Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is also supported by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and does two important things that I believe most Members of this body agree with. First, it deals with a very serious problem of underfunded mandates, of forcing citizens in close to 1,800 counties in 49 States to pay more in local property taxes than they should be paying because the Federal Government has fallen very far behind in its payment in lieu of taxes on federally owned land. In my own State of Vermont, over 50 towns in our southern counties are affected, including Bennington, Rutland, Addison, Windham, and Windsor Counties. This amendment addresses the overall problem of underfunded payments in lieu of taxes by increasing funding for this program by $20 million, from $120 to $140 million. Mr. Chairman, in real dollars, PILT payments to counties and towns all across this Nation have been decreasing for a very long time. In real dollars since 1980, appropriations for payment in lieu of taxes have decreased by nearly $60 million, a one-third decline. And while this amendment will not rectify by any means the entire problem, it will at least allow communities around this country to know that we understand their problem and that we are making some real attempts to address it by appropriating an additional $20 million. Mr. Chairman, I should add that the authorization level for PILT today is approximately $257 million, over twice the appropriation level. In other words, the authorizers understand the problems facing the communities, but unfortunately in recent years the appropriation process has not followed suit. Mr. Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact that the Federal Government does not pay taxes on the land that it owns. These Federal lands can include National Forests, National Parks, Fish and Wildlife Refuges, and land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Like local property taxes, PILT payments are used to pay for school budgets, law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, parks and recreation, and other municipal expenses. Mr. Chairman, this is the important point that I think has to be made. There has been a lot of talk in this body in recent years about fiscal responsibility and about devolution, respect for counties, towns, and cities; saying we are the Federal Government, we have all the power, but you have got to respect the other agencies of government throughout America. If we are serious about these concepts, then it is time for Congress to pay its bills. That is what this issue is about. The U.S. Government owns property and we should begin making the payments in lieu of taxes that we are supposed to. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would begin to address the unfunded mandate by increasing the payments in lieu of taxes program to approximately where it was 10 years ago. That is all we are trying to do. Mr. Chairman, the $50 million that we are using for these purposes, the purposes include $20 million for payment in lieu of taxes, $30 million for deficit reduction. Over a $5 trillion national debt; this amendment begins to address that issue. The funds would be transferred and offset from the Fossil Energy Research and Development Program. In this regard, let me quote from the report of the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, the Republican resolution. And this is what that resolution says, and I quote: The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research and development since the oil crisis in 1973 triggered this activity. Returns on this investment have not been cost-effective, particularly for applied research and development which industry has ample incentive to undertake. Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare for the oil, gas, and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what industry is already doing. Some has gone to fund technology in which the market has no interest. End of quote. That is the Republican budget resolution, not Bernie Sanders. I should mention, Mr. Chairman, that over the years we have put $15 billion into fossil energy programs. That is a lot of money. Let me conclude by saying this. This amendment is endorsed by the National Association of Counties, by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, by Friends of the Earth, by Rural Public Lands Council, by the Sierra Club, by USPERG and Public Citizens. This amendment is good environmental policy and it is good public policy in the sense that it tells communities all over America that we are going to pay our bills.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to add one point. The subsidies for fossil fuels are targeted in the Green Scissors 1998 report, which is supported by organizations representing more than 8.5 million environmentalists, taxpayers and deficit hawks. So this is a popular concept that we are addressing, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his strong support.

Mr. SANDERS. Then we will come back to the beginning of the bill?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in the July 14, 1998 Congressional Record.

Mr. SANDERS. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their support for this amendment. We have worked together, and I know they are cognizant of the problems. The sad fact is that this problem has existed for many, many, many years. The reason that I want the $2 million appropriated right now is that I want to see action take place immediately. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform, we will be watching how well they proceed in getting these records updated and automated and computerized. So I look forward to working with both gentlemen so that our veterans get a fair shake and we end this bureaucratic nightmare.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, they are over 100 percent. These people who are lending the money are running to the Congress and saying, fund the IMF. Give the money to Russia so that we can make sure we get back our money at 100, 125 percent. The gentleman is absolutely right.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank all of those people who have supported this amendment, and show my respect for those people who have been in opposition. It has been a good debate. It has been an important debate. We need more debates like this. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, there are three basic points that I would like to make. Number one, I hope everybody understands that this amendment does not stop the Treasury Department from stabilizing U.S. currency. That remains, absolutely, as has been the case for so many years. Number two, I think there is an important constitutional issue. That is, should we sit back and allow tens and tens of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers being placed at risk without debate, without discussion? The third point that I would make is that if we pass this amendment, it allows the Congress to become more involved in debates over the global economy that my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) has touched on. I would simply suggest that if we look at the global economy, the standard of living of American workers has declined over the last 20 years. People are working longer hours for lower wages. We have lost millions of decent jobs.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) took the words out of my mouth. I appreciate his yielding. Here is the point: The gentleman asks what might have happened. He does not know what might have happened, I do not know what might have happened. But this I do know; that the so-called global economy, of which the ESF is an integral part, has helped lower the standard of living of workers in the United States, lowered the standard of living of Mexican workers, lowered the standard of living of the people in Canada, has been disastrous.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment aims to stop the Exchange Stabilization Fund from making loans to foreign countries without the approval of Congress. This amendment has wide tripartisan support, and is being cosponsored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). Mr. Chairman, the Exchange Stabilization Fund was created in 1934 to allow the government to buy and sell currency in order to stabilize the dollar. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent years, a slush fund for anything the Secretary of the Treasury considers necessary. This is wrong. It must be changed. That is what this tripartisan amendment is all about. Mr. Chairman, in 1995 the House passed a very similar amendment to what I am offering today by a very strong vote of 245 to 183. It passed that amendment then for the same reason that I hope and believe the amendment today will pass. That is that Members of Congress do not believe that the President of the United States, any President, no matter what his or her politics might be, should unilaterally be able to commit billions of taxpayer dollars without congressional approval. That is the major issue that we are discussing today. As a result of compromise within the conference committee in 1995, a diluted version of this original amendment was eventually passed into law prohibiting more than $1 billion for any future bailouts for longer than 6 months without congressional approval. That was the law up until a few months ago. Unfortunately, this provision expired after 2 years, which is why we are here today. I should add that days after this legislation expired, President Clinton committed at least $3 billion to Indonesia and $5 billion to South Korea through the Exchange Stabilization Fund as part of the East Asian financial bailouts. These billions of dollars of taxpayers' money were, once again, placed at risk without any debate or any vote in the United States Congress. My amendment will simply restore some limited and modest restraints on the ESF similar to restraints that have won congressional approval in the past, and have worked out well in practice. Mr. Chairman, let me explain exactly what this amendment does, because there has been some confusion about this. This amendment will limit the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund for loans and credits in excess of $250 million to foreign governments, banks, or investors unless authorized and approved by Congress. Our amendment will not, underlined, not, stop the Treasury Department from using the ESF for its original purpose, which is stabilizing U.S. currency. For example, the recent $2 billion yen purchase would not be blocked by our amendment. This amendment will not affect over 90 percent of ESF loans, credit, and currency purchases. What this amendment does address are the relatively rare but highly controversial multibillion dollar loans which put billions of dollars of taxpayer money at risk without one minute of debate on the floor of the Congress. Not until 1995 was this fund ever used for loans in excess of $1 billion to any one country, or for longer than 6 months. Mr. Chairman, if the President of the United States wants to come before the Congress and propose a bailout of a foreign country, that is fine. Let him come. If the Congress wants to approve that appropriation, that is fine. But what this amendment says, very straightforwardly, is that the President of the United States may not unilaterally place at risk billions of taxpayer dollars without the approval of the Congress. That is the right way to deal with these issues, and in fact, that is the constitutional way to address these issues, consistent with article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which invests Congress with the power of the purse. The Exchange Stabilization Fund is a classic example of how powers granted to the executive for one purpose are perverted to other uses.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, does my friend understand that this amendment has nothing to do and does not change in any way our ability to deal with stabilizing U.S. currency?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is wrong and it was wrong for the President of the United States to put at risk $20 billion in the Mexican bailout, to put at risk $3 billion providing credit to Indonesia, and $5 billion to South Korea, without discussion, debate, or approval of the Congress. Now, there are some Members here who thought that was a good idea. That is fine. But if we are here to represent the taxpayers of this country on major foreign policy and financial issues, we cannot simply sit back and allow a slush fund which is estimated to have $30 billion to be used whenever the President of the United States, any President, wants to do that. I personally, for example, would have fought vigorously against the bailout to Indonesia, which went to General Suharto, a well-known dictator, who has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands. Should we have sat back and said, no problem, let Suharto have that money, or do we have a right to debate that issue? In terms of Mexico, we have a letter that I will submit for the Record signed by the leader of the 126-member bloc in the congress of Mexico which says that the Exchange Stabilization Fund, plus the IMF, resulted in disastrous policies for Mexico, higher unemployment, lower wages, the collapse of small business. Should that issue be discussed on the floor of the Congress? Of course it should. Some may say it was a good idea. That is fine. Some may have opposed it. That is fine. But we cannot abdicate our responsibility and sit back. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, this amendment in many ways is similar to the amendment that was overwhelmingly passed several years ago, and I would urge my colleagues to support this concept once again.

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

Mr. SANDERS. What I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), Mr. Chairman, is that in terms of Mexico between 1995 and 1997, after the so-called bailout, more than a third of Mexico's businesses declared bankruptcy. We have one-third of the work force is unemployed or in imminent danger of unemployment, nearly 2 million peasants have been forced to migrate in search of work, real wages have fallen almost 25 percent. If my colleague went to the Mexican Congress today, they would not tell him that it has been a successful bailout. They would tell him it was a disaster.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, me, too. We will not tell anybody.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would pick up on a point my friend made. Does my friend know what the interest rates in Russia right now are when people are buying Russian bonds?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to earmark $2 million of the funds appropriated to the National Archives and Records Administration for fiscal year 1999 for the National Personnel Records Center. The funds will enable the records center to modernize its records management system, allowing it to respond to 90 percent of all veterans' records inquiries received from the Veterans Administration within 10 days or less. This amendment has the endorsement of all of the major national veterans organizations in the United States who recognize the severity of this problem. And the groups that are supporting the Sanders amendment include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, the Reserve Officer's Association of the United States, and the National Officer's Association. Mr. Chairman, through my work with veterans in the State of Vermont, I have learned that there are frequently very long delays in simply obtaining a veteran's personnel records, which are essential for the Department of Veterans Affairs to offer effective medical assistance or provide benefits. In Vermont, a request for medical records or any detailed request generally takes 4 to 6 months to complete. And this is not just a Vermont problem, it is a national problem. A veteran comes in and wants his medical records, in order to get health treatment, and he waits 2, 3, 4, 6 months. A veteran comes in to get his medical records, in order to get the benefits that he or she is entitled to, and waits 2, 4, 6 months. This is not the way that we should be treating America's veterans. Mr. Chairman, America has a commitment to provide our veterans with adequate health care. Reliable access to veterans' personnel records is essential to meeting this commitment. During the wait of 4 to 6 months, in some cases up to a year, little or nothing can be done to assist the veteran, as the personnel records, which are the very basis for any medical or administrative decision, cannot be assessed. A similar situation exists for benefits, as it is impossible for the veteran to make his or her request without this information. My staff has made calls to many of my colleagues' offices and we have tried to find out if this problem is existing all over this country, and we find that it is. Let me very briefly read from some of the comments made by the service organizations. The Retired Officer's Association states, and I quote, ``Our association frequently assists uniformed services retirees and survivors with disability and other entitlement issues requiring documentation available only at the records center. Sadly, needed compensation is often delayed for months because of the center's antiquated and overwhelmed records management systems. Particularly for survivors and older veterans, unfamiliar with specific personnel documents issued many years ago, this is far too often an extremely frustrating exercise that reflects very poorly on the government.'' That is from the Retired Officer's Association. Let me read to my colleagues from the Reserve Officer's Association of the United States. ``We here at the ROA are keenly aware of the difficulties veterans frequently encounter when attempting to obtain copies of documents and their official military records in order to establish their entitlement to veterans benefits. Anything that can be done to expedite the processing time involving these requests will be deeply appreciated by the veterans and their families. The sheer magnitude of the NPRC's operations in St. Louis must be seen to be comprehended.'' Let me read from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. ``The majority of veterans seeking assistance from the VA has to endure long waiting times for the VA to locate their records, then they have to tolerate further delays if they require additional documentation from the NPRC. In many instances, time is a critical factor, particularly for our older veterans.'' Let me read from the National Officer's Association. ``We are fully supportive of this effort and, in consideration of the aggravation and additional cost incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs in addressing problems arising because of the delayed actions in support of veterans' claims, are of the opinion that the modest outlay of $6 million'', and, actually, we are only asking for $2 million now for the first year, ``would be very helpful.'' Veterans of Foreign Wars: Sympathetic to the Sanders amendment. The American Legion: Sympathetic. The Disabled American Veterans: Sympathetic. In other words, the veterans organizations know that it is an outrage that when a veteran asks for help and medical records he or she is delayed 4 to 6 months. I ask for support of this important amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) is very simple and straightforward. It bans the Department of Defense from buying products from Chinese state-owned companies as well as companies owned by the People's Liberation Army. Mr. Chairman, I think that it might come as a surprise to many Members of this body that the Defense Department now builds the B-2 bomber with parts made by a company owned by the People's Republic of China.