Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting this statement regarding my constituent, Gordon D. Ladd, which shows the courage and perseverance he displayed in organizing the first union in northern Vermont in the 1940s, into the Congressional Record as I believe the views of this person will benefit my colleagues. Gordon D. Ladd--First President of IAM Lodge in Derby Line Vermont Organizing A Union in Vermont in the 1940's In 1943 I requested an interview with the superintendent of management at Butterfield Corporation in Derby Line Vermont to request a wage increase and my request was denied emphatically. I informed him that I would return. I met a friend of mine who used to be a coach, a hockey coach, and he had relatives in the plant. This guy I met, Bert, you could call him, he was a machinist for the railroad in Island Pond, and he belonged to the machinist's union. So he asked if we had a union up there and what the wages were. We were good friends, he was coach for a long time, but anyway, I told him that wages were very low at my workplace, and he said ``Well, do you think they would be interested in the union?''. I said ``Well, yeah I'll talk to a few.'' So, I did. When I went up to see the boss that first time he asked me what I was making. I told him ``65 cents an hour''. I had started at 45 cents and worked three years--I got a 10 cent raise each year. And it was 65 cents, and he, ah, he's a rough little character, he slammed his fists down on his desk and he says ``by god,'' he says, ``that's the highest we will ever pay at this plant''. So then I got up and said ``We'll see about that, and I'll be back.'' So now I went to the shop, talked to several guys, they were all interested, all enthused about it, and said they would support a union. So then I get back to Burt at Island Pond, and told him to send us up a representative. It was then less than a week and the Machinist representative had arrived from Albany, New York. And he talked to me, he came to the house a few times, and then we called a meeting, and, more and more, one meeting after another, at first it was a small amount, a few men, but then they got bigger and bigger crowds. Management of course fought us tooth and nail. Well, one thing I can remember in particular. The general foreman, he was under the superintendent, he was putting something on the union representative's car, on the front end of it, come to find out, spikes on a rope. And he was seen doing that, and we called him on it, but he denied it of course. You see they hit just right and they could blow the tires. They did little annoying things. They'd send us one of these, what we'd call suckers down, always coming down and talking to me, trying to find out things, you know. I just told them I knew nothing. Another one of these superintendents came down one day and says ``We know you're the head of the union,'' and I said ``I've got a perfectly good right to according to the laws''. And he didn't have too much more to say. We also learned that the company had hired an electrician for the purpose of organizing against the union, see he was a company plant. So he got up and threw a scare, said that if we had a union we would lose our bonus, a 10% bonus every six months. So that killed the first drive right there, see. And they tried every little trick, they sent the people down that I knew, they'd come down and fish around, try to get information from me. Then they called me, offered me 10 cents an hour more, if I'd stop the union organizing. ``We'll give you 10 cents an hour raise, but I want you to keep it quiet, I don't want you to tell anybody.'' Then they'd say, ``If you tell me the guys that are dissatisfied in the shop, give me their names, we'd give them 15 cents an hour more.'' And I said ``Just a minute, if everybody gets 15 cents and hour we'll go along with it, but other than that,'' I said, ``no way''. You can pick out a few, that would just start trouble. So then we call the meeting, the machinist's union, and we get a hall and call the meeting, and that was the one where we lost the election the first time. I don't remember the exact vote total but it was close. But then comes the good part. We later learned that the company sent down foremen and group leaders and had them vote too. But the fact is they shouldn't have been able to vote because they were management. They even sent down 3 or 4 women down from the office to vote, and the vote was for production workers and these were office workers. They shouldn't have been able to vote either but management wanted more to go in the ballot box. So we petitioned for another election. And once again during the vote the company starting sending down foremen and group leaders to vote. But this time our union representative said no way. The Labor Board Representative was there and we challenged the right of these supervisory men to vote. The Board Representative put those votes, I think there were 26 of them, in a special envelope. This time we won the election by a pretty good margin. That was in 1944. Another little thing here. I was in a barber shop and the big shot manager from the venier mill came in. My barber was my landlord, we were renting the house, and he asked me something about the union. And this management guy from the mill, he says ``That union'' and he used a few cuss-words ``won't last six months!'' Well it's a 55 year later and the union's still there. But the funny part is, in about a year and a half, they plopped the union in at the venier mill. Well, the main thing at my plant was wages, because plants in the state, we checked around a little bit and some of the plants were paying, at that time, double what we were getting. We checked around, because some of the guys, neighbors in Newport were working down in the Springfield machine shops, at places like Jones-Lampson. When we heard what they were getting, we thought ``Well, we should be getting about the same.'' I was elected as the first president of the union lodge in 1944 and served for seven years. We did pretty good with improving wages and getting benefits--we got health insurance, a pension plan. I've collected from the pension plan for 19 years now, and we got pretty good medical. We didn't have either before the union. It definitely pays to be union.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed during rollcall vote 504 on October 14, 1999. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. In addition, I was unavoidably delayed on November 1, 1999 during rollcall votes 550, 551, and 552. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 550 and 551 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 552.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that this debate in truth goes far beyond OPIC. It goes to whether or not we as Members of Congress feel positively about our current trade policies, and that, in truth, has to do with NAFTA, GATT, MFN, has to do with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, OPIC, Ex-Im Bank and so forth and so on. That is what it really has to do with. OPIC, in truth, is a small part of that whole picture. I would argue that any conscientious Member of the House who examined the facts would conclude that our current trade policy, OPIC and everything else, has not succeeded. By definition, it has not succeeded, because we are looking at a record-breaking trade deficit. And we hear our friends say, well, this creates jobs and so forth and so on. But we have to look at both sides of the equation; and when we look at both sides of the equation, what we are looking at is a record- breaking trade deficit. Our current trade policy is failing. As I said earlier, and I want to touch upon this point, I find it interesting that there are Members here who are quite conservative who would turn pale at any mention that the United States Government should have a national health care program guaranteeing health care to all people, apparently think it is okay for the United States Government to have an insurance program to protect American corporate interests. Now, it seems to me that if a company wants to invest in China or in Africa, in Asia or in any other place on earth, they have the right to do that. No one is arguing that. But what some of us are suggesting is, should American taxpayer money be placed at risk to protect that investment. Day after day I find people come up who believe in laissez- faire capitalism who say the government is terrible. Get the government out of our lives. Poor people, hey, they are going to have to stand up on their own two feet. Government cannot help everybody. And yet, we have a situation here where apparently these very same people are saying well, government cannot save the poor, cannot help the working people, cannot get involved in the environment, but government can get involved with the Enrine Oil and Gas Company who receive $400 million in U.S. Government-backed OPIC financing and insurance for natural gas processing and storage facilities in Venezuela. The U.S. Government can get involved in that. The U.S. Government can get involved with OPIC helping Texaco and its partners receive $139 million in government- backed OPIC financing for a power generation project in the Philippines. Chase Manhattan Bank, oh, my goodness, the United States Government can have the stand with Chase Manhattan Bank who received $200 million in U.S. Government-backed OPIC insurance for a telecommunications project in Colombia. So I would suggest to my friends who support laissez-faire capitalism, you cannot do both things. You cannot say that the government cannot protect working people and low-income people in this country, terrible thing, but yes, the United States Government and OPIC can protect the interests of multinational corporations. Let me make another point, and I think I am echoing a point that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) made a moment ago. People say well, we are in a global economy, companies are going to invest abroad, and that is true. But it seems to me that given the fact that we have seen a decline in real wages for manufacturing workers in this country, given the fact that our working people are working longer hours and in many cases, for lower wages, because good-paying manufacturing jobs have gone to China and to other countries where workers are paid horrendous wages, then yes, I do have a problem. And I share the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) about providing OPIC help to those companies who want to establish manufacturing plants abroad. I think it is very naive to say well, OPIC says that that is not going to result in the loss of any manufacturing jobs in this country. I do not believe that. I would argue, and maybe some of my friends who support OPIC might want to help me on this, that maybe instead of OPIC overseeing private investment corporations we want to have a domestic OPIC, a domestic OPIC. What about United States Government guaranteeing investments in the State of Vermont or in low-income communities around this country making it easier for companies to hire American workers and pay them a decent wage.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would just, Mr. Chairman, make a few observations. Number one, when we talk about a record-breaking trade deficit, that should suggest to every Member of this body that it is high time to make fundamental changes in our trade policy with regard to NAFTA, GATT, and Most Favored Nation status. There is something very, very wrong when major American corporations are investing tens of billions of dollars throughout the world, including countries like China, where workers are paid 20 cents an hour and have no democratic rights; and yet it is very, very hard to get these same companies to invest in Vermont or New England or any other State in this country. The second point that I would make is that we have heard some of our friends here say, let us have a level playing field. Let the United States do what countries in Europe are doing. I would suggest that if we follow that line of reasoning, the United States of America would institute a national health care system guaranteeing health care to all people. That is what they do in Europe. I would suggest that the United States Government would provide free college education to all of our kids. That is what they do in many countries in Europe. I would suggest that the United States Congress would mandate 4 or 5 weeks' paid vacation for all of our workers. That is what they do in Europe. So I find it strange that some of our friends here are saying let us have a level playing field in one area, but let us not have a level playing field in other areas. Lastly, I would commend my friend, the gentleman from California (Chairman Rohrabacher), who makes a very sensible point. Why are we encouraging American corporations to take manufacturing jobs out of this country, lay off American workers, and take those jobs abroad, often to countries where the environmental standards are limited, where workers do not have freedom to stand up for their rights, to form a union, and where they are paid very, very limited wages? So I think that amendment makes a lot of sense. I would also point out to those people who talk about the booming American economy to understand that American workers today are working 160 hours a year more than they did 20 years ago. I would point out to those people who talk about the booming economy that the average American worker today in real inflation accounted for wages is making less than was the case 25 years ago. So I think, while OPIC is the tip of the iceberg, it makes no sense to me that we put taxpayers' money at risk in what clearly amounts to a corporate welfare situation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SANDERS. So what the gentlewoman is saying, that despite the fact that 285 Members of this body, Democrats, Republicans, Independent, voted overwhelmingly to reform our milk marketing order. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee did not spend 1 minute in discussing that issue, and of course what we voted for is not part of the bill that we are supposed to be voting on now.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Members are listening to what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) was saying about process, and I hope that regardless of our political philosophy, we will oppose this bill if for no other reason than we think the Committee on Appropriations itself should be making the decisions and not a hand full of people in the House leadership. I would like to ask the gentlewoman a question. I am concerned about dairy. All Members know that last week by a vote of 285 to 140, the Members of this body overwhelmingly defeated the administration's market reform proposal and voted for option 1 A. I wonder if the gentlewoman will tell me how much time the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations spent in debating and discussing the bill that was passed on the floor of the House by two to one; was it 5 hours? Was it 10 hours? I wonder if the gentlewoman could inform our Members on this issue?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by concurring with much of what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) had to say a few minutes ago about the process that we undertook. I am very glad that our friend from Florida informed us about some of what was in the bill. It is good to know some of the things that are in the bill, because there is not a Member of the House who has yet seen the bill. Here is the bill. This bill is hundreds and hundreds of pages, and it ended up on our desks this morning. I dare say that there is not one Member of the House who has a deep understanding of what is in the bill, and yet we are asked this morning to vote for it, which is why I strongly oppose the rule and even more strongly oppose the legislation. Mr. Speaker, there are two main issues involved: one is process and one is content. In terms of process, I would hope that every Member of this body, progressive, conservative, Democrat, Republican, believes that there should be full and free discussion in a committee on appropriations, a consensus reached, and the bill come back to the floor for a serious vote by the Members. That did not happen in the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations. This bill was dictated by the Republican leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). They are the ones who called the tune, and it was not the members of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, whether they were Republicans or Democrats. Deals were made in the back room; and at a time when the American people are more and more cynical about the political process, that is not the type of legislation we should be bringing before them today. Mr. Speaker, my particular concern, coming from the State of Vermont and coming from New England, is dairy. In the State of Vermont and throughout the northeast, in fact, throughout this country, our dairy farmers are going out of business because the price that has been paid to them in recent years in real dollars is going down and down and down while their expenses and their costs go up. The bottom line is that the total number of dairy operations dropped by almost 26 percent in the last 6 or 7 years. Now, last week on the floor of this House we spent an entire day, six or seven amendments came up. There was a major debate on dairy; and at the end of the day, by an overwhelming vote of 285 to 140 the Members of this House rejected the Agricultural Department's option 1-B, which the Members believed would be a disaster for farmers in almost every region of this country. And we said no, we do not want that. We want to see the price that farmers get for their milk go up, we want stability, we want to protect the family farmers. All over, liberals, conservatives, people voted for that bill. I would ask the gentleman from Florida, I would ask the gentleman from Florida, after a full debate on dairy on the floor of the House, would the gentleman tell the Members how much time was spent in the conference committee discussing the 285 to 140 vote? My understanding is not one minute was spent discussing that. I hear no response, so I am assuming that the gentleman from Florida concurs. Of course he does; he is an honest man. I ask my friends on the Democratic side, how much time was spent discussing the dairy issue that passed the House 285 to 140 that had the votes to pass the Senate? Is anyone going to tell me that 1 minute was spent discussing that issue? I am listening. I do not hear it. So I say to all of my friends in this House, Republicans, Democrats, those of you who believe in a fair process, those of you who voted for option 1-A, reject this legislation. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) was right. Let us send a loud signal to the leadership and say that is not the way we want to do business. Now, all over this country family farmers are crying out for help. We are seeing a tragedy of utmost proportions. From one end of this country to the other we are seeing the struggling family farmers who are maintaining rural America, who are maintaining our rural economies, working 60, 70, 80 hours a week, they are going out of business. And what does this legislation do for them? It does nothing. Mr. Speaker, let me simply conclude by saying this: for those Members of the body, Republicans, Democrats, who are concerned about the family farmer, vote no on this bill. Send it back, and let us develop legislation that can save the family farm and help rural America. For those Members of this body who are concerned about the democratic process, honest debate, real discussion, I urge you to vote ``no'' on this legislation. Send it back and let us have a real debate, an honest debate, as to how we can save family farmers.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. I strongly oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my Democratic and Republican Members and friends to oppose it. This bill should be opposed from both a process point of view and a policy point of view. In terms of process, there is no disagreement that this bill, as a Republican member, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), just told my colleagues a few moments ago was quote, unquote, stolen away from the committee by the Republican leadership. That is what she said, and what the Republican leadership then did is went behind closed doors, where, heavily influenced by special interests, they wrote the bill. We received the bill this morning, hundreds of pages, and now we are supposed to support it. This process is undemocratic, it is an outrage, and no Member should vote for this bill on that ground alone. But we should also oppose this bill because of its content. Last week we had an all-day debate upon the crisis of dairy farming in this country. There were six or seven amendments, and we went on and on, and at the end of the day, by a 285 to 140 vote, the Members of this body, Republicans and Democrats, said we need to reform the milk market order system in order to protect family farmers all over this country; 285 Members voted for it. When that issue came to the conference committee, they did not spend 1 minute discussing that issue. We spent all day; we voted for it; they did not spend 1 minute. How can you support legislation which ignores an attempt to address the crisis facing dairy farmers? Please vote ``no.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Blanche Moyse, from Brattleboro, Vermont, on the celebration of her 90th birthday. Thirty years ago, Blanche founded the New England Bach Festival and has served as conductor since that founding. Ms. Moyse has made it possible for people from all over the world to come to Vermont year after year, and under the spectacular canopy of autumn, be enriched by both her art and her person. If Blanche, or ``the Blanche'' as some affectionately call her, had done nothing but be ousted at 16 from Conservatory violin competitions to give others a chance; survive WWII in mid France; move a household to South America one year to North America the next in search of work and peace; change artistic direction at 40 because of an increasingly uncooperative bow arm, and awaken a sleepy New England hamlet to the joys of music, she would be a remarkable person. But in fact, Blanche has done much more: She has managed, throughout a life of tempest and tumult, to remain an eternal optimist, and to remain both inspired and inspiring! Thus, year after year musicians from near and far--old and new friends alike--say ``Yes'' to repeat requests for work and play. Year after year, the Blanche Moyse Chorale sings like a lark. Congratulations and thank you Blanche Moyse for your vision, for your tenacity, for your love of music and for your years of sharing. Happy Birthday.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, for offering this amendment today to focus on the need for universal health care in the United States. Our amendment clarifies that the Agency for Health Research and Quality should allow for studies that would compare the effect of a single- payer plan on national health expenditures with the health expenditures under the current system. Our Nation spends more per capita on health care than any other Western nation. And yet, we have 43 million Americans with no health coverage. This is absurd. We know that a universal, single-payer system will save the United States billions of dollars a year. Now let's prove it. Earlier this year, a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Medical Society reported that in Massachusetts alone, a single-payer system could save over a billion dollars and eliminate more than 80 percent of patients' out-of-pocket costs. Not to mention covering hundreds of thousands of uninsured residents of that state. Imagine what the savings could be on a national basis. Specifically, cutting the bureaucratic overhead by creating a single- payer system would have saved about $3.6 billion in Massachusetts. The added cost savings under this model would add up to a $5 billion reduction in the $36 billion the state spends on health care each year. The report further states that it would then only cost $4 billion of the $5 billion in savings to cover all of the uninsured in the state and expand health benefits to those who have insurance. While this is the high-end estimate, the low-end estimate still finds the state saving $170 million while increasing coverage for its residents. The group that commissioned Massachusetts study, its state Medical Society, has traditionally not been a supporter of a single-payer system. And yet they had the insight to at least study how much their state could save under the program. That is what we are asking under the Tierney amendment today. Should we live in a society in which all people, because they are human beings, have access to the best quality health care that the society can offer, or do we live in a society where health care is a commodity offered to people on ability to pay--with the wealthy in this country getting, probably, the best health care in the world--while middle class, working class and poor people receive a lower quality of health care or none at all? At a time when our health care costs continue to skyrocket while the availability of care declines, single-payer is becoming an even more attractive option and the best, most cost-effective solution to insuring all Americans. I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that what we need is strong supply management, and I am a strong advocate of a two-tier supply management system. I also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that the current system is far from perfect. But I strongly disagree with him in saying that we have got to junk the whole system because what we have now is not perfect. The fact of the matter is that, just last month, dairy farmers all over this country had the option of essentially voting for the Boehner- Obey point of view. They had the option of saying, well, the current system is not perfect. They had the option of voting for 1-B, which, in my view, is strongly flawed, or letting the current system expire and have nothing. But farmers who knew that the current system is not perfect said overwhelmingly by 96 percent that we need to have federal milk price supports, and that is what they voted for. Mr. Chairman, there is no question in my mind, none whatsoever, that at a time when all over this country, in Wisconsin, in Vermont, in the Midwest, all over, when family farmers are going out of business, when today family farmers are receiving, in terms of inflation accounted for dollars, much, much less than they received 15 or 20 years ago, when they are struggling just to keep their heads above water, there is no doubt in my mind that if we approved this measure and did away with all price supports that what we would see is a rapid acceleration in the decline of family farms all over this country, especially the small farms. Mr. Chairman, during the last 6 years alone, we have seen a decline to the tune of 26 percent of dairy farms in this country. And what we are also seeing is that while the small farms go under, in terrible numbers, in Vermont, in Wisconsin, all over this country, that the larger farms are becoming larger and gaining a greater share of the market. For example, in 1978, farms with 50 cows or less produced 40 percent of the milk supply. By 1997, that same size farm produced only 12 percent of the milk in our country. And the trend is very clear: Fewer and fewer large farms produce more and more of the milk, while small farms are rapidly going out of business. If the Boehner-Obey amendment were to pass, this process would rapidly accelerate, and I will tell my colleagues what this country will look like in 20 years. What we will have, literally, is a handful of giant agri-business corporations controlling the production and distribution of dairy products all over this country. And that would be a disaster not only for rural America and the economies of rural America, that would be a disaster not only for the environment and keeping our land green, it would be a disaster for consumers as well. I have, I believe, one of the strongest pro-consumer voting records in the House of Representatives, and I will challenge anyone who thinks that the consumer benefits when a handful of giant corporations will control the production and distribution of dairy products. So if my colleagues are for the consumer, if they are for the family farmer, if they are for the environment, they will vote against this amendment and vote for final passage. Let us do what little we can to protect the family farmer.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of our Nation's dairy farmers, in strong support of H.R. 1402, and in strong opposition to the poison pill amendments that have been offered. This legislation is critical for the survival of dairy farms in the State of Vermont and all over this country. It would implement the Class 1 milk price structure known as Option 1A as part of the final rule to consolidate Federal Milk Marketing orders. It would protect family farmers all over America who in recent years have seen a significant drop in the price that they get for their milk. In fact, today in terms of inflation-accounted for prices, farmers today are receiving 35 percent less in real dollars than they received 15 years ago, which explains why all over America we are seeing family farms going out of business, we are not seeing young people getting into farming, and we are seeing the industry becoming dominated by larger and larger agribusiness corporations, rather than small family- owned farms. Option 1A is supported by 229 Members of the House. The reason for that is that the economics is very clear that Option 1A will help 45 out of the 50 States. Let me suggest to Members the options that we have. If present trends continue, in my view, what dairy agriculture will look like 10 years from today is that a handful of agribusiness corporations will control the production and distribution of dairy products. The alternative is to maintain, as best we can, family-owned farms all over this country who protect our environment, who protect our rural economies, who provide fresh product to the people in the various communities. Does America really want a handful of corporations to determine the price of dairy product? Does America really want to lose family farms all over the country and see our green land converted into parking lots, or are we going to fight as hard as we can to protect family farmers, who provide us with fresh, high quality product? I would urge Members of the House, the 229 who are supporting this excellent legislation, to stand firm against the amendments that are being offered which would ultimately undermine the goals of this legislation. Let us stand with the family farmers who work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, producing the quality of food that we desperately want and need to maintain.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of our Nation's dairy family farmers, strong support for this rule, and strong support for H.R. 1402, without the poison pill amendments. What this legislation is about is protecting family farms all over this country. I have heard some discussion tonight that what we are doing here is not democratic. Well, when we have 229 Members who are cosponsoring this legislation, I think that is democratic. If we have legislation which protects family farmers in 45 out of 50 States, I think that that is democratic. And I think we should pass this rule and pass the legislation. This legislation would implement the Class I milk price structure known as Option 1-A as part of the final rule to consolidate federal milk marketing orders. It will protect family dairy farmers in Vermont and throughout this country from the drop in fluid milk prices that is expected in just 9 days if the proposal introduced by Secretary Glickman and the United States Department of Agriculture is implemented. I understand that there is some confusion about the recent referendum results on USDA's federal milk market order reform plan. I have heard from many dairy farmers in Vermont saying that they had no choice. I have heard about Soviet-style legislation. This is what Soviet style legislation is: either you vote for it or you vote for nothing. And that is why the Soviet rulers always used to get 96 percent of the vote, which is what I gather this legislation has gotten. Well, the farmers in Vermont want something, not nothing, and what they want is 1-A. They want a fair price for their product. In my State, and in virtually every State in this country, a great tragedy is occurring in rural America. It is heartbreaking and it is terrible for consumers, terrible for the environment, and terrible for the economy. What we are seeing throughout this country in rural America are family farmers, many whose families have owned the land generation after generation being driven off the land. And if the opponents of this legislation think that it is a good idea that a handful of agribusiness corporations will control the production and the distribution of dairy products in this country, they are dead wrong. It will not be good for the consumer. The best thing that we can continue to have and to expand is family farming all over this country; to know that in our own communities, in our own States there will be family farmers producing fresh dairy products and other commodities that we desperately need. This is a life and death issue for family farmers all over this country. I urge support of the rule and support of the legislation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today marks the day the Ngawang Choephel, a Tibetan musicology student at Middlebury College in Vermont, was detained by the Government of China four years ago. Ngawang Choephel studied musicology at Middlebury College on a Fulbright scholarship, and he was reported missing in 1995 while researching folk music in Tibet as part of his studies. It was more than a year before the Government of China acknowledged his arrest and imprisonment. He is currently serving an 18-year prison term in a remote area of China. His mother has not seen him in more than 3 years, and officials of the Government of China refuse to allow her to see him. Mr. Speaker, the Government of China has never produced any evidence whatsoever that Ngawang Choephel engaged in any political or illegal activity. His imprisonment is part of the Government of China's brutal campaign of repression in Tibet, Choephel's home. We must not let Ngawang Choephel be forgotten. We must continue to use all the means at our disposal to secure his release from an unjust imprisonment on trumped-up charges, and we must continue our efforts to keep human rights high on this country's foreign policy agenda. Until we see genuine progress on human rights in China, we should withhold the granting of Most Favored Nation trading status, and we should urge U.S. corporations to stop investing in China. This kind of effort helped topple apartheid in South Africa, and there is no reason to believe it would not have an effect on the human rights situation in China. I urge my colleagues to hold the Government of China accountable for its human rights abuses, and hasten the day that Ngawang Choephel is free again.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is an absurd amendment which would take us in precisely the wrong direction. My constituents in Vermont ask me many questions, and they raise many concerns. But I can honestly say no Vermonter has ever come up to me and said, ``Bernie, the major problem I face is that I can only contribute $25,000 to candidates, and you have got to raise that ceiling so that I can now contribute $75,000.'' No Vermonter has ever asked me that, and I suspect no Vermonter ever will ask me that. The great crisis in our democracy right now is that the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of the population contribute 80 percent of the campaign monies that candidates receive. The great crisis of our time is that big money dominates both political parties and that ordinary Americans are giving up because they believe that their one vote does not mean anything compared to the huge contributions that the big corporations and wealthy individuals make. To raise the level to $75,000 per person is moving us in exactly the wrong direction. In fact, what we need to do now is what Shays-Meehan says, and that is to end the soft money pollution that currently exists, to go even further than that so that ordinary people can regain the power that this democracy is supposed to provide them. Modification To Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Doolittle

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the problems facing veterans all over this country and especially in rural areas are very serious, and I think this amendment is helpful.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment expresses the Congress' support of efforts to improve rural health care delivery for our veterans, and I believe it is absolutely noncontroversial. It is imperative that the special needs of veterans living in rural areas are recognized and that the particular problems associated with delivery of VA health care in rural areas often in face of shrinking resources are addressed. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, for what I understand is their support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) who is also sympathetic to this, as I understand.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record statements by high school students from my home State of Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. I am asking that you please insert these statements in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Workers' Rights and Welfare Reform (On behalf of Daniel Peyser and Jenn Donohue) Daniel Peyser: I'm going to be covering workers' rights, and specifically minimum wage, and maybe health care, and Jenn is going to be doing welfare reform, which will tie into it. A key issue regarding the basic rights of workers is a livable wage. There was a minimum wage increase that was from $4.25 to $5.15, but it is still not livable. It is nice to have the wage increase, but it is not significantly helping us out. I make minimum wage, and it's a pain when you are not making enough money that you feel that you would deserve more for the work that you put in. But, over the past two decades, the minimum wage, with that one exception of that increase, has largely, for most people, stagnated or declined, and combined with inflation, the real value of the minimum wage hasn't increased very much since around 1955 to 1970. It used to be, after World War II, that when productivity went up in companies that the workers got cut into the action and everyone prospered. But between 1983 and 1989, we have seen that, as companies reach record profits, that workers aren't getting cut in any more. And between 1983 and 1989, 99 percent of the new wealth that was accumulated went to the top 20 percent of the income groups. America is now the most economically stratified country in the industrialized world. So there's a lot of issues that also tie in with livable wage. I mean, you have welfare, which is one issue. And one of the incentives perhaps for a lot of people who are on welfare would be a higher minimum wage. I think the answer to the problem would be to require companies to, first of all, raise the minimum wage to something that is easily livable. Ideally, I would have said $9 an hour or so. Cut back working hours, so require companies, based on how much money they make, to hire a certain number of workers, also based on their expenses, which would help unemployment rates. Other issues that tie in are, a large part of having an unbalanced budget can be attributed to having stagnated wages. College education prices have gone up 80 percent over the past two decades, I think, as far as the cost of real value. And it is going to be harder and harder for people who are making minimum wage now to send their kids to college or to support their families. Congressman Sanders: Jenn? Jenn Donohue: As a senior in high school, the time is coming where I have to go out and find a job and employment. And, as Dan was saying, it bothers me in both respects, that there are people out there who are making minimum wage, trying to feed their kids, trying to buy necessities, basic things that people need, and they are getting welfare; and there are other people out there who don't work, who wait for the check to come every month, and that's what they live on, they have no initiative to get up, get out, and get a job. Welfare was established for people in need, to help them get back up on their feet until the time came where they were okay, and they were all set, and they didn't need it as much as they did before. But now, I think, there is a problem where people are using it as their basic income. They have no desire to get up and get a job. And it is not the case with all people who are on welfare. Some people need it intensely. They are working two jobs, their spouse is working two jobs. Their kids are going to school, they need food and products all kids need. I just think that something has to be done to change the way that welfare is going, because it is unfair to deprive people who really need the welfare of the money, when it is going to people who are just using it--I mean, there are women who get pregnant so they will have more money coming in the door. It is sick and it's twisted, and something needs to be done to reform welfare, so that the people who need it are getting it, and the people who need it and aren't doing anything to get it do something about that. Congressman Sanders: Thanks for tackling a very, very important issue.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record statements by high school students from my home State of Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Tobacco (On behalf of Sara Sinclair) Sara Sinclair: Hi. My name is Sara Sinclair. I'm here to talk about an issue that in many ways relates to nationwide health care, and in many ways would make it more feasible, and that is tobacco control. Right now in the state of Vermont, 36 percent of our peers are addicted to nicotine, which is the active drug in tobacco. 2,000 of us become addicted to it every year, and roughly 12,000 of us, alive and in high school now, will die because of tobacco use. And personally, that scarce me a whole bunch. I remember when I was in elementary school--I will be graduating next year; I am a junior this year--and we were the Smoke Free Class of 2000. In elementary school, we had all these wonderful programs, and everyone said, ``Okay, I'm not going to smoke,I'm not going to smoke.'' And as time wore on, we got into high school, and the program sort of fell away. And now I look at my peers, and I see a huge number of them addicted to tobacco. Their skin is becoming wrinkled. They get shaky when they don't have their cigarette. They have this strong need for it. And it's very frightening for me to see my peers addicted to that so early, and to know that they will probably suffer long-term effects from their tobacco use now. I have a ten- year-old sister right now who says, ``I'm not going to smoke, I'm not going to smoke.'' And I hope she will be able to hold true to that. But I fear that, even if she does, that many of her peers won't. I think that the government needs to take strong steps to prevent tobacco use in children and in teens, because it is a very serious issue. And even though people say, sometimes, ``Oh, teens are going to do whatever they want no matter what,'' there are effective programs out there. I believe, in the state of Massachusetts, the smoking rate amongst pregnant mothers was cut in half by one particular program. And I believe that there are effective programs out there that need to be organized by our government. Luckily, our state government here in Vermont has taken steps in that direction, but we need it on a nationwide level, we need it to be comprehensive, it needs to start before a child is in school, in their preschool, on television, in the newspapers, and it needs to continue right up through adulthood. I also believe that there should be programs out there to help adults, like my father right now, who is addicted to nicotine and struggling with it. He is having an awful time quitting. And there needs to be a program out there to help people like him get rid of his addiction. Congressman Sanders: Thank you for a very strong presentation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, which would strike a good blow against the $125 billion a year we are currently spending on corporate welfare. My, this is a strange debate. I am hearing conservative Republicans tell us they believe in government insurance. This is what it is. Now, it is interesting, however. This is not government insurance for middle-class homeowners. This is not government insurance for those people who are paying outrageous premiums for automobile insurance. No, no, no. We do not get government insurance for that. But if they are J.P. Morgan, they can get government insurance for a $200 million investment in an oil field in Angola. If they are Texaco, they get government insurance for $139 million for investment of a power generating project in the Philippines. If they are the Chase Manhattan Bank, they get socialized insurance. Here we have conservative Republicans, corporate Democrats telling us government insurance for the multinationals. I think that that is pretty strange. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we should note that in Indonesia right now OPIC officials are in that country, and they are in that country because the government there is suggesting that an American- backed company may not be able to make as much money as they wanted; and if that in fact takes place, it is going to be the American taxpayer through OPIC that bails out that particular company that invested in Suharto's dictatorship. Mr. Chairman, another disturbing aspect of this situation is that the United States Government is providing financial incentives to the largest corporations in this country to invest abroad. Now, some of us think that it would be a very good idea for these corporations that are investing tens of billions of dollars abroad to maybe bring that investment back to the State of Vermont and other States around this country to put our people to work at decent paying jobs. I hear our friend say that OPIC makes money, OPIC makes money. Well, if OPIC makes money, then maybe we better think about government insurance in other areas. And I would yield right now to any person who is opposing the Andrews amendment to tell us that they are prepared to support government insurance for homeowners, government insurance for automobile people who need automobile insurance. Are they in favor of that, Mr. Chairman? Not. I ask the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). Only government insurance for the large multinational corporations. Let us stop corporate welfare. Let us support the Andrews amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from my home State of Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. I am asking that you please insert this statement in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of this young person will benefit my colleagues. [June, 1999] Regarding: The War in Yugoslavia (On behalf of: Brendan Hurlbut and Anthony Blair) Anthony Blair: American involvement in the war in Yugoslavia is morally defensible on one level: It is the right thing to do to stop atrocities. But are there not other options for America than to conduct a war against Yugoslavia in which many innocent civilians and American soldiers may be killed? Is it America's duty to be a police force all around the world, even when an action is morally right? Do we want America to be playing the role of international policeman all over the world? Many reasons have been put forward as to why the United States should avoid being the world's police force in Kosovo. There are reasons, such as the cost. We are spending tens of million of dollars a day. The United States is carrying out about 90 percent of the bombings, while our other allies should be carrying a heavier load than they are carrying right now. Numbers of civilians are being killed by misguided cruise missiles, hitting large groups of innocent people instead of their targeted locations. Brendan Hurlbut: The U.S. has few strategic or economic interests in Yugoslavia. And are we really willing to damage our long-term relations with Russia over this issue? Communist and Russian nationalist groups are gaining support for their anti- American message due to this war. Hostile anti-American groups may be aided in their efforts to gain control of Russia due to this war. The threat of force did not stop Milosevic. In fact, some say it has strengthened his position among the patriotic people of Serbia. Morally, our actions in Yugoslavia are right, but are they in the best interests of our country, and are we not in a way also committing atrocities against innocent people? Can't the U.S. find other ways to stop Milosevic? Obviously, the bombings have not worked. The U.S. could declare Milosevic a war criminal and pay $1 billion to whoever captures him. The captors could be also granted citizenship in any one of the NATO countries. This would save lives, money, and maybe a country from poverty. Current U.S. policy is not consistent. We respond to atrocities in one nation, such as Yugoslavia, but ignore atrocities in other regions, such as Ruwanda. If the U.S. now takes the role of worldwide policeman, the U.S. will have to respond to every tribal or ethnic war worldwide. Do we really want the U.S. to be like a puppet on a string that must respond to every problem around the world? [June, 1999] Regarding: Tobacco (On behalf of: Andy Tyson, Carey Levine, Zach Pratt, Tina Reed and Doug Lane) Carey Levine: People who smoke are at increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema and other smoking-related illnesses that contribute to over 420,000 deaths per year. These people dying from cigarettes are our mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, colleagues, peers, and friends. Smoking is no longer just a problem, it is an epidemic that is expanding nationally and globally. Zach Pratt: In the wake of the recent landmark tobacco settlement, which awarded $206 billion over the course of the next 25 years to fund programs aimed at aiding smoking victims, debate regarding the most appropriate use of the funds has been fierce. The current proposals very drastically by state. According to a recent USA Today poll, popular opinion favors utilizing the appropriated money in an effort to improve public health care systems. Most Americans believe that the tobacco cash should be returned to those most affected by smoking and not split towards expanding health coverage for impoverished or uninsured families. The same poll reports that 27 percent of Americans would like to see the money spent on antismoking education. However, many governors would prefer to see the funds utilized in existing state education programs, feeling that the development of new programs would raise state expenditures to dangerous levels. Doug Lane: I believe that the money would best be spent in educational programs. The risk of getting addicted to nicotine are reduced through a national educational program targeting preteenagers, and highlighting the negative effects of smoking. The money the government has obtained through cigarette taxes and lawsuits of tobacco companies should be used for preventative measures, to stop this addiction before it starts. Recently, President Clinton has publicly announced that he is making it part of his agenda to reduce the amount of teenage smoking that goes on in America. Tina Reed: The ``Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco'' on Oklahoma's Teenage Facts sheets states that, every day, 3,000 teens smoke their first cigarette, and approximately one- third of these children will eventually die due to smoking- related illness. These are serious enough statistics that they demand a more intensive and proactive stance from schools to encourage students not to smoke. The new program would take a fresh new approach in informing students about the negative effects of smoking, through hands-on projects such as seeing a healthy lung compared to a smoker's lung, science projects breaking down the actual contents of the cigarette, and guest speakers. Through these types of activities, students will see the devastating effects of smoking by guest speakers that have lived to regret ever taking a puff of a cigarette, and touching a lung that is black and distorted due to smoking. Andy Tyson: There are many possibilities as to where the tobacco money can be spent. The money could help everything, from preventative measures to improving health and funding education. The truth is, all of these are worthwhile causes. The only thing that we must be especially careful of is the possibility of spreading the money too thin. Wherever this money goes, there must be enough of it to make a difference. Smoking should stop, and this is our opportunity to do so. Congressman Sanders: Good job.