Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are 250 signers to a letter in support of 1-A. There are 60 supporters in the Senate on the same concept. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pick up on some of the points the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) made, because in truth, this is a very sad debate. I will not forget several years ago when farm families from Wisconsin and Minnesota came to my office. They were here for some national meeting. They knew that I was concerned about the preservation of the family farm. I will not forget the women farmers weeping in my office as they fought desperately to keep their farms going in Wisconsin and in Minnesota. The family farmers in Wisconsin and in Minnesota are being hurt, that is true, but I want the Members to understand that the farmers in Vermont are also being driven off the land. Some of the best people in our State who have worked year after year, they love the land, they want to produce a good, healthy product, they want their kids on the land, they are also being driven off the land. It is a sad State of affairs that we have to fight against each other. We should be working together. We talk about the issue of preserving the family farm, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) pointed out. This is an issue of food security. If anyone believes that it is a good thing for this country that thousands of farmers in Wisconsin, in Vermont, and all over this country who produce what we eat get driven off of the land, and that we are reduced to dependency on imports from abroad, or we are reduced to being dependent on a handful of large corporations to charge us any price they want, if people think that is a good idea, they are dead wrong. It is not a good idea. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) pointed out, preserving the family farm is not just about food, it is protecting our environment. Do we really want to see our open space in rural America converted into malls and parking lots? I do not think so. It is about preserving our rural economy and our way of life, in part. The free market does some things very well, but it does not do everything very well. I think there should be a commitment to preserving the family farm all over this country. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has pointed out and others have pointed out, there is a letter that has been circulated that has over 250 Members of the House in support of that. Let me just briefly quote some of the sections from that letter relevant to this debate. I quote from the letter: ``Option 1(b) would further reduce the price of milk received by farmers in almost all regions of the country. It will be reducing local supplies of fresh, fluid milk, and increasing costs for consumers.'' I continue: ``According to USDA's own analysis, option 1(b) would reduce dairy farmer income. It will be accelerating the already disturbing trend of American dairy farms being forced out of business. Many of the farms affected will be small family farms.'' The point we are making here is that, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) indicated, we need to come together to preserve dairy farms in the Northeast, in the Midwest, and in the West Coast. One of the things we have done in New England that people throughout the country are beginning to look at is the concept of the dairy compact. If some people think we are going to be able to preserve family farms who are struggling too hard to exist through the market economy, when we can import cheap milk from Mexico or New Zealand, I beg to differ. I think it is appropriate to say that in our democratic society, for those of us who believe in dairy farming, in family farming, that it is appropriate for the government to intervene with the support of the people. I would reiterate that in New England six States have come together, six State legislatures have come together, Democrat, Republican, Independents, in Maine; six Governors with different philosophical leanings have come together. This idea is spreading around the country. I would hope that perhaps the Midwest might think of the idea of a compact. I think if it does end up costing the consumer a few cents more on the gallon, consumers all over this country know how important it is to preserve the family farm. I would love to work with my friends from Wisconsin in protecting the family farms in that region of the country as well.

Mr. SANDERS. That is really good. I think farmers, dairy farmers, and others need additional sources of income. Agritourism has proved successful in New Mexico and other States. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future to consider it a national concept.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which cuts the remaining $5 million from the nuclear energy research initiative to zero, and that is precisely where this appropriation should be. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their strong efforts in this area. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to continue our investment in nuclear energy. It is time to put increased Federal resources into renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind research and other sustainable and potentially inexpensive sources of energy. This Nation has poured $47 billion into the nuclear industry since 1950 and, frankly, that is enough. Renewable sources of energy did not even receive support until 1974, and since then these clean energy sources have been funded at far lower levels than nuclear energy. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that nuclear energy produces radioactive waste that must go somewhere, and that waste will pollute the environment for thousands of years. I have heard some reference to the fact that nuclear energy is clean energy. If those Members think it is so clean, they may want to stand up and volunteer to be the recipients of the nuclear waste that is being produced all over this country. But I am not so sure they are prepared to accept that ``clean waste.'' After all of the discussion, after all of the billions of dollars, the fact is, we simply today still do not know how to get rid of nuclear waste. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It is supported and endorsed by the Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, Safe Energy Communication Council, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel. Let us save the taxpayers money. Let us not pour another $5 million into corporate welfare. Let us support this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Maybe we might want to chat on that. I am not so sure it would be a great idea for the leadership of the Democrat and Republican Party to decide who represents the Independent political movement in this country, of which there are more of than there are Democrats and Republicans. But having said that, I thank the gentlewoman for her efforts. I would say this, Mr. Chairman. As a strong supporter of Shays- Meehan, and understanding that I would go further, but I think that is the likely legislation that might pass and I will support it, the main point that we have got to understand is the American people know very, very well today that the political process in Congress and throughout this country is controlled by big money interests who make huge contributions to both political parties. Just this past week we know that the Republican Party held a fund- raising dinner in Washington for some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in America and they walked away with $11 million in one night. And, of course, the Democratic party, maybe not quite so successfully, tries hard to do the same thing. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think people think that when we talk about campaign finance reform this is an inside-the-beltway issue; that it is something esoteric; that it does not affect them. Wrong. Campaign finance reform is an issue which affects every American in every aspect of public policy. This week the Republican leadership in the Senate killed legislation that would have required the tobacco industry to compensate our society for the death and disease it has created. Was there some connection between the defeat of this legislation and the many millions of dollars in soft money that went to the Republican Party from the tobacco interest? I think one has got to be very naive not to see the connection. Mr. Chairman, Americans, people in our country, pay more money than any other people in the industrialized world for prescription drugs, and the Federal Government continues to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare to the pharmaceutical industry. Is there any connection between the $18 million that the drug companies have provided to both political parties since 1991 and the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country? Once again, one would have to be very naive not to see the connection. Mr. Chairman, this Congress continues to spend billions of dollars for weapons that we do not need, including B-2 bombers that cost us over $2 billion a plane. Meanwhile, we cut back on health care, education, desperately-needed housing, Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs that ordinary Americans need. Is there a connection between the fact that the aerospace industry and military contractors contributed $5 million during the 1996 election cycle to the high rate of military spending? I think, again, you have got to be naive. Last year, Mr. Chairman, in the budget bill passed by this Congress, we provided huge tax breaks to some of the largest corporations and wealthiest people in America. Meanwhile, and this is an important point to be heard, the wealthiest one quarter of 1 percent contributed over 80 percent of all campaign contributions. Should we be shocked that, having received all of this money from the richest people in America, Congress decided that most of the tax breaks would go to the very rich while, at the same time, we cut back on Medicare? Mr. Chairman, we have heard a whole lot about the role that labor unions play in the political process. Do they contribute a lot of money? Yes, they do. But let us not forget that in the 1995-1996 election cycle corporations and groups and individuals representing business interests outspent labor 11 to 1. Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. SANDERS. Including Independents?

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Before I make my presentation, I would like to ask the gentlewoman a question. As I understand it, the gentlewoman will have four Independents as part of the commission. As the only Independent in Congress, that issue is of some significance to me. We know how Democrats and Republicans might be appointed. Ross Perot is not the only Independent in America. Some of us do not have many billions of dollars but also consider ourselves Independents. How would those Independents be selected?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, Some may think the discussion of campaign finance reform is esoteric--not related to the real day to day problems and concerns of ordinary people. Wrong. If we are concerned to know why this country has the most unfair distribution of wealth in the industrialized world, and why the richest person in this country owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of our population-then you are talking about campaign finance reform, and the role that big money plays in the political process. If you want to know why last year Congress gave huge tax breaks for the rich and large Corporations, and then proceeded to cut Medicare by 115 billion dollars--then you are talking about campaign reform, and the role that big money plays in the political process. If you want to know why this country spends more money per capita on health care than any other industrialized country, and why 40 million Americans have no health insurance at the same time as insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies make huge profits--then you are talking about campaign finance reform and the role that big money plays in the political process. And on and on it goes. The rich get richer, the middle class shrinks and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world-and big money plays a major role in determining the agenda of both political parties. Mr. Speaker, the current campaign finance system is obscene and the situation is becoming worse and worse everyday. Our republican friends have recently made allegations against President Clinton regarding the influence that campaign contributions might have had on the Presidents policy towards China and Chinese missiles. This is a very serious allegation that should be fully and fairly investigated, but so should the role that campaign contributions play in our tobacco policy, in our health care policy, in our banking policy, in our environmental policy, and in many other areas. Since 1991 the pharmaceutical industry has given more that 18 million dollars in political contributions and today we have the highest cost of prescription drugs in the world. The oil gas and chemical industries have provided over 24 million dollars in campaign contributions, and they get away with murder in terms of environmental destruction. Some in this body say that the problem is with labor unions and the big money that labor spends. In the 1995-1996 election cycle corporations and groups and individuals representing business interests out spent labor 12 to 1. In fact, the wealthiest one quarter of one percent provides 80 percent of the campaign contributions and it is incomprehensible that some want to relax restrictions and enable the rich to contribute even more. Mr. Speaker, this congress must end the obscenity of the current system which allows big money to buy and sell politicians like we were just another commodity. This congress can learn a lot from my own state of Vermont which has passes serious campaign finance reform which severely limits the power of big money over the political process. Ultimately, what this congress must do is eliminate soft money completely; limit the total amount of money that can be spent in a campaign by a candidate, and move us in the direction of matching public funding with small individual contributions. The day must come when once more in this country democracy means one person one vote, and not the current obscenity in which multinational corporations and individuals control the process.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, if American citizens are concerned that Congress continues to represent the interests of the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of the middle-class and working families, then the American people must get involved in the fight for real campaign finance reform. Our Republican friends want to investigate the role that campaign contributions might have played on President Clinton's China policy. Well, we should investigate that issue fully and fairly, but we should also investigate the role that campaign contributions play in our tobacco policy, our health care policy, our tax policy, our banking policy, and many other policies that we deal with. Big money interests are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process, and the wealthiest \1/4\ of 1 percent provide over 80 percent of campaign contributions. More and more millionaires are running for office while the middle class and working families are voting less and less and participating in lower numbers. Let us have the guts to pass real campaign finance reform, and let us do it now.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The main point that I want to make really has less to do with this amendment than my concern about the bill in general. As Members of Congress, all of us want to do all kinds of things. One can make an argument that the military today needs $270 billion. But I think, given the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America, given the fact that millions of senior citizens in this country are unable to afford their prescription drugs, given the fact that there is an enormous crisis in child care in this country, given the fact that there has been a growth in recent years of people using emergency food shelters, people sleeping out on the streets, I think the time is now to get our priorities right. I believe that this country needs a strong military, but I think that there are other needs out there that are not being adequately addressed as we put $270-some-odd billion into the military, more than is needed by the intelligence agencies. And we should also recognize that not only are we putting substantial sums of money into our military, we are also part of NATO, which is a major military alliance as well. The bottom line for me is to say that now that the Cold War is over, is it appropriate to continue spending so much money on the military when there are so many other needs in this country? Is it appropriate to continue to build weapons systems that we do not need when this country continues to have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world? Is it appropriate that we are spending money on the military with the end of the Cold War when our educational system is lacking in so many respects, when the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country are hurting and not getting the governmental support that they need? So I want to just thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this brief time to suggest that I will be voting against the entire bill. Because I think it does not, now that the Cold War is over, indicate a rationale and sensible set of priorities for this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that 2 Members of the House have now signed a letter to President Clinton which calls for an end to U.S. support for the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia. I hope that more of my colleagues will sign it in the coming days. While the transition to democracy in Indonesia will not be easy, the United States should play an active role in helping to develop a process by which Suharto's political prisoners are released, free speech is guaranteed to all, and an approach is created for free and fair elections. Most importantly, we must let the Indonesian people know that we will not continue in any way to support the corrupt Suharto dictatorship, a regime which over the last 32 years has not only killed hundreds of thousands of people, but which has enabled the Suharto family to accumulate over $40 billion in personal wealth in a country where the average income is $20 a week. Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Indonesian students have put their lives on the line for freedom. We must listen to their cries.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the time is now to end U.S. support for the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia and to help that country move for democracy. General Suharto is a dictator who has been in office for over 30 years and during that period has committed horrendous atrocities. Today his political opponents are in jail, they are being tortured, they are being kidnapped by the secret police. Just the other day, six unarmed student protesters were shot down in cold blood. General Suharto is known not only for his brutality but for his corruption and greed. In a country where the average income is less than $20 a week, his family has amassed a fortune of over $30 billion. Mr. Speaker, if the brave students of Indonesia are prepared to put their lives on the line to end the Suharto dictatorship, how can we ignore their cries for freedom? Let us end our support for Suharto now.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 155, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, H.R. 2431. I am glad it passed. If I had been present, I would have voted yes.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment has the support of both the majority and the minority, and therefore, I will be very, very brief. Madam Chairman, this amendment simply requires the Controller General of the United States to conduct a study on whether it would be beneficial, in light of the expected consolidation of the financial industry, if H.R. 10 were to pass to establish uniform limits on commissions and other fees charged to consumers who purchase stocks, bonds, insurance, and other financial products. This amendment would require a report to be submitted to Congress concerning the results of the study within 1 year of enactment of this bill. That is the short version of my speech.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the time is now to end U.S. support for the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia. I will be sending a letter to the President tomorrow with a number of signatures from my colleagues to urge him to help us do that. History has taught us that it is not in the best interest of this country or for the people of affected countries that the United States back corrupt, authoritarian regimes whose leaders are opposed by the vast majority of their people. It was wrong for us to have supported the Mobuto government in Zaire, the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq, the Noriega government in Panama, and many other dictatorships that we have backed over the years. It is wrong for us to support the Suharto government today. As a result of our support for these corrupt and detested governments, our credibility in the world community suffers and our commitment to freedom and human rights is rightfully challenged. As you know, Mr. Speaker, General Suharto is currently in his seventh 5-year term at the helm of the Government in Indonesia, which, according to the most recent U.S. State Department report on human rights, ``remains strongly authoritarian.'' That is from the U.S. State Department. This same report states that in 1997 the Suharto government ``continued to commit serious human rights abuses'' and ``demonstrated that it would not tolerate challenges to the fundamental elements of the political system by arresting and placing on trial some of its critics.'' The State Department report documents Suharto's failure to allow free and fair elections in Indonesia in the most recent elections, just as he has done in the previous five held since 1971. Today, the leader of the free trade union movement in Indonesia, Muchtar Pahpahan, remains in jail because of his radical belief that workers in this country have the right of freedom of association. Further, General Suharto is widely acknowledged to be a dictator with an enormous amount of blood on his hands. In 1965, when he toppled General Sukarno as leader of Indonesia, it is estimated that some half million Indonesians were killed. Half a million, one of the great slaughters in modern history. In East Timor, it is believed General Suharto's decisions have led to the deaths of 200,000 people or one-third, one-third of East Timor's population. Just yesterday, six unarmed students were shot down in cold blood by the Suharto military for protesting against the dictatorship. Recent testimony before Congress shows that Suharto's government is currently disappearing and torturing hundreds of its opponents. General Suharto is known, not only for his brutality, but for his corruption and his greed. He is the sixth wealthiest person in the world, and it is estimated that his family is worth between $30 billion and $40 billion. This wealth has been accumulated in a country where the average income is less than $20 a week and where child labor is widespread. The Suharto family owns much of Indonesia's wealth, and they have strong control over the economy there. It is widely acknowledged the Suharto family makes huge sums of money by running cartels and receiving bribes and kickbacks in perhaps the outstanding international example of crony capitalism. Every day, more and more Indonesians are showing extraordinary courage and are putting their lives on the line by standing up to the Suharto dictatorship. Not only have tens of thousands of Indonesian students taken to the streets, but even retired generals and former cabinet ministers are now calling for General Suharto's ouster. Mr. Amien Rais, a prominent Muslim leader, recently said, ``I urge the government of President Suharto to step down, as the people demand.'' If the brave people of Indonesia are prepared to risk their lives to demand that General Suharto step aside, how can we ignore their cries for freedom? It is important that we act soon. If General Suharto understands that we no longer support him, and international support for his regime is fading, it is far more likely that he will give up power soon, avoiding unnecessary bloodshed. In other words, the sooner that the United States tells Suharto that we will not support him, the more likely it is that he will perhaps flee his country and prevent the widespread bloodshed that might otherwise happen. In my view, the President must utilize all diplomatic tools available to expedite the replacement of the Suharto dictatorship with a democratically elected government. Such steps should include but not be limited to immediate contact by Secretary of Defense Cohen with the Indonesian military, urging them not to use their guns against their own people. The immediate freeze on all US weapons, spare parts and ammunition sales to Indonesia, including the financing of dual-use technologies through the Export-Import Bank. In conjunction with the United Nations, dispatch an emergency relief group composed of non-governmental representatives, including human rights and famine-relief groups, to monitor the military and provide relief to famine stricken areas of East Timor and Indonesia. Suspend further IMF loans to Indonesia until fundamental human rights are established under a new government. Mr. Speaker, you have the opportunity to send a message to the Indonesian people and the entire world that the United States will not support dictators who deny their people basic human rights. The time to act is now.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 629, the Texas-Maine- Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments make commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal a State, not a Federal responsibility. Since that time, 41 States from every region of the country have come together to form compacts. Essentially, all we are asking today is that our three States be given the same consideration that every other State which went before us received in this process. In every instance, Congress has understood the benefits of these compacts and has recognized the rights of the different States to come together in their own best interests to form these compacts. In fact, each of these waste compacts passed by voice vote and without amendment. This compact has been overwhelmingly approved by the legislatures of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. It has the very strong support of the governors of the three States. It has the support of all the Senators from Texas, Vermont, and Maine, all of the House Members from Vermont and Maine, and as I understand it, about two-thirds of the members of the Texas congressional delegation. We hear a great deal of discussion in this body about devolution, returning powers to the States. If we believe in that concept and believe that States should have the right to come together in their own best interests to address this very difficult issue, then today's vote should be an easy one. This legislation won by a vote of 309 to 107 last year and should be strongly supported today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I would, by the way, agree with the gentleman about the shame of having our soldiers on food stamps, and maybe we should put more money into their needs and less into B-2 bombers. But that is another story. The point I want to make is the gentleman raised China as a potential threat. I am not here to be on an anti-China kick. But I would point out to the gentleman that this Congress voted MFN status for China; that corporate America is putting tens of billions of dollars into bolstering the China economy rather than reinvesting in America.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do not know that I will take the 2 minutes. Let me just say this: We have heard a lot of discussion about the bipartisan nature of support for the intelligence budget, and that may well be on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; I do not think it is in the general House. Last year, when we offered an amendment to lower the intelligence budget by 5 percent, we had 142 Members who said, no, those do not reflect our priorities. And I think, Mr. Chairman, that when we go out on Main Street and we go to rural America and we go to urban America and we say to the folks there, many of whom, I should add, no longer vote, by and large have given up on the political process because they do not believe that this Congress represents their interests, and we say to them, should we increase funding for the intelligence budget and cut funding for Medicare, should we allow a situation to continue where millions of elderly people in this country cannot afford their prescription drugs or should we build more spy satellites, I say to my colleagues, those people will tell us, in my view, and tell us overwhelmingly, they will say, Congress, get your priorities right. This is an intelligence budget, so let us talk about how we can improve intelligence in America. Let us make sure that the little kids are able to get into the Head Start program. Let us make sure that millions of kids in this country who would like to go to college, but today cannot afford to go to college, have that opportunity by significantly increasing the appropriations for Pell grants. That is what we are talking about. Now, nobody here is saying this is a peaceful world, that there are no problems. Nobody here is saying, let us cut the intelligence budget to zero. Nobody here is saying that the intelligence agencies do not serve a useful purpose. What we are saying is, get your priorities right. The Cold War is over. The middle class, the working families of this country are hurting. Do not cut programs for them in the name of deficit reduction and increase funding for the intelligence budget.

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