Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the horror that we are dealing with is so unspeakable that it is literally very difficult to imagine the extent of what is going on, but let us try for a moment. In at least eight countries in sub-Saharan Africa, between 20 and 35 percent of children under 15 have lost one or both parents. Let us stop and think what that would mean to our hometowns or our State. One-third of the children under 15 have already lost one or both parents. I think after all is said and done, what we are learning tonight is that we live in one world, and whether we like it or not, we cannot ignore the horrendous suffering that is going on in Africa. Our souls will be tarnished if we do not respond, and ultimately, mark my words, it will become a national issue, as well. We live in one world. We have got to respond. We should support this amendment, and do a lot more than that.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just conclude by thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and everybody else.

Mr. SANDERS. I am hearing a yes, Y-E-S; is that correct? Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, at the end of the day there will be $2.5 million going to local NGOs to combat that?

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is one of the great health care crises facing this country, and that is that millions of Americans cannot afford the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country. They know that an absurd situation exists by which, when an American spends $1 for a prescription drug manufactured in the United States, a German spends 71 cents, somebody in Sweden spends 68 cents, the United Kingdom spends 65 cents, and in Italy 51 cents for the same exact drug. So what this amendment says very simply is we want to know the price that the pharmaceutical industry is selling that product abroad for. We want to know, in fact, how come a Canadian pharmacist can buy Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed breast cancer drug, for one-tenth the price that an American pharmacist can buy that same product. Meanwhile we know that the pharmaceutical industry makes a profit in Canada, selling the product at one-tenth the price that our people have to pay for it. All over this country today, elderly people and many other people are making terrible decisions about whether they can afford the prescription drugs they need to ease their pain and to keep them alive. The more knowledge that we have about the pricing situation in the pharmaceutical industry, the better we will be in being able to address this crisis.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just put this on the scorecard of two wrongs do not make a right. EU absolutely does subsidize its wool and mohair producers. But when we look at New Zealand and Australia, we do not see that being the case. I think we should look more at the New Zealand and the Australian model than the EU example. Secondly, we are talking about a small industry here, but nobody goes out to help and subsidize the local pizzeria when they go out of business, the local video store, or the local hardware store. And I think we should be moving toward free markets. Because if we really want to reinvigorate this society of ours, I think it rests on free markets and the competitive forces that should take place.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentlewoman. Let me just associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa and thank him for his support, and I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from Ohio. I also want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his support of the concept of agritourism. The gentleman is aware that agritourism has worked very, very well in New Mexico and in many other parts of this country; and we should all be clear that what we are talking about now is a national program. Vermont is experimenting, getting into it, New Mexico is in it, Ohio is in it, Massachusetts, New York. But this is a national program which will accept competitive applications from people all over this country. I should say that as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has already indicated, there is strong bipartisan support for the concept of agritourism and an understanding that it would really be very unfair to family farmers all over this country who, as the gentleman from Iowa pointed out, are looking for alternative sources of revenue.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there is no argument that family farmers all over the country are losing their farms. This is a national tragedy. I do not claim that this $2 million is going to save the world, but I think what it will do is add energy to a growing concept by which farmers can gain the greater share of the tourist dollar that they deserve. Tourists come to their areas because they keep the land open. I would urge strong opposition to the Hefley amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The point here is that as commodity prices decline, and that is true for dairy, it is true for many other commodities, family farmers are looking for alternative sources of revenue. One of the sources of alternative revenue that they are looking at is agritourism. What we are looking at here is a $2 million program that would help family farmers all across this country. The key issue here, which is an interesting concept, is that, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) just said, people from cities all over the country go to rural areas in order to enjoy the peace and beauty that exists in rural areas. One of the reasons that the rural landscape is beautiful is because our family farmers keep that land open. It seems to me what we have to try to do is make sure that family farmers get a fair shake, get a fair return in terms of the agritourism money that is spent in their States; that it is not just the ski areas, that it is not just the fancy hotels, but that some of that money goes out into the rural countryside and helps the family farmers who need it the most. Let me just give a few examples of what farmers in Vermont and throughout this country are doing, and why we need additional help for family farmers to get involved in what is a growing national concept. Family farmers throughout this country are converting their guest rooms into small bed and breakfast operations. That means that on the weekend and maybe a few days a week they have a room available for a tourist to stay in. But in order to do that, in many instances, they might need a loan to convert the guest room into a bed and breakfast. They might need some help in learning how they can market what they are developing. It is not so easy for farmers suddenly to get on the Internet and to know how to bring guests into their home. Farmers are now encouraging tour buses to stop by and learn what family agriculture is about. But in order to be successful, they might need a loan or a small grant to build a restroom. If you are going to have a busload of people coming by, you might need a restroom there, improved parking facilities. Farmers might want to build snowmobile trails through their fields and woods so people can come and use the snowmobiles. It might cost a little money in order to maintain those trails and in order to advertise what they have available. In some instances, people who own apple orchards might want to do some value-added work. I know of an instance where somebody, instead of just doing apple picking in the fall, what they are doing is baking apple pies, selling them to tourists. They might need a few bucks to build or buy a new oven, a commercial-sized oven, and to deal with the health regulations in order to do it. The list goes on and on and on. And the gentleman from Iowa made a good point about we give out these microloans all over the world, and they are good loans, they are successful, but a few thousand, a few hundred dollars to a family farmer could literally make the difference, if that money is converted into $5,000 in additional revenue stream. It is the difference between whether that farm stays up or goes under. I happen to think that we are going to see is that agritourism is going to be spreading all over. It is good for the urban folks who want to get out and have the kids see what farming is about.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), for introducing what I think is important legislation which raises some very, very fundamental issues. I think that tonight's discussion in terms of prescription drugs is good, and I am delighted to hear it taking place in a nonpartisan way, progressives, conservatives, who are standing up for the American consumer. I believe that I was the first Member of Congress to go across the border with constituents to purchase prescription drugs. I have made that trip twice. I made a trip a year ago to Canada. Like everyone else that we have heard tonight, my experience was that we went across the border and we were able to save Vermont constituents thousands and thousands of dollars. The one particular drug that comes to my mind now is Tamoxifen, which is widely prescribed for breast cancer. Here we have women fighting for their lives, they go across the Canadian border and they purchase that product for one-tenth the price that they were paying in the United States. It seems to me, and we have heard it all already, I must tell the Members, I have concerns about NAFTA and I voted against it; concerns about that aspect of the global economy. The bottom line is, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) said a few moments ago, in every single product one can think of, whether it is a food product, whether it is shoes, whether it is apparel, there are massive amounts of trade taking place throughout the world. The question that the American people have to ask is why is it that there is an exception with prescription drugs. Legislation that has been offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and myself which now has 85 cosponsors is a very simple piece of legislation. It is a free trade piece of legislation. What it says is exactly what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) was talking about a moment ago. That is, if one is a prescription drug distributor, if they are a pharmacist, they should be able to go out and purchase anyplace in the world that they can FDA-safety-approved products at the best price that one can purchase it. And if the case is that one can go to Canada, the reason that Tamoxifen and all the other products are sold less expensively in Canada is that the pharmacists purchase the product for significantly lower amounts of money. Why is it that an American pharmacist has to pay 10 times more for a product than a Canadian or Mexican pharmacist? Mr. Speaker, it seems that people who believe in the competitive, free enterprise system should support legislation which says that a prescription drug distributor, so long as the product that comes into the country is safe and that is easily done, that that businessperson has a right to purchase that product at the lowest price he or she can so that it can be sold to the American people at a lower price, so that we end the disgrace that that chart was showing us that Americans are paying by far more than the people of any other country for the same exact prescription drug. Mr. Speaker, I think this particular piece of legislation is a small step forward, but it may open the door for further discussion. I hope tonight, and I mean this very sincerely, that in a nonpartisan way we can go forward. I think we are in basic agreement. The only rational objection that anyone can throw us is the fear of adulteration from abroad and so forth. That is easily addressed. If we can bring into this country pork and beef and lettuce and tomatoes from farms and ranches all over this continent, my God, we can regulate the importation of prescription drugs which are made in a relatively few factories. I think that we are onto something big tonight, and I think if we continue to work together in developing the concept of reimportation, we can substantially lower the cost of prescription drugs in this country 30, 40, or 50 percent and not see the American consumer the laughing stock of the world by paying two, three, five times more for products than other people throughout this world. So I see this discussion as a very, very important step forward. I congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor; and I hope that after tomorrow, we will continue to meet and go forward and represent the American consumers and finally stand up to the pharmaceutical industry which is ripping our people off.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the specific rule to permit an amendment on the floor offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) authorizing the establishment of a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. Not only do we need to pass this rule, but what we really need to do is to appropriate funding for the creation of a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing an energy crisis in this country. The price of gasoline is skyrocketing. In the Midwest and other parts of the country, the price of a gallon of gas is now over $2 a gallon. Throughout the rest of the country, including my State of Vermont, it is well over $1.50 a gallon, and that is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, the price of crude oil has more than tripled since last year and is the highest it has been since the Gulf War. The reason the prices are high is because the supply for gasoline is low. This can only mean one thing. If we do not adequately prepare for next winter, we will have a home heating oil disaster on our hands. But my colleagues do not have to take my word for it. I quote from an article that appeared in USA Today just yesterday: ``Those who heat with oil will shiver this winter and pay a premium. Just 15.3 million barrels of heating oil are stockpiled for the East Coast, which uses 75 percent of the Nation's heating oil in the winter. That's well down from 41.3 million barrels on hand last June.'' Mr. Speaker, we all know what happened last year. Home heating oil prices were the highest they have ever been in history. And now we are faced with a home heating oil stockpile that is 37 percent lower than last year. It does not take a genius to figure out that we are setting ourselves up for a huge heating oil crisis next year unless Congress acts now. According to Bill O'Grady, oil analyst at A.G. Edwards & Sons, ``If we have a cold winter early, we could end up seeing in heating oil what we're seeing in gas prices in spades.'' Mr. Speaker, we must not let this happen. We must make certain that the huge increase in home heating oil prices that we experienced last winter never happens again. Too many people were hurt by that huge increase in home heating oil prices. The astronomical prices that our constituents were forced to pay for home heating oil in order to stay warm last winter was unconscionable. Let us unite behind the creation of a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, and let us make sure that we have adequate funding to guarantee that it is up and running as soon as possible.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, the ranking member, for giving me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), authorizing the establishment of a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. This amendment is very similar to freestanding legislation which I have authored which has some 98 cosponsors and similar to an amendment that passed this body as part of a larger bill a little while ago. What is important to understand is that we not only have to pass this amendment tonight, but that we must go forward to adequately appropriate money to make sure that this Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve becomes a reality. We had a vote last week where we lost by two votes, but I think a majority of the Members actually support it, and I hope we will support the roughly $10 million that we need for appropriations. It is no secret to anybody that this country is facing an energy crisis from one end of the Nation to the other. We are seeing gasoline prices skyrocketing. We know that the price of crude oil has more than tripled since last year and is the highest that it has been since the Gulf War. The reason that prices are high is because the supply for gasoline is low. That obviously can mean only one thing; and that is, if we do not adequately prepare now for next winter, we will have a home heating oil disaster on our hands. That is why we have got to move very quickly on this Home Heating Oil Reserve. Let me just quote what USA Today said yesterday. USA Today yesterday said, ``Those who heat with oil will shiver this winter, and pay a premium. Just 15.3 million barrels of heating oil are stockpiled for the East Coast, which uses 75 percent of the Nation's heating oil in the winter. That's well down from the 41.3 million barrels on hand last June.'' Mr. Chairman, we all know what happened last year. Home heating oil prices were the highest they have ever been in history. Now we are faced with a home heating oil stockpile that is 37 percent lower than last year. It does not take a genius to figure out that we are setting ourselves up for a huge heating oil crisis next year unless Congress acts now. I do not believe that the Home Heating Oil Reserve is going to solve all of the problems. Far from it. But it is an important step forward. We have got to do all that we can to make sure that the huge increase in home heating oil prices that we experienced last winter does not happen again. Too many elderly people, too many people on fixed incomes just cannot afford to pay a doubling of the price that they paid the previous year for oil. I urge support for this very important amendment and thank the sponsors of it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a very strange set of priorities in this institution. In the last couple of months, we apparently had enough money and found enough money to increase military spending by $22 billion, despite the fact that we are not quite sure who the enemy is. At a time when the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any Nation on Earth, a majority of the members of the House voted to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest people in this country. We apparently had enough money to do that. Every single year the United States Congress provides over $100 billion worth of corporate welfare to some of the largest and most profitable institutions in the world. However, when it comes to providing low-income Americans the ability to have equal and adequate legal representation to take care of their needs, suddenly, my goodness, we just do not have enough money available. For the sixth year in a row, the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice-reported bill includes only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This is $164 million below the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $305 million, and $199 million below the President's fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million. What are we talking about? There is enough money to fund the Star Wars program, which is not needed and will not work; but when we ask for money to enable low-income women so that when they are battered they can go to court and defend themselves, when they need help for adoption, for child custody and support, for visitation rights, for guardianship, for divorce and separation, for protection against domestic violence, my goodness, there is no money available. Mr. Chairman, there is a growing perception in the United States that we are becoming two societies, those people who have the money and everybody else. Yesterday, the World Health Organization issued a report which basically said that, if you are wealthy in America, you get the best health care in the world; if you are low-income in America, you get below dozens and dozens of other countries. And that perception exists in terms of justice. If you are wealthy in America, you have a battery of lawyers coming forward, and you have the best legal protection that money can buy; and if you lose, you know how to use the appeal process, and if you lose then, you know how to negotiate a settlement, which gives you the best that you can get. But if you are poor, it is increasingly difficult to find a competent attorney who will represent your interests. Now, it is one thing to cut housing programs so that low-income people pay 50 percent of their income in housing; it is one thing to provide inadequate nutrition, it is one thing to provide inadequate housing programs so that people sleep out in the street, but even worse than all of that, it is really awful, really awful and unacceptable to deny people the right to legally represent themselves. What we are doing essentially is tying people's hands behind their backs and saying, we can do all that we want to you and you are not going to have the resources to defend yourself in the halls of justice, and that suggests that justice is severely lacking for millions of Americans. So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the House of Representatives have the common decency to provide justice for all people and support this very important amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which increases the bill's funding for the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers Program to the authorizing committee's full authorization of $13 million, and provides the President's budget request of $1 million for the National Women's Business Council. Two years ago this body agreed to an amendment that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and I offered to double funding for the Women's Business Centers. This increase in funding doubled the size and scope of the Women's Business Centers Program, increasing the number of Women's Business Centers throughout the country to 92 centers, including one in my home State of Vermont. The Women's Business Centers offer financial management, marketing, and technical assistance to current and potential women business owners. Each center tailors its style and offerings to the particular needs of its community. More importantly, the Women's Business Centers target economically disadvantaged women and areas of high unemployment. This program has had significant results. Over the last 10 years, Women's Business Centers have served over 100,000 women entrepreneurs throughout the U.S. start and expand their businesses. As of 1999, there are nearly 34,000 women-owned businesses in Vermont, accounting for 40 percent of all firms in the State. Between 1992 and 1999, the number of women-owned businesses in Vermont increased by 50 percent, accounting for the creation of 47,000 new jobs in the State and $195 million in sales. Women-owned businesses are thriving nationwide. Employment growth in women-owned businesses exceeds the national average in nearly every region of the country and in nearly every major industry. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of firms owned by women grew by 78 percent, which is almost twice the rate of increase in the number of all U.S. firms. Between these years virtually all new jobs were generated by small businesses. As large companies continued to downsize and fires exceeded hires, small businesses with less than 19 employees generated about 77 percent of the net new jobs. If provided the funding, the SBA's Women's Business Centers can help level the playing field for women entrepreneurs who still face unique obstacles in the world of business. WBCs have programs to help women break into the Federal procurement and export markets. While women entrepreneurs are expanding at the foreign markets at the same rate as all U.S. business owners, women-owned businesses receive less than 8.8 percent of the more than $200 billion in Federal contract awards. The President recently ordered all Federal departments and agencies to grant at least 5 percent of all prime contracts and subcontract awards to women-owned businesses. Fully funding the National Women's Business Council, the bipartisan advisory panel that provides independent advice to the Federal Government on these issues, is crucial to accomplishing this goal, and I hope very much that we will pass this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

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

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Mr. Udall, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for their support of this bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is also supported by a very broad coalition of environmental and public interest organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses, among other things, the very serious national problem of millions of lower-income Americans being unable to properly weatherize their homes for the winter or for the summer. The result is that their limited incomes literally go drifting out the window of their underinsulated homes. In addition, from an environmental point of view, this Nation wastes billions of dollars in higher than needed energy costs. That is money that is just going through the windows, through the doors, and through the roofs. For those of us who are concerned about protecting the financial well-being of lower-income Americans and for those of us who are concerned about the environment, this is a very important amendment. This amendment increases funding for energy efficiency investments by $45 million, including $20 million for the highly successful weatherization assistance program. The $45 million offset for this amendment is the fossil fuel energy research and development program, otherwise known as power generation and large-scale technologies. This amendment would bring that program down from $410 million, that is a lot of money, $410 million to $365 million. Mr. Chairman, last year 248 Members voted in favor of an amendment to cut the fossil fuel energy research and development program by $50 million. Unfortunately, despite our vote to cut this program that is widely regarded as corporate welfare, the conference committee not only ignored our vote, but added more than $50 million to this controversial program. Some of us are determined, and when it comes to corporate welfare versus the needs of millions of low-income Americans all over this country, we are going to stand up against corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, the energy efficient programs that this amendment supports have been enormously successful and have saved Americans some $80 billion over the last 20 years. Yet, funding for these programs has been consistently shortchanged. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, funding for Federal energy- efficient programs have been reduced by almost 30 percent since 1996. In other words, we are increasing funding for weatherization efforts which have been cut in recent years, which is what this amendment is about, in order to cut a dubious program which has seen significant increases in recent years; more money for low-income people to weatherize their homes, less money for a program that has gone up in recent years, which many regard as corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would also increase funding for the State energy program by $3.5 million. That program helps homeowners, schools, hospitals, and farmers reduce energy costs. Mr. Chairman, regarding the fossil fuel energy research and development program, let me quote from the report of the fiscal year 1997 Republican, I say it again, Republican budget resolution. I would hope my Republican friends would hear this. ``The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research and development since the oil crisis of 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 not the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), that is the 1997 Republican budget resolution. Let me quote from the 1999 Congressional Budget Office report, which says, ``The appropriateness of Federal government funding for such research and development is questionable. Federal programs in the fossil fuel area have a long history of funding technologies that, while interesting technically, had little chance of commercial feasibility even after years of Federal investment. As a result, much of the Federal spending has been irrelevant to solving the Nation's energy problems.''

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding to me. In terms of the environment, I would point out to my colleagues that my amendment is supported by the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources----

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I certainly can. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) indicated earlier, when we conserve energy we are doing something extraordinarily important for the environment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his strong support, but just say while my name is on the amendment, the truth of the matter is that all of the Members throughout New England in a bipartisan way have come forward to get the bill authorized in New York and elsewhere, in the Northeast and elsewhere in the country. So this really has been a joint bipartisan effort, and I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to seeing this amendment pass.