Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, some of us have recognized for a long time that it was terribly important that Russia become increasingly involved in the crisis in Yugoslavia. Russia is, I think as everybody knows, Yugoslavia's major ally and major supporter. If Russia could be brought into the process supporting the humanitarian goals of the stopping of ethnic cleansing, it would be a major step forward in solving what is increasingly becoming a very, very horrible situation in the Balkans. Within that light, I was very delighted to learn about a trip to Vienna, Austria, that was being organized by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt Weldon), who has done an excellent job in trying to improve relations between the United States Congress and the Russian Duma. He was organizing a trip which would involve 11 Members of the United States Congress to meet with the leaders of the Russian Duma. On that trip, in addition to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), were the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maurice Hinchey), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Neil Abercrombie), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Dennis Kucinich), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corinne Brown), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Don Sherwood), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Roscoe Bartlett), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Jim Gibbons), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joseph Pitts). There were six Republicans, four Democrats, and myself, who is an Independent. Mr. Speaker, in arriving in Vienna and meeting with the Russians, I think we were all delighted that the Russians shared our strong concerns about bringing peace to Yugoslavia. We were able, after a lot of discussion, to come up with an agreement. As others have said, we were not there to negotiate the fine points of a treaty. That was not our job. But we were there to see if we could come together on the broad outlines of what a peace process would mean for the Balkan area, and I think we did that. Mr. Speaker, let me just touch on some of the important points that the Russians and our delegation agreed upon. ``We call on all of the interested parties to find practical measures for a parallel solution to three tasks, without regard to sequence;'' in other words, to do it in a simultaneous manner. That is, ``the stopping of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the withdrawal of Serbian Armed Forces from Kosovo, and the cessation of the military activities of the KLA.'' What we have said is that these steps should be accomplished through a series of confidence-building measures, which include but should not be limited to the following: A, the release of all prisoners of war. When we stated that, our three POWs were, of course, still being held by Yugoslavia, and a few hours after this agreement was reached Milosevic, as it turns out, released our three POWs. My own view is that, consistent with this agreement, in an act of good faith on our part, we should release the two Serbian POWs that we are holding. But our agreement called for the release of all prisoners of war. Second of all, what we said is the voluntary repatriation of all refugees in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organizations. In other words, what we were agreeing to is that the people who have been driven out of their homes whose villages were burned by Yugoslavia should be allowed to return to their homes and be allowed all of the humanitarian help they can receive. Thirdly, and on a very important point, there was agreement on the composition of the armed international forces which would administer Kosovo after the Serbian withdrawal. The composition of the group should be decided by a consensus agreement of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, in consultation with Macedonia, Albania, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the recognized leadership of Kosovo. This is a very important step forward, because what this means is the Russians are saying very clearly that there should be armed international forces, something that many of us understand is absolutely necessary if the people of Kosovo are to return safely and with protection to their homes. I think increasingly, within our own administration and all over the world, there is an understanding that that armed international force need not strictly be NATO. That is what we are saying here, and that is what the Russians have agreed to. Then we said that the above group would be supplemented by the monetary activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that this trip was a significant step forward in bringing the Russians into the peace process. I was very proud and delighted to be there with my fellow representatives from the United States Congress.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. It is the United States Congress which has the power to determine issues of war and peace and to decide whether our young men and women are put in harm's way. It is the President who is the Commander in Chief of the military; it is the Congress which determines whether we use that military. I have heard today that some people think that the U.S. participation in Kosovo now is unconstitutional. They are right. But the U.S. participation in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and many other conflicts which took place without congressional authorization were also unconstitutional. The time is now for this Congress to stop abrogating its constitutional responsibility to the White House and to start seriously addressing the issues of war and peace. Frankly, I am extremely concerned about the process that has taken place today on an issue of such enormous consequence and at a time when Congress has an inactive schedule. It is an outrage that we only have a few hours to discuss the issues of war, the expenditure of billions, and the potential loss of life of American military personnel, and I hope we rectify this situation in the coming days and weeks. This should not be the last debate on this issue. Mr. Speaker, my assessment of this situation at the present moment is that Mr. Milosevic is a war criminal and that ethnic cleansing, mass murder, rape and the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands of innocent people from their homes is unacceptable and cannot be ignored. Sadly, because Mr. Milosevic has negotiated agreements which he has then ignored, I have supported the NATO bombings of military targets. I believe that the Serb military and police must be withdrawn from Kosovo, that the hundreds of thousands of people uprooted from their homes must be allowed to return, that Kosovo must be given some kind of self-rule and that an international peacekeeping force should be established to maintain order. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must strive as hard as we possibly can to find an alternative between doing nothing and allowing ethnic cleansing and mass murder to continue and the continuation of a war which will certainly result in terrible destruction, large numbers of casualties and the expenditure of great sums of money. I believe that the United States must be as active as we possibly can in finding a road to peace. I believe that Germany and the United Nations have brought forth proposals which might be able to form the basis of a negotiated peace. I believe that Russia, a long-term ally of Serbia, should be asked to play a more active role in the process and to supply troops for an international peacekeeping force.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. It is the United States Congress, which has the power to determine issues of war and peace and to decide whether our young men and women are asked to put their lives in harms way. It is the President who is the Commander and Chief of the military. It is the Congress who determines whether we use the military. I have heard today that some people think that the U.S. participation in Kosovo is unconstitutional. They are right--but the U.S. participation in Vietnam, Granada, Panama, and many other conflicts which took place without congressional authorization were also unconstitutional. The time is now for this Congress, which represents the American people, to stop abrogating its Constitutional responsibility to the White House and start seriously addressing the issues of war and peace. Frankly, I am extremely concerned about the process that has taken place today. On an issue of such enormous consequence, and at a time when Congress has a very inactive schedule, it is an outrage that we have only a few hours to discuss the issue of war, the expenditure of billions, and the potential loss of life of American military personnel--and I hope we rectify this situation in the coming days and weeks. This should not be the last debate on this issue. Frankly, at a time when American pilots have been undertaking massive air attacks in Yugoslavia, when three members of the United States military are being held prisoner, and when we have spent billions of taxpayer dollars it is an outrage that the President of the United States has not come before the Congress to tell us and the nation what the goals of his policy are--and to ask this institution for support of those proposals. It is an outrage that a terrible rule passed this afternoon on an almost totally partisan basis limiting the time of debate, limiting amendments and severely limiting the role that Congress should be playing in determining this country's course of action. We should not be acting in a partisan way on issues like this. Mr. Speaker, my assessment of the situation at the present moment is that Mr. Milosevic is a war criminal, and that ethnic cleansing, mass murder, rape and the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands of innocent people from their homes is unacceptable and cannot be ignored. Sadly, because Mr. Milosevic has negotiated agreements which he has then ignored, I have supported the NATO bombing of military targets-- not civilian targets. I believe that the Serb military and police must be withdrawn from Kosovo, that the hundreds of thousands of people uprooted from their homes must be allowed to return, that Kosovo must be given some kind of self-rule, and that an international peace keeping force should be established to maintain order. I believe that we must strive as hard as we possibly can to find an alternative between doing nothing, and allowing ethnic cleansing and mass murder to continue, and the continuation of a war which will certainly result in terrible destruction, large numbers of casualties, and the expenditure of great sums of money. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the United States must be as active as we possibly can in finding a road to peace. I believe that Germany and the United Nations have brought forth proposals which might be able to form the basis of a negotiated peace. I believe that Russia, a long time ally of Serbia, should be asked to play a more active role in the process and to supply troops for an international peace keeping force. And finally, I believe that Congress must not duck its constitutional responsibilities--about developing a short and long policy with regard to Kosovo. Let's not just blame the President. That's too easy. Let us have the courage to seriously confront this issue.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, and urge the Speaker to allow this important piece of legislation to get onto the floor for debate and a vote. Shays-Meehan, which will stop large corporations and wealthy individuals from pouring hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money into both political parties, will not solve the crisis of campaign financing that we face today, but is an important step forward. Mr. Speaker, one of the great tragedies of our time is that the American people are in large numbers giving up on the political process. In the last election, only 36 percent of the people voted, and tens of millions no longer believe that this Congress represents their interests. Rather, they believe, not without justification, that big money interests, through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts, develop the agenda here and call the tunes. Mr. Speaker, let us tell the middle class and the working families of this country, the folks who do not contribute hundreds of millions, that we are listening to them. Let us pass campaign finance reform.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. Colonel James R. Prouty is recognized for exceptionally distinguished service to the United States Army and to the United States of America during the period July 6, 1972 to May 31, 1999. Throughout a distinguished twenty-seven year military career, Colonel Prouty served in a series of increasingly demanding positions that immeasurably contributed to the security of the nation, culminating as the Executive Officer to the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. A brief summary of his accomplishments over the last decade follows. As Commander of the 2d Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery (Vulcan/ Stinger), 2d Armored Division, he was responsible for leading, training, maintaining, and caring for approximately 600 soldiers and their associated equipment (45 track and 175 wheeled vehicles). MG Mallory, the Division Commander, remarked that ``his battalion set the training standard for the division because of Jim's leadership.'' When war came, that uncompromising investment in training returned valuable dividends for the 125 highly-motivated and professional soldiers he provided to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. As Operations Officer, and later Chief of Staff, for the United States Army Space and Strategic Defense Command (USASSDC), COL Prouty was responsible for planning and resourcing all current, future, and contingency operations; determining, analyzing, and integrating requirements for Army Space Systems; and coordinating those requirements with the Army Staff, the Joint Staff, and US Space Command. Leveraging his broad warfighting talents, COL Prouty initially focused his directorate's efforts on incorporating space considerations into Army doctrine and training events. From these efforts, he developed and prioritized requirements for Army Space Systems, published in the first Army Space Modernization Plan, supporting commanders across all Battlefield Operating Systems. LTG Lionetti described him as ``smart, innovative, and visionary; he made improvements of enormous significance.'' Later, his directorate stood up USASSDC's Theater Missile Defense (TMD) cell, and COL Prouty became the Army's focal point for a wide variety of TMD initiatives. Once again, COL Jim Prouty was equal to the task, overseeing the integration of delivery of the TMD Force Projection Tactical Operations Center (TOC), a major new warfighting asset available to support Joint Land Force commanders worldwide. At the same time, COL Prouty was instrumental in directing the command's highly successful participation in support of the Commission on Roles and Missions. As Commander, Test and Experimentation Command (TEXCOM) Experimentation Center, COL Prouty was responsible for conducting and supporting a wide range of independent operational tests and experiments using state-of-the-art, real time casualty assessment instrumentation, data reduction, and analysis. He was also responsible to lead, train, and care for an organic Armored/Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force of over 350 soldiers. As in previous assignments, his initial emphasis was on training and performing to standard. As a result, his soldiers achieved record success on the gunnery ranges, and the major weapons systems were maintained at unprecedented operational readiness rates. More importantly, every operational test and experiment was carefully planned, coordinated, and executed on time, under budget, yielding results which were both analytically sound and compelling. The highly successful operational test of the Battlefield Combat Identification System (BCIS) is a testament to COL Prouty's leadership, superb knowledge of training, and understanding of how to operationalize emerging technology. The latter months of COL Prouty's command were once again dedicated to the mission of inactivation--and taking care of troops. In recognizing the professional manner in which COL Prouty inactivated the command, MG Lehowicz remarked that ``he turned in equipment and facilities (valued at over $100M) in such an outstanding condition that it defied the imagination.'' Since July 1997, COL Prouty has served as the Executive Officer to Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (AVCSA). It is in this role that COL Prouty's unique talents and abilities have had their greatest impact on the Army. While his duties are broadly defined, as in his previous assignments, it is in the details where COL Prouty has left an indelible mark on the future of our Army. His ability to energize a diverse body of senior executives and general officers, from across the Army Staff, with widely different interests, toward a common purpose, is truly remarkable. He succeeds because he invests the time, energy, and intellect necessary to understand the most complex issues from the perspectives of all stakeholders; he possesses the wisdom, experience, and judgment to find the common ground; and he employs the finely-honed leadership skills to motivate all to positive action. These skills were particularly evident in directing the AVCSA's efforts to transition two incoming VCSAs and develop a workable strategy to fully integrate the Army's active and reserve components--later detailed in the CSA White Paper, One Team, One Fight, One Future. Immediately upon assuming his duties, he developed the trust and confidence of every senior leader on the Army Staff, and countless others in the department and on Capitol Hill. Through two full Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) cycles, and in defense of two Army budget submissions, the Chief of Staff, the Vice Chief of Staff, and/or the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff were invariably present at the decisive place and time, with the compelling argument for Army requirements and resources. These opportunities were more often than not developed behind the scenes, via a broad, but comprehensive staff effort with COL Prouty at the helm. Perhaps of even greater importance, COL Prouty's insight, instincts, and mastery of the subject matter allowed him to resolve innumerable requirements and resource issues, in a manner favorable to Army objectives, without requiring the dedicated attention of the senior leadership. COL Jim Prouty's team-building and managerial skills have never been more fully validated. The office of the AVCSA is a model of efficiency--lean, professional, effective, and highly-credible. This success is singularly attributable to the leadership talent and managerial savvy of COL Jim Prouty. As the role of the AVCSA continued to evolve, COL Prouty ensured that the office staff remained one step ahead of the issues, and cultivated the professional working relationships necessary to ensure the role of the AVCSA on the Army Staff was well understood and fully integrated. He sets high standards in all aspects of staff performance, and inspires subordinates to achieve them. Even under the most difficult circumstances, morale was invariably high, and the staff never missed a beat. COL Jim Prouty served with uncommon distinction in each of these critical positions during these last ten years. His outstanding performance in each position contributed extensively to the success, not just of his unit, but to the Army. The impact of COL Prouty's professionalism, selfless commitment, and accomplishments will endure well beyond his retirement. His level of responsibility, particularly in his final position, was far above that of his peers, and his performance was on a par with most of the general officers I routinely work with. Given these factors, it is most appropriate that COL Prouty's extraordinary service to the United States Army and the United States of America be recognized by the 106th Congress.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This budget is a disaster for American veterans and this rule is a disaster for veterans. And that is why this rule is being opposed by almost every major veterans organization in the country, including AmVets, the Blinded Vets, the DAV, the Paralyzed Vets, the VFW, and the Vietnam Vets. The truth is that the President's budget for veterans is totally inadequate and the Republican budget for vets is even worse. It is unacceptable to me that in a time when some Members of this body want to give tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, we cannot come up with $3 billion to protect medical care for veterans all over this country. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by a unanimous vote, the Senate did the right thing and they raised the amount of money available to vets. We need to defeat this rule, send it back, so that we can join in the Senate and say ``yes'' to our veterans and make sure they get the medical care to which they are entitled.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to an article printed in the March edition of the Labor Party Press. [From the Labor Party Press, Mar. 1999] Don't Blow Away Social Security Social Security Basics Under Social Security, workers contribute a certain amount of their pay into the system through their work life. They then earn entitlement to family benefits when they retire, become disabled, or die. Social Security is funded through payroll taxes (FICA, or Federal Insurance Contribution Act) on both the employee and employer. Currently each pays 6.2 percent on all wages and salaries up to a maximum of $68,400 in income. The payroll taxes we pay today finance the benefits for today's retirees. From the money we contribute, the government writes Social Security checks and mails them to beneficiaries. Any extra money collected through payroll taxes goes into a Social Security Trust Fund. Until the 1990s, the Social Security Trust Fund was relatively small. However, it has ballooned in size in the post decade--and in fact has helped create the much celebrated ``balanced budget.'' Some 44 million Americans receive benefits from Social Security. Thirty million of these are the elderly and their dependents, 6 million are the disabled and their dependents, and 7 million are the survivors of decreased workers. About 92 percent of people over 65 receive Social Security benefits. Since 1935, when the labor movement helped force passage of Social Security, the program has dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly and disabled. Unfortunately, though, some people who really need it--like farmworkers--still aren't entitled to Social Security. What's Good About Social Security Social Security has dramatically cut poverty among the elderly and disabled. While about 12 percent of seniors currently live in poverty, without Social Security, 42 percent would be poor. About two-thirds of the elderly rely on Social Security to provide over half their retirement income. Social Security is especially essential since the U.S. does not require employers to provide pensions. Social Security is progressive. Those who have been paid high salaries throughout their lives will get a much smaller percentage of their salary replaced by Social Security than those who have worked all their lives in low-wage jobs. An average wage-earner retiring in 1997 will get back about 44 percent of his or her earnings from Social Security. A high wage-earner gets back about 25 percent. And a low wage-earner gets about 80 percent. Social Security benefits just about everyone. About 92 percent of people over 65 get Social Security. It's a program that working-class, middle-class, and poor people can all get behind. Social Security is efficient. Because it is run entirely by the federal government, puts all the money into one pool and invests it in one place. Social Security only spends about one percent of benefits on administration. What Other Countries Do Better All seven major industrialized countries (Japan, Canada, United Kingdom, U.S., Germany, France, and Italy) have systems that are, like ours, pay-as-you-go. Today's workers support today's retirees. Italy, Germany, and France spend 12-14 percent of their gross domestic product to support retirees. The U.S. spends 6.9 percent. Japan, Canada, and the UK pay slightly less than us. In the U.S., the average-earning worker can expect to get 42-44 percent of his or her income replaced on retirement. In Germany, France, and Italy the rate is 50 percent. In the U.S., Germany, and Japan, retirement age is now 65. It's lower in France, Italy, and Canada. In the U.K., it's 65 for men and 60 for women. (The U.S. retirement age is slated to go up to 67 for people born after 1960.) All the industrialized countries have programs to cover the healthcare costs of retirees, but American retirees have to pay more out of their pockets than seniors in the other six countries. Today, U.S. seniors pay a third of their medical costs themselves. What We Should Do About Social Security The Social Security system is quite sound, and with only minor modifications, it should stay that way. We don't have to institute privatization, raise the retirement age, cut benefits, reformulate the cost-of-living index, or increase the payroll tax on workers to ``save'' Social Security. One modest and relatively painless change to Social Security would wipe out a big chunk of the shortfall that some are projecting: Eliminate the payroll-tax earning cap. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax is not paid on wages in excess of $68,400. Since the ranks of the very rich, have been growing, this has resulted in something of a drain on Social Security. In the early 1980s, 90 percent of all wages fell under the threshold. Now it's 87 percent, and it's expected to drop to 85 percent. Why not make it 100 percent? Says economist Dean Baker: ``If you eliminate the cap altogether, it would wipe out about three-quarters of the projected Social Security shortfall. The amount that will be paid out in Social Security benefits won't be that much more than before, because it's a progressive pay-out structure. Someone who earned a million or two in their lifetime might only get an annual Social Security payment of $50,000, say.'' Another proposal the Labor Party has suggested: raise the payroll tax on employers--but not workers. Workers have seen a net drain on their incomes for the past couple of decades, and this would be one way to begin to tip the balance in the other direction.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, as the sound of war today reverberates throughout this Chamber, let us take this opportunity to make sure that we do not forget about the veterans of past wars, the men and women who have put their lives on the line defending this country. Frankly, the President's budget is grossly inadequate in terms of protecting veterans' needs, as is the Republican budget. In the State of Vermont, the Veterans Administration hospital at White River Junction is under significant financial pressure, and that is true at VA hospitals all over this country. Mr. Speaker, at a time when some are proposing huge tax breaks for some of the richest people in this country, let us not forget the veterans. Let us, in this budget process, go well beyond the President's budget for veterans, well beyond the Republicans' budget for veterans, and finally provide the true funding that the Veterans Administration needs to protect those people who put their lives on the line defending this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about whether, after spending $140 billion on missile defense programs over the last 40 years, we continue to spend billions more. But this debate is about much more than that. Given the fact that there is a limited amount of funds available for our needs, let me tell my colleagues what this debate is also about. This debate is whether millions of senior citizens today who cannot afford the prescription drugs they need to ease their pain or stay alive are going to get those prescription drugs or whether we continue to spend even more on the military. That is what this debate is about. This morning, Mr. Speaker, I attended a committee meeting with representatives of all of the veterans organizations, and they said what is absolutely true, that this Congress has been disgraceful in ignoring the needs of our veterans and our Veterans Administration hospitals, and they are begging us for a few billion dollars more to protect our veterans so that we do not turn them away from our VA hospitals. But over and over again we hear there is no money available for our veterans; but, yes, there is $150 billion more available over the next 5 years for military spending. And we have young families all over America who look forward to sending their kids to college; no money available for Pell grants, yet more money available for Star Wars, for B-2 bombers, for every defense system that the military industrial complex wants. Now I have heard that we are spending very little so far on defense, on understanding, on research for the missile defense program. If we have $300 billion in the defense budget now and we do not even have a Soviet Union out there to oppose us, why do we not take some of that money rather than asking us for more? The United States today spends $300 billion, NATO spends $200 billion, North Korea spends less than $3 billion. Take what we have and spend it wisely.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to an article printed in the March edition of the Labor Party Press, and submit the article to the Congressional Record for my colleagues' benefit: [Labor Party Press, Volume 4, Number 2, March 1999] ``Don't Blow Away Social Security'' (PART 2 of 3)

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to an article printed in the March edition of the Labor Party Press, and ask that it be printed in the Congressional Record for my colleagues' benefit: ``Don't Blow Away Social Security'' There is no Social Security crisis. But if Democrats and Republicans get their way and privatize the system, there will be. ``It's weird,'' says economist Dean Baker of the Preamble Center, who has been studying and writing about Social Security reform. ``We're all looking at the same numbers, and what the numbers say--even the pessimistic ones--is that we could take absolutely no action on Social Security for the next 34 years, and the program would continue to pay out all its benefits.'' And yet, politicians of both parties are all aflutter about the need to radically reform Social Security right away. The picture they paint does sound grim. Mostly because people are living longer, today's workforce is supporting a greater and greater number of Social Security recipients. And the trend will probably continue. In 1995, there were nearly five people under 65 for every one person over retirement age. But by 2030, the ratio will be more like three workers for every retiree. And since Social Security is actually a pay-as-you-go system--current workers pay for current retirees--that spells trouble. (See ``Social Security Basics'' on page 4.) For the time being, we can supplement the shortfall by drawing from the extra pot of money the Social Security system has amassed (the Social Security Trust Fund). But then, in 2034, according to some projections, that fund will be depleted, and Social Security money will have to come from active workers alone. And, under the current formula, they would only be able to cover about 75 percent of the benefits retirees had been promised from Social Security. President Clinton and members of Congress say ``saving'' Social Security is at the top of their agenda (after impeachment, of course). Many recipes have been written for rescuing Social Security. The most extreme plans involve privatization. Some people want the Social Security payroll withholding to go into our own ``personal security account'' that we can invest ourselves. Less radical plans would allow the Social Security Trust Fund to be invested in the stock market, where it would supposedly get a higher return than where it is invested now, in U.S. Treasury bonds. President Clinton favors a combination of both ideas. He wants to invest part of the Social Security Fund (eventually up to 15 percent of it) in the stock market. He also proposes setting up voluntary new private accounts for middle- and low-income Americans--but outside the Social Security system. At a time when the stock market is in the stratosphere, record numbers of Americans are investing, and the airwaves are full of experts advising the general public on how to get the best return, the idea of turning Social Security into a personal Wall Street investment portfolio is appealing to a lot of people. But not everybody's sold on the idea. To begin with, many people question whether there even will be a Social Security shortfall. They argue that the Social Security hullabaloo is all based on some very gloomy economic projections made by Social Security trustees. In their reports, the trustees assume that over the next 75 years, the U.S. economy will grow at less than half the rate it has grown for the past 75 years. According to a report by the New York-based Century Foundation, an increase in annual economic growth of just .15 percentage points over the next 35 years would raise output by as much as the combined increase in the cost of both Social Security and Medicare. Meaning: Workers of the future may have no trouble supporting the growing ranks of the retired. And yet, our politicians have managed to convince a majority of Americans that there really is a crisis at hand. Polls of younger Americans show that many believe they can expect little or no money from Social Security when they retire (unless, perhaps, the system is radically changed). So who started this rush for a ``solution'' to the Social Security ``crisis''? Follow the money. Wall Street could stand to gain $240 billion in fees within the first 12 years of a privatized system, according to economist Christian Weller. That, he points out, is enough to give 20,000 fund managers an annual salary of $1 million each. No wonder the financial industry has spent millions of dollars of late to promote the idea of Social Security privatization. Economist Dean Baker believes there's a deeper motive behind the privatization push: ``I think much of this is being driven by people who are just plain anti-government,'' he says. ``And Social Security is the government's flagship social program.'' It may be, says Baker, that some minor adjustments will need to be made to allow the Social Security system to continue in good health. (See the sidebar on ``What We Should Do.'') But privatizing the system and investing Social Security money in the stock market is not the way to go. In fact, he believes, it would take the ``security'' out of Social Security. Most of us would see our retirement incomes dramatically reduced.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about an issue which is of great importance to my State of Vermont and to I believe virtually every State in the country, and that is the crisis that is currently occurring with regards to home health care. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the Congress, against my vote, without my vote, passed the so-called Balanced Budget Act which cut $115 billion from Medicare, including $16 billion from home health care. Of course, those savings were used to provide tax breaks, most of which went to the very wealthiest people in this country. So we cut Medicare, we cut home health care, and we gave tax breaks to the rich and to the very rich. The result of that is that since 1997, cuts in home health care agencies have forced about 20 percent of those agencies to close, and agencies that are still open such as the 13 efficient nonprofit agencies in the State of Vermont are now struggling to meet the home health needs of their constituents with fewer resources. Last year, we put a band-aid on the problem and passed limited home health relief. We took a small step forward, but clearly nowhere near enough. Right now we have got to stop the upcoming 15 percent across- the-board cut in home health care. We need to increase home health care per visit cost limits, we need to reform per beneficiary limits so that the sickest patients who need many home health visits have access to them. I am hopeful that Congress this year will do the right thing and pass comprehensive home health reforms this year that will truly help our agencies and equally as important Medicare beneficiaries who need home health care. There is one particular aspect of the debate about home health care that concerns me very, very much, and, that is, that the Medicare commission is proposing a 10 percent copayment for home health care which would result in out-of-pocket payments for the average senior of $470 a year. Now, some people may say, ``Well, $470 is not a lot of money.'' Well, it is a heck of a lot of money if you are an elderly person, if you are frail, and if you have an income of $8,000 or $9,000 or $10,000 a year. That is 4 percent or 5 percent of your total income. At a time when many of our seniors cannot afford the prescription drugs that they need, when their out-of-pocket health care costs are soaring, it would be an absolute outrage to ask the elderly, sick, poor people to be paying $470 a year more for a program which they now receive for nothing and which they should continue to receive without cost. It is beyond my comprehension, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment at the same exact time that people are talking about imposing an horrendous copayment on low-income, sick senior citizens, these same people are talking about tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. In other words, in all essence you raise taxes for the poor, the sick and the elderly, those people who are too frail to leave their homes, and you take that money and you give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. That is unconscionable and it is beyond my comprehension that any Member of the United States Congress would support such a regressive and reactionary approach. What kind of country are we if we would do that? I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will not go that route. I am proud to say that I will be sending a letter to the Medicare commission which contains the names of 69 Members of the House who are going to say to that commission, ``Don't impose a copayment on the elderly and the sick and the frail.'' Let us support home health care, let us understand that home health care is an integral part of long-term care, that it is something that is vitally needed, that it is something that is cost effective. If people do not receive the home health care that they need, they are going to end up in the hospital at far greater expense to Medicare. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this body will go on record as saying no to any copayments and let us protect some of the most fragile people in our country, and, that is, those people who cannot leave their home, who are old, who are sick and who are poor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) very much for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the fact that he is perhaps the conscience of this Congress in terms of human rights. We thank him very much for his work, and we applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which addresses the horrendous record that China has on human rights, both within their own borders and within Tibet as well. Under the 50 years of the Chinese occupation, the Tibetan people have been denied most rights guaranteed in the universal declaration of human rights, including the rights to self-determination, freedom of speech, assembly, movement, expression, and travel. In the 20 years after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, 1.2 million or 20 percent of Tibet's population was killed. Today the Chinese are further undermining Tibet with a massive influx of ethnic Chinese into Tibet. In some areas, Chinese outnumber Tibetans by two or three to one. With this influx, the Chinese are controlling the cultural, economic, and religious life as well as the political and military structure in Tibet. Religious repression is one of the cruelest aspects of the Chinese regime in Tibet. Over 6,000 monasteries and sacred places have been destroyed by the Chinese who are making a concerted effort to wipe Tibetan Buddhism off the face of the Earth. Interestingly, and one of the reasons I became involved in this issue, is that the horrendous human rights record in China struck home to the people of the State of Vermont, and specifically the people of Middlebury College Community when the Fulbright scholar and former Middlebury College student Ngawang Choephel was seized by the Chinese authorities in 1995 for the crime of doing videotaping in Tibet. He was charged for this horrendous crime of using a videotape to record the culture of Tibet. He was charged with espionage, and the result is that he was tried in secret. No evidence has ever been made public to support the charges of espionage, which most of us think is absolute nonsense. Ngawang Choephel was sentenced to 18 years in jail for videotaping cultural activities in Tibet. His frail elderly mother, Sonam Dekyi, who I had the privilege of meeting in Middlebury, Vermont, is spending all of her energy, not only trying to get her son out of jail, but trying to visit him, to see what is going on, and she has up to this point not been successful. In July of last year, Ngawang Choephel was transferred to Puatromo Prison, which is a high security facility in a remote isolated area. Unlike other prisons, inmates are denied visitation rights. This is a brutal treatment for an innocent young man. Yet it is treatment of Tibetans, and worse occurs regularly under the Communist Chinese rule. My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, recognizes the plight of Ngawang Choephel and was kind enough to insert an amendment into the resolution specifically citing Choephel's unjust imprisonment as an example of China's violation of basic human rights. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) as well as the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) who is the ranking member, for their attention to the plight of this young man. I would also like to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) the ranking member, for their commitment for human rights and for bringing this resolution forward. I would simply conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) mentioned a moment ago, I think, as important as this action is, we have got to go further and ask ourselves why we continue to provide Most Favored Nation status to China, why we continue to sit back while major corporation after major corporation throws American workers out on the street, runs to China where people are paid 20 cents and hour and have no basic democratic rights. So I think that whole issue of trade and responsibility of an element of corporate America to perpetuate and strengthen the regime in Peking has got to be addressed as well.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) on this extremely important piece of legislation. In my State of Vermont, and I believe all over this country, one of the great concerns that the middle class has is the high cost of college education. Everybody knows that in order for our young people to earn a decent living, it is increasingly imperative that they have a college degree. And, at the same time, everybody also knows that the cost of a college education is soaring. It is soaring in the State of Vermont. It is soaring all over the United States of America. So we have folks in the middle class who are working longer and longer hours to keep their heads above water, and then they look at what the local college or the good colleges in this country are asking and they say, ``How am I, who makes $20,000 to $25,000, or $30,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, going to be able to afford to send my kid to college, when the best schools in this country now cost over $30,000 a year and many cost $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000?'' And what happens if they have two kids or three kids? How can they afford to send their kids to college? The answer is, it is increasingly difficult for those families. So we have the outrage that all over this country millions of young people are unable to go to college, or are unable to go to the college of their choice, because they cannot afford it. Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. It is not only unfair to the young person. It is unfair to the family. It is unfair to this Nation. What an absurd policy it is that we waste the human intellectual potential of millions and millions of people who want a higher education. How absurd it is that in the global economy we throw in the towel to competitive nations and say we are not going to have the most competitive, best-educated workforce in the world. What kind of stupidity is that? What kind of an absurd sense of national priorities is it that says that we can afford to spend huge sums of money on B-2 bombers, that we can give tax breaks to billionaires, but we are not going to help the working families and the middle class of this country be able to afford to send their kids to college? Now, I know that many of the people in the Congress understand that in countries throughout the world, in Great Britain, in Scandinavia, in Germany, in France, the cost of a college education is not $30,000 a year, it is not $20,000 a year, it is not $10,000 a year. In many cases, it is zero, because those countries understand that it is a very wise investment to make sure that as many of their young people as possible can get a college education. We should learn something from that. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and I would like to do is to double the amount of money we are spending on Pell Grants. Some people may say doubling that is a lot of money, $7.5 billion a year more. That is three B-2 bombers. There are people in both the Democratic and Republican parties who want to increase military spending by well over $100 billion in the next 6 years. We give, as a Nation, $125 billion a year in corporate welfare to large corporations who do not need that money. There are people on the floor of this House now who are saying Bill Gates needs a tax break. Billionaires need a tax break. Mr. Speaker, if we can spend billions on corporate welfare, billions on wasteful military spending, billions on tax breaks for those who do not need it, we can certainly afford $7.5 billion a year more for the working families of this country so that we can move toward that day when every person in this country, young, middle-aged, old, will be able to get the higher education they need. This is a smart investment for America. I congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Georgia for their work on this, and I will do my best to see that it passes.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my Colleagues to the following letter I received from a young Vermonter. Philip Burgin-Young is nine years old, and likes to play soccer, as well as study math and science. At the same time, Philip has to regularly check his blood sugar, take three insulin shots a day, and closely watch what he eats, because he is diabetic. Like Philip, I believe that our government must do more for the 16 million Americans suffering from diabetes by investing in a cure to the disease. I call the attention of my colleagues to this moving letter and submit the letter for the Congressional Record for their benefit. February 21, 1999.Hon. Bernie Sanders, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Sanders: My name is Philip Burgin- Young, and I am nine years old. I have had diabetes almost four years. I love to play soccer, study math, and experiment with science. To be able to do these things, I have to work real hard to take care of my diabetes. That means that I check my blood sugar at least six times a day (but usually closer to ten times), have at least three shots of insulin a day (in my stomach, arms, legs, and buttocks), count every gram of carbohydrate and fat that I eat, and make sure that I exercise a lot to keep my blood sugar balanced. My parents also check my blood sugar in the middle of the night while I am sleeping. But even doing these things, it is impossible to keep my blood sugar in the normal range all of the time. Diabetes is a very complex thing. It is not easy to describe what it is like living with diabetes. But I have two stories that can describe it a little. The first story is about something my sister said to me. One day my sister said that if she had diabetes and then a cure was discovered, she would go out and eat a dozen donuts. She asked me what I would do. I said, ``I wouldn't go out and eat a dozen donuts. I WOULD JUST BE SO RELIEVED!'' I could tell that she couldn't really understand what it feels like to live with diabetes every minute of every day, even though she does help me with my diabetes. The second story is about something that happens all of the time, because I play soccer on a couple of teams. Before I go on the field I always check my blood sugar to make sure that I'm not too high or too low. If I'm too high, I can't play and I need to have a shot of insulin. Even though I do everything I am supposed to do to take care of my diabetes, this does happen and I missed the beginning of our playoffs because I was too high. If I'm too low, I also can't play and have to wait about 15 minutes for the food that I eat to get into my system. Then, during half time I do the same thing--I recheck my blood sugar. At the end of the game I check again to make sure I'm not too low or too high. I want a cure for diabetes so that I can do what I want with my life--I want to be healthy and I want to help other people by being a scientist who helps to find cures for diseases. I also want a cure for all of the other people who have diabetes. As hard as it is for me with diabetes, at least I am lucky because my mom and dad and sister help me try to take real good care of myself. Some kids aren't so lucky and they end up in the hospital often. Will you please vote for more money for research, to try to find a cure for diabetes? I know that with more money scientists will be able to find a cure more easily. There are so many areas that are being researched and if they don't have enough money they can't do the research. PLEASE HELP! Sincerely, Philip Burgin-Young.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to a resolution on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The following resolution was unanimously approved by 150 people from Vermont and New Hampshire who gathered at two events commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I agree with their statement that ``human rights, as articulated in the Declaration, will be best assured when all nations work in concert to promote and protect them.'' I call the attention of my colleagues to this resolution and ask that it be printed in the Congressional Record for their benefit: Resolution Calling on the United States Government to Fully Implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights We call upon the United States government to ensure that the laws, actions, programs and policies of the United States, both foreign and domestic, including government import, export, business and development policies affecting the welfare of all of the peoples of the world, be consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its two implementing International Covenants of 1966; Further, we urge the United States government to: Ratify the 1966 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the 1992 Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; Satisfy all of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, including the Statute of the International Court of Justice with a declaration under Article 36 which recognizes that Statute as compulsory; Abide by Article 6 of the United States Constitution, which states that all treaties signed and ratified by the United States government are the law of the land; Acknowledge that the United Nations was created by international treaty and therefore payment of UN dues without conditions is an obligation with the force of American law. We also call on the governments of all nations to mandate in every school under their jurisdiction, the teaching of the principles and methods of non-violent social change, the history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how people throughout the world have struggled and continue to struggle to make it a lived reality in the life of every person, everywhere. Unanimously approved by 150 residents of Vermont and New Hampshire who gathered at two events commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Further endorsed by the American Friends Service Committee (Vermont), the United Nations Association (Vermont), the World Federalist Association (New Hampshire and Vermont) and Amnesty International (Hanover, NH).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce legislation to increase the burial benefits for certain veterans from the current allowance of $300 to $600. This will represent the first increase in the burial benefit in 20 years. Current law allows a funeral benefit of $300 for veterans who were receiving disability pay or pensions, or those who were eligible for pensions but who weren't receiving them. This was intended to help defray the costs of funerals for the surviving families. However, Congress has not seen fit to increase this allowance since 1978, and it is past time to do so. Just before the end of World War I, Congress created a funeral allowance of up to $100 for some war veterans. After World War II, the maximum allowance was increased to $150, and, in 1978, it was increased to $300--where it is today. When the House was deliberating an increase in 1958, several members rose to point out that it had been 12 years since the last increase in this modest benefit, and that the benefit level was no longer realistic. They said increasing the benefit for the families of those veterans who were eligible for it was ``long overdue,'' and showed that Congress was aware of the economic realities faced by those families. I think, if those Members where here today, they would be saying the same things. Everyone understands that because of inflation a proper memorial, either a funeral or a cremation, if far expensive in 1998 that it was in 1958, or 1978. A funeral, today, can run thousands of dollars, creating a burden on a bereaved family at a difficult time. I don't think it is asking too much to increase this small benefit for these veterans, which is why I will introduce legislation to double it, to $600. When members of Congress created this allowance after World War I, they did so because they believed that every veteran receiving disability pay or a pension had a right to be buried with dignity, and without undue financial hardships for the family. That principle was true then, and it remains true today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I have never fully appreciated before just how out of touch this institution is with the needs of the American people. Forty-three million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of senior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs. And this House is going to vote to send to the Senate for a trial to go on month after month after month to discuss where Bill Clinton touched Monica Lewinsky. The global economy is volatile. The average American today is working longer hours for lower wages. We have the widest gap between the rich and the poor, and we are voting today perhaps to paralyze our government as the Senate explores the President's extramarital relations and his lies and his cover-up of that relationship. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton acted deplorably in his personal behavior. But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is, let's get on with the business of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the only Independent in the House-- someone who is not a Democrat or a Republican. There is a great political instability in the world--wars and famine in Africa, tensions in the middle-east, in Bosnia, in Latin America, in Ireland--and a war being fought as we speak in Iraq. There are weapons of mass destruction in place all over the world--nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons--all of which can destroy the world. And we are voting today to impeach a President has extra-marital sexual relations, lied about them and attempted to cover them up. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton acted deplorably in his personal behavior with a 22 year old intern. What he did was wrong--and he should be censured. He should not be impeached, however, and the United States Congress should get on with the business of the American people.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, when our troops are in harm's way, we all support them and we all pray that they will come home safely and as promptly as possible. Having said that, let me express my serious concerns about the current military action ordered by the President. I am concerned that this action took place with no discussion in the United States Congress despite the fact that the Constitution makes it very clear that it is this body which declares war. I am concerned that while we are ostensibly supporting a United Nations resolution, the U.N. did not vote for this attack, does not support this attack, and that country after country throughout the world are condemning this attack. This is important because if the United States is to have credibility in the future in terms of condemning aggression, how do we go forward with countries saying, hey, we felt aggrieved, we wanted to do it, that is what you did, you did not come to the United Nations. This article of war, this act of aggression, is not supported by the Vatican. Let me quote from the Vatican. ``The Holy See agrees fully with the Secretary General of the U.N. that today is a sad day for the United Nations and for the world. The Holy See hopes that this aggression will end as soon as possible and that international order is restored.'' Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be overthrown, and his ability to make weapons of destruction must be eliminated. I have serious doubts, however, whether the action that we are taking today will take us one step forward in that direction, and I fear that innocent civilians, that women and children in that country, will be killed. Mr. Speaker, when American troops are in harm's way we all support them and pray that they will come home safely and promptly. There can be no disagreement over that. Having said that, let me express my serious concerns about the current military action ordered by the President. I am concerned that this action took place with no discussion in the U.S. Congress, despite the fact that war making responsibility rests with the Congress under the Constitution. I am concerned that while we are ostensibly supporting a United Nations resolution, the United Nations did not vote for this attack. Not only was there no vote by the U.N., it appears quite clearly that the Security Council does not support this action. And this is an issue of grave concern. How will the United States, in the future, be able to condemn aggression anywhere in the world when, for all intent and purposes, this country has acted unilaterally and without the force of law? If Russia, China, North Korea, Great Britain or any country on Earth commits unilateral military aggression that we disapprove of, how will we be able, in good faith, to condemn them? They will simply respond that they are doing precisely what the United States did against Iraq. While I opposed the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations and the world community supported it. That is not the case now, Today, our attack is opposed by countries throughout the world, including France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Sweden, and others. On Thursday, Arab-League Secretary-General Esmat Abdel-Meguid denounced the U.S. led attack on Iraq as aggression against an Arab country that would not solve Baghdad's dispute with the United Nations over arms inspections. It is also opposed by The Vatican. Let me quote from The Vatican, ``The Holy See agrees fully with the Secretary General of the United Nations that `today is a sad day for the United Nations and for the world.' The Holy See hopes that this aggression will end as soon as possible and that international order is restored.'' Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal and illegitimate dictator who should be removed from office, and his capability to make weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated. In order to do that, we must develop a political strategy and support the democratic forces in Iraq who are prepared to overthrow him. I have serious doubts whether this military action today will take us one step forward in that direction. For years now, the women, children and innocent civilians of Iraq, whose only ``crime'' is that they live under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, have been punished terribly. They lack medicine, adequate food, clean water, and other basic necessities of life. We should not add to their suffering with attacks like this.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf War veterans. I continue the submission for the Record the latest ``Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity'' newsletter which lists the U.S. federal, state and local government authorities, U.S. federal and state courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have adopted policies, made statements, and/or published documents recognizing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorders for the benefit of my colleagues. Recognition of MCS in 8 U.S. Federal Court Decisions In decisions affirming MCS (by this or another name) as a real illness, handicap or disability under: Daubert: Kannankeril v. Terminix Internationals Inc. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (CA 3), No 96-5818 [17 Oct. 1997, 5 pages, R-148], overturning a lower court's summary judgement for the defendant (District of NJ, No 92-cv-03150) on a Daubert motion, saying it had ``improperly exercised its gate keeping role by excluding'' the plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Benjamin Gerson, and his testimony on causation-- specifically his view that the plaintiff developed MCS as a result of overexposure to chlorpyrifos. [Terminix had sprayed Dursban in the plaintiff's home 20 times in 17 months.] The court described MCS as becoming ``sensitized to multiple other chemicals'' and said ``It is an acknowledged scientific fact that chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient in Dursban, is harmful to humans and can cause the very symptoms displayed by Dr. Kannankeril,'' which included headaches, fatigue, numbness, memory and concentration problems, sleeplessness, nausea, and skin rashes. Even though Dr. Gerson had not examined the plaintiff or written about the toxic effects of organophosphates, the court said his ``opinion is not a novel scientific theory'' and ``is supported by widely accepted scientific knowledge of the harmful nature of organophosphates.'' Fair Housing Act: United States v. Association of Apartment Owners of Dominis West et al, Case No. 92-00641 (D. Ha.) 25 August 1993 [19 pages, R-61], in which a consent order won by the Department of Justice's Housing and Civil Justice Enforcement Section requires the management of an apartment complex in Honolulu to take several steps to accommodate a tenant with MCS. Rehabilitation Act: Vickers v. Veterans Administration, 549 F. Supp. 85, W.D. Wash. 1982 [4 pages, R-56], in which the plaintiff's sensitivity to tobacco smoke was recognized as handicap by the VA and the court, but his request for totally a smoke-free environment was denied on the grounds that the VA had already made sufficient reasonable efforts; Rosiak v. Department of the Army, 679 F. Supp. 444, M.D. Pa. 1987 [6 pages, R-57], in which the court, although finding the plaintiff ``not otherwise qualified'' to continue working, implicitly recognized his MCS disability, as did the Army, which the court found had made sufficient reasonable (albeit unsuccessful) efforts to accommodate the plaintiff's chemical sensitivity. Social Security Disability Act: Slocum v. Califano (Secretary, HEW), Civil No. 77-0298 (D. Haw.) 27 August 1979 [9 pages, R-60], in what is believed to be the earliest decision of any court recognizing MCS, the US District Court of Hawaii awarded disability benefits to a plaintiff whose pro se claim of ``chemical hypersensitivity'' dated from 1 May 1968; Kornock v. Harris, 648 F.2d 525, 9th Cir. 1980 [3 pages, R-59]; and Kouril v. Bowen, 912 F.2d 971, 974, 8th Cir. 1990 [7 pages, R-58]; Creamer v. Callahan, Civil No. 97- 30040-KPN (D. Mass.), 5 November 1997, [7 pages, R-150] reversing and remanding the decision of the SSA Commissioner, who agreed that the administrative law judge's ``analysis was flawed with respect to MCS.'' The court ordered the Commissioner to file a supplemental memorandum on SSA's ``position with respect to MCS,'' which he did--specifically stipulating that SSA ``recognizes multiple chemical sensitivity as a medically determinable impairment'' (31 October 1997, 2 pages, R-164). Recognition of MCS in 21 U.S. State Court Decisions In decisions affirming MCS illness (by this or some other name) as a handicap or injury in cases regarding: Housing Discrimination: Lincoln Realty Management Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 598 A.2d 594, Pa. Commw. 1991 [47 pages, R-62]. Employment Discrimination: County of Fresno v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission of the State of California, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1541, 277 Cal. Rptr. 557 Cal App. 5th Dist. 1991 [11 pages, R-63]; and Kallas Enterprises v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 1990 Ohio App. 1683, Ohio Ct. App. May 2, 1990 [6 pages, R-64]. Health Services Discrimination: Ruth, Barbara; June P. Hall; Cricket J. Buffalo; Susan Molloy; and Cathy Lent v. Kenneth Kizer/Molly Coe, Director, CA. Department of Health Services, No. 665629-8, 1989 [1 page, R-65], in which the plaintiffs won the right to receive oxygen treatments for MCS by successfully appealing to the CA Superior Court of Alameda County which overturned the prior ruling of an administrative law judge. Negligence/Toxic Tort: Melanie Marie Zanini v. Orkin Exterminating Company Inc. and Kenneth Johnston, Broward County Circuit Court, No. 94011515 07, verdict of 7 December 1995 and final judgement of 28 December 1995 [4 pages, R-92], in which the jury ruled that the pesticide applicator's negligence in applying Dursban was the legal cause of damage to the plaintiff, who was awarded a total of $1,000,000 in damages by the jury. This was subsequently reduced to $632,500 in the final judgement.; Ruth Elliott, et al., v. San Joaquin County Public Facilities Financing Corp. et al., California Superior Court, San Joaquin County, No. 244601, 31 October 1996 [2 page verdict report, R-112] in which a public lease-back corporation was held responsible for 14 awards of partial to permanent disability based on MCS and various other health complaints that started after extensive renovations were inadequately ventilated (half the roof air conditioners did not work). Awards ranged from $15,000 to $900,000 each (total $4,183,528) Linda Petersen and Eleni Wanken v. Polycap of California, California Superior Court, Alameda County, No. H7276-0, 1 April 1988 [1 page verdict report, R-143], in which plaintiffs were awarded $250,000 and $13,000, respectively, for MCS they developed after a polyurethane roofing material was installed at two school buildings where they worked. These jury awards led to prompt settlement of a dozen other cases against the same defendant. Tort of Outrage and ``Deliberate Intention'' Exception to Workers Compensation: Birklid et al v. The Boeing Company, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, 26 October 1995, No. 62530-1, in which the court issued an EN BANC ruling in response to a question it ``certified'' from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. By unanimous 9-0 decision, the WA Supreme Court found sufficient evidence of Boeing's deliberate intent to harm its employees from chemical exposure that the 17 workers who claim they were physically and/or emotionally injured as a result (including those with MCS) can sue the company for civil damages in addition to their workers' compensation benefits. (This ``deliberate intention'' exception was last allowed by the court in 1922). The court also found that the chemically-injured workers had a claim under the Tort of Outrage for recovery of damages arising from Boeing's intentional infliction of emotional distress. The matter now returns to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for a jury trial. [25 page decision with a 2 page background paper from Randy Gordon, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys., R-66]. Workers' Compensation Appeals (State Courts only, others follow): Arizona: McCreary, Robert v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 835 P.2d 469, Arizona Court of Appeals 1992 [1 page,

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican leadership's process which has brought us to the vote we cast today, a vote which merges eight separate appropriations bills into one huge 4,000-page omnibus bill which will spend some $500 billion with one vote. Within this huge bill there are some excellent and important provisions which are good for my State of Vermont and which are good for this country, but there are some awful provisions and wasteful provisions which are going to cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. It is a travesty and an insult to the democratic process that Members have not been able to vote separately on these provisions to maintain what is good, to get out what is bad, and to end up with the best legislation that would serve the interests of the American people. I would hope that regardless of our political point of view or the party we may be in, that we will work together to make sure that a process like this does not take place again. Within the positive aspects of this bill, there is some real help for dairy farmers in the State of Vermont and throughout this country in terms of the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact. There are some very important provisions for our Gulf War veterans, who have never gotten the kind of treatment that they need, and this bill will provide them with some real help now and in the future. There is some good help for those home health care agencies in Vermont and throughout this country who have suffered severe cuts as a result of the balanced budget agreement last year. There is good legislation extending the Cancer Registry Act, helping those people who are victims or hurting from cancer. There are some good provisions, but the process has not been good.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf War veterans. I continue the submission for the Record the latest ``Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity'' newsletter which lists the U.S. federal, state and local government authorities, U.S. federal and state courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have adopted policies, made statements, and/or published documents recognizing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorders for the benefit of my colleagues. Governors of Connecticut, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina and Washington In (independently) adopting resolutions declaring May 11-17 (July 13-17 in Washington) as MCS Awareness Week. In Washington, the governor issued a second proclamation after rescinding the first on the advice of his General Counsel, just 8 days after it was adopted with approval of the state toxicologist [1998, 7 pages including both Washington versions, R-178]. Maryland State Legislature In Senate Joint Resolution No. 32 directing the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to carry out a study of Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome [1988, 3 pages, R-40]. The MDE commissioned a state-of-the-art review from Rebecca Bascom, M.D., entitled ``Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome Study'' [1989, 132 pages, R-41]. Massachusetts Operational Services Division, Environmentally Preferable Product Procurement Program In its final bid document for the procurement of Environmentally Preferable Cleaning Products by state agencies for use in state facilities, which ``will not replace the cleaning products already on contract; they will be offered as alternatives.'' The product specifications developed by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Office of Technical Assistance, include ``desirable'' (as distinct from ``mandatory'') criteria that products contain as few volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as possible and not contain any added dyes or fragrances. These are justified in Appendix N of the bid document on the grounds that ``A lower VOC content . . . is especially important for sensitive individuals'' and ``The Commonwealth recognizes that many sensitive individuals prefer cleaning products without added dyes and fragrances.'' [1998, 30 page excerpt including Appendix N, R-181] Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Aging In a detailed response to a request from Dr. Grace Ziem for workplace accommodation of an employee with MCS, the agency agreed to (among other things): make changes in the work schedule; provide a private work area with floor to ceiling walls; provide multiple carbon-fiber air filtration machines; conduct staff education on MCS; adopt and post voluntary fragrance free policy governing all employees; request maintenance staff use cleaning products only from an approved list; and clean the carpet. [3 pages, 1 April 1996, plus 1 of follow-up, R-98] New Jersey Department of Health In a comprehensive review of chemical sensitivity with recommendations for state action commissioned from Nicholas Ashford, Ph.D., J.D., and Claudia Miller, M.D., entitled ``Chemical sensitivity: a report to the New Jersey Department of Health'' [1989, 176 pages, R-45]. New Mexico Department of Education, School Health Unit In a brochure on ``Multiple Chemical Sensitivities'' describing the illness and nine ``steps schools can take to promote environmental safety.'' Also lists resource persons and materials [1997 (undated), 2 pages, R-139]. New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources, State Park & Recreation Division In a letter from the director outlining steps the division is taking to reduce barriers to access for individuals with EI/MCS [10 January 1994, 1 page, R-46]. These include prohibiting smoking in restrooms, temporarily discontinuing the use of certain cleaning and disinfectant chemicals upon special request of EI/MCS individuals, and switching to least toxic/allergenic cleaning and pesticide products. New Mexico Department of Health, Community Health Systems Division, Emergency Medical Services Bureau In an editorial from Barak Wolff, MHP, chief of the EMS Bureau, entitled `` `Scared to Death' of Having to call 911'' and an accompanying article by Dr. Ann McCampbell entitled ``First . . . Do No Harm: The Challenge of Patients with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities,'' both published in the state's Focus on Emergency Medical Services newsletter [Vol. 15, No. 3, October 1996, 4 pages, R-117]. The editorial and article discuss the need for emergency service personnel to accommodate people with MCS and they make several specific recommendations for 911 operators, emergency responders and hospital staff. New Mexico Governor's Committee on Concerns of the Handicapped In sponsoring and financing a day-long ``Town Hall Meeting on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities'' on 24 June 1996 with the full support of the governor, despite his earlier veto of a legislative proposal for additional funding (see next entry). Described as ``A public forum to discuss the problems faced by chemically sensitive New Mexicans and to propose state level solutions,'' this was the first state-wide effort to bring together a panel of representatives from state agencies to ``hear from persons with MCS and other interested parties on the issues of Housing, Employment, Health Care, Pesticides, Schools, and Access to State Facilities and Services.'' [Brochure, program and detailed fragrance free policy, 24 June 1996, 3 pages, R-96]. Based on the testimony received at the Town Meeting, the Governor's Committee then issued a ``Report to the Legislature on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity,'' including a ``Suggested Public Meeting Policy on Accessibility for Persons with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity [27 August 1996, 8 pages, R-104]. The report recommends six actions ``be taken now,'' including funding the state Office of Epidemiology to study the prevalence of MCS within the general population''; directing all hospitals to ``establish written protocols for providing barrier free environments for the use of persons with MCS admitted for any reason''; directing all ADA coordinators of public facilities in New Mexico to adopt public meeting policies ``to allow attendance by persons affected by MCS''; creating an ``MCS information and assistance'' program within State government to ``provide ADA coordinators, housing officials, hospitals and other decision makers with the most complete and up-to- date information on MCS as well as . . . providing individual assistance to affected persons via an ``800'' telephone number''; and ``conducting a study of the housing needs of persons affected with MCS.'' New Mexico State Legislature In a ``Joint Memorial Requesting the Governor's Committee on Concerns of the Handicapped to Study Issues Related to Multiple Chemical Sensitivities.'' The resolution specifies that the study focus on ``issues of health care, insurance, public benefits and services, access to government, legal services and environmental regulation'' [Senate Joint Memorial 10-House Memorial 6, Second Session, 1996, 3 pages, R-91]. A follow-up amendment to the General Appropriation Act of 1996 requesting $50,000 in funding for this ``Memorial'' also was passed by the legislature (House Bill 2 on 15 February 1996) but then vetoed by the governor on 4 March 1996. New York State Department of Health In a $100,000 grant given to the Mt. Sinai Occupational Health Clinic for MCS research, part of a larger annual grant to the clinic in 1993 [4 page excerpt, R-47]. The report, including a review of MCS cases seen at eight occupational clinics in New York State, originally was supposed to be completed in late 1994 but is now expected in 1997. Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission In a decision (upheld on appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania) finding that a landlord must make reasonable accommodation for a tenant who suffers from MCS, including giving tenant prior notification of painting and pest treatments (see Recognition of MCS by State Courts, below, for reference). Washington State Board of Health In its 1994 Washington State Public Health Report, which says ``Several hundred Washington residents have reported a condition diagnosed by some physicians as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity'' and goes on to discuss common MCS symptoms and sensitivities. [December 1993, 3 page excerpt, R-55]. Washington State Departments of Health and Labor & Industries In the joint ``Final Inter-Agency Report on Chemically Related Illness'' issued by the Secretary of the Department of Health and the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries, which acknowledges that ``MCS has become a focus of increasing public health concern in Washington state and elsewhere,'' cites the 1987 Cullen definition, and says ``Public agencies are increasingly recognizing a need to address the public health aspects of the MCS syndrome, without necessarily waiting for conclusive answers from scientific research'' [June 1995, 5 page excerpt including table of contents, R-54]. Washington State Chemically Related Illness Advisory Committee In its final report, in an appendix devoted to MCS, the committee says MCS is ``characterized as a condition in which individuals experience symptoms following exposures at low levels to multiple chemical substances. It is a chronic condition that is reproducible with challenge, and which resolves when incitants are removed'' [June 1995, 3 page excerpt, R-95]. The committee included representatives of state government, affected business and labor organizations, the medical community, and MCS patients. Its final report also is included as an appendix in the Washington State Final Inter-agency Report on Chemically Related Illness (see entry above). Washington State Governor's Committee on Disability Issues and Employment In a booklet entitled ``Reasonable Accommodation: A Guide for Employers, Businesses and Persons with Disabilities,'' signed by the governor and the commissioner of the State's Employment Security Department, which discusses MCS/EI in detail in a section on ``Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Hidden Disabilities'' [March 1992, 34 pages, R-53]. Recognition of MCS by 14 U.S. Local Authorities Berkeley (CA) Department of Public Works, Commission on Disability In voting on 30 April 1996 to require a statement about ``odor sensitivity'' in all City-sponsored event and meeting notices, followed by a memo from the City Manager on 8 August 1996 urging ``staff who attend meetings to assist the City in accommodating the needs of persons with sensitivities and to respect those needs in their own use of personal products,'' and finalized on 13 November 1996 with the adoption of detailed ``Procedures to Implement Clean Air Practices for Meetings'' for use by city and commission staff [6-page memo from Commission on Disability to the Mayor and City Council, 14 January 1996, R-111]. Chicago (IL) Transit Authority In its Paratransit Operations Newsletter, people with disabilities who use the Chicago Transit Authority's Special Services and Chicago Taxi Access Program are asked to ``assist people with EI by practicing the following suggestions: Keep scented personal care products to a minimum; Never smoke in a Special Services vehicle and refrain from smoking near the vehicle; [and] If possible, please accommodate an EI person's request to sit by an open window in a Special Services vehicle if it doesn't inconvenience other customers who may be sensitive to hot or cold air.'' [6th edition, Winter 1995, 2 page excerpt, R-36]. Contra Costa (CA) MediCal Advisory Planning Commission In all public meeting announcements, which include the following notice: ``Please help us accommodate individuals with EI/MCS and refrain from wearing scented products to this hearing'' [1994, 1 page excerpt, R-37]. Fairfax County (VA) Public Schools In a detailed 7-page report from the Director of the Office of Human Relations to Dr. Grace Ziem documenting the accommodations that the school system was willing to provide for a teacher with MCS, including changes in her school assignment and the elimination or control of a wide variety of aggravating exposures, from the art clay used in her classroom to custodial use of cleaning fluids, pesticides, carpets, air fresheners, paints, glues, adhesives & other remodeling materials. They even offered to provide a special parking space to limit her exposure to vehicle exhaust. [26 April 1996, 7 pages, R-97] Jefferson City (MO) Public schools In an accommodation plan provided under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, adopted for a 6th grade student with MCS asthma and allergies, specifying that (a) ``classmates will be solicited for cooperation in providing a scent-free environment,'' (b) student ``will be allowed to self-limit activities that involve running or other strenuous exercise,'' and (c) if student misses more than two days in a row, ``she can request after school help from her teachers to review missing work'' [1996, 1 page, R-138]. List of reasonable accommodations upheld upon review in 1997 [15 August 1997, 1 page, R-153]. On 19 November 1997, the school basketball supervisor wrote the Central Missouri Officials Association asking coaches, players and officials to refrain from wearing perfumes and colognes to games at which this student would be playing [1 page, R-171] Minneapolis Advisory Committee on People With Disabilities In a letter to the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (see below) about the ``expressed need for proper living conditions for people with Environmental Sensitivities'' [1994, 2 pages, R-42] Minneapolis Housing Finance Agency In awarding a $6,500 grant from its Capacity Building Grant Program to Twin Cities HEAL to establish an office to better serve the needs of those seeking MCS-accessible housing in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area [1993, 2 pages, R-43] Minneapolis Public housing Authority In letters to Twin Cities HEAL and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development expressing ``an interest in working with HEAL to assist in the development of suitable housing for persons with chemical sensitivity disabilities'' [1994, 3 pages, R-44]. Northwest Air Pollution Authority (Island, Skagit and Whatcom Counties,

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my strong objection to the current legislative process in the House. Some day soon, we do not know, maybe tomorrow, maybe Friday, maybe Saturday, eight appropriations bills, which as I understand it will add up to some $500 billion, will be dumped into one omnibus bill. Members here, with relatively little knowledge as to what is in that legislation, are going to vote for it. I think that is a pretty poor process. What is of particular concern to me is that within that huge omnibus bill will be, as I understand it, an $18 billion appropriation for the expansion of the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. Now, it seems to me that in a time when we are cutting back on veterans' benefits, when 43 million Americans have no health care, when millions of middle-class families are unable to afford to send their kids to college, that maybe, just maybe, we might want to have an open debate upon the wisdom of putting $18 billion of taxpayers' money into the IMF. Maybe we would like to hear the pros and the cons of that discussion. Maybe we would like to see an up-or-down vote on that issue. But I guess that is not going to happen. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton wants the IMF. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) wants the IMF. Every large multinational corporation in this country wants the IMF. The corporate media wants the IMF. And, I guess, they are going to get the IMF without any serious debate. But let me just say a few words about the IMF. I happen to agree with those people who say that the international economy is in a fragile state right now and that the United States has got to act. I disagree with those people who say that the solution is to pour more money into the IMF. In my opinion, if recent history is any indicator of what might happen in the future, giving more money to the IMF might only make a bad situation, an unstable situation even worse. All we have to do is take a hard look at what has happened throughout the world in those countries which the IMF has ``helped'' to understand that maybe the IMF path is not the road that we want to go down. They ``helped'' the people of Mexico several years ago. Today, as a result or partially as a result of their help, the Mexican economy is in disastrous condition. Wages are down. Unemployment and child labor are up. And their Congress in Mexico is now addressing a massive bailout of their banking system. But something did happen out of the Mexican bailout of several years ago. That is that the investors that we bailed out, the large banks and speculators, learned a very important lesson. They learned that the taxpayers of the United States would be there no matter how ill-advised or stupid their investments might be, no matter how much money they might lose. No problem, Uncle Sam was there to bail them out. They took that lesson to Asia, and they continued that process. They pumped huge sums of money into Thailand and Malaysia and Indonesia and South Korea. And then, when that part of the world began to suffer, no problem, the President, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Summers and everyone said well, we have got to bail them out again, and we bailed them out again. We bailed out major banks and financial investors because we do not want them to lose any money. Small businesspeople, family farmers, hey, they can lose money. But when it's the Chase Manhattan Bank, they are not supposed to lose money. They only make money, I suppose. Then the meltdown in Russia began. Poor Russia. It is incredible that a great country with such a tragic history has got to suffer all over again. When communism fell in 1991, the Russian Government received the attention and the guidance of the IMF and all of their wonderful policy advisors. Tragically, the Russian Government listened to them and took their advice. It is fair to say that never before in modern history has a major industrialized Nation experienced the kind of decline in a 7- year period as Russia has under IMF guidance and with $20 billion of IMF loans. Mr. Speaker, those people who are asking our taxpayers for $18 billion in order to expand the functioning of the IMF are telling us that the global economy is in a fragile state, economic contagion is a reality, and that the United States could well suffer if the crisis in the global economy is not addressed. Well, let me say this, I believe that the global economy is in a fragile state, economic contagion is a reality, and that the United States could well suffer if the crisis in the global economy is not addressed. But I very strongly differ with our friends who believe that another $18 billion will make the situation better. In my opinion, if recent history is any indicator of what might happen in the future, giving more money to the IMF will only make a bad situation worse. Four years ago when Mexico was in dire economic circumstances Mr. Rubin, Mr. Greenspan, President Clinton, Mr. Gingrich, corporate America, and all of the Corporate media told us that we would have to pony-up and bail out investors who had lost money in that country. We were told that if Mexico went under the contagion would spread, and there would be an international economic disaster would occur. Well, some of us fought very hard against that bail out, but we lost. Today, the Mexican economy is in disastrous condition, wages are way down, unemployment and child labor are way up, and their congress is now addressing a massive bail out of their banking system. But something did happen out of the Mexican bailout, the investors that we bailed out, the large banks and speculators, learned a very important lesson. They learned that the taxpayers of this country would be there to make sure that no matter how stupid or ill-advised Uncle Sam and the American taxpayers were there to protect their interests. And, with that knowledge in mind, these reckless and irresponsible international investors poured huge sums of money into Asia and Russia--with the full confidence that the U.S. Government and the IMF would be there to bail them out again if they suffered any losses. Last year, when Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Korea suffered their economic meltdown, Mr. Rubin, Mr. Greenspan, Newt Gingrich, President Clinton, and corporate America, were chanting their mantra again. And in unison they cried out ``Let's bailout the banks and financial investors who lost money doing business in Asia because if we don't the contagion will spread.'' And, against my vote and my strong opposition, the IMF bailed out Asia. And then the meltdown in Russia began. Poor Russia. It is incredible that a great country with such a tragic history has got to suffer again. When communism fell in 1991, the Russian government received the attention and the guidance of the IMF and all of their brilliant policy advisors, and tragically the Russian government listened to them and took their advice. It is fair to argue that never before in modern history has a major industrialized nation experienced the kind of decline in a seven-year period as Russia has under IMF guidance, and with $20 billion of IMF loans. In Russia today millions of workers are unpaid, old people do not receive their pensions, and hunger and malnutrition are very serious concerns. Russia's GDP has fallen by at least 50 percent, capital investment by 90 percent, and meat and dairy livestock herds by 75 percent. A nation that, despite their inefficient and bureaucratic system, used to be one of the great agricultural and manufacturing producers in the world now imports a majority of its food and produces almost nothing. And, as we all know, Russia has recently defaulted on its loans. Meanwhile, in Russia a handful of people who have accumulated billions of dollars, much of it illegally and through swindles, have enormous power over that country which is rampant with corruption. At a hearing that Spencer Bachus and I held last week, two economists from Russia, one from the left and one from the right, both stated that it would be foolish to give the IMF money because that money would simply disappear in corruption and not help the Russian people. Given the horrendous record of the IMF in making life worse for the people of Mexico, worse for the people of Asia, worse for the people of Russia--not to mention all of the suffering that ``austerity programs'' have caused in Africa and Latin America, why in God's name would anyone want to continue along the incredible path of failure that has been developed by the IMF? Now I should add, however, that while the taxpayers of this country are at risk for IMF expenditures, and while people throughout the world are suffering as a result of IMF policy, not everybody gets hurt. In country after country where IMF policy has developed, the richest people in those countries invariably become richer, and we now have the absurd situation in which 358 of the wealthiest people in the world own more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of the worlds population, or 2.3 billion. The United States cannot turn its back on the world's economy, and we must address the very serious economic situation which is unfolding, but we must do it in a new way. Our goal must be to develop sustainable economies in countries throughout the world, not boom or bust economies designed to make foreign investors rich. Our goal must be to make the United States an ally of the poor and the hungry, not a spokesman for the rich, the powerful, and the corrupt. Mr. Chairman, this is the opinion of Bernie Sanders. Now let me quote from some other sources about the role that the IMF has played. ``It's only a bit of an overstatement to say that the free-market, IMF, Bob Rubin, and Larry Summers, model is in shambles,'' said John S. Wadsworth, Jr. who runs Morgan Stanley's operations in Asia. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial from July 20, 1998 ``The IMF helped create the very crisis that Mr. Camdessus says he now needs more money to solve.'' According to Congressman Carlos Heredia, representing 126 deputies in the Mexican Congress, ``Contrary to the view promulgated by the Clinton administration and the U.S. media, the packaging of 12.5 billion from the ESF and 17.8 billion from the International Monetary Fund to bail out Mexico benefited only foreign investors and a small group of already wealthy Mexican investors while wreaking havoc on our national economy.'' A letter from 140 American and international environmental groups, labor unions, and development organizations says and I quote, ``the disastrous impact of IMF-imposed policies on workers rights, environmental protection, and economic growth and development; the crushing debt repayment burden of poor countries as a result of IMF policies; and the continuing secrecy of IMF operations provide ample justification for denying increased funding to the IMF.''