Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman's remarks. I just mention to the Members that this amendment was endorsed by the National Association of Counties, by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, by Friends of the Earth, by the Rural Public Lands Council, by the Sierra Club, by U.S. PIRG, and by Public Citizen.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is the Republican budget. ``The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research and development since the oil crisis in 1973 triggered this activity. Returns on this investment have not been cost effective, particularly for applied research and development which industry has ample incentive to undertake. Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare * * *'' This is not the gentleman from Vermont; this is the Republican budget resolution. ``* * * corporate welfare for the oil, gas and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what industry is already doing. Some has gone to fund technology for which the market has no interest.'' Mr. Chairman, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the beneficiaries of the fossil fuel program are some of the largest multinational corporations in the world including Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, ARCO, and Shell. These companies in fact are making large profits. They do not have to come to the taxpayer for all of this support. So I think the time is now to be fair to communities all over this country, and I would urge support for this important amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me. Once again, let me point out, I know the gentleman's job is a difficult job, and he has to balance a whole lot of needs. I guess what I am arguing, and I am glad to hear that companies like Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, some of the largest conglomerates in the world, are contributing something into the program. I am glad to hear that. But the bottom line is, do my colleagues not think these companies, many of them, are enjoying record-breaking profits? Do my colleagues not think they can pay for their own research and developments rather than stick it to local communities, many of whom have got to raise their regressive property tax to fund their basic needs? That is the only point that I would make.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to call attention to an amendment that I will be offering along with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) later on in this bill. That amendment deals with the issue of payment in lieu of taxes. As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, there are some 1,800 counties throughout the United States that have land in them that is owned by the Federal Government. Over the years, the Federal Government has not kept faith with these communities and has not paid a fair payment in lieu of taxes. In the Congress, especially in recent years, we have been hearing a lot of discussion about what is called devolution, more respect, more authority for local counties and local towns. It seems to me that if we are sincere about respecting our States and our towns that we should be fair with them in terms of providing them the payment in lieu of taxes that they need. So I would hope that, when this amendment comes up, which affects some 1,800 communities in America, it affects some 49 States, and it is an amendment similar to one that won here on the floor of the House last year, that we will once again support it. It is unfair, it seems to me, to take advantage of communities all over this country, force them to inadequately fund their infrastructure, education, the services they provide their people because the Federal Government is not properly paying the in lieu of tax payments that it should. I urge support of this amendment when it appears later.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is supported by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). I should mention that last year a similar amendment passed this House by a vote of 241 to 185. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the very serious problem of underfunded mandates. It is an issue that we have heard a whole lot about in this body, of forcing citizens in close to 1,800 counties and 49 States to pay more in local property taxes than they should be paying because the Federal Government has fallen very far behind in its payment in lieu of taxes on federally owned land. In other words, the Federal Government is not paying its fair share and is doing a disservice to local communities all over this country. Just as an example, in my own small State of Vermont, over 50 towns in our southern counties are affected: Bennington, Rutland, Addison, Windham, and Windsor Counties. This amendment addresses the overall problem of underfunded payment in lieu of taxes by increasing funding for this program by $20 million from $125 million to $145 million. Although this same amendment passed last year with broad bipartisan support, the conference committee only increased payment in lieu of taxes by $5 million instead of the $20 million increase that my amendment would have provided, which is why we are back this year. Mr. Chairman, in real dollars, inflation-accounted-for dollars, PILT payments to counties and towns all across this Nation have been decreasing for a very long time. In real dollars since 1980, appropriations for payments in lieu of taxes have decreased by nearly $60 million, a 37-percent decline in value. And while this amendment will not rectify by any means the entire problem, it will at least allow communities around this country to know that we understand their problems and that we are making some real attempts to address those problems by appropriating this $20 million. In fact, even if this increase is approved, it would still represent a 26.3-percent decline in value since 1980. Mr. Chairman, I should add, and this is an important point, that the authorization for PILT today is approximately $260 million, over twice the appropriation level. In other words, the authorizers understand the problems facing the communities all over this country; but unfortunately in recent years for a variety of reasons, the appropriation process has not followed suit. Mr. Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact that the Federal Government does not pay taxes on the land that it owns. These Federal lands can include national forests, national parks, Fish and Wildlife refuges, and land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Like local property taxes, PILT payments are used to pay for school budgets, law enforcement, search and rescue, firefighting, parks and recreation, and other municipal expenses. Mr. Chairman, the important point has to be made. In recent years in this body, there has been a lot of talk about devolution, a lot of talk about fiscal responsibility, a lot of talk about respect for counties, towns and cities. And yet what we are saying after all of that talk is, gee, we do not have to pay our bills. We talk about respecting local governments, but yet we do not have to own up to the fact that we owe them substantial sums of money. I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is operating under real budget restrictions, and I happen to believe that we should do away with those budget caps and address many of the issues that we face. But I think when we deal with basic priorities, how do we talk about devolution and then turn our back and then say oh, yes, we will continue to owe counties, cities, and towns substantial sums of money? Mr. Chairman, the $50 million that we are using for these purposes include $20 million in payment in lieu of taxes and $30 million for deficit reduction. Our national debt is still over $5 trillion. This amendment begins to address that issue. The funds would be transferred and offset from the Fossil Energy Research and Development Program, a program we have heard a whole lot about in the last few minutes. But let me say this in regard to that program. Let me quote from the report of the fiscal year 1997 Republican, underlined Republican, budget resolution. And I quote: ``The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars----

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

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. Drinking and Driving (On Behalf of Chelsea Downing and Rebekah Blaisdell) Chelsea Downing: Drunk driving has become a major problem in the small towns of northern Vermont. Just a year ago, four teens were killed in a car accident on their way back from Canada. Alcohol was proved to be a factor in this crash. Since the drinking age above the border is 18, teenagers drive to Montreal to enjoy bar-hopping with their friends. The driving coming home from the bars can be hazardous. How can these problems be prevented? The question has lingered in the minds of many, since the number of Vermont traffic deaths involving drunk drivers under 21 have increased. Stopping underaged drinking altogether is an extremely difficult task. If we can reduce the driving while young people are under the influence, serious deaths and injuries can be prevented. We need to focus on the driving aspect, because it yields much more serious consequences than just drinking alone. The teen curfew is one action the state legislature has discussed. The curfew will prevent drivers under 18 from being on the roads after 11 p.m. This would restrict inexperienced drivers from being on the road when the risk period is high. But it also restricts young people from doing normal things, such as going to movies or the drive-in, or simply getting together with their friends. People above 18 can still drive. These are the people who can drink legally in Montreal. This curfew will not affect these teens, who face a long drive home from the bars in Canada. We have proof that this trip can be fatal. The state of Vermont has recognized that we have a problem. Increased numbers of police officers, strict DWI laws, and teen curfews are a few of the things they are in charge of. These measures can help solve the problem, but what really will make the difference is what these teenagers are exposed to in their everyday lives. Their school, friends, and especially their parents are all responsible for the decisions they will have to make. Teens need to recognize the consequences of drunk driving-- that death can result. Real stories of the families who have lost children to accidents best express these outcomes. Schools should be obligated to hold assemblies for students, telling them real stories about what could happen. These presentations are necessary, especially for events such as homecoming and the prom, where underage drinking and driving is apt to occur. Parents need to be involved in their children's lives, especially during the high-risk years. Increasing awareness is the best way to teach teenagers to consider the risks before involving themselves in dangerous situations. Rebekah Blaisdell: As everyone knows, life and death goes hand and hand, but nobody ever tells us how to deal with it. Family members die, our leaders die; but our classmates aren't supposed to. Lately my life that had more death than anyone would like to deal with. In the past month, two of my classmates have died unexpectedly. Scott was a very good friend of mine, and I have known Gary since first grade. I will remember them forever, and they have a special place in my heart. In each of these cases, we will never know why they died, if it was an accident or if it was of their own choice. This decision is left up to those of us who are still here. We will never know for sure, but every day I wonder if there was something I could have done. I don't understand why Scott and Gary had to die at such a young age, but my life will go on. I have to come to terms with this senseless loss. But lately, it seems the school has forgotten what happened just a month ago. three days of extra counselors because of Scott's death. Is that what his life was worth? Three days? I will never forget what happened during my senior year, but soon this school will. In four years, nobody will know Scott or Gary's name, and if they do, they won't understand what happened to them or those around then. It bothers me, because people should remember. Events like this should never be forgotten, because if they are history will repeat itself and more people will die. Even if Scott and Gary's deaths were accidents, schools should teach about depression, and provide a way for students to get help for themselves. I know each school has guidance counselors. But who wants to talk to somebody who might not even know your name? All my life, I've had to deal with depression. And most people don't truly understand. I'm only 17. But already I have had at least seven of my best friends attempt suicide, and a couple have succeeded. People need to know where and how to find help, and if they're finding help for a friend, they need to know that their friend is not going to hate them, and if they do, they're still alive, and that's the point. If people don't know or don't want to admit that they may be depressed, there is a bigger chance that they will take matters into their own hands. Depression is not a dirty or a bad word, and people who are depressed aren't any different from anyone else, they just need a little more support. When it comes down to life and death, I've always opted for life. Life may be tough, but death is so final. Once the trigger is pulled or the plunge is taken, there is no turning back. No matter how hard life is, it will always get better. Drug Treatment (On behalf of Lucas Gockley and Aaron Gerhardt) Lucas Gockley: We are here today to talk to you about the methadone maintenance treatment for heroin addicts. Heroin a highly addictive drug derived from morphine. Some of the long-term diseases stemming from heroin use are weight loss, heart disease, AIDS, and death, eventually. In Vermont, heroin use is increasing dramatically. In 1994, 118 people in a state-run treatment center said they used heroin. In 1996, 154 people said they were addicts. There has been a 50-percent increase in heroin use in the Rutland area alone. In 1997 in the Rutland area, there have been two drug store robberies and one bank robbery by heroin addicts looking for money to fund their habit. There have also been eight deaths due to heroin overdose in just Rutland County in 1996 and 1997. State police figures show that crime due to heroin addiction has almost tripled in this state in a period between 1996 and 1997. Here at the university, there is a federally-funded detox center run by UVM's Dr. Warren Diggle, and the figures show that 60 percent of the heroin addicts he sees are repeat visitors. Heroin use is on the rise in Vermont, and help for addicts is virtually nonexistent. The only effective treatment is the methadone maintenance treatment. Aaron Gerhardt: Vermont has no real treatment facilities which addicts who have a desire to get off of heroin can use. One question to ask about methadone maintenance treatment is, Does it work? In the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, researchers found that ``MMT''--or methadone maintenance treatment--``centers have a real efficiency, not only to reduce illicit opiate abuse between 50 and 80 percent, but also to reduce criminality, HIV risk, and mortality, and also to improve social rehabilitation without introducing other alternative substance abuse.'' Another study published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that heroin addicts who go through methadone treatment are less likely to use cocaine, amphetamines, tranquilizers and marijuana. It is clear that MMT does work. The reason that MMI facilities need to be government-funded is because, currently, Medicare and Medicaid do not cover methadone maintenance treatments, and, frankly, the treatment is too expensive for the average addict to pay for. So it is much easier for them to stay home, using the welfare, and continue using heroin, which just contributes to the cultural stereotype of the freeloading drug addict. Government funding can help ease the burden for the addict, and it shows a concern on the part of the government to help the individual. Instead of condemning them as criminals, it just makes them seem more that they have a problem, instead of being bad people. Also, within these facilities, the need for confidentiality is imperative. Addicts have to have a place where they can go to and not feel threatened by the threat of prosecution, persecution, and shame. The MMT centers need to have flexible hours so that addicts who are trying to stay productive members of society can go to them. A nine-to-five day for a center being open is not that feasible for an addict who is trying to hold a day job. Simply put, the best time for the clinical centers to be open would be 24 hours a day, which, granted, would be a little bit inconvenient for people, but for the addict, it helps. It is also very important that these centers have counseling facilities available, and counselors available. The chances of success in methadone maintenance treatment greatly increases with psychotherapy. According to a 1995 study published in The Journal of Psychiatry, addicts who underwent psychotherapy were much more likely to complete the treatment and become well-rounded, productive members of society once more, and stay off the heroin. So, over all, the benefits to Vermont are clear: MMT helps to lower crime, HIV risk, and death. Also, through MMI, addicts are more likely to stay off drugs for the rest of their lives and become productive members of society. Congressman Sanders: Thanks. It sounds like you did some good research.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I support financial modernization if modernization means more choices for consumers, more competition, greater safety and soundness, stopping unfair bank fees and protecting consumers and underserved communities. But Madam Chairman, I believe this legislation in its current form will do more harm than good. It will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers, increased charges in fees for individual consumers and small businesses, diminish credit for rural America and taxpayer exposure to potential loses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more megamergers, a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry and further concentration of economic power in this country. It is no secret, Madam Chairman, that far bigger financial institutions lead to bigger fees which total more than $18 billion last year. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Federal Reserve Bank have conducted studies and confirm that bigger banks charge larger fees, and there is no question in my mind that if this bill is passed, that process will be accelerated. This bill is in fact, however, good for big banks, but the big banks are doing just fine without this bill. Government-insured banks earned a record $18 billion in just the first 3 months of this year, 2.1 billion more than they earned in the same period last year. At a time of increasing bank fees, increasing ATM surcharges, increasing credit card fees, increasing minimum balance requirements, it is time for the Congress to stand up for the consumers. The big banks are doing fine. Let us protect the consumers. Let us vote no on this legislation. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I support financial modernization--if modernization means more choices for consumers; more competition; greater safety and soundness; stopping unfair bank fees; and protecting consumers and under-served communities. But Madam Chairman, I believe this legislation, in its current form, will do more harm than good. It will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers; increased charges and fees for individual consumers and small businesses; diminished credit for rural America; and taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more mega-mergers; and small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry; and further concentration of economic power in our country. The banking industry is currently involved in some of the largest mergers in history. Four of the top ten mergers last year involved bank deals totaling almost $200 billion. Today, three-quarters of all domestic bank assets are held by 100 large banks. And this bill, if passed in its current form, will further accelerate the consolidation of banking and financial assets that we have seen in recent years. It is no secret, Madam Chairman, that bigger financial institutions lead to bigger fees--which totaled more than $18 billion last year. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Federal Reserve Bank have conducted studies and confirmed that bigger banks charge higher fees than smaller banks and credit unions. The Public Interest Research Group's 1997 study of deposit account fees at over 400 banks found that big banks charge fees that are 15 percent higher than fees at small banks. Credit union fees, by comparison, were half those of big banks. And the Public Interest Research Group's 1998 ATM surcharging report found that more big banks surcharge non-customers, and big-bank surcharges are higher. This bill is certainly good for the big banks of America, but the big banks are doing fine even without this bill. Government-insured banks earned a record $18 billion in just the first three months of this year--$2.1 billion more than they earned in the same period last year. Bank profits were also up $1.9 billion in the first three months of this year--beating the previous record set in 1998. And, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the increase in earnings was led by the largest banks, while smaller banks saw their earnings decline. This bill has everything the big banks want, but it has little or nothing for consumers. It does not modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by applying CRA requirements to new financial conglomerates. It does not stop ATM surcharges. It does not safeguard stronger consumer protection laws passed by the various States. It does not provide the strong privacy provisions that will be needed with the creation of large financial service conglomerates, It does not require that banks serve low- and moderate-income consumers by offering basic, lifeline accounts. And it does not even include provisions to protect women and minorities from discrimination in homeowner's insurance and mortgage services. These anti-discrimination provisions were included in the version of the bill that was reported out the Banking Committee, but they mysteriously disappeared from the bill when it came out of the Rules Committee. At a time of increasing bank fees, ATM surcharges, credit card fees, increasing minimum balance requirements, discrimination against women and minorities, and the loss of many locally-owned banks to large, multi-billion dollar corporate institutions, Congress should consider pro-consumer legislation to directly address those problems. But this bill is not good for consumers, or small businesses, or taxpayers, or under-served communities. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record these 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. Child Care in Vermont (On behalf of Jody Foster, David Verge, Alicia Norris and Bobby Collone) David Verge: Our issue is about child care in Vermont, and with the young people because a lot of the younger people are having kids now. According to child care funds in Vermont, a family could not afford care in 75 percent of the homes or any center. Vermont child care subsidy is at too low of a rate, only $83.70 for field time centers, and $67.45 for full-time care and home care. People of low income levels cannot afford even $50 to make up the difference that the state does not pay. If they want to come and encourage people to work or go to school, then they need to make it worthwhile. If you are working and your whole paycheck is going to the cost of day care, then what is the point of working? Youth Build needs a day care, because 11 people out of, I'd say, about 33, 30 people have kids already, and we would like if we could try to open child care round Vermont so people can get their educations, and for the people that drop out of high school, because they don't have the money to pay for child care. We would like to see more people graduate than drop out, because we have the lowest dropout rate, from what I understand, and we are just trying to fix it, because a lot of us want to become something so our kids will not look down on us and can think something of us. You know, a lot of us are just not willing to work with it, because we have no money to pay for all the child care, plus other things that we need for essential needs for babies, us, and it is really hard. Congressman Sanders: You are doing great, Dave. Alicia Norris: I think a lot of it is, we are all students and we all either have children or are having children. Two of us have kids already, and our whole paycheck from Youth Build goes straight to day care. I mean, we have no money for expenses, for diapers or anything else like that. And it is hard to find good day care when it is $150 a week, and that is really expensive. That makes it really hard, because we want to go to school. And I think a lot of it is, students don't get the help they need so they can go back to school, because they are trying to better their lives and make their lives better for them and their children. Jody Foster: Some of our changes would include maybe a special subsidy for parents that are going back to school or working, and base it better on income levels, on a higher income level for state help for child care. Alicia Norris: And just employers helping out their employees, to give them day care, or to either provide day care, like the hospital does, or to help with the funds for it. Congressman Sanders: Well, you guys have touched on an enormously important subject, and you have done a great job making that presentation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to a resolution on Social Security. The following was agreed upon by both houses of the Vermont General Assembly on the 13th of May, 1999. I call the attention of my colleagues to this resolution and submit the resolution to the Congressional Record for their benefit.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon touches on perhaps the most fundamental issue that we can discuss; and that is, in the midst of all of the media hoopla about how great the economy is doing, the reality is that there are tens and tens of millions of people who are hurting very badly and, in many ways, are in worse shape today than they were 20 or 25 years ago. The gentleman is touching on one area, and that is the area of health care. Now, I want to know one simple thing. It would seem to me that, if the economy is booming, what that would translate to, among other things, is an improved health care system for all of the people. It makes sense to me. The economy is booming. That means that more and more people have health insurance, better quality of health care, better able to go to the physician of their choice, the specialist of their choice, more access to prescription drugs. That is what a booming economy would seem to me. But the reality, as the gentleman has just indicated, is very much not that. The reality is that we have some 43 million Americans who have zero health insurance. The reality is that we have tens of millions of Americans who have very large deductibles and co-payments. That means that, if they get sick, they hesitate to go to the doctor, because they do not have the cash to pay for the visit. The end result of that is that doctors now tell us that the patients that they are seeing are far sicker than the patients that they used to seeing because people do not have the money to pay because they have high deductibles. In terms of prescription drugs once again, at a time when the average profits in 1998 for the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in this country were $2.5 billion, that was the average profits for the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, we have people in the State of Vermont, people all over this country, elderly folks, sick people who literally have got to make the choice as to whether they purchase the prescription drugs they need to keep them alive to ease their pain or whether they heat their homes in the winter, whether they buy the food that they need. Ah, but the pharmaceutical industry, enjoying huge profits has all kinds of money available for campaign contributions to maintain the status quo. I will submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a chart which I think the American people would be interested in hearing about which talks about how much more senior citizens in the United States pay for prescription drugs than do seniors in other Nations. If a product used, one of the more commonly used prescription drugs in this country used by seniors, cost $1, in Germany that product costs 71 cents; in Sweden, 68 cents; in the United Kingdom, 65 cents; Canada, 64 cents; France, 57 cents; and Italy, 51 cents. But once again, getting back to the gentleman's point, if we are talking about a so-called booming economy, I would think that what the health care system would be doing is making it easier for people to get in, making it easier for people to get the quality care. As we both know, as a result of the growth of managed care and HMOs, that is very often exactly the opposite of what is happening. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS. No, these are the same drugs manufactured in the same factory, often in the same bottle, often in Puerto Rico. The same exact products. I want the pharmaceutical industry to tell the American people why if they go to Europe, if they go to Mexico, if they go to Canada they can purchase the product that they sometimes need to stay alive. The gentleman and I both know of the horror stories of people struggling to combat their illnesses, a question of life and death, and not being able to afford these outrageously high prices. And as the gentleman indicated a moment ago, to add insult to injury, the taxpayers of this country pour huge sums of money into research and development. And then, when they develop the product, instead of saying to the pharmaceutical company that is going to distribute it, that is going to sell it, that they have to sell that product, because it was developed with taxpayer money, they have to sell that product at a reasonable price, instead of that the NIH gives the product over to the pharmaceutical industry who then sells it at any price that they want, meaning that the taxpayer who helped to develop the drug often cannot even afford to purchase the drug that he or she developed, which is an issue that must be addressed.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the pharmaceutical industry, which spends over $80 million in the last election cycle in opposition to any serious reform was successful in helping to defeat that proposal. But we will be back, and we are going to be back with another good proposal. That is that one of the outrages that currently exists, as I mentioned earlier, is that the same exact prescription drug manufactured by an American company is sold in Canada, Mexico, and around the world for far lower prices than it is sold in the United States. I know the gentleman intends to release a study in Oregon, but we have already released one in the State of Vermont. What we found is that, for the most commonly used prescription drugs that senior citizens need in Vermont, those drugs cost 81 percent more than in Canada and 112 percent more than in Mexico. And in response to that absurdity, I have introduced legislation which would allow American pharmaceutical distributors to be able to purchase their products from Canada, from Mexico, and from any other country to take advantage of the lower prices so they could resell those products back in the United States at far lower prices than is currently the case. I know the gentleman knows that the problem here is not with the independent pharmacist. That person has no choice but to sell the product for a high price because he is purchasing it for a high price. Well, now we are going to let competition reign. Now we will let the distributors buy at a lower price in Canada, Mexico or anyplace else. This is exactly the same product that is sold in the United States for a far higher price. And I should mention that, as a matter of fact, on July 7 I intend to take a van of senior citizens and people with chronic health problems to Canada. It is only an hour and a half away from us. We are going to go to Montreal and we are going to purchase prescription drugs and we are going to show the degree to which prices in Canada are so much lower than they are in the United States. In my State already many people are going over the border to Canada to take advantage of the lower prices. I know in the southern part of this country people are going to Mexico. That is an absurdity. Americans should not have to skip over the border, north or south, in order to get a discount on drugs manufactured by American pharmaceutical companies. That is an outrage. And we are going to do everything we can to see that the American consumer is treated the same way that the Canadians, the Mexicans, and the Europeans are treated.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me see if I understand what the gentleman is saying. It is a very radical concept. Is the gentleman suggesting that somebody who works by the sweat of their brow for 50, 60, 70 hours a week trying to make $25,000, $35,000, or $40,000 a year to maintain their family at a level of dignity and decency, that those people should be paying less in taxes than people who make millions of dollars investing in the stock market?

Mr. SANDERS. It is radical, I know.

Mr. SANDERS. This evening I hope to touch on some issues that are not often discussed here on the floor of the House, and along with me I am happy to welcome the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). I want to begin by touching on an issue that I believe is perhaps the most important issue facing this country. It is not talked about enough, but it is something that all of us should be deeply concerned about. That is, Mr. Speaker, in the last election, 36 percent of the American people voted. That means almost two-thirds of the American people did not believe it was important enough for their future to come out and vote. What is even more alarming is that among people 24 years of age or younger, we had, if Members can believe it, 18 percent of those people voting. Eighty-two percent said they were not interested in voting. That is frightening unto itself, but it bodes very poorly for the future because there is very good evidence that if young people do not vote, it is much less likely that they will vote in the future. So what happened in recent elections is that fewer and fewer people are participating. The vast majority of low-income people do not vote. Most working people do not vote. But then, on the other hand, we have upper income people who do vote, and upper income people who contribute heavily to both political parties and into the political process. So the voices of working people and low-income people are virtually not heard in this institution. Their needs are not taken account of as legislation is dealt with. But for those folks who have the money, the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent who make 80 percent of the campaign contributions, Congress continuously does their bidding, pays attention to their needs. I think we have a vicious circle, that as Congress pays more and more attention to the needs of the wealthy and not to working people, not to the middle class, then the vast majority of the people turn off even further from the political process and say, hey, this Congress does not represent me. Why should I vote? Tonight I want to touch on a number of issues. But before we get going, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS. What will happen is then, horror of all horror, wages may go up. Let me just touch on that very important point. We hear every day on the television, we hear it on the radio, we read it in the newspapers, that we are living in the midst of one of the great economic booms in our history. Maybe that fear that with low unemployment wages might go up has in fact prompted the Federal Reserve to do what it did today. But I want to, for the Record, Mr. Speaker, give a chart which very clearly belies this nonsense that there is an economic boom for the middle class or for working people. According to information assembled by the Economic Policy Institute, and I do not think there is a lot of debate about this, in 1973 the weekly earnings, the real average weekly earnings of workers in the United States, was $502, okay? In 1973, the weekly earnings, average earnings, were $502. In 1998, in the midst of a great economic boom, the weekly earnings were $442, a 12 percent reduction in real wages. The reality is that in order to compensate for the lowering of real wages, the average American today is working significantly more hours. People are working two jobs, people are working three jobs. So if the Fed thinks that they have got to once again increase unemployment to dampen wage increases, I would have very strong disagreement, because in reality today the average person in the middle class is struggling. The gentleman and I have discussed it before. It is true in Oregon, it is true in Vermont. How many people that we know are working two jobs, three jobs, 50, 60, 70 hours a week to pay the bills? The idea that anybody in a public position of trust would take action which would result in lowering wages, forcing people to work even longer hours, is to my mind an outrage.

Mr. SANDERS. I think we are coming toward the end of our time. I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for all of the work that he does in the Congress and for his participation this evening. I would like to conclude on this note. We have touched on a number of problems, but that does not make us pessimistic. It is my belief, and I know I speak for my colleague as well, that if working people and middle-income people and young people get involved in the political process, if they let the Congress and the President hear from them, if they make the political leaders of this country understand what their needs are and they will get involved, we can turn this country around. We should not be proud that the wealthiest people have seen huge increases in their income and their wealth at the same time as we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any industrialized nation. We should not be proud that 43 million Americans have no health insurance and that we are the only country in the industrialized world without a national health insurance system. We should not be proud that the CEOs make over 300 times what their workers make and that in the midst of the so-called economic boom, the average American worker today is earning less than was the case 25 years ago. But ultimately to turn that around, to make the Government of the United States work for the middle class, work for working families, rather than for upper-income people, people are going to have to get involved in the process. They are going to have to vote. They are going to have to be informed about the issues. They are going to have to run for office. They are going to have to revitalize American democracy and pay tribute to the founders of this country who gave us the radical concept of democracy. So I would hope that all of our people, especially the young people who are turning their backs to our Democratic system, get involved and stand up and fight for the rights of ordinary people. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me this evening.

Mr. SANDERS. Very interesting. They do polls and they ask the American people, how do you think we should deal with the Social Security situation? The one alternative is to raise the age at which they get benefits. The other solution is to cut back on benefits. And the American people respond. Then they said, what about raising the cap, exactly what are my colleague is talking about. Poll after poll shows the American people think that is a very good idea. They think it is appropriate. As the gentleman just indicated, if they raise the cap, not only can they can create Social Security solvency for the 75 years that the actuaries actually want, they could actually have a tax deduction for low and medium income workers, which makes a lot of sense to me. But amazingly, despite the fact that this is an idea that the American people want, how many people in the Congress are even prepared to talk about that idea? Not a whole lot.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me interrupt the gentleman from Oregon, if I might, by giving some facts and figures. Mr. Speaker, I will also include for the Record, information about campaign contributions and lobbying expenses. Last week, and I hope to get into this a little bit, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I talked about the issue of pharmaceutical drugs, about the crisis that exists all over the United States where we have elderly people and people with chronic illnesses who cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs. We talked about the fact that the same exact drug manufactured in the United States of America is sold for significantly lower prices in Canada, in Mexico, and in Europe, and that the American consumer is being ripped off. We talked about the huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry and the fact that the United States is perhaps the only major Nation on earth that does not regulate the price that pharmaceutical companies can sell their product. Lo and behold, apropos of what the gentleman from Oregon was talking about, now let us just see how money works and the relationship to the very high cost of prescription drugs in this country and to lobbying expenses and campaign contributions. It turns out that, for the first 18 months of the last election cycle, the pharmaceutical industry had lobbying expenses of over $74 million and made more than $7 million in campaign contributions, which put them at the very top of any industry in America. So if consumers want to know why we are paying so much more for the exact same prescription drug in this country as the Canadians and the Mexicans and the Europeans do, then they might well look to the reality that the pharmaceutical industry is pouring huge sums of money, not only into Congress, but into State legislatures throughout this country. They are number one. They are at the very top of the list of people who spend money on lobbying expenditures or campaign contributions, followed, I might add, not very far behind, by the insurance industry, which might help us explain why we are the only Nation in the entire industrialized world that does not have a national health insurance system. So whether the issue is banking, whether the issue is interest rates, whether the issue is the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs or all of the other absurd priorities that exist in this Congress, I think one of the important factors to examine is who makes the campaign distributions, who puts money into lobbying; and that tells us a whole lot about the end results which we see.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic and interesting that time and time again, and I guess we are not going to have time today to talk about corporate control over the media, a very dear subject to me, but I find it amazing that we hear Social Security crisis, bankrupt, no money available, and the young people by and large believe us by now because they have heard it so much, when there is no debate. If the Congress does nothing, Social Security will pay out every nickel owed to every eligible American for the next 34 years. We have crises today. We have people sleeping out on the street. Elderly people cannot afford their prescription drugs. Veterans are not getting the health care they need. But those, apparently, are not crises. But this non-crisis is now being subjected to a situation where people want draconian response which would destroy the system. But maybe the gentleman wants to say a few words.

Mr. SANDERS. What is really very clear, I do not think there is any debate on this, is the Speaker and the House leadership understands that if that bill came before the House, as the gentleman has just indicated, the vast majority of the people would vote for it because they would be embarrassed to go back home and say, ``we voted against campaign finance reform.'' But if it does not come before the floor of the House, they do not have to make that vote. Now, we are running out of time. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has recently made I think a very important contribution in terms of this whole discussion over Social Security. As the gentleman knows, we hear very often about how Social Security is going bankrupt, there is no money in it, and blah, blah, blah, which happens to be untrue. Right now, if the United States Congress does nothing, which I think is not a good idea, I think we should act, Social Security will be able to pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 34 years. So that is not a system on the verge of bankruptcy. But as we become an older society and as people live longer, there are problems that we must address. I know the gentleman has just recently introduced very, I think, interesting Social Security legislation.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, we certainly would like to do so. But once again, money is talking. The American people in poll after poll say they want changes in the obscenity of the current campaign finance system. But the monied folks, hey, they like the system the way it is. See, in a democracy we have one person, one vote. If we have money, if we do not have money, we get one vote. But in the current system, we have one person, one vote. But then the other person has one vote plus the ability to contribute endless sums of money and have access and impact on the legislative process. So for those folks who have the money, they do not want to see campaign finance reform. It is a real outrage that the House leadership has refused to bring back onto the floor a reasonably conservative bill that would ban soft money that passed overwhelmingly here last year. They do not want to bring it back. And they are going to wait and wait so that it will become impossible for the Senate to act and will continue this charade by which big money pours into both parties and to the presidential candidates and which Government continues to work on the needs of upper-income people rather than the middle class.