Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering would provide $1 million in the rural community advancement program in order to fund a national pilot program to promote agritourism. The purpose of this program is to provide another means of income for America's struggling family farmers. I think the plight of the family farmer in America is well documented and I do not need to get into it at this time. But I believe that the body here knows that many, many thousands of hardworking family farmers are struggling to keep their farms afloat and to keep their heads above water. I am impressed with the work done in the chairman's home State of New Mexico with agritourism, and I know the gentleman from New Mexico has been very active in this program. I think it would be very useful to farmers in the State of Vermont and farmers throughout this country to expand this general concept into a national program. The concept here is that in States throughout this country, tourism brings in substantial sums of money. One of the reasons people come to the State of Vermont or come to many of the other beautiful States in this country is because of the work done by family farmers in keeping the land open and keeping our landscape beautiful. Unfortunately, in many areas throughout the State, the farmers themselves do not substantially benefit from the tourism that comes into rural areas. So it seems to me that if we could get a pilot program developed at the Federal level by which States can develop their own innovative programs, this would be a means by which tourism dollars can come into the hands of farmers and I think would well serve rural America. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the chairman of the committee has agreed to accept this amendment. I am very grateful to him for that.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and I have worked together on a number of issues, and I appreciate where he is coming from, and we all understand the difficulty of coming up with the money. However, I think the gentleman is not accurate in saying that we have funded the program higher than the President's request. I believe it is $14 million below the President's request, to the best of my knowledge.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his strong support. I think the essence of the problem that we have as serious legislators is that we are confronting a budget which in many ways prevents us from doing the things that we have to do, and that is not the chairman's fault and it is not the ranking member's fault. But I think when we talk about priorities in the United States, in this great country, in this wealthy country, how can we not address the reality that there are senior citizens who are going to the hospital and the administrators and doctors there are telling us they are malnourished? We are wasting huge sums of money spending dollars on hospital care that could have been prevented if we would provide adequate nutrition to our senior citizens. The same thing is true with low-income pregnant women who are giving birth to low-weight babies. So again, I would not argue about ag research. That is important. But I think what we are asking for is taking $13 million out of an increase of $50 million to use $10 million for the expansion of this commodities program.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) understands, I am not against ag research. I know that the gentleman has had a difficult time trying to fit in all of the needs. I do not disagree with the gentleman, and I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I just think that when we have senior citizens going into the hospitals suffering from malnutrition, that is an issue that cannot be ignored. I would raise that to a higher level and ask for the support of the body in the passage of this amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me, and I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for the outstanding work they have done on this bill. I think, however, there is no disagreement that the committee is forced to operate under very severe budget constraints. There is no debate about that, and I would simply want to remind every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives that in this great country, in this country which is wealthier than any other country in the history of the world, today there are millions and millions of Americans who are hungry, who are hungry, and what does it say about our national priorities that we see a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, that we see a situation when some want to provide over a trillion dollars in tax breaks over the next 15 years, and yet hospital administrators tell us that when senior citizens go to the hospital, they are finding many seniors who are suffering from malnutrition? What does it say about our country when school administrators tell us that when kids get to school in the morning many of these children come from families which do not have enough money to provide them with adequate breakfast or adequate lunches, that these kids are unable to do the school work that they otherwise would be able to do? They fall off the wagon, and they get into trouble. Is that what America is about? I think not. Now I understand the limitations that there are in this bill because of the overall budget, but I would hope that every Member of Congress understands that the day has got to come and come soon when this country wipes out the disgrace of having hungry people within our wonderful Nation. Second of all, Mr. Chairman, within that context we must be aware of the plight that family farmers in rural America are suffering from one end of this country to the other. Other people have made this point, and I want to repeat it. If we do not stand up and protect the small family farmer, we are going to lose that important aspect of what makes this country great.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the gentleman one simple question. He mentioned that there is nothing wrong with going over this line by line, dollar by dollar, and that is not bad. Would the gentleman move now to abolish the committee system of the United States House of Representatives? Why are we wasting our time with 13 committees? They hold hearings, and they have all these experts coming together, and let me finish.

Mr. SANDERS. True. But I have never offered 125 amendments, and as independent as I am, I think the committee process is a reasonable process. We have got 435 people. In all fairness, in all fairness, the gentleman does not think he knows all aspects of that bill. The gentleman never sat on the committee, nor have I, and I think it is totally reasonable. I have two amendments that I am offering. The gentleman may have some amendments. But basically really what he is saying is, ``If you're supporting the concept of bringing 125 amendments up,'' what the gentleman is saying is, ``Let's junk the committee.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my colleagues that I do not have 150 amendments, not even 50, only 2, and I believe the majority is going to accept one later. So this is it for me, and I would appreciate support for this amendment. This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). This is a very similar amendment to the one that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and I introduced last year, which won in the House by a strong vote. Unfortunately, the conference committee did not support the effort that we had made in the House. The purpose of this amendment is to increase funding for a nutrition program of extreme importance to many low-income senior citizens, small children and pregnant women, and that program is the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This year, the President requested $155 million for the Commodity Assistance Program, which contains the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. However, the program was funded at $14 million less than the President's request. We are attempting now to add $10 million to the program, which would still be $4 million less than what the President had requested. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that malnutrition and hunger among senior citizens is a serious and tragic problem in the United States. Throughout our country, food shelters see more and more use, and hospital administrators tell us that thousands of senior citizens who enter hospitals in this country are suffering from malnutrition. We know that programs like Meals on Wheels have long waiting lists and that large numbers of seniors throughout this country are simply not getting the nutrition that they need. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is currently operating in 20 States. Other States are on the waiting list and still more are in the process of applying for the program. We have been told by the USDA that unless additional funds are given to this program, there simply cannot be an expansion, which would be a real tragedy not only for seniors, but for pregnant women and young children who also utilize this important program. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is offset by cutting $13 million from the Agricultural Research Service. At a time of very, very tight and unreasonable, in my opinion, budget caps, this particular program received a $50 million increase this year, which brings the program up to just over $830 million. I am not an opponent of the Agricultural Research Service. I think they do a lot of good. I come from an agricultural State, and they do important work. But it seems to me that we have to put our priorities in a little bit better place. At a time of significant and growing hunger in the United States, it is frankly more important to be funding nutrition programs than adding $50 million to ag research in such programs as funding a geneticist plant breeder for lettuce to develop red snapper agriculture, aquaculture, to conduct golden nematode worm research and rainbow trout research. I do not mean to make fun of those programs. I am sure that they make sense and are useful. But I think in terms of our priorities, when we have seniors who are hungry and small kids who are not getting the nutrition that they need, I think we should do better; and we can do better by supporting this nutrition program. I want to thank the cosponsors of this amendment, one of whom is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the schedule has been so thrown off today that I do not know if they are going to come and speak to this right now. But the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) are also cosponsors of this amendment, and I would ask for its passage.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this rule, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for their work. I think there are a lot of very positive aspects to this bill. I wanted to highlight, though, at this moment two amendments that I will be offering with support from different members from both political parties. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that in the United States of America today, at a time when we are far and away the wealthiest country in the history of the world, hunger, h-u-n-g-e-r, remains a very serious problem for senior citizens and for children in this Nation. At a time when this Nation possesses so much wealth, there is absolutely no excuse, none at all, that one American citizen is hungry. And yet hospital administrators tell us that many of the senior citizens who come into their hospitals are suffering, if you can believe this, from malnutrition. Malnutrition. That is not what should be going on in the United States. I along with Democrats and Republicans will be offering an amendment to increase by $10 million funding for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program which comes close, therefore, to the level that the President had requested. This amendment will be offset by cutting the Agricultural Research Service which received a $50 million increase this year, bringing it up to $830 million. So they received a $50 million increase up to $830 million when we have large numbers of senior citizens in this country going hungry. And while agriculture research is important and there is much in that bill that is important, we should not be increasing funds to develop red snapper aquaculture when senior citizens and children in America are going hungry. The second amendment that I will be introducing will be a very small amount of money which would go to help develop agritourism in the United States. It is no secret that all over this country, family farmers, whether it is dairy, whether it is in other commodities, are fighting for their lives, and there are States such as New Mexico and Massachusetts with an agritourism program, a program by which tourists could come visit family farms, perhaps to bed-and-breakfast or other types of activities and get cash into the pockets of family farms who are struggling. There are some very good programs all over this country that have been established in New Mexico, established in Massachusetts. I think it is important for a small sum of money to be appropriated at the Federal level to allow innovative programs to be developed throughout this country. I would hope that for those of us who are concerned about preserving the family farm, we support that amendment as well.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for accepting the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) to my amendment. I appreciate that. The reason that I personally, and I think a number of other Members, do not walk into that room, frankly, is that we do not want to be encumbered upon if we make a statement and somebody says, ``My goodness, you are revealing a national secret.'' I do know the room is there, and I am sure that the gentleman's staff will be very helpful. I have not gone in there for precisely that reason, so that nobody can say that I am revealing something which, in fact, I have never seen.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me ask my colleague a question: Does he believe that it is a question of funding that our intelligence people did not know where the Chinese Embassy was? Is this a question of putting billions of dollars more into the CIA? Or is this gross mismanagement of the process?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in light of these instances, and many more which I have not gone into, there is no reason why this body should not pass this conservative, simple amendment. We are calling for, as part of this to the amendment, a study of these three specific events; and we are also requesting recommendations from the intelligence community as to how these catastrophes could be avoided in the future. So that is what this to the amendment does. It says level fund; and, second of all, we want some accountability on the part of the intelligence agency. Amendment Offered by Mr. Dixon to Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is basically about two issues. Number one, the issue is about priorities in how we spend our national wealth; and, secondly, the issue is about accountability and what we do when an agency is not performing up to the level that we want it to perform. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that in our great country we are spending large sums of money where we should not be spending it and we are not spending money where we should be spending it. Today, in the United States, 43 million Americans have no health insurance, but we do not have the money to help those people. Today, in the United States, millions of senior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs and they suffer and they die because the United States Government does not do what other countries around the world do and help seniors with their prescription drugs. Today, in the United States, at VA hospitals all over this country, veterans who have put their lives on the line defending this country are not getting the quality of care they need because the United States Congress is not adequately funding the Veterans Administration. I believe that within that context and the fact that we are underfunding many other important social needs we should not be increasing funding for the intelligence agencies. And what this to the amendment basically says is that we should level fund the intelligence agencies. That is the first reason. The second part of this to the amendment is equally important, and here we are talking about accountability and responsibility on the part of our intelligence agencies. I know, and my colleagues know, that almost by definition much of what the intelligence agencies do is quiet. I expect they do a lot of good work which we do not hear about, and I applaud them for what they do which is positive. But it is no secret that in area after area there have been major deficiencies and very, very poorly performed operations, and it is important that we talk about that and that we demand accountability. Let me just give my colleagues a few of the examples that I think need to be talked about and that we need from the Director of the CIA an understanding of how these things occurred and an understanding that they will never occur again. Everybody in the Congress and everybody in the United States was shocked when we heard recently about the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. And many of us at first thought, well, it was a mistake; the pilot aimed for another building, and he hit the Chinese embassy, and those things happen. It is terrible, but it was a mistake. But then we learned that the pilot hit what he was supposed to hit, and that was altogether shocking. We found that the information, which was available virtually on the worldwide web, which was probably available in the Yugoslavian telephone directory, that the Chinese embassy was located at that location was apparently not available to the CIA, and their action has caused a major international crisis. We want to know how that mistake could have taken place. Furthermore, as someone who is involved with the issue of the Gulf War illness, I, and I know all of our Members, are concerned about the explosion that took place in Kamisiyah, which is where the United States blew up an Iraqi arms depot which contained chemical weapons. Let me quote from the April 12, 1997, New York Times. ``The report issued this week by the CIA shows that the agency actually had detailed information, including geographical coordinates, during the war to suggest that chemical weapons are at Kamisiyah, information that was not passed on to the soldiers who later blew up the depot and may have been exposed to nerve gas.'' In other words, our soldiers were exposed to nerve gas because the CIA did not communicate the information that it had. Thirdly, we are all familiar with the terrible accident that took place in Italy regarding an American plane that went into lines that keep the gondolas moving in a ski area. I will quote from News Day. This is February 1, 1999. ``Although the gondola had been traversing the ski area for 30 years, there was no hint of it on the Prowler's crew map. While the horizontal hazard to aviation was clearly marked on Italian Air Force charts, the Pentagon agency somehow missed it.'' So our intelligence agencies were not providing our pilots with an up-to-date map, and so they had a terrible accident which could have been avoided. Mr. Chairman, these are just three examples. The fact of the matter is, there are many more.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, and I am happy to accept his amendment for the reasons that he gave, but I think the situation here tells us about another problem, and that is year after year the Members of the Congress are forced to debate the intelligence appropriation without having that concrete information out on the table. I know that year after year Members come up and say, gee, The New York Times has the information, the Congressional Quarterly has the information, but the American people do not have it from the Congress. So I thank the gentleman for his amendment to my amendment, and I am prepared to accept it, but I do raise that question again, that the day should come when we are public and open about how much money there is in the intelligence budget.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8 printed in the May 12, 1999, Congressional Record.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) on his amendment. It is no great secret that over the years, there have been many aspects of American foreign policy which have been wrong. It is no secret that the United States over the years has been involved in the overthrow of a number of democratic governments. In the case of Chile in 1973, there was a democratic government elected by the people. The President of that government was Salvador Allende. His policies antagonized corporate interests in the United States. A great deal of pressure was brought to bear in seeing him overthrown. I think it is a very positive step as we develop ideas for the future, as we try to develop a democratic foreign policy that we in fact know what we did in the past. So I think the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is a very important one. I think we should let the truth come out, and I strongly support his efforts.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing with the proposition that my colleague has just put forward. But what he is not dealing with is the issue of priorities of a Nation as a whole. What I am raising the question is whether we need more money for the intelligence agencies or more money for prescription drugs for our senior citizens or college education for our middle-class families.

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