Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it would not be subject to congressional approval. It would continue to do as the purpose of this program was meant to.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, he would have to define what currency stabilization means. But in the current sense of what currency stabilization means, and what has historically been done under this fund, this amendment would allow that to continue.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of my good friend. Is there anything in this amendment which would suggest that anybody here is not deeply concerned about what is happening around the world, that we do not want to see the economies of Mexico, Russia, Asia strong? All that we are saying is, for example, maybe if the Congress had been involved in the discussion over the bailout of Russia, maybe the Russian economy would not be in the pits that it is in now.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It seems to me that this important and interesting debate is primarily about two fundamental issues, both of great importance. The first is the issue of democracy, which I hold to be the most important issue. I want to reiterate the fact that I believe the great crisis facing this country is that we are losing our Democratic traditions. Every Member of this body should be terribly frightened that in the last election over 80 percent of the people 24 years of age or younger did not vote. And every poll that is taken shows the young people are not interested about what is going on in government or are extremely alienated from the process. With big money controlling both political parties, many, many people have given up on the political process. One of the reasons they have given up is they do not see the Members who they send to Congress, who supposedly represent them, fighting for their interests and participating in the important issues facing their lives. How can we stand to defend democracy when we say, oh, yes, we will have no say when the President, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, can put at risk billions and billions of dollars and we have no say about that. And then we go home and we tell our constituents, get involved in the political process. They are not going to do that. That is issue number one and the most important issue. But the second issue we hear about is the global economy. Well, if these ideas are so good, then let the President of the United States come to the Congress. He will get support if the ideas are good. What a statement it is to say that we are incapable of responding to a crisis. What a terrible and awful thing to say. If the President feels that it is necessary to appropriate or to lend substantial sums of money to a foreign government, he can come to the United States Congress, make his case; and if it is a good case, the American people will support him and the Congress will support him. But when we talk about the global economy and all the glowing accords, I would mention to my friends go and tell that to the average American worker, whose wages today are 12 percent less than they were in 1973. Tell that to the average American worker today, who in the midst of this great global economy is working 160 hours more than he or she worked 20 years ago. Tell that to the people of Mexico, whose standard of living has declined. Tell that to the people of Russia, who have almost descended into Third World living standards. Now, people have honest disagreements about the global economy. That is what we should be debating on the floor of the House. That is a good debate. And maybe if we do that our constituents would know that we are involved in the important issues of their lives. Is the global economy working for the steelworker, for the textile worker, for the family farmer in my State of Vermont? Some think it is, some think it is not. Let us debate that issue. So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue for strong support for this amendment. Let us restore the democratic traditions of this country. Let us get the Congress involved on the most important issues.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by thanking the chairman for this interesting debate. This amendment is endorsed by progressitives, conservatives, and many people in between, by the United Steelworkers, by Unite, some of the great unions in this country, by the National Taxpayers Union, by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. I would ask for the support of all Members for this amendment.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. It prohibits loans in excess of $1 billion to foreign countries from the Treasury Department's exchange stabilization fund unless approved by Congress. Now this is an unusual amendment in that the sponsors come from a wide and broad spectrum of political life. This amendment is being cosponsored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). And not only are the Members who are endorsing this amendment from a wide spectrum of political life, so are the organizations who are endorsing this amendment. They include such unions as the United Steelworkers, the Atomic Chemical and Energy Workers, the United Union. They include the Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, the Alliance for Global Justice, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and many other organizations. Now why are we all united on this issue? For a very simple reason, and that reason is that the great crisis in American society today is that the vast majority of our people are giving up on the political process. They do not believe that it is worth their energy to vote. In the last election, 64 percent of the American people did not vote. Over 80 percent of the young people did not vote. What this amendment tries to do right here in the United States Congress is to reinvigorate our democracy. It says that if the President of the United States wants to spend more than $1 billion as part of a loan or a bailout, he must come to the United States Congress to get approval. As all of us know, the Exchange Stabilization Fund was originally developed in the 1930s to stabilize our currency. That is what it has done. This amendment leaves that function untouched. The President of the United States can continue to do that. But what it does say is that if the President spends more than $1 billion, he must get the approval of the United States Congress. Once again, this amendment will not in any way restrict the Treasury Department's use of the ESF to stabilize currencies, because currencies stabilization is the purpose for which Congress established the ESF. The point here is that, as everybody Member of this body knows, that we on occasion spend hours debating how we are going to spend $1 million here or $1 million there. Given that reality, some of us think that maybe we should participate in debates when billions of dollars are appropriated. Mr. Chairman, in recent years, whether it has been Mexico, whether it has been Asia, whether it has been Latin America, in Brazil, the President has acted unilaterally. I would argue that those of us who believe in the democratic process, those of us who get up here and argue about how we spend $1 million here or there, have a right to participate in how billions of taxpayer dollars are going. Mr. Chairman, our opponents in this amendment, and they are legion, they are all over the place, no doubt, from both political parties, they are going to say, well, the President has to act in an emergency. But take that argument to its logical extreme. What are we doing here? Are we chopped liver, or what? Is it not time that we revitalize American democracy and get involved in the process? Now, everybody knows that there are great concerns about the global economy, and honest people have differences of opinion about that economy. I have real fears. I have real fears that when a financial problem in Thailand develops, it spreads all over Asia and it affects the United States. It is amazing to me how little this Congress participates in that debate. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I may disagree, but he should not disagree that that debate should taken here on the floor of the House. Has the ESF program worked? Has the IMF program worked? Honest people have differences of opinion. Let us have that debate here on the floor of the House. Once again, let me inform Members of what this amendment does and what it does not do.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate, this amendment is similar to an amendment that was passed in 1995 under which the United States government functioned quite well, functioned quite well. This amendment recognizes the historical and traditional role of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and allows the President to do what presidents have done since 1934. But this amendment says that when we are going to spend more than $1 billion, come to the United States Congress for approval, so that the American people can be involved in that process.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit for 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. Hate Crimes (On behalf of Ryan Creedon, Jeff Davis, Demere Kasper, and Jesse McCall) Ryan Creedon: Hate crimes have been prevalent in America's history since its conception. A hate crime has been legally defined by Congress in the Violent Crimes and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 as a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, in the case of property crime, property that is the object of a crime because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation of any person. The Violent Crimes and Law Enforcement Act does not serve as the nation's hate crime law. The law that does act as the nation's hate crime law does not include crimes that are gender- and sexually-orientated and motivated. Currently, it is being debated whether or not a hate crime should be separated from what would usually be a crime. Take for example the unfortunate suffering Matthew Shepard was subject to in Wyoming. Shepard, a homosexual man, was tied to a fence and assaulted numerous times with the butt end of a pistol by two men because of his sexual orientation. Should the two men be convicted of murder alone, or should they be charged for a hate crime as well? Jeff Davis: In this case, it is not logical to take the time, energy or money to further try the subjects. They will spend the rest of their lives in jail. However, it does make sense to further punish less severe crimes that are committed by the aggressor because of the subject's race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender. In these circumstances, you can look at the case of Re Beaver St. Paul, 1992. The defendant, along with other juvenile delinquents, built a cross by taping together pieces of wood and burning it in a nearby neighbor's yard. The teenagers were punished under the St. Paul bias-motivated crime ordinance, which prohibits the placement of racial symbols on public property. The balancing test guarantees the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness better than any other legislation to date, and sets forth a division line between what is personally offensive and what is free expression. Demere Kasper: The balancing test weighs the importance of one's rights to express themselves against another's rights to live comfortably. This test is used in many cases. For example, the state of Kansas responds to the actions of Reverend Fred Phelps, the antihomosexual activist. Phelps, along with protesters, verbally directed antigay slander towards those of a homosexual AIDS victim. The Kansas legislature voted that Phelps' actions were immoral, and passed a ban which prohibited such acts, citing a balancing test as the reasoning. When delivering biased beliefs, the line should be drawn when one begins to attack (inaudible). This insures that the freedom of free expression is still protected. The case of Comver versus Smith in 1949 proves this. When the Nazi party wanted to march through a predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois, they were denied a permit to march by civil courts. The Supreme Court cited the balancing test and overruled the decisions of the lower courts, which indicated that the denial was fair and just. Jess McCall: Currently, in the Vermont state legislature, they are trying to pass a bill that would allow the victims of bias-motivated crimes to obtain a court order similar to abuse-prevention orders, prohibiting their attackers from further harassment. To guarantee freedom of speech and the security of minorities, one's rights to freedom of speech must be outweighed when that speech is intended to harm an individual because of their minority status. Legislation must be passed to significantly increase punishment to those who violate this test. However, this must only be applied when trying a crime that does not already include a life sentence. While it is important to protect our nation's freedom of speech, it is more important to protect the individuals of our nation from racial, gender, ethnic, sexual-orientation, or religious- based slander.

Mr. SANDERS

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Oregon just made a very important point, and maybe somebody can correct me if I am wrong here. My understanding is that this particular program is up for reauthorization next year. If that is so, and I cannot swear to it, but that is my understanding, then that is the time to discuss this issue. Now, the truth of the matter is what we are doing here, and maybe the chairman wants to deny it, is we are legislating in an appropriations bill. I guess there is a rule that allows the chairman to do it, but that is what he is doing. We are making a profound change in a bill that should be dealt with in an authorizing committee, that should have serious debate, that should involve the States. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) raised some very important issues. Some of the States have balanced budgets precisely because they have cut back on programs like that, and we are now going to go to the States and expect that they are going to add more money to programs that they have already cut? I doubt it. What is the impact? Have we really studied the impact of what it would mean for a number of States, maybe some of the poorest States in this country, not to have this program? How many people might die? I would refer my colleagues to The Washington Post of last Friday. ``Officials said that those who died in the heat wave may have not had air conditioners on because they worried about payment of the electricity bills or kept their windows closed.'' Those are exactly the people that we are trying to help out in this very successful, cost- effective program. So I would hope that if the chairman believes in this idea, he will bring it back next year when this bill is reauthorized and we can have a serious debate on it, but I would ask for support for the Sanders amendment, which has widespread support.

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

Mr. SANDERS. In a July 9, 1999, letter, the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority writes, ``The record shows we already are making a significant commitment to this program and an additional 25 percent match is unnecessary.'' We are hearing this from States all over the country. If my colleague thinks this is a good idea, then I think it should go through the normal process. My friend over there talked about the normal process. Take it through the authorization committee, debate it, have input from the States, and if people feel that it works, then we may want to go to it. I have my doubts about it. But to suddenly spring this on the States, with the result I think a number of States will not be able to participate in this important program, is wrong; and I would strongly ask for support of the Sanders amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. SANDERS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify again what might be a complicated issue to the Members. There are two separate amendments. This amendment would restore the $13 million that the committee cut and would bring funding to the same level that has been proposed by the Senate and to significantly less than the administration proposed. That is what this amendment is about. The next amendment we will debate is the proposal to provide a 25 percent offset from the States.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I happen to be a supporter of the subcommittee and committee process. I know that they do a whole lot of work. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is not suggesting, of course, that we should eliminate the amendment procedure in the House. He is not suggesting that. He is not suggesting, for example, that there is a problem when a radical change to an effective program takes place and we do not involve the States in the process. It is not fair, I think, in all due respect, to say, oh, we know what the States would say. Let them say it. Let them tell us what will happen if we require a 25 percent input next year. I think they should have been having that discussion.