits. Last year, for example, the ten major drug companies earned $26 billion in profits while millions of Americans are unable to afford the products that they produce. Now, why is it that prescription drugs in this country are so much more expensive than they are in any other industrialized country? I think the answer is obvious. The pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the most powerful political force in Washington and has spent, unbelievably, over $200 million in the last 3 years on campaign contributions, on lobbying, and on political advertising. Amazingly, the drug companies have almost 300 paid lobbyists knocking on our doors in Washington, D.C. to make certain that Congress does not lower the cost of prescription drugs, and to make certain that their profits remain extraordinarily high. Year after year senior citizens throughout this country and those with chronic illnesses cry out for prescription drug reform and lower prices, but their cries go unheeded as the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists defeat all efforts to lower prices. This year it is my hope and my expectation that it is going to be different and that we are finally going to succeed, not only in passing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, but lowering prescription drug costs for all people. Last year this Congress in a bipartisan manner passed legislation that promised the American people that they would be able to buy prescription drugs at the same low prices as consumers in other countries through a drug reimportation program. In the House, the Crowley reimportation amendment won by the overwhelming vote of 363-12. Unfortunately, at the end of a long legislative process, loopholes were put into the amendment that made it ineffective. While the law remains on the books, it has not been implemented by either the Clinton administration or the Bush administration. In an increasingly globalized economy where we import food and other products from all over the world, it is incomprehensible that pharmacists and prescription drug distributors are unable to import or reimport FDA safety approved drugs that were manufactured in FDA approved facilities. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow as part of the agriculture appropriations bill, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and I will introduce essentially what the Crowley bill was that passed overwhelmingly last year. Despite huge opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, I am confident that Congress will stand up and vote to begin the process to lower prescription drug costs in this country. As Dr. David A. Kessler, former FDA Commissioner under President Bush and President Clinton stated in support of reimportation last year, ``I believe U.S. licensed pharmacists and wholesalers who know how drugs need to be stored and handled, and who would be importing them under the strict oversight of the FDA, are well-positioned to safely import quality products rather than having American consumers do this on their own.'' That is Dr. David Kessler. Mr. Speaker, I hope tomorrow will win an overwhelming victory for prescription drug consumers in this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for making some of his time available to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell a story tonight about what happens when an industry with unparalleled greed operates and spends huge sums of money, with the result that they are destroying the health and well- being of millions of Americans. And the industry that I am talking about, sadly enough, is the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Speaker, I think, as my colleagues know, millions of Americans today cannot afford the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country. Some of these people will die because they are unable to purchase the prescription drugs that their physicians prescribe to them. Many of them will just continue to suffer, not being able to get the alleviation for their pain because they cannot afford those prescription drugs. Others will buy the prescription drugs by taking money out of their food budget or their heat budget and will do without other basic necessities of life in order to purchase prescription drugs. Disgracefully, Mr. Speaker, tragically, the American people pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It is not even close. Several years ago, I took a number of Vermonters over the Canadian border into Montreal because they could not afford the very, very high prescription drug prices in our own country. And what we found when we went over the border to Montreal is that the same exact drugs, manufactured and sold in the United States, were sold for a fraction of the cost an hour away from where my constituents were living in northern Vermont. Some of the women who went with me over the border were fighting for their lives against breast cancer, an affliction that affects large numbers of women in this country. And what they found when they went across the border with me is that tamoxifen, a widely prescribed breast cancer drug, was selling in Canada for one-tenth the price, 10 percent of the price, that it is sold in the United States. Imagine that, women who are struggling for their lives are forced to pay ten times more in the United States than our neighbors are paying in Canada for the same exact drug manufactured by the same exact company. It is not just Canada and it is not just Mexico. In the southern part of our country, California, Texas, and Arizona, Americans are going across our southern borders into Mexico for the same exact reason that Americans in the northern part of this country are going into Canada. But it is not just Mexico and Canada that have substantially lower prices for prescription drugs. It is every other major country on Earth. Mr. Speaker, for every $1 spent in the United States for a prescription drug, those same drugs are purchased in Switzerland for 65 cents, the United Kingdom for 64 cents, France for 51 cents, and Italy for 49 cents. The same exact drugs. Meanwhile, while the pharmaceutical industry rips off the American people, causes death, causes suffering, that same industry year after year is at the top of the charts in terms of profits. Last year, for example, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies earned $26 billion in profit. Twenty-six billion dollars. Why is it that prescription drug prices are higher in the United States than in any other industrialized country? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. The pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the most powerful political force in Washington and has spent over $200 million in the last 3 years on campaign contributions, lobbying, and political advertising. Twenty million dollars in the last 3 years in order to make sure that Congress does not lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs and affect their profits. Two hundred million dollars. We see that money spent. We see it in the TV ads in our homes, on our home television stations. We see it in the full page ads in the Washington papers and in papers all over this country. Amazingly, not only are they spending money on advertising, not only do they spend money on campaign contributions, but the vast majority of Members of Congress receive money from the pharmaceutical industry. The political parties receive money from the pharmaceutical industry in soft money. But even more amazing, the pharmaceutical industry has on their payroll almost 300 paid lobbyists right here on Capitol Hill. Imagine that. There are 535 Members of Congress, 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House, and they have 300 paid lobbyists, including former Senators, former Members of the House, knocking on our doors every day, saying, hey, do not do anything to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Keep our profits high, and we will make sure you get your campaign contributions. This is an absolute disgrace to democracy and it is an outrage being perpetrated against millions of Americans who want nothing more than to be able to purchase reasonably priced prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, year after year senior citizens throughout this country and those with chronic illnesses cry out for prescription drug reform and lower prices, but their cries and their tears go unheeded as the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists defeat all efforts to lower prices. Year after year those poor people come up here, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, and year after year every effort is defeated because the pharmaceutical industry and their money machine prevents any real reform. Well, this year it is my hope that it will be different because Congress is going to build on our successes from the last session of Congress. Last year this Congress, in a bipartisan measure, overwhelmingly passed legislation which promised the American people that they would be able to buy prescription drugs at the same low prices as do consumers in other countries through a reimportation program. And that means that the United States, in the midst of a global economy, that our prescription drug distributors, our pharmacists, should be able to purchase FDA safety-inspected drugs from any country where they can get a better price. If drugs are sold in Canada for one-tenth the price, pharmacists in the United States should be able to reimport those drugs under strict FDA safety regulations. In the House last year, the Crowley reimportation amendment, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), won by a 363 to 12 vote. Unfortunately, at the end of a long legislative process, loopholes were put into the overall bill last year that made it ineffective. While the law remains on the books, it has not been implemented by either the Clinton or the Bush administrations. In an increasingly globalized economy, where we import food and other products from all over the world, it is incomprehensible that pharmacists and prescription drug distributors are unable to import or reimport FDA safety-approved drugs that were manufactured in FDA approved facilities. The pharmaceutical industry and their supporters in Congress are sending out letters right now saying, oh, this is a dangerous idea, we are going to be poisoning the American people. This is absolute nonsense. Let me briefly read from a letter that was sent to Senator Byron Dorgan on September 13, 2000 last year. And as many people know, Dr. Kessler is the former FDA commissioner, I believe under both former Presidents Bush and Clinton, and this is what he stated in his support of reimportation last year, and I quote. ``I believe U.S. licensed pharmacists and wholesalers, who know how drugs need to be stored and handled, and who would be importing them under the strict oversight of the FDA, are well-positioned to safely import quality products rather than having American consumers do this on their own. Second, if the FDA is given the resources necessary to ensure that imported FDA approved prescription drugs are the authentic product, made in an FDA-approved manufacturing facility, I believe the importation of these products can be done without causing a greater health risk to American consumers than currently exists. Finally, as a Nation, we have the best medical armamentarium in the world. Over the years, FDA and the Congress have worked hard to assure the American public has access to important medicine as soon as possible. But developing lifesaving medications does not do any good unless Americans can afford to buy the drugs their doctors prescribe. The price of prescription drugs poses a major public health challenge. While we should do nothing that compromises the safety and quality of our medicine, it is important to take steps to make prescription drugs more affordable.'' That is Dr. David Kessler, in a letter to Senator Byron Dorgan of September 13, 2000. Mr. Speaker, when the agricultural appropriations bill comes up, perhaps on Thursday, perhaps next week, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and others and I intend to introduce an amendment, the reimportation amendment, which is the same amendment as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) introduced last year that received, as I mentioned before, 363 votes. We know right now that the pharmaceutical industry's cash register is clicking overtime. Their lobbyists are all over Washington trying to scare Members of Congress so that they will not pass this legislation. But I believe that when Members of Congress go into their hearts and when they listen to the seniors and the other people back home who are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices for prescription drugs, who are sick and tired of having to go to Canada and Mexico to buy the drugs that they need, I believe that despite all of the scare tactics of the pharmaceutical industry and their representatives in the United States Congress, that Congress will have the guts to stand up to them and vote for the American people and pass the Sanders-Crowley- DeLauro reimportation amendment. Mr. Speaker, when that amendment comes before the floor, it may be the only opportunity this year or next year that Members of Congress will have to vote to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs. I hope and am confident that Members of Congress will ignore the scare tactics of the pharmaceutical industry and their representatives and join the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and myself, and many others from both parties, in demanding that finally, after years and years of talk, we lower the cost of prescription drugs in this country and we create a situation in which American consumers do not have to continue paying far more than people throughout the rest of the world for the same exact prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for having yielded me his time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, my friends talk about slashing fossil fuel research. If our amendment passes, it would represent an increase of $58 million more than the President wanted and $75 million more than fiscal year 2001. That is not exactly slashing. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. According to the Republican Committee on the Budget, the fossil fuel research program is largely corporate welfare and ineffective. According to the CBO, let me quote, ``The appropriateness of Federal Government funding for such research and development is questionable,'' CBO. Mr. Chairman, I can understand why some of my good friends want to see this research, fossil fuel research, expanded. Thirty-eight percent of the money goes to two States. Weatherization goes to 50 States. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we are increasing funding for weatherization desperately needed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans cannot get into a program which saves them money and protects the environment. We are expanding money for other energy conservation programs, and we are putting more money in to programs that compensate local governments when the Federal Government is using their property, the PILT program. Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a major energy crisis, the worst crisis this country has experienced in over 25 years. Let us stand with lower-income people all over this country. Let us help them weatherize the homes in which they are living. Let us stand with small communities all over this country who deserve fair PILT funding. Let us stand with those people who say we are doing nowhere near enough in terms of energy conservation. This is a good amendment, and I urge its passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this tripartisan amendment which is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). This amendment is similar in many ways to an amendment that was passed by voice vote last year, and that passed with 248 votes 2 years ago. This amendment is also supported by a broad coalition of environmental and public interest groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the National Association of State Energy Officials. This amendment accomplishes three primary goals. First, in the midst of the worst energy crisis that this country has faced in 25 years, this amendment adds $24 million to the very successful weatherization program. All over this country, lower income people and senior citizens are wasting huge amounts of energy because their homes are inadequately insulated. While I appreciate the good work of Ranking Members Obey and Dicks and Chairmen Young and Skeen to increase funding for this program from last year, it is still not enough. In fact, the $249 million provided in this bill for weatherization is $24 million less than the President's budget request. In other words, all that we are doing here is funding the weatherization program at the same level the President has requested. I should tell Members that I have been very critical of the President's funding for energy in general. In addition, Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an additional $12 million for a number of other energy conservation programs. The various programs have been highly successful in leveraging State and private funds in terms of reducing the energy used by homeowners, schools, hospitals, farmers and others. No one denies that our country can do much more in a wide range of energy conservation efforts, and this additional funding will provide some help in that direction. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment also increases the payments in lieu of taxes program by $12 million, something that I and many other Members have been deeply interested in for a number of years. Mr. Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact that the Federal Government does not pay taxes on the land that it owns. These Federal lands can include national forests, national parks, fish and wildlife refuges and land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Like local property taxes, PILT payments are used to pay for school budgets, law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, parks and recreation and other municipal expenses. The PILT program benefits 1,789 counties in 49 States throughout the country. I appreciate the committee's increasing funding for this program. They have. But once again because of woefully inadequate funding in recent years, we have got a long way to go. We cannot talk about respect for local government and then not pay them the amounts of money that we have to. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friends, of course, are right. We do take money from the fossil fuel energy research and development program in order to fund weatherization, in order to fund energy conservation, in order to fund the long overdue efforts to bring PILT payments to where they should be. Mr. Chairman, regarding the fossil fuel energy research and development program, let me quote from the report of the fiscal year 1997 Republican budget resolution: ``The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research and development since the oil crisis in 1973 triggered this activity. Returns on this investment have not been cost effective, particularly for applied research and development which industry has ample incentive to undertake. Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare for the oil, gas and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what industry is already doing. Some has gone to fund technology in which the market has no interest.'' That is the Republican budget resolution of 1997, not Bernie Sanders. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to fight as hard as they can for substantially more money for LIHEAP.

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

Mr. SANDERS. For approximately 2 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). It would provide $2 billion in advance funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, for fiscal year 2002. I understand that the point of order is going to be asked for, and I am very disappointed that this important amendment will not get a chance to be voted upon today. From California to Vermont, every American knows that energy costs are skyrocketing. LIHEAP is the primary program that provides assistance to help lower-income families pay their energy bills, and there has been no time when more people are going to need LIHEAP assistance than now. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, 19 States have reported that they are either out of LIHEAP funds or have very low balances. Mr. Chairman, this is simply unacceptable. In the richest country in the world, not one family should go without heat this winter, not one senior citizen should choose between heating their homes or affording their prescription drugs. Not one child should come home to a refrigerator empty of food because the heating bill is too high. But, Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what will happen if we do not substantially increase funding for LIHEAP. Let me take this opportunity to thank the committee and the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for doubling the President's totally inadequate request for LIHEAP emergency funding, but because of the severe energy crisis that we are in, the committee's number is still far too low. It should not be acceptable for any Member of Congress or the President that more than 17 million Americans who are eligible to receive LIHEAP have been left behind because of insufficient funding. In fact, since 1985, LIHEAP funding has declined by 70 percent after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Chairman, at this point I yield to my colleague from California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. Mr. Chairman, what I wish to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I hope in conference committee and in my colleague's work with the Senate, can we have some assurance from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who I know recognizes this problem, when I have some assurance when we go to conference, the gentleman will be representing the House and asking for substantially more LIHEAP funding?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California, and the bottom line is that we appreciate the committee's effort in doubling the President's total inadequate funding. But because energy costs are skyrocketing, let me say in the State of Vermont, the price of propane gas has gone up by 27 percent, kerosene by 47 percent, and heating oil by 56 percent. When we have these extraordinary increases in the price of fuel, then the LIHEAP program has got to respond. All over this country more people need LIHEAP, and we have to increase funding. Point of Order

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend, for joining me this evening.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be joined this evening by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my good friend. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin, as the first Independent elected to Congress in 40 years and I have been here now for 11 years, I want to talk about some issues that are often not addressed by my colleagues in the House or the Senate and some issues that are not talked about on television or radio with our corporate media but issues that need to be discussed and debated and thought about. The first issue that I want to talk about is the most important issue. That is the quality of American democracy. Mr. Speaker, we have an American flag behind us, and the American flag reflects the struggle and the deaths of so many Americans who fought and died to preserve our democracy. Democracy is a big deal. It means that the people, ordinary people, working people, low-income people, people who are not wealthy and powerful, but ordinary people having the right to control their own lives and making the decisions which impact on their children and on the future of the country, that is a big deal and something that we kind of take for granted. What I am extremely concerned about, that the quality of our democracy and our democratic traditions are deteriorating, and that more and more people are giving up on our democratic process or not paying attention to what is going on and believe for many very good reasons that this institution, that Washington, D.C., is controlled by big money interests who do not pay attention to the lives and struggles of ordinary people, to the middle class. People are saying why should I bother to vote, why should I bother to participate. The deck is stacked against me, big money controls both political parties, big money controls the agenda. Let me just say a word about what goes on in this country in terms of money. Let me quote if I can, Mr. Speaker, from today's Washington Post. ``Vice President Cheney held a reception at his official residence last night for $100,000 donors to the Republican Party, giving the Democrats, after years of enduring GOP criticism of their use of the perks of office for fund-raising a chance to accuse Republicans of engaging in the same practices. Cheney's hospitality was a prelude to tonight's Presidential gala, a black-tie dinner that is expected to raise at least $15 million for the Republican National Committee, and will mark President Bush's post-inaugural debut as a major fund-raising draw for his party.'' Mr. Speaker, we ended our debate over education kind of early this evening, about 5:00, for a very special occasion. And the occasion was because many of our Republican colleagues were racing out to this $15 million fund-raising dinner. In my State of Vermont and all over this country, people sit back and they cannot believe it. They cannot believe that there are people who go to fund-raising dinners for $25,000 a plate, Republican dinners and Democratic dinners, people who contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to both political parties. People say, ``What is going on in this country. That is not what democracy is supposed to be.'' Now, what people also understand is that folks do not go to fund- raising dinners like the one that the Republicans are holding tonight and do not contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party because they believe in the democratic process. No one thinks that. The reason that people contribute huge sums of money, the reason that corporate America is throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process is that when you contribute, you gain access to the people who make the decisions, and they make decisions that benefit you. Does anybody think that at tonight's fund-raising dinner for the Republican Party the major donors are coming up to the President and saying, ``Mr. President, you have got to raise the minimum wage because American workers cannot make it on $5.15 an hour.'' Does anyone think that is what is being discussed tonight? Do you think that the donors of the Republican Party are saying, ``Mr. President, what are we going to do about the fact that 43 million Americans have no health insurance, and many more are underinsured? Mr. President, we have to move that issue.'' I do not think so. I think what is happening tonight is the President is taking some bows for his tax proposal which will give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population, people who make a minimum income of $375,000; and that is why people contribute to the political process. Mr. Speaker, I would say the major issue as a Nation we have got to face is how do we revitalize American democracy. How do we go from having the lowest voter turnout of any major industrialized Nation to the highest voter turnout. In next year's election, 2002, the estimate is 36 percent of the American people are going to vote. Almost two-thirds of the American people are saying, ``I am not going to participate in terms of who is going to the Congress, Senate, who is going to be the governor of my State. It does not matter.'' What is even scarier is that the voter turnout for young people is even lower, which portends very badly for the future of this country in terms of democratic participation. I hope tonight, along with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), we will be exploring the role that big money plays in the political process, in terms of energy, tax breaks, in terms of our environment, and I think there is a lot to be discussed in that respect. Mr. Speaker, I yield to a gentleman who has played a fantastic role in this Congress in taking on the big oil companies and fighting for an energy policy that makes a lot of sense to working Americans, rather than just Exxon and the big oil companies.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me just pick up on the point of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). All over this country people are driving to work. In the State of Vermont, we are one of the most rural States in the country. People put a lot of miles on their car, and what they are noticing is that the price that they are paying for gas at the pump is zooming upward. What they should also notice is that the profits of the major oil companies have expanded enormously. During the last year, ExxonMobil saw a 102 percent increase in their profits; Chevron, a 150 percent increase in their profits; Texaco, 116 percent increase in their profits; Conoco, a 155 percent increase in their profits; Phillips Petroleum did really good, a 205 percent increase; and on and on it goes. So while working people all over this country are paying more and more at the pump, while people are scared to death about what the heating bills will be in States like Vermont next winter, the oil companies are enjoying huge profits. Some of us think that it might be appropriate, as radical an idea as it might be, for the United States Congress to stand up for the working people, for the middle class, for those people whose heating bills and whose oil bills and gas prices are moving upward, rather than for the oil companies who have contributed so much money to the Republican Party. I know that that is a radical idea, but some of us think maybe it is long overdue that we begin to do that. I do not know if my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), wants to go there yet; but there is another issue that he has alerted me to awhile back that I think is a fascinating issue. It deals obviously with energy. It deals with trade. It deals with money and politics. And that is the issue of OPEC. I must confess to my colleagues and to the American people that I am not a great fan of unfettered free trade. I voted against NAFTA. I voted against GATT. I am strongly opposed to the Most Favored Nation status, or PNTR, with China. We will talk about that in a little while. What is interesting is a majority of the Members of the House, a majority of the Members of the Senate and the President of the United States, they disagree with me. They say free trade is just a wonderful, wonderful thing and that everybody does well when we have no limitations to production, to distribution, products go in and out of people's countries. That is the way we have to go. I have a question and I want to credit my friend from Oregon for raising this issue a couple of months ago or longer than that, and that is everybody in the world understands that OPEC, the oil-producing countries, are a cartel. That is why they are in existence. In fact, in a couple of weeks they are going to be meeting, as they do periodically, to decide as to how much oil they will produce and what the price, in fact, of oil will be on the world market. It is a cartel. Their existence, their reason for existence, is to control oil production. I find it amazing, and I would like my friend from Oregon to comment on it, how it could be that the representative from the United States Trade Department, operating under the Secretary of the Treasury, has not raced off to Geneva, Switzerland, where the WTO is and raised the complaint about OPEC's policies being a clear violation of international trade. I find it amazing that all of the proponents of free trade, who think it is a great idea that corporations run to China and hire workers there at 20 cents an hour when they throw Americans out on the street, that is great. Where are they when it comes to taking on OPEC and the oil industry that works with OPEC? Mr. Speaker, I would yield to my friend from Oregon for some comments on that.

Mr. SANDERS. The bottom line here is very clear, that when free trade works for the benefit of the multinationals, it is a process to be touted; it is an ideology to be cheered on. But when breaking up a cartel, which is ripping off the American people and people all over the world, that when taking on this cartel would hurt corporate America's interest, suddenly the silence is deafening. I want to applaud the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for raising this issue. I am going to stay on this issue. I think the American people want the United States Trade Representative to go to Geneva and demand free trade in terms of the production of oil. We are concerned not only about what the rising price of oil and gas at the pumps means for people who are driving, but for the state of our whole economy and, clearly, Congress and the White House have to take some action on that. Let me switch gears for a moment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, while we are on the issue of trade, I want to touch on an issue, talk about amazing issues, we talked about the WTO and OPEC. This one, in many respects, is even more amazing, and that is the Permanent Normalized Trade Relations with China. Let us talk a little bit about that and talk about it in two respects. Number one, what is going on? Well, for a start, it seems to me that overall, our trade policy is almost by definition a disaster. Today, the United States has over a $400 billion trade deficit, which means that products that used to be manufactured in the United States by workers here who are making a living wage are now being manufactured in China, Mexico, many other countries around the world where people are being paid 20 cents or 30 cents an hour. Now, I find it very hard to talk about ``free trade'' and fairness in trade when American workers are being asked to compete against desperate people in China who make 20 cents an hour, who cannot form a union, who, if they stood up and asked for the most basic, elemental, democratic rights, they would be thrown in jail, and that is our competition. Now, what is also very interesting about what is going on in terms of our relationships to China is how little we are hearing from the media on this issue. If we look at our relations to China, and I am not anti-China, anti- Chinese, I do not want a Cold War with China, I want to see China integrated into the world economy, China has a fantastic history, and so forth and so on. I am not anti-Chinese. But why would we want to continue a trade policy with a country in which we have an $84 billion trade deficit, record-breaking trade deficit with China? If one is in Vermont, if one is in any State of the country, walk into the local department store and look at the labels of the products that we are buying, and we are not talking about cheap 50 cent products? We are talking about a wide variety of products, some of them very, very good quality. One of the most important economic realities that has taken place in this country in the last decade is that the major multinational corporations have, to a significant degree, stopped investing in New England, stopped investing in the Midwest and many other sections of our country, but instead are investing billions and billions of dollars building state-of-the-art factories in China. And the reason for their doing that is, I guess, China is a great place to do business. Workers are forced to work for starvation wages, they cannot form unions, they cannot stand up for their rights; environmental regulations are weak or nonexistent. What a fantastic place to do business. You can bribe government officials all over the place. It is a fantastic place. Why would one want to invest in the United States, pay workers here a living wage, have to obey environmental regulations and so forth and so on? So what we are seeing is a huge amount of investment in China. And the support of this trade agreement, which has been a disaster for American workers by corporate America and their representatives in the United States Congress. Now, what I found very interesting is that after we opened up our market to China, and we said to the American companies and so forth that are doing business in China, come on in, you could be Nike, you can pay your workers 20 cents an hour, you can sell your sneakers in this country for $100, great idea, no problem. Well, in the midst of all of this, a funny thing happened. A couple of months ago, as everybody knows, an American plane was collided with by a Chinese pilot. As a result of the heroic efforts of the American pilot, 24 service people were able to stay alive as their plane crash landed in China. Now, one would think, one might think that given the fact that we have granted permanent normalized trade relations with China, that we have allowed them to sell products into our market which results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs, lowering of the wages of American workers, one might think that in the midst of all of that, what the Chinese government might say is, we are sorry for the accident. Obviously, we are going to release the 24 American servicemen who crash landed, and you are going to get your plane back as soon as you possibly can. That would seem to me to be the logical response of a government which now has complete access to the American market, which has been granted Permanent Most Favored Nation status. Instead, this country held prisoner 24 American service people for 11 days and still has our airplane. Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage? Well, in fact, as my colleague from Oregon knows, in a couple of months, within a couple of months, there will be another vote on Most Favored Nation status with China. The big money people are pouring huge amounts of money into the political process, and despite the recent outrage, my expectation is that MFN with China will, once again, be passed, and that we will not revoke PNTR, as I think we should. So let me conclude my remarks in that regard by saying, I am not anti-Chinese. I do not want a Cold War with China. I want trade with China. But it has got to be trade based on principles that are fair for the American worker, not just corporate America, and a policy which results in a positive political relationship between China and the United States, which clearly the recent incident with the airplane indicates is not the case. I yield to my friend for any thoughts he has on that issue.

Mr. SANDERS. That is only half of the story. That is job loss. The other half of the story is what our trade policy with China means in terms of driving wages down in this country. Every worker in this country knows that if we stand up and fight for decent wages, decent benefits, we have a boss there to say, ``Hey, you are lucky that you have this job because I could go to Mexico, I could go to China. Look at that factory down the road, what they did last year.'' So the presence of a huge labor market in China where people are forced to work for horrendous wages has not only resulted in the loss of huge numbers of jobs, but has certainly had an impact in lowering the real wages of American workers. The fact is, one of the things that we hear in the media, and I want to say a word about the media, because I have found media coverage of this whole issue very, very interesting.

Mr. SANDERS. Both; interesting for its nonexistence. We should ask ourselves why, when we look, for example, at Fox Television, owned by the right-wing billionaire Rupert Murdoch, he is making a huge effort to get into the Chinese market. He is very clear. He has said it and his family has said it, that they do not want to disturb the Chinese government and they do not want to raise these types of issues. General Electric, which owns NBC, has significant investments in China. Westinghouse, Disney, et cetera, et cetera, many of the major multinationals who own the media in the United States, are also investing in China. The last thing they want to see is the Congress rethink its trade agreements with China. I think not only on that issue but on the issue of media in general, the American people should do a whole lot of hard thinking as to why we hear what we hear and why we do not hear what we do not hear. I would say that the example of coverage regarding China is a perfect example about the biases of corporate media in terms of what we hear. I would also like to touch on an issue regarding the media and what is going on in our economy. When we do hear the media for the last 10 years, what we have been hearing over and over again is a drumbeat which says, ``The economy is booming; America, you have never had it so good,'' over and over. I go back to Vermont. I hold many town meetings around the State. What I invariably do is say, ``I just read in the newspaper or saw on TV that the economy is booming. You have never had it so good. Please raise your hand if you think that is true.'' I do remember at a meeting of several hundred farmers, one guy did raise his hand. He thought the economy was going very well. Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the people understand the reality of their lives; that is, that in many instances the middle class is working longer hours for lower wages. Yes, the economy is booming for all of the people who are millionaires and billionaires. In fact, they have never had it so good. But if one is in the middle class, then what one runs into is that, everything being equal, we are now working a lot more hours than we used to. If there is a family member who would prefer to stay home with the kids and raise the kids in the house, increasingly that is becoming impossible because families now need two breadwinners in order to pay the bills. There was a study that came out I think from the International Labor Organization several years ago in which the United States claimed the very dubious distinction of having surpassed Japan for now working longer hours than the workers of any other major country on Earth. So it seems to me that if real wages have declined, if people are working longer and longer hours, in my State of Vermont it is not uncommon not only for people to work two jobs, sometimes they work three jobs, and often these are part-time jobs, jobs without benefits. We have 43 million Americans who have no health insurance, tens of millions of Americans who are underinsured. We have families going deeply into debt in order to figure out how they can pay for their kids' college education. We have elderly people who are not eating adequately because they have to pay the exorbitant prices that the drug companies are demanding from us for prescription drugs. On and on it goes. I want to know, in the midst of all of that context, where the richest 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, where the CEOs of major corporations now earn 500 times what their employees earn, in the midst of all that, how can the media continue to talk about the booming economy? Let us look at reality here and what is happening to the middle class in this country. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman makes a very important point. Not only is the President's tax proposal grossly unfair, and the statistics that I have seen are even higher than that, that the wealthiest 1 percent end up getting 50 percent of the tax breaks.