Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) hit it right on the head and, that is, at a time when millions of Americans cannot afford the outrageously high costs of prescription drugs, they need to know that when their tax dollars went to develop these drugs, that the United States Government is saying to the private drug company they cannot charge anything they want; that they are going to go through the NIH, going to negotiate with you for reasonable prices. This is nothing more than asking for a fair return for the taxpayers of this country on their investment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute and yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said, well, why should we not repeal the estate tax. Let me tell him why. There are millions of Americans in this country, senior citizens, who suffer and die because they cannot afford prescription drugs. And this country does not have a strong program to say to the sick that they can get the prescription drugs they need without taking money out of their food budget. What the gentleman is doing today is giving the wealthiest 2 percent of the population, billionaires, a huge tax break. And then my colleagues will come before the American people and say, gee, we do not have the money to protect the sick and the old. In my district there are middle-class families who are going deeply into debt so that they can send their kids to college, and some of these kids graduate college $50,000 in debt. And what my colleagues are saying today is, hey, Bill Gates and his friends, who contribute huge amounts of money to the political process, to the Republican Party, they need a tax break. I say that is immoral. There are families in this country who work 40 hours a week and they sleep in their cars because we have not put money into affordable housing. Yet my colleagues say, hey, I have millionaire friends who have gone to a $25,000 a plate fund raiser, we have to give them a tax break. And my colleagues say, we do not have money for affordable housing, we do not have money for education. There are 44 million people in this country who have no health insurance, but my colleagues say we cannot afford that because they are too busy giving tax breaks to the richest people in this country. I have heard my Republican friends use the word immoral and unjust to describe the estate tax. I will tell them what is immoral and unjust. It is immoral and unjust that we give tax breaks to those people who do not need it while we ignore the suffering of millions and millions of people who need help today. That is why.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for offering this amendment. I think what the issue that we are debating about is priorities. I believe that every Member in the House wants to see the United States have a very strong national defense. But we want to make sure that that national defense is cost effective, because there are other needs in this country. No Member of the Congress ever wants to see a service person killed in action. And we want to protect them the best way that we can. But similarly, I would hope that no Member of the Congress wants to see an elderly person die because they cannot afford prescription drugs, wants to see a child end up in jail rather than college because that child is not getting adequate elementary education, wants to see an American veteran sleep out on the street because the VA is underfunded, wants to see a veteran of World War II not get the health care they need in a VA hospital. I do not think any Member wants to see that happen. But we have to make choices. And some of us say, enough is enough. When we talk about increasing military spending by $22 billion and we talk about greatly outspending all of our enemies combined and then we add NATO to it and another $200 billion, how much do we need? We have middle class families in this country who cannot afford to send their kids to college. Should we not be addressing that? We are talking about not having enough money for Medicare. Several years ago this institution, against my vote, cut Medicare by $200 billion; and the result is massive dislocation in our hospitals, our nursing homes, and in our home health care agencies. Those are the choices that we have to make. Talk about those people. Do my colleagues want to see elderly people not get the health care that they need? That is part of this equation. And this is serious discussion. We cannot have it all, not unless we balloon the deficit and go back to where we were. So I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for raising serious questions about how we spend our money in the military.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which in a moment I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw. I have spoken to leading members of the committee and to their staff, and I have received assurance that this very important matter will, in fact, be taken care of later on during the process; and I am happy to accept their assurances. I would, however, like to take just a moment to raise the issue of what this amendment is about. Mr. Chairman, since 1993, there has been a bipartisan consensus in the House that the establishment of an environmental medical unit and research into multiple chemical sensitivity is one of the most promising areas in terms of understanding and treating Gulf War illness. In fact, in the fiscal year 1994 Department of Defense appropriations bill, this House approved money to begin construction of that unit. Unfortunately, that funding was greatly reduced in the subsequent conference committee and the Department of Defense chose to ignore the report language supporting the establishment of that project. In other words, 6 years later, and after all of the suffering and pain associated with Gulf War illness, we still have not been able to build a relatively inexpensive unit that could give us key information about the causes and possible treatment of Gulf War illness. And, frankly, this is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I will be submitting to the committee a letter to the Honorable Jesse Brown, who was then Secretary of Defense of Veterans Affairs, dated November 19, 1993. This bipartisan letter, which was signed by Sonny Montgomery, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), Roy Roland, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and Frank Tejeda, Democrats and Republicans, asks for that money to build this environmental medical unit. The question is how many years do we have to wait before this very important project is undertaken? Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, this process has dragged on for too many years. Gulf War illness is a tragedy. It affects close to 100,000 Americans. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who is chairman of the relevant subcommittee has done a terrific job. I have worked with him in trying to bring forth witnesses who can give us the information about Gulf War illness. There is widespread belief that multiple chemical sensitivity is one of the causes of Gulf War illness. This unit will go a long way in allowing us to understand the relationship of multiple chemical sensitivity and Gulf War illness. I ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment. And I believe that I have assurances from both the chairman and the ranking member that we are going to proceed on this.

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is making a factual inaccuracy.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we in Congress get our priorities straight. Today, despite the so-called economic boom, tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages than was the case 25 years ago. They are working two jobs or they are working three jobs and they are desperately trying to keep their heads above water. In the United States today, 44 million Americans have no health insurance, and millions more are underinsured. The United States has the greatest gap in the industrialized world between the rich and the poor, and 20 percent of our children live in poverty, the highest child poverty rate of any major country. Millions of senior citizens in this country and middle-income families cannot afford the prescription drugs they need, and the U.S. Congress has made the health care crisis even worse by cutting in 1997 several hundred billion dollars from Medicare. Throughout this country, veterans who put their lives on the line defending this Nation are unable to get the quality health care they need and deserve. In the United States today, we are experiencing an affordable housing crisis, with millions of hard-working families paying more than 50 percent of their limited incomes just to pay the rent; and some of the more unfortunate low-income workers are people sleeping out on the streets or in their automobiles. In this country we talk a whole lot about education, but millions of American middle-class families cannot afford to send their kids to college and many of our kids who graduate find themselves deeply in debt. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the middle class of this country, the working families, our senior citizens, our veterans, our young people, low-income people, have some very serious problems. Unfortunately, when these constituents cry out to Congress and ask for help, they are told over and over again that there is just no money available to help them, that we just do not have the resources. But when it comes to military spending, it appears that the defense contractors who want to design the most exotic and expensive weapons systems in the history of the world are able to obtain all of the funding they want. When it comes to defense spending, we apparently have billions to spend on the construction of a national missile defense system that many scientists believe will not work and is not needed; billions to spend on aircraft carriers and fighter planes that just coincidentally are built in the States and districts of powerful Members of Congress; billions to spend on military projects that coincidentally are built by contractors who contribute huge sums of money to both political parties. When it comes to military spending, we apparently have the resources to increase the defense budget by 7 percent, a $22 billion increase from last year. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the U.S. needs a strong and superior military system. We must be prepared for the new threats and challenges that lie ahead. We must provide decent pay, good housing, good quality health care and child care and other vital services to our men and women in uniform. We must do a much better job than at present in understanding the cause of Gulf War illness which is why I am offering an amendment later on in this bill so that we can better understand the cause of that illness which is affecting 100,000 Americans. But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is enough is enough. Today when we look at our military budget, it is not just that we spend more than 18 times as much as the military spending of all of our potential adversaries combined; but when we combine our spending with NATO, who will be our allies in any major international conflict, the numbers are absolutely incredible. The bottom line is that we as a Nation have got to get our priorities right. There is a limited sum of money out there, and we must make sure that we spend it appropriately. We cannot turn our backs on our seniors, on working people, on the children and simply look toward the military budget. I would ask that this bill be defeated, sent back to the committee and brought forth again for a more appropriate response.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let us be clear what this debate is about. There is a reason why the largest multinational corporations in this country are spending tens of millions of dollars to see this legislation passed, and that reason is they like doing business in China where they can pay people 10 cents an hour, 15 cents an hour, rather than paying the workers in this country a living wage. And there is another reason why the environmental community is opposed to this agreement, why the veterans community is opposed to this agreement, why religious organizations like the National Conference of Catholic Bishops are opposed to this agreement, and that is this agreement is bad for workers, it is bad for human rights, it is bad for the environment, and it is bad for national security. I would hope that the Members of this Congress have the courage to stand up to the big money interests who are flooding Congress with contributions, with lobbying efforts, and with advertising, and do the right thing for the vast majority of the American people. Vote against this rule; vote against this agreement.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, after all is said and done, this debate is all about two words, corporate greed. The largest multinational corporations in this country are spending tens of millions of dollars on campaign contributions, advertising, and lobbying for one major reason, they must prefer to hire desperate Chinese workers at 10 cents, 15 cents or 20 cents an hour than higher American workers at a living wage. Why would they want to hire an American when they can employ Chinese women at 20 cents an hour and force them to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day and arrest them when they try to form a union? That is a good place for a large multinational corporation to do business. Mr. Chairman, American workers today are working longer hours for lower wages than they were 25 years ago. We do not need to punish them further and by expanding the already huge trade deficit that we have with China and costs us hundreds of thousands of more jobs and push wages down lower in this country. Mr. Chairman, this agreement is opposed by unions representing millions of American workers, by environmental organizations concerned about the fragility of this planet's environment, by religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who are concerned about religious freedom and human rights, by veterans organizations, like the American Legion and the VFW who are concerned about the issues of national security. Mr. Chairman, let us have the guts to stand up to the big money interests who are more concerned about their bottom line than the best interests of the American people. Let us vote no on this issue.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and I would like to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller for working together to craft this truly historic piece of environmental legislation. Let me be clear, this bill is by no means perfect. For example, the funding formula for all seven titles of this bill could have been crafted in a more equitable manner to allow smaller States with important environmental needs like the State of Vermont to either receive more money or at least have the ability to apply for more money. Legislation pending in the Senate, includes provisions to help smaller states like Vermont gain access to more environmental funding, and I am hopeful as this process moves along we can find a way to include these provisions in the final piece of legislation. Having said that, we must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. For the first time in 25 years, we have the opportunity to provide a permanent and reliable source of funding to protect our environment. This legislation is indeed one of the few bright spots of the 106th Congress, and we must do everything possible to ensure that a final version of this bill is passed and signed into law this year. H.R. 701 would enable communities all across the country to expand parks and recreation, preserve open space farmland, protect wildlife and endangered species, and preserve historic buildings--more than three times the amount currently spent on those purposes. Funding for the measure would come from the more than $4 billion generated annually from royalties paid to the Federal Government from offshore oil and gas drilling on Federal lands. One of the most important pieces of this legislation is full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). From parks to playgrounds, wilderness to wetlands, open trails to open spaces, the LWCF has been an American success story at the national, state and local levels. In its 35-year history, LWCF has been responsible for nearly 7 million acres of parkland, refuges, and open spaces and the development of more than 37,000 State parks and recreation projects. Since 1968, my State of Vermont has received more than $27 million in LWCF funds. Practically every town in the State has benefited from LWCF money. Examples of LWCF projects include State treasures such as Camel's Hump State Park and the Mount Hunger hiking trail. Many other LWCF projects are far less high-profile, but make a significant contribution to local communities. From the repair of a sewage system in a town park, to the creation of a school sports field, hundreds of these projects have enriched Vermonters' lives at the local level. In addition, these projects have assisted local authorities in funding the ever-increasing demand for recreation facilities. It is truly amazing that LWCF has been as successful as it has been, given the fact that with the exception of one year LWCF has never been fully funded. By passing this legislation we would redeem a promise Congress made 36 years ago to dedicate a portion of the revenue stream from offshore oil production into preserving our nation's natural resources. Rarely has Congress had such an opportunity to redeem a promise that it made to the American people. We can do that today by passing this legislation. H.R. 701 will dramatically increase federal spending on outdoor- recreation facilities and, most importantly, it will safeguard the environment. All 50 Governors have endorsed this bill, and the majority of both House Republicans and House Democrats have signed on as cosponsors. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. Interestingly, on this piece of legislation we have all of corporate America telling us what a good deal it is and the multinationals are pouring huge sums of money into this campaign. But, meanwhile on the other side, we have trade unions representing millions of workers who are saying this is a bad deal for American workers. We have most of the environmental organizations in this country who are saying this is a bad deal for the environment in this world. We have human rights organizations and religious organizations who are saying this is a bad deal if we are concerned about human rights and the dignity of people. So on one side are the big money people who, over the last 20 years, have invested over $60 billion in China in search of labor there where people are paid 15, 20, or 25 cents an hour. And not surprisingly, these people have concluded that this is a great agreement. Well, I suppose it is if one is a multinational corporation who wants to throw American workers out on the street and hire people at 15 or 20 cents an hour. I can understand why they think it is a good deal. But it is not a good deal for American workers. American workers should not be asked to compete against desperate people in China who are forced to work at starvation wages, who cannot form free trade unions, who do not even have the legal right to stand up and criticize their government. The truth of the matter is that in the midst of the so-called economic boom, the average American today is working longer hours for lower wages. One of the reasons is that we have a miserable failed trade policy that has cost us millions of jobs and that has forced wages down in this country. So I will be very brief because I know that there are other speakers, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is here. But I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this PNTR. Stand up for American workers, for human rights, and for the environment and let us have the courage to take on the big money interests.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute six outstanding young women who are being presented with the Girl Scout Gold Award by the Vermont Girl Scout Council. They are: Kellie Miner, 619 Basin Harbor Road, Vergennes, VT 05491, Cassie Charlebois, PO Box 323, Vergennes, VT 05491, Catherine McEnerney, 39 Boothwoods, Vergennes, VT 05491, Linnea Oosterman, 1074 Slatterly Road, Vergennes, VT 05491, Stephanie Leonard, 201 Sunset Drive, Morrisville, VT 05661, Rebecca Robare, 6 Giorgetti Blvd., Rutland, VT 05701. They are being honored on May 16, 2000 for earning the highest achievement in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The award can be earned by girls aged 14-17, or in grades 9-12. To receive the award, these Girl Scouts first earned four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge as well as designing and implementing a Girl Scout Gold Award project to meet what they saw as a need in their community. A synopsis of Gold Award projects is provided here. Kellie Miner, Vergennes, VT is a musician with a gift for teaching youth. Kellie developed an after school music program teaching guitar and keyboards at her local elementary school with another Senior Girl Scout from her community. Kellie knows that musical education enhances children's ability to focus, to practice numerical and language skills and to feel a sense of success. Kellie served children from Kindergarten through sixth grade. Though the age range was a bit broad, she enjoyed teaching something she loves. She believes that her Girl Scout Gold Award Project will influence her to decide about a future as a high school choral director. Cassie Charlebois, Vergennes, VT was the song leader for the after school music program she developed with another Senior Girl Scout from her community. Cassie collaborated on the project with the hope of engaging children in the fun and sense of group cooperation that singing provides. Cassie taught music to younger children who had varying reading abilities through repetition and reinforcement with the words written out on a flip chart. She organized a closing concert and invited the community. Cassie feels her own personal growth was in discovering her success as a teacher and overcoming shyness. She knows that her project has reminded children of the importance of music in their lives. Katie McEnerney of Vergennes, VT is an artist. Her Gold Award Project was to collaborate with a fellow Senior Girl Scout to restore a playground structure at a local preschool. Katie first had to communicate with the school's administration to explain how the playground area could be improved. She selected a colorful rainbow theme, created the plans, and sketched the designs over the entire wooden structure inside and out. Katie was also concerned about the structure's stability and the over all safety of the playground. Her involvement in this Gold Award Project has been one that required careful planning, negotiating skills and a sense of timing so that the project would not inhibit the school schedule. Katie hopes to continue her skills through a career in the arts. Linnea Oosterman of Vergennes, VT is interested in art. Linnea chose to collaborate with a fellow Senior Girl Scout to restore a playground structure at a local preschool. Linnea contributed to the project by securing the necessary materials, painting the design created by her partner and helping to restore the safety of the playground by sanding and treating the wood before painting. She completed the project by building a sandbox around the base. Linnea was primarily concerned that the children have a fun, safe and colorful place to play. Linnea chose this project as a worthwhile activity that she hopes will improve the playspace and make her a better artist. Stephanie Leonard of Marrisville, VT is a musician who plays several instruments. In her community it is sometimes challenging for families to find adequate after school child care that is fun, accessible and safe. Stephanie developed an after school arts program for the Bishop Marshall Catholic School as part of their ongoing after school offerings. Stephanie incorporated both her musical talents and her interest in arts and crafts in the activities for the children. Stephanie enjoyed working with the children and found the collaboration with the existing after school program goals to blend well with her own vision of a fun experience for youth. Rebecca Robare of Rutland, VT is a multiply talented young woman. As a past member of our Board of Directors, Becky was personally involved in policy decisions at the Council. Becky chose her Gold Award Project to respond to what she felt was a lack of creative statewide offerings for older girls through the Vermont Girl Scout Council. This project was her attempt to create change on a programmatic level. Becky chose to host an event at the Fletcher Farm School for Arts and Crafts. She coordinated use of space for activities, meals, lodging and entertainment and collected her own registrations. Becky learned a great deal about her organizational abilities and how to effectively communicate with numerous players in hosting of this event. The success of the event was evident from the evaluations of girls in attendance.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute the citizens of Vermont who are celebrating the 30th anniversary of Green Up Day. In the 1960s and 70s, Vermont was on the cutting edge in environmental sensitivity. As U.S. Senator George Aiken's remarks revealed in the May 5, 1971 Congressional Record: ``Mr. President, several times recently, I have advised the Senate of things going on in Vermont which have lent and can lend encouragement and inspiration to the other States. I now have to report another event which could have far-reaching results. Last Saturday, May 1, a successful demonstration occurred in my State. This demonstration-- called Green Up Day--was put on largely by our young people and extended into every community throughout the length and breadth of Vermont. About 75,000 people collected virtually every glass bottle, every metal can, every scrap of paper which had been cast onto the roadsides by careless and unthinking people. The result was that by Saturday evening, Vermont was undoubtedly the cleanest State in the Nation.'' Mr. Speaker, this May Day ritual continues to be an expression in the finest American tradition. People--young, old and in between-- businessmen, farmers, workers, students, families, all working together to clean up the state. Vermont's clean up, the Vermont way, continues to inspire others, and it should serve as a model for dealing with litter nationwide. Though all other states address litter with ``Adopt-A-Highway,'' and 21 states now designate a day for statewide cleaning, none matches Vermont's long-standing Green Up Day community tradition. I salute the citizens of Vermont for their commitment to the environment, to our state and to the tradition. Happy 30th anniversary Green Up Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), and I also want to thank the President and Secretary Richardson for their support of the consent of a Northeast home heating oil reserve. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this winter the people in the Northeast were hit very, very hard by the large increase in home heating oil prices; and many of the folks in the State of Vermont in the Northeast were having a very, very difficult time paying a doubling of the price of home heating oil from just 1 year before. It was a serious crisis. It remains a crisis. And it is no secret that we were not prepared for it. On February 4, I introduced H.R. 3608, the Home Heating Oil Price Stability Act; and in this short period of time since then, we now have 98 cosponsors, including 24 Republicans and 27 Representatives who are not from the Northeast. So this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is a national piece of legislation. The bottom line is that we were caught unprepared, and the bottom line is that we have got not to be caught unprepared again. A home heating oil reserve of at least 2 million barrels, and that is the legislation included within this bill, would make certain that when the weather becomes very cold, when home heating oil prices zoom up, we will have something to call upon to control the escalating price of home heating oil. And that is what the reserve does. So I think this is a significant step forward in controlling escalating home heating oil prices. I would hope, as previous speakers have indicated, that we could expand the concept. Two million barrels in the Northeast is a good start. The original legislation calls for another 4.7 million barrels in the Gulf Coast, which is part of what the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is. My understanding is that the President has the authority, in fact, to do that on his own; and I hope that he will. The bottom line is that this is a significant step forward in preventing another spike in home heating oil in the Northeast. It will save substantial sums of money for the people in the Northeast and, in fact, for people throughout this country. I very much thank the chairman and the ranking member and those who have made this legislation possible.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1776, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. Mr. Chairman, the issue of affordable housing has rapidly reached the level of a national crisis. From one end of this country to the other, we have working people, elderly people, low-income people who are scrambling hard to find peaceful and safe housing which they can afford. In this, the richest country in the history of the world, in my view we should not be giving tax breaks to billionaires or spending money on wasteful military projects while so many of our people are having a hard time finding affordable housing. This legislation is a step forward. I strongly support it. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their leadership on this legislation. I especially want to thank them for their help in working with me on three amendments which I offered as a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Let me briefly describe those amendments. The First Amendment would create a $5 million Federal investment to help low- and moderate-income homeowners buy duplexes. This funding would flow through the Neighborworks homeownership centers throughout the country. This amendment will make the dream of homeownership a reality for hundreds of first-time homebuyers. Mr. Chairman, the number one barrier to homeownership is the up-front money needed to purchase a home, and this amendment helps address that problem. This amendment would allow neighborhood homeownership centers to provide some of that up-front money to hundreds of people throughout the country for the purpose of buying a duplex. According to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the $5 million in that amendment would generate an additional investment of $58 million, and create 285 units of duplex homeownership available to first-time homebuyers throughout the country. The Second Amendment would authorize $2 billion to make homeownership a reality for recipients of Section 8 rental assistance. This funding will allow HUD to provide downpayment grants of up to 20 percent of the purchase price of a home in order to leverage 80 percent of the remaining costs from other sources, including State housing finance agencies and the Neighborhood Housing Services of America. A 50 percent match requirement is needed for participation in the program. Mr. Chairman, the final amendment that I have offered would allow more nonprofits the ability to purchase single-family homes from HUD in a 50 percent discount in areas of very low homeownership. These low homeownership areas have been designated by HUD as revitalization areas. This amendment would require HUD to designate all areas in the United States that meet the criteria for a revitalization area within 60 days after a nonprofit has made such a request. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that in this country we have a housing crisis. This bill moves us a little bit closer to addressing it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about an issue of enormous consequence in my State of Vermont and for people throughout this country, and that is the outrageously high prices that we are forced to pay for prescription drugs. In Vermont, it is not uncommon for many people, including the elderly, to make the impossible choice about whether they buy the food that they need, whether they heat their homes adequately in the winter or whether they have the money to purchase the prescription drugs that their doctors prescribe. It is not uncommon in that reality that American citizens are forced to cut their dosages in half or take a dose once every other day rather than what they are supposed to take because they simply cannot afford what they need to ease their pain, and in some cases to keep themselves alive, and this is an outrage. This is unacceptable. Meanwhile, as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has just indicated, the pharmaceutical industry remains the most profitable industry in the United States of America. In addition, not only are they raking in the profits, but it is not widely known but true, the pharmaceutical industry receives billions of dollars every year from the taxpayers of this country in order to help them with their research. The pharmaceutical industry receives billions of dollars in tax breaks from the people of this country. What do we get in return? What we get in return is, by far, not even close, the highest prices for prescription drugs in the entire industrialized world. Now we have heard a whole lot about Canada, and I will say more about it in a moment, but it is not just that the Canadians are paying substantially less for the same exact prescription drugs manufactured by American companies. It is every other country on Earth. For every dollar that a senior citizen in this country spends for prescription drugs, the people in Germany pay 71 cents; in Sweden, 68 cents; in the UK, 65 cents; in Canada, 64 cents; in France, 57 cents; and in Italy, for the same exact prescription drugs, 51 cents, half the price. Mr. Speaker, during the last year, I took my constituents in the State of Vermont on two occasions over the border, we border on Canada, up to Montreal in order to enable some of them to purchase the prescription drugs they desperately need for substantially lower prices. At the end of the day, when those folks came back, many seniors, many women, they had each saved hundreds of dollar on their prescription drug bills. One of the more outrageous examples of the disparity in prices deals with one particular drug called Tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is a widely prescribed drug to deal with the epidemic of breast cancer that tens of thousands of women throughout this country are fighting, are struggling for their lives. In Canada, the cost of Tamoxifen is $34. In the United States, it is $241, same product, same dosage. In other words, we are paying roughly 10 times more for a drug that keeps women alive than are the people of Canada. Let us be clear that the pharmaceutical industry is not losing money when they sell their product in Canada or in Mexico and any place else in the world. They are simply ripping off the American people. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate but true that, if one looks at the record, one will find that the vast majority of Members of Congress receive campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry spends more money on campaign contributions and lobbying than any other industry in this world. Well, it seems to me that the time has long passed for the Members of this Congress to give back their campaign contributions to the pharmaceutical industry, to tell the lobbyists, not only here in Washington, but back in the State capitol, to all over America, to go home, to leave us alone. It is high time that Members of Congress did the right thing, started looking out for the interests of their constituents, their seniors. They are chronically ill, and demand it of the pharmaceutical industry that the people of this country no longer be treated as second-class citizens, that we deserve the same prices as do the Canadians, the Mexicans, and people throughout this world. Now, in that light, I have introduced legislation. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has a very good piece in our legislation, which is also introduced by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). This is a very simple piece of legislation. It says that the prescription drug distributors in this country and the pharmacists in this country can purchase the same exact FDA safety- approved product in Canada, in Mexico, at the same prices that the Canadian and Mexican pharmacists pay for their product, and they will be able to resell their product in this country for substantially lower prices. Let us stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Let us protect the American consumer, and let us start passing some real legislation to protect our people.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Progressive Caucus budget. Unlike the Republicans, progressives understand and have developed a budget which addresses the reality that millions of Americans today are working longer hours for lower wages; that this country has, by far, the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world; and that, while the wealthiest people have never had it so good, 20 percent of our children live in poverty, 44 million Americans lack health insurance, and millions more are unable to afford the prescription drugs they need. This budget understands that many in the middle class are going deeply into debt to be able to send their kids to college and that we must significantly increase funding for education so that every child has the opportunity to succeed. This budget understands that we do not need to give tax breaks to billionaires, spend huge sums of money on wasteful and unneeded weapons systems, or provide multinational corporations with $125 billion a year in corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, the progressive budget addresses two particular outrages that this Congress must deal with. First, we significantly increase funding for the veterans of this country who have put their lives on the line to defend this Nation, and we are proud to do that. Secondly, this budget in a meaningful way begins to address the horrific Medicare cuts brought about by the so-called Balanced Budget Act of 1997, cuts which have caused terrible reductions in services for the elderly, in hospitals, home health care agencies, and nursing homes. The bottom line is that when we talk about priorities, we do not give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and turn our backs on the elderly, the children, or the veterans. The Progressive Caucus budget is a sensible budget that meets the needs of the middle class and working families of this country and must be passed.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This bill theoretically is supposed to deal with the high price of oil. Unfortunately, it does not do that but it should do that. In my rural State and all over this country, people are paying astronomically high prices for the fuel that they need to get to work and to do the things that they have to do, but unfortunately this legislation does not address that issue. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just indicated, last night at the Committee on Rules a number of people from both political parties went before the committee and proposed different ideas in order to discuss the issue and resolve the issue as to how we can lower fuel prices in the United States, but not one of those amendments was allowed on the floor to debate. I had an amendment which is essentially the legislation that I have offered which now has 94 cosponsors, including many Republicans, which is now supported by the White House, which suggests that in the Northeast we should have a home heating oil reserve so that when production is cut back we can at least draw on something at lower prices to make sure that we do not go through another winter that we just went through where the price of home heating oil zoomed upwards. This is a sensible proposal. It would have the impact of lowering home heating oil for millions of homeowners throughout the Northeast. Why spread support? Yet we could not get that bill on the floor for discussion or debate this afternoon. Furthermore, many of us believe that, in fact, unlike what the previous speaker just indicated, that we do have a problem. Some of us do believe that OPEC bears some of the responsibility for the current crisis. Let us all remember that 9 years ago, it was American servicemen who brought back to power the emirs in Kuwait, who protected the royal family of Saudi Arabia and some of us have a problem with those folks colluding in what is very clearly a violation of any sense of free trade to limit production to force oil prices up in this country, and we think, in fact, and I say this as not a fan of the WTO, that what they have done is in clear violation of WTO rules. We wanted to discuss that issue, but we did not have that opportunity. Some of us think that the President should go today to the strategic petroleum reserve, withdraw oil from that in order to bring down the prices. Good debate. We are not going to have an opportunity to debate that issue as well. In other words, there is a whole lot to discuss. We are not going to have the opportunity to have that discussion. Let us vote no on this rule.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican legislation and to all the proposals that the Republican Party is offering today. In fact, what they are offering is not only absurd but it is an insult to American working people. They are proposing a paltry increase in the minimum wage of $1 over 3 years, and at the same time they are proposing a huge tax break for the richest people in this country. Millions of low wage-workers are working 40 or 50 hours a week struggling to keep their heads above water. In terms of the purchasing power of the minimum wage, it is lower today than it was 20 years ago. And in hearing this cry of working people, the Republicans are proposing a 33-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage. But at the same time they are proposing a gigantic tax break for the people who do not need it, the people who are making over $300,000 a year. And 75 percent of their tax proposal goes to those people. To add insult to injury, in my State of Vermont where the legislature had the decency to raise the minimum wage to at least $5.75 an hour, the Republican proposal will mean nothing for the next 2 years. And Vermont is not alone. Many other States have moved to raise the minimum wage. So right now, at a time when this country has the greatest gap between the rich and the poor of any industrialized nation, where we have the richest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 95 percent, where we have millions of workers working longer hours for lower wages than was the case 20 years ago, what the Republicans are saying is, that is not bad enough, let us make it worse. Let us reject this proposal. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3832. This bill is being touted as a package of tax provisions designed to offset the impacts of an increase in the minimum wage on small business. Yet some of the pension provisions included in the bill don't have a single thing to do with small business tax relief and are simply new tax breaks that mostly accrue to the wealthiest Americans. The pension provisions in this legislation will not increase pension coverage for millions of Americans that currently lack it, and may even reduce coverage for lower and middle-income employees according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. According to the non-partisan Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy: The 20 percent of individuals with the highest incomes would receive 96.5 percent of the new pension tax breaks. By contrast, the bottom 60 percent of the population would receive less than one percent of the benefits of the new pension provisions. Last November, Treasury Secretary Summers and Labor Secretary Herman, criticized these pension provisions, saying that they ``could lead to reductions in retirement benefits for moderate and lower-income workers.'' Mr. Speaker, if the Congress is really concerned about protecting the pensions of American workers it should quickly address the cash balance pension rip off scheme being implemented by hundreds of large corporations all over this country. In fact if this Congress is really concerned about protecting the pensions of American workers it should pass H.R. 2902, the Pension Benefits Preservation and Protection Act, legislation that I authored and that now has a total of 80 co-sponsors. Mr. Speaker, all across this country, American workers are deeply concerned about the status of their pension plans. That concern is well founded. Sine 1985, despite large profits and growing surpluses in their pension funds, twenty percent of Fortune 500 companies and over 300 companies in all have slashed the retirement benefits that they promised their employees. Many more companies are contemplating similar action. Not only is this trend outrageous, it is also illegal under current law. Cash balance schemes violate age discrimination laws because they cut the accrual rate of pension benefits as a worker gets older. Workers should not have their pension benefits reduced just because of their age. Frankly, it is simply unacceptable that during a time of record breaking corporate profits, huge pension fund surpluses, massive compensation for CEOs (including very generous retirement benefits), that corporate America renege on the commitments that they have made to workers by slashing their pensions. Just last month I authored comments to the Internal Revenue Service stating that these cash balance schemes violate the pension age discrimination laws. 59 other Members of Congress joined me in signing on to these IRS comments. These comments detail how corporations are stealing the benefits of their most loyal and experienced workers. Consider this: if a company reduced pension benefits based on race, or religion, or gender, the federal government would be sure to take appropriate action against the company. But, when it comes to enforcing the pension age discrimination laws, the federal government has clearly been asleep at the wheel. Fortunately, some of us in Congress are beginning to wake them up. Corporations currently receive over $80 billion a year in federal government subsidies through the tax code. American taxpayers have a right to expect that corporations who take advantage of this special tax treatment will not blatantly violate the law. Yet, hundreds of corporations throughout the country from IBM to AT&T are doing just that by converting their traditional defined benefit pension plans to these cash balance schemes. Cash balance schemes are nothing but a replay of the corporate pension raids we experienced during the 1980's. While these companies claim that they are converting to cash balance plans to attract younger workers into their workforce, the fact of the matter is that cash balance plans are intentional attempts to slash the pension benefits of older workers. The reason why large corporations are targeting their older workers' pensions is easy to understand. Millions and millions of Americans in the so-called ``baby boom'' generation are rapidly approaching retirement age. Companies that reduce the pensions of older workers will thus realize tremendous cost savings when these people retire. Companies claim that they are converting to cash balance schemes to attract a younger, more mobile workforce. But, worker mobility is not the rationale for converting to a cash balance plan, money is. As 11,000 people a day turn 50, which cash balance promoter Watson Wyatt claims will turn us into a ``Nation of Floridas,'' employers are looking for any way possible to reduce older workers' promised benefits. This is outrageous. But, what is even more outrageous is that they are not being honest to the employees whose pensions they are slashing. As Joseph Edmunds stated at a 1987 Conference of Consulting Actuaries, ``It is easy to install a cash balance plan in place of a traditional defined benefit plan and cover up cutbacks in future benefits.'' Despite the protestations of cash balance promoters, cash balance schemes are implemented to unlawfully cut the benefits of older employees and to disguise those cuts by implementing a plan that makes it virtually impossible for employees to make an ``apples to apples'' comparison of their benefits under the old and new plans. Not only does the federal government need to enforce the laws that are on the books, Congress also must pass meaningful pension protections right now. That is why I introduced H.R. 2902. This legislation would primarily do three things: First, it would send a directive to the Secretary of Treasury to enforce the laws that are already on the books; Second, it would provide a safe harbor making cash balance plans legal only if employees are given the choice to remain in their old pension plan with detailed disclosure; and Third, it would provide a major disincentive for companies to slash the future pension benefits of employees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2902 would provide meaningful pension protection to millions of Americans, unlike the current bill being considered right now. My legislation is being supported by the Pension Rights Center, the National Council of Senior Citizens, the Communications Workers of America, the IBM Employees Benefits Action Coalition, and several other groups. I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 3832, and work with me to pass real pension protection. I include my letter to the IRS signed by 50 other Members, as follows: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Ben Franklin Station Washington,

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me be very honest and say that I think a $1-an-hour increase over a 2-year period is not enough. In my view, we should raise the minimum wage today to at least $6.50 an hour. The idea, however, of doing it over a 3-year period is an absolute insult to millions and millions of low-income workers who are struggling to keep their heads above water. Let us defeat the Republican proposal. Let us pass the Traficant amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I insert for printing in the Record the following letter from Robert and Patricia Arnold of Newport, Vermont expressing their gratitude to the personnel of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command for taking action to save their son, Nathaniel's, life. I believe the views of Robert and Patricia Arnold will benefit my colleagues. Newport, Vt, December 27, 1999. Admiral [Frank L.] Bowman Director, Dir. Div. of NAVREACT DOE, Washington, DC. Dear Admiral Bowman, On November 23, 1999, our eighteen year old son, Nathaniel Spencer Arnold, a Seaman in training at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, was admitted to the hospital and near death as a result of a serious illness he had encountered in the preceding six weeks. Nathaniel had enlisted in the Navy on July 29th, 1999, competed boot camp, and was three weeks into his training at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. He had graduated from boot camp with academic honors for his division and, as of November 24th, was maintaining a 3.2 average at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. The significance of his efforts and ability are better understood with the knowledge that he maintained this standing at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command while losing 45 of his normal 150 pounds in the course of battling the illness he had encountered during the preceding six weeks. It is also indicative of the value Nathaniel placed on fulfilling his desire to enter the Navy and to excel at his chosen career. On November 26, we were contacted by Lt. Callahan, acting in behalf of the Navy and the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, to notify us of the seriousness of our son's illness and to arrange for and make the travel arrangements to get my wife and I down to Charleston. We were informed that due to the seriousness of his illness, the Navy had established a watch for him pending either his recovery or his death. It would be difficult to detail all the events which have transpired since that eventful day but suffice it to say that despite his prognosis at the time, Nathaniel survived his illness and went on to impress the doctors with his remarkably quick and continuing recovery process. Words can never express the personal meaning to us of Nathaniel's recovery. Nonetheless, we can express our appreciation to the Navy and the personnel acting in behalf of the Navy for the efforts taken in behalf of Nathaniel and ourselves. This letter is written to express for the record our deep appreciation to the Navy and its representatives at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Charleston, South Carolina, for those efforts. It is very plain to us that Nathaniel's life would have been lost but for the efforts of the Navy in securing the medical treatment he received. It is also very plain to us that our presence with Nathaniel also played an important role in his survival of that eventful night of November 26th in which he turned the corner with respect to battling his illness. . . . a presence he would have been denied but for the help we obtained with our travel arrangements through the efforts of the Navy personnel at Naval Power Training Command. I would like to specially recognize Captain Hicks, the commanding officer of the NNPTC, for his role in ensuring that the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command offered its best to Nathaniel and ourselves during this process. And I would be remiss not to mention the efforts of Commander Crossley and Lt. Callahan for the quality of their efforts in Nathaniel's and our behalf. I would like to commend Commander Crossley for his direct interest and rapport with Nathaniel which contributed in no small way to Nathaniel's recovery. And I would like to commend Lt. Callahan for his personal interest and the thoroughness with which he carried out the directions of Captain Hicks and Commander Crossley in ensuring that everything possible was done for Nathaniel and ourselves while in Charleston. And the direct interest of not only Petty Officer Baker but also his wife in Nathaniel's well-being during his hospitalization should not be omitted. All of these individuals contributed not only in Nathaniel's recovery but also conveyed a very positive image of the Navy to all involved in this process. . . . from the hospital staff all the way down to the family and friends of the other residents of the Intensive Care Unit at the Trident Medical Center in Charleston and ourselves. We would like to do all we can to recognize the Navy's efforts in helping Nathaniel successfully recover from his illness and to recognize the individual endeavors of the Navy personnel in carrying out those efforts. We would also like to recognize the excellent relationship which exists between the Navy and the medical staff of the Trident Medical Center which permitted Nathaniel to receive the care he required. This letter is being written for that purpose and my wife and I hope that it has, in some way, accomplished our desire to recognize the Navy, its personnel, and those operating in behalf of the Navy for their excellence in returning to us the life of our son. Very truly yours, Robert and Patricia Arnold.