Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. That is, remember, people with a minimum income of $373,000. Meanwhile, one could be a mother raising two kids making $22,000 a year. Do Members know what that tax cut is? Zero, not one nickel. So it seems to me not only is the Bush tax proposal grotesquely unfair, giving huge tax breaks to the people who need it the least, but it is absolutely irresponsible. President Bush, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), myself, the American people, do not know what the economy will be next year, in 5 years, and certainly not in 10 years. Nobody knows. For years and years, our conservative friends have been saying, we cannot spend money we do not have. We have to be cautious with the taxpayers' money. But they have decided to give out at minimum $1.3 trillion or probably a lot more over a 10-year period. Meanwhile, back in Vermont and throughout this country, young people who graduate from a 4-year college are ending up at $19,000 in debt, on average. Lower- income kids are ending up even more in debt, and that does not count the debt incurred by the young man's or woman's parents. For the first time in many years, a lot of low-income high school graduates are thinking twice about whether or not they want to go to college. Meanwhile, Pell grants and other student aid programs for college students have in no way kept pace with the escalating cost of college, putting enormous stress on the middle class. Yes, we have hundreds of billions of dollars available for tax breaks for the richest 1 percent; no, we cannot significantly increase Pell grants and other student aid programs for the middle class. Just last Saturday in South Royalton, Vermont, I held a town meeting on an issue which needs an enormous amount of discussion and awareness, an increase in awareness, in public consciousness. That is the absolute crisis that exists in child care in this country today. I find it appalling that there are people who would come up to this podium and talk about family values and their love of children and working families, and continue to ignore the crisis in child care which goes on in America today. The reality, in my State and virtually all across this country, is that working families cannot find quality, affordable child care. It is much too expensive. Meanwhile, child care workers themselves are working for horrendously low wages. If they are running their own home centers, in some cases they are making below the minimum wage. The turnover among child care workers is extremely high. People are not getting the training that they need. Study after study demonstrates what common sense tells us, that the first 5 years of a child's life are the most formative years. What kind of Nation are we when we are ignoring the needs of millions of children? The end result is that while we do not put money in the front end in terms of child care, what we are doing certainly is putting money in the back end when these kids fail out of high school and end in jail, and we are spending $25,000 for them in jail, but we are not paying attention to their needs in child care. The reality in child care is that huge numbers of women are now in the work force. They need help. As a society we have to pay attention. I think it makes a lot more sense to put money into child care, put money into financial aid for college students, rather than give tax breaks to people who do not need it. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), it is hard to imagine that the millions and millions of dollars that come in have any influence in public policy. It is probably that the oil companies are concerned about the quality of our democracy and just want to get more debate and political interest out there. We are running out of time here, and I just want to say a few words in closing, and, that is, I think what is very sad about what is going on in this country is we are, in fact, a very great Nation of great people. We have enormous productivity. We have great wealth. We have great energy. Given that reality, this Nation today has the capability of providing a good quality of life and a decent standard of living for every man, woman, and child. It is no longer Utopian to talk about every American having good quality health care through a national health care system as a right of citizenship. That is not Utopian. That, in fact, exists in virtually every other major country. We are the only Nation on Earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right of citizenship. It is not Utopian today to say that every person in this country, regardless of income, should be able to get all of the education that they are capable of absorbing, rather than seeing so many of our young people going deeply into debt as they have to figure out a way to pay for the high costs of college education. That is not Utopian. It is not Utopian to say that we can do, as France does, for example, and have universal high-quality child care for all of our people. It is not Utopian to say that we can provide the health care that our veterans who put their lives on the line defending this country are entitled to. That is not Utopian. It is not Utopian to say that we can produce the energy that this country requires in an environmentally sound way rather than contributing to global warming or to acid rain or to other environmental degradation. That is not Utopian. The technology is here today. It seems to me that what we as a Nation have to do is revitalize American democracy, get people actively involved in the political process, get people to stand up for their rights, for the rights of their children. If we do that, we can, in fact, take back this country for the big money interests who have so much power over us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Mr. Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lot to be said for the underlying bill. I think the Democratic amendment makes the bill stronger, but I am going to vote against the Republican bill and the Democratic alternative because in my State and throughout this country, there are huge numbers of workers who were promised benefits when they signed up for the job, and then those benefits were taken away from them in the dead of night when the defined benefits that they had signed on for were converted into cash balance payments. I personally regard it as an immoral outrage that IBM, among many other companies, which has a CEO that has received $175 million in compensation in a 2-year period, has $500 million in unexercised stock options, felt it necessary when they had a pension surplus to cut back on the pension promises made to tens of thousands of their workers, not to mention the health care promises made to their retirees. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to offer a motion to recommit, which is cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), among others, which basically says that when a company makes an agreement with a worker and promises defined benefit, that they cannot simply in the middle of the night change their minds and convert that to a cash balance payment which could cost those workers up to 50 percent of the benefits that they were promised. All over this country there is what I call pension anxiety, and that is workers who are 50-55 years of age who are wondering whether or not they will receive the benefits, the retirement benefits, they were promised. I think they should, and I think it is unfortunate that the underlying bill and the amendment do not address this important issue.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) indicated that his legislation deals with the fact that millions of workers have seen reductions in the pensions promised to them by companies converting from defined benefits to cash balance payments. I wonder if the gentleman from Ohio can be specific and tell those millions of workers who were double-crossed by large companies like IBM how his legislation is going to improve their situation.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. SANDERS. I am opposed to the bill in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this issue affects the lives and well-being of millions of American workers, and I hope the Members would pay attention to this debate. This motion to recommit is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), so it has a tripartisan element. Mr. Speaker, in the last several years, major corporation after major corporation has cut back the pension benefits that they promised their workers. IBM, for example, which has a huge pension surplus, which pays its CEO $175 million over a 2-year period, said to its workers last year, yes, we made a promise to you, but we are going to renege on that promise and, in some cases, cut back the benefits that you expected by 30 or 40 or 50 percent. That is wrong, and we have to deal with it. Unfortunately, the underlying legislation here does not in any meaningful way deal with this issue. The proponents of the bill say, we do deal with it, we do deal with it. But what we are really talking about is that we deal with it through disclosure. I guess it is a good thing to know in advance if you are going to get the death penalty. It helps. But more importantly, it would help if this legislation did, as my amendment does, give workers a choice. If a company is going to convert from defined benefits to cash balance, workers should have a choice, should not be forced to accept major cutbacks in pensions that were promised to them. If Members are concerned about what happened at IBM, what happened at other major corporations in America, let us stand up for those workers and say, we support your right to have a choice. Support the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York State (Mr. Hinchey), who has been active on this issue.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that the proponents of this bill will tell us that they have dealt with this issue. They have not dealt with this issue. Disclosure is fine, but disclosure will not help millions of workers who have already seen their pensions cut and many more who will see their pensions cut. Please vote ``yes'' on recommit.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 1187.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think most people in this country know what is going on today. At a time when the wealthiest 1 percent of the population own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent, at a time when CEOs of major corporations now earn 500 times more than their workers, at a time when the wealthiest people in large corporations flood the United States Congress with all kinds of money, Mr. Chairman, this is payback time. That is what is going on. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the previous speaker, made a funny remark. He said the Progressive Caucus is only providing tax relief to, I believe he said, the select few. Do my colleagues know who the select few is? It is the middle class and the working class of this country, the vast majority. Yes, we plead guilty. We are not providing 43 percent of the tax breaks to the richest 1 percent. We are apologetic about that, but we think the middle class, the working class, the people who are working 50 and 60 hours a week, who are making $30,000, $40,000 a year, need the help and not the millionaires and the billionaires. The issue that I want to focus on and urge people to vote for the Progressive Caucus budget on is prescription drugs. The Progressive Caucus says it is absurd that, at a time when the pharmaceutical industry is enjoying record-breaking profits, that the American people have to pay by far the highest prices in the industrialized world for prescription drugs. We say that every American senior citizen is entitled to prescription drugs because they are a citizen in this country and because they are on Medicare, and no senior should pay more than 20 percent out-of- pocket for their prescription drugs. We do this in a number of ways, but one of them is by doing away with the loopholes in last year's reimportation bill. We say that, if people in Europe can pay 30 or 40 or 50 percent for the same exact prescription drug that our people are paying for, then prescription drug distributors and pharmacists should be able to bring that drug into this country and sell it to the American people for the same price.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Republican proposal is grossly unfair and grossly irresponsible. At a time when millions of middle-class families are struggling to keep their heads above water, the Republican proposal provides 43 percent of the tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent, the people who need it the least, and 12 percent of the benefits to the bottom 60 percent of the people who need it the most. Equally important, by providing a huge $1.6 trillion tax break, there will not be money available in future years to help us in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans needs, and education. Can we afford a tax cut? Yes. It should be smaller than the President's, and it should be geared to the middle class and not the wealthy. Support the Rangel substitute.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank her for bringing forth this very, very important resolution. It is no secret that in this country we are facing a major energy crisis. It is no secret that the price of home heating oil, propane, kerosene, natural gas has been increasing very, very substantially. It is also no secret that we are the richest country in the history of the world, and that it would be an absolute outrage if any senior citizen, if any low-income American went cold this winter or had to take funds from their food budget in order to pay the heating bill. This is America, and elderly people should not go cold or should not go hungry. Last month, I authored two letters signed by over 100 Members of Congress, including 20 Republicans, and the first letter urged the President to immediately release $400 million in emergency LIHEAP funding to deal with the energy crisis we are currently facing, and I am grateful that the President did that. The second letter urged Congress to increase funding for LIHEAP by 50 percent, from $1.1 billion to $1.65 billion for both fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, and that is what we are discussing here right now. The issue is one of priorities. There are people in the Congress who have voted for huge tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population. If people are prepared to vote for tax breaks for millionaires, we should be absolutely certain that no one in America goes cold this winter. Let us substantially increase funding for LIHEAP and ease the minds of elderly and lower-income Americans that this winter will not be a brutal one.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. I strongly support the concept of reimportation, and helped to introduce the initial legislation with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). I support that concept because it is an outrage that the people of this country pay two times, five times, ten times more for the same exact drugs manufactured in the United States and sold in Canada, sold in Mexico, and sold in Europe. We are the suckers of the world, paying far more to an industry which is the most profitable industry in this country, earning $27 billion in profits, while the pharmaceutical industry fought us from the beginning on this bipartisan effort. They spent $40 million against us. They have 300 paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. fighting against us; yet we moved forward in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, at the very end of the stage, at the end of the process, a nonpartisan effort became partisan. The Republican leadership introduced legislation with significant loopholes which would go a long way to nullify what we tried to do. Let me quote The New York Times today. A lobbyist for one of the Nation's biggest drug companies, which have worked against the measure, said, ``I doubt that anyone will realize a penny of savings from this legislation.'' The existing legislation allows the following loopholes: it allows drug companies and their intermediaries to price discriminate against U.S. pharmacies and importers. In other words, yes, we can import product into this country, but it cannot be sold for a lower price than the existing price. It allows drug manufacturers to block the importation of drugs through labeling. Yes, we can bring drugs in from Italy, but we cannot use labels that the American people can understand that will get FDA approval. It does not guarantee American consumers access to the best world market prices. For a reason that no one can understand, Mexico and other countries are not part of the process. Let us vote ``no'' on this rule and let us create a strong loophole- free reimportation bill.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. I appreciate and congratulate her on the work she does as the ranking member, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) on the work he does. Mr. Speaker, there is not much I can add to what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) have already said. There is a lot in the agricultural appropriations bill which concerns me, but the issue that concerns me most is something that I have been working on for the last 14 months, and that is an effort to substantially lower the cost of prescription drugs in this country. I made a trip with folks from northern Vermont over the Canadian border over a year ago, and what we discovered on that trip is that prescription drugs could be purchased in Canada for substantially lower prices than they are in the United States. The widely prescribed breast cancer drug Tamoxifen was selling in Canada for one-tenth the price that it sells in the United States. In fact, at a time when the pharmaceutical industry last year saw $27 billion in profits, they are charging the American people by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, most of which are made right here in the United States of America. Now, why is this motion that we are discussing now so important? I will tell you why. The issue is the reimportation bill, which passed the House, which passed the Senate. Is that bill going to be written by representatives of the American people, or is it going to be written behind closed doors by the pharmaceutical industry, the most profitable industry in this country? The pharmaceutical industry has 300 paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. The pharmaceutical industry has spent $40 million in opposition to this legislation. The pharmaceutical industry has contributed millions and millions of dollars to both political parties, and last night, not last week, last night, they held a fund-raiser for the Republican Party where millions of dollars were raised. The question is, do we have an open debate in order to pass serious legislation without loopholes, without impediments, without the drug companies putting in little language which will make our legislation unenforceable or meaningless, or do we have serious legislation that representatives of the United States Congress participate in writing? The pharmaceutical industry should not write this bill behind closed doors; the elected representatives of the American people should write this legislation. Let us pass this.

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 the government do regarding these concerns. I submit these statements into the Congressional Record, as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Prescription Drug Costs KAYLA GILDERSLEEVE: To start off, good afternoon, Congressman Sanders. We sincerely thank you for providing some time for young people to be able to voice their opinions and concerns for our state and our country. And today we have come to you to encourage you to continue the battle with pharmaceutical companies for our senior citizens. ANGELA DEBLASIO: In the Year 2000 the United States of America as well as our fine State of Vermont have a problem, the soaring cost of prescription drugs. There are millions of Americans, an estimated 13 million elderly Americans who need drugs; they cannot afford them because they do not have prescription drug coverage. This just does not affect poor people. Many middle class seniors without additional private insurance struggle to pay for what they need. Those who cannot afford the prescription drugs pay for their drugs by taking their limited amount of money out of their food budget or not adequately heating their homes in the winter season; thus their quality of life deteriorates. The result is that some do without their prescribed medications, take half a dose or in extreme cases use their partner's medication, assuming they are one in the same, and so they suffer, die, or travel to the emergency room with higher cost to the health care and Medicare systems. TESS GROSSI: Congressman Sanders, you have stated in a May 3rd press release that, and we quote, ``The industry is continuing to fleece Americans while working to kill major prescription drug legislation in Congress.'' As the Fortune 500 number shows us, pharmaceutical companies took in more profit than the top auto, oil and airline companies. This is approximately an 18.9 percent profit, the highest margin of any industry in the nation. These pharmaceutical companies are raking in more profit, and the elderly and the sick all over can't afford the care and the help they desperately need. KAYLA GILDERSLEEVE: Of course these companies make claims that their high profit margins are necessary to support research and development. These development costs do not even begin to explain the rising prices of existing drugs which are projected from the price competition by patent. However, only 20 to 30 cents of each dollar is spent in actual; research and development and less; between 5 to 25 cents is spent on actual production of the drug. The remaining 40 to 70 cents is spent in marketing, selling and administration. Many industry critics call the R & D warning a scare tactic, noting a huge percent return on revenues for the previous year. The reality is that they are earning a lot more than they spend on research and development. In addition, drug companies spend approximately $30 million on ad campaigns to combat any attempts to regulate drug pricing. They spend even more on state and federal lobbying efforts. TESS GROSSI: Congressman Sanders, we have an industry that makes an exorbitant profit off of sickness, misery and illness of people, and that is disgusting. Drug companies come close to getting $4 billion every year in tax breaks and still Americans pay more and more for these drugs than citizens from other countries. There should be a way that consumers can afford the prescription drugs and at the same time a way for drug companies to make a modest profit and continue research and development. Senior citizens need fair, modest drug prices and it is in America's best interest to do so. ANGELA DEBLASIO: Therefore, we urge you to continue your work with the International Prescription Drug Parity Act which allows pharmacists, wholesalers and distributors to re- import prescription drugs from other countries as long as those drugs meet strict FDA standards. We also encourage you to continue to take bus trips to Canada to help our elderly fill or refill their prescriptions. It is one of those random act advantages in living in a border state that not every American has access to which is why continuing to push for prescription drug legislation is necessary and vital to our economy and the lives of our country's senior citizens. We must fulfill our responsibility to protect elderly Americans and to do this we must provide affordable prescription medication. KAYLA GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you for your time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 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 the government do regarding these concerns. I submit the following statements into the Congressional Record, as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Brian Lindstam Regarding Homeless Teens Brian Lindstam: My subject is on homeless teens. Over 500 Vermont teens become homeless every year in Vermont. That is about two teens a day, and 300 of those teens of that 500 are from Burlington. Why do teens become homeless? Here are several reasons: Abuse, negligence, and one-parent households where the teen is not getting the support because the parent is consumed in his or her own life. Sex abuse and drug and alcohol addiction can be a problem. Spectrum is a teen shelter in Burlington where troubled teens can get support, counseling and get back into some kind of schooling. Burlington Youth Build is a nine-month program where they get paid $250 every two weeks and got their GED at the end of program. They run this program as if it was a job. If you miss a day, you get no pay. If you have a drug or alcohol addiction there is a program, it is a three-month program at a rehabilitation clinic called Mountain View in Huntington. This is where Spectrum sends you if you have an addiction or if you need help. I have an idea for--I have an idea that if you get a job at a food facility, it is a two-day orientation to get you ready for your job. If you have a job at IBM, it is an eight-day orientation to get ready for your job. So I said to myself, two to eight days can get you ready for a job; then why cannot three months of schooling get a student ready for his or her job? Nine months of schooling or four years of schooling will burn out a frustrated mind, so if you have a teen pick one class to excel in for three months and get a $300 to $500 bonus at graduation, fee or bonus to help pay for utensils or a wardrobe to get them going in their job. I feel that this problem will help teens that do not like school and it will open new doors to them for a better life.

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 the government do regarding these concerns. I submit the following statements into the Congressional Record, as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Rami Faour and Pat Griffin Regarding the Legal Drinking Age Rami Faour: Representative Sanders, and other distinguished guests, we are here to speak about lowering the drinking age to help alleviate the problem with teen drinking. We understand that there are a large number of people between the ages of 18 and 20 who drink regardless of the law, and many of them even binge drink. Even though the legal drinking age is 21, many teens are able to purchase alcohol to consume on their own. 18 to 20 year olds can pay taxes, adopt a child, be drafted into the military, hold firearms, but they are not allowed to touch alcohol. This is an illogical inconsistency and infringement of civil rights on this age group. They are legal adults in every other respect and ironically not a lot of these legal adults who drink illegally increase the alcohol use and abuse it is meant to reduce. Alcohol has become a forbidden fruit for teens. Drinking is more exciting when it is illegal than when it is legal. So many people go out and get drunk simply because they know they should not be drinking at all. Just look at our American history, we saw prohibition backfire. Instead of stopping it, it glorified it and we had increased alcohol. We see teens following that pattern. Pat Griffin: The solution to this topic is a realistic drinking age combined with education of teens about drinking. There is no reason that an 18-year-old cannot drink as responsibly or even more responsibly than a 24-year-old. The level of maturity between these two ages are about the same. The solution is to educate young youths in how to drink responsibly for the first step but current alcohol education in high school, and in college set up on how to drink responsibly and ending with the message ``Do not drink because you would be too young.'' First we need to educate teens, then we need to trust them. If we treat them like children, they will act like children. If you treat them as responsible adults, they will act maturely. With these steps we see many different changes of attitudes and behavior of young adults. We wish to thank you for your time to educate young adults in how to drink responsibly and then let them drink responsibly. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the health care crisis in America, there are many dimensions to it, but clearly one of the dimensions is that in my State of Vermont and all over this country physicians are writing out prescriptions to their patients, but they are saying, what is the sense of me writing out a prescription if my patient cannot afford to get it filled? So what we are finding is that senior citizens and many, many other people are simply unable to take the prescription drugs that they need, or they are dividing their dosages in half, or they are taking their prescription drugs once every other day. We hear from pharmacists that our legislation is supported by the Community Pharmacists of America. They stand behind their desks, behind their counters and their hearts are broken when senior citizens cannot afford the products that their doctors are prescribing, when people are dying and when people are suffering and we have the cure right in front of us. So some of us in this Congress well over a year ago, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) who is right here, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and I introduced legislation which was a very, very simple piece legislation. What we said is that we are living in an increasingly globalized economy. I must tell my colleagues, I have many problems with the globalized economy. But we are living in that economy. And if we go to a shoe store, the shoe company is able to purchase shoes anyplace in the world. If we go to a pant store, a haberdashery, they purchase their product anywhere in the world. So we are asking a very simple question. If a prescription drug is FDA safety approved, why cannot a prescription drug distributor or a pharmacist purchase that product anyplace in the world at a significantly lower price than the pharmaceutical industry is selling it to him in the United States right now? Why cannot competition exist, free market exist, global economy exist when we are talking about prescription drugs which are FDA safety approved? Now, if that legislation were passed today, what we would have is prescription drug distributors testing the market in Canada, they would buy tamoxifen for one-tenth the price they would buy other drugs for 50 percent the price, they would be able to resell it to American consumers for significantly lower prices than we are currently paying. Now, what is wrong with that legislation? Nothing is wrong with that legislation. What that legislation would do is lower prescription drug costs in this country from between 30 to 50 percent at almost zero expense to the American taxpayer. It would allow American business people who import drugs to take advantage of the best prices that are available all over the world. Now, our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who last year made $27 billion in profit, our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who are contributing millions and millions of dollars to both political parties, our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who, if my colleagues can believe it, have 300 paid lobbyists here in Washington, D.C., our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who spent $65 million on advertising last year trying to defeat any legislation that would lower the cost of prescription drugs, well, let me tell my colleagues they are fighting back vigorously. They are putting on dishonest, misleading ads on radio, TV, and in the newspapers and they are saying Members of Congress want to import unsafe, adulterated drugs. What a horrible, terrible thing to say about Members of Congress who are fighting so that their constituents can afford the prescription drugs that they need. What a disgraceful thing to say about Members of Congress that we would want to see an unhealthy prescription drug come into this country. It is simply untrue. The legislation that passed in the Senate is very clear. There are strong safety conditions attached to it. The FDA has said that, if they have $23 million to increase their capabilities, they will guarantee that the products coming into this country are safe. This is not rocket science. It is easily done. The problem is not unsafe drugs that will come in if our legislation is passed. The problem is that today Americans are dying, Americans are suffering because they cannot afford the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs. That is the problem. And the pharmaceutical industry, which is every day showing the American people how outrageously greedy they are, apparently $27 billion in profits last year is not enough. I guess they need more than that. Apparently, charging Americans 10 times more than Canadians for certain drugs is not high enough prices, they need more than that. Well, all over this country the American people are saying, enough is enough. Let us lower the cost of prescription drugs. Let us not continue the rip-off of the American people so that our people are paying so much more than the people in Europe, the people in Mexico, the people in Canada. That is what this legislation is about. Do not believe the dishonest ads that the pharmaceutical industry is publishing. As I mentioned a moment ago, over a year ago, legislation introduced by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and myself set the ground work, started the process for this. And we are making real progress. If that legislation were put on the floor today, we would have overwhelming bipartisan support. I challenge the Republican leadership to show the American people that they have the guts to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry, that they will allow the House and the Senate to vote on this legislation. If they allow us to do it, it will win, we will lower prescription drug prices in this country, and we will have done something that the American people will be very proud of us for doing.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is an outrage, as my friend indicates, that the American people have to flee their own country to purchase prescription drugs manufactured in the United States.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, I just want to thank the minority leader for his very eloquent statement and for his very strong support of legislation that, if passed today, would lower the cost of prescription drugs by between 30 and 50 percent for every man, woman and child in this country. And the fact that the minority leader has now come strongly on board, this legislation makes me more confident that we are going to pass it. But here is the story, and let us be very clear about it. The pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful industry in this country. Last year it made $27 billion in profits, $27 billion in profits while charging the American people, by far, the highest cost for prescription drugs than any other country in the world. I live in the State of Vermont. We border on Canada. Last year, I made two trips over the border with Vermonters to purchase prescription drugs in Canada, and I want to relay one aspect of our trip. We had with us a number of women who are struggling against breast cancer, struggling for their lives, and they take a widely prescribed prescription drug called Tamoxiphen. What we found when we went over the border is that the cost of Tamoxiphen, which saves the lives of women who are struggling with breast cancer, was one-tenth the price than in the United States of America. Imagine that, women struggling for their lives are paying ten times more for the same exact product in this country than a few minutes away over the border. Now, as the minority leader has indicated, we have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. In my view, if that bill that was passed in the Senate were brought to the House and Senate today, it would pass overwhelmingly. It would not be close. The problem that we are having now is that the pharmaceutical industry is exerting enormous pressure on the Republican leadership. And those of us in Congress and all over America are watching day by day to see if the Republican leadership has the courage to bring this bill on to the floor, which has widespread bipartisan support. Many Democrats and Republicans, like the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and others, are fighting the right fight. The American people are sick and tired of being played the fool and paying by far higher prices than anyone else. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) indicated a moment ago, the pharmaceutical industry is spending millions and millions of dollars on radio ads, on television ads, on newspaper ads which are dishonest and misleading. So I would say to the minority leader that the $64 million question is: Does the Republican leadership have the guts to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and allow us to pass bipartisan legislation that would overwhelmingly sail through both bodies and lower the cost of prescription drugs by 30 to 50 percent? And I want to thank the gentleman very much for his active role now in seeing that the legislation is passed.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 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 the government do regarding these concerns. I submit these statements in the Congressional Record, as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Hon. Bernard Sanders in the House of Representatives on behalf of HEATHER MOYLAN, GEORGE (BUD) VANA, IV and MATTHEW JENNESS Regarding GENDER REQUIREMENT IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION--May 26, 2000 HEATHER MOYLAN: Today we would like to propose that new legislation be introduced regarding gender equity, legislation that would repeal any sections of affirmative action that make reference to gender in the workplace. Affirmative action is defined as actions taken to provide equal opportunities as an admission for employment for minority groups or women. Traditionally society has dominated by the male gender. Today, however, advancements have been made for women in regards to jobs, sports and education. Affirmative action legislation and its close cousin, Title 9 have had a lot of important and beneficial progress for women in all of their endeavors. In most cases quality is already a reality. Statistics show in some cases there is a female advantage and of course there is still progress to be made. The legislation and enforcement by the government, once crucial, has run its course. The American people have become accustomed to gender equality. States have created their own legislation. Institutions and public and private sectors have their own regulations, and in summary the law has done all that it can do. The danger now exists that the law may be abused with so-called reverse discrimination suits. MATTHEW JENNESS: Last night I went out and I found information to back this up; with looking at the job rate between male and female and I found that the participation rate percentage was in 1948, 32 percent female and 86.9 percent male. In 1979, 50 percent female and 78 percent male, and in this year, 2000, 75 percent male and 60 percent female. So from that I figure that a 60 percent--there is a pretty good margin there, it is close, and the ten percent may be people who chose to be--females choosing to take traditional roles in the family. GEORGE VANA, IV: I get to show you some stuff, I guess. Now this is a graph of high school attendance percentage. These are 14- and 15-year-olds. This right here is the male bar and that represents 80.2 percent attendance and this represents female attendance which is 85.6 percent, and this is I guess preliminary to what we are getting to here. CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: So that chart shows there are more girls in high school than boys. GEORGE VANA, IV: This is college enrollment and it is the same trend basically. 41.7 percent of 18- and 19-year-old males attend college, and I guess it is 51.3 percent of females, age 18 to 19 years old attend college. These are based on the United States Census Bureau. And then we are also going to look at male versus female education accomplishments, and you can see here that education attainment which basically signifies some degree of some sort is much, much higher nowadays within females. These are numbers in the thousands, 46,888,000 females now attain higher educational status compared to 29,343,000 males. And current college enrollment, also in the millions, is we have about 6,905,000 males in college right now as opposed to 8,641,000 females, so a gap exists now I guess and that would almost be in favor of females where affirmative action legislation many years ago served to increase these numbers.

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 the government do regarding these concerns. I am asking that these statements be submitted into the Congressional Record, as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Hon. BERNARD SANDERS in the House of Representatives on behalf of SCOTT DOBROWOLSKI Regarding GUN CONTROL--May 26, 2000 SCOTT DOBROWOLSKI: I come here this morning to speak on gun control, and as our schools have been noted, there is more and more shootings in our schools. Now legislation has been taking away handguns, assault rifles, many of the weapons that have been used to kill our students. Now as I see it, I have been raised with firearms in my home and as part of this I have had a lot of training with them. I have been told right and wrong, whether or not to shoot, what to shoot. I deer hunt. Really a matter of my training as I have been told not to kill people. As we have learned there is more and more students killing each other. A lot of these children have been decided and acquitted for not knowing the difference between killing their student and just merely playing around. As I see it, there should be more education in school as to avoid the shooting of their classmates. If we started at a younger age, I believe that we could severely delay the risk of having all these shootings. I am not saying hand-on experience with firearms, but more or less just education on right and wrong in our schools because apparently as we have seen, parents no longer care or they are not doing their job. My parents at a very young age taught me the difference between right and wrong and responsibility and I feel this is not being done anymore. Frankly, I went to France and instead of fearing the fact that my plane would go down I have a greater percentage of dying in my school because one of my friends might get ticked off because I told him he looked funny and he might shoot at me. I feel this is a great danger and should be stopped at a more recent time where children are more able to be influenced by what happens in their lives.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 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 the government do regarding these concerns. I am submitting these statements for the Congressional Record, as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Hon. Bernard Sanders in the House of Representatives on behalf of TOM CHICCARELLI, JOHANNES GAMBA and JAMES GREENOUGH Regarding INCREASED SPENDING FOR ARTS PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS--May 26, 2000 JAMES GREENOUGH: I would like to start off by saying my partners and I are very happy to be here today to present our topic. It is on art spending in schools. In experiment after experiment educators reported of high school seniors who follow instructions to perform a task, only about one-quarter wrote instructions clear enough for someone else to follow them successfully. In most instances, students left out pertinent details or key information. Students are currently lacking in arts education. Search Institute and the asset approach giving children what they need to succeed has identified building blocks of healthy development that help young people grow up healthy, caring and responsible. Out of 100,000 6th to 12th grade youth surveyed, only 19 percent spend three or more hours per week in lessons or practicing music, theater or other arts. This is the lowest percentage of the 40 developmental assets surveyed. It reveals the absence of arts in the nation's schools and the need for improved fine arts programs. With this in mind we recommend that the United States Government institute a fine arts framework and curriculum. The Federal Government should provide resources to schools to encourage the development of effective fine arts programs. The arts convey knowledge and meaning not learned through the study of other subjects. They represent a form of thinking and a way of knowing that is based in human imagination and judgment. Recent statistics show of students who have taken a fine art credit for four years score 59 points higher in verbal and 44 points higher on the math sections of the SATs, significant increases. Research also addresses examples of young people who are considered classroom failures, perhaps acting out because these students often become the high achievers in arts learning settings. Success in the arts becomes a bridge to learning and eventual success in other areas of learning. The world of adult work has changed and the arts learning experience has shown remarkable consistency with the evolving workplace. Ideas are what matter and the ability to generate ideas. To bring ideas to life and communicate them is what matters to workplace success. Working in a classroom or a studio as an artist, the young person is learning, practicing future workplace behaviors. These quotes came from Arts Ed's Webpage. ``Art in all its distinct forms defines in many ways those qualities that are at the heart of education formed in the 1990s: Creativity, perseverance, a sense of standards, and above all striving for excellence,'' and the quote came from Richard Reilly, U.S. Secretary of Education.