Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Lobiondo] to speak on this bipartisan amendment which increases funding for Meals on Wheels.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield all of 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude and suggest that last year there was a cut in this program. We are trying to restore half of the cut to the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country. It is the right thing to do. It is a bipartisan effort. I urge the Members to support it. Mr. Chairman, the elderly nutrition programs funded in this bill, which include Meals on Wheels and congregate meals are excellent examples of good government and common sense, as well as Federal-State- local and public-private partnerships. This is exactly the sort of senior citizen program we should be funding. Therefore, I am delighted to be joined by Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Ney, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Fox, and many more of our colleagues in offering a compromise amendment to increase funding for these programs by $5 million, making up half of the $10 million cut made last year. Mr. Chairman, across America today, about 6 million hot Meals on Wheels have been served to senior citizens who do not have the capacity to leave their homes, and another 6 million hot meals have been served to lower-income senior citizens at senior centers and other community locations through the congregate program. Mr. Chairman, this program is terribly important to millions of Americans. For many recipients of Meals on Wheels, the driver who delivers their meals may be their only visitor, their only contact with the world, in a given day. The Urban Institute recently estimated that as many as 4.9 million seniors--about 16 percent of the population aged 60 and older--are either hungry or malnourished. According to studies from the University of Florida, 89 percent of Meals on Wheels recipients are at moderate to high risk for malnutrition. Meals on Wheels and congregate meals help these Americans stay healthy. Yet, 41 percent of Meals on Wheels programs nationwide have waiting lists today--lists of senior citizens who go hungry because we are not funding this program at an appropriate level. Let me also point out that today in America, 4 million seniors live in poverty, and another 16 million are near poverty. Half of our senior citizens in this country live on incomes of $15,000 or less per year. As Mathematica Policy Research found last year, the senior nutrition programs are well-targeted at poor elderly Americans. The average beneficiary of these programs is 77 years old, and 90 percent of beneficiaries live below 200 percent of poverty; about 40 percent have subpoverty incomes. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you about how one of my constituents' lives was saved by a Meals on Wheels driver. On March 25 of this year, my constituent Cecil Utley of Barre, VT, fell and broke his hip. Unable to move, he lay on his floor for 5 hours until David Stevens, a Meals on Wheels driver for the Central Vermont Council on Aging, was troubled that Mr. Utley did not answer his door. He had another Council on Aging worker, Kathy Paquet, try to reach Mr. Utley by phone, and when they failed they obtained help from a neighbor who had a key to Mr. Utley's house. They found him barely conscious and called an ambulance. I am pleased to report that Mr. Utley is now doing well in his recovery. As his son Gayle wrote to the program, ``Without your help and concern, my father would probably not have survived this accident. You * * * will always be remembered fondly by our family. Keep up the great work.'' Mr. Chairman, this program not only makes good social policy sense, it also makes excellent fiscal policy sense. Every $1 spent on these senior nutrition programs saves $3 in Federal Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' health care costs since malnourished patients stay in the hospital nearly twice as long a well-nourished seniors, costing $2,000 to $10,000 more per stay. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest, compromise amendment. Last year, the elderly nutrition programs in this bill were cut by $10 million, from $150 to $140 million. In my view, that was a penny-wise, pound-foolish cut to make. Given inflation and the aging of our population, funding for these programs is not keeping pace with either the rising cost of food or the increase in Meals on Wheels customers. Further, when Congress reauthorized the Older Americans Act in 1992, it said the per- meal reimbursement rate of these programs should not fall below 61 cents. Unfortunately, the rate has fallen to an estimated 58.5 cents per meal this year, and will fall further if our amendment is not adopted. This amendment is fully paid for with a modest, 0.6 percent cut in the FDA through its salary and expenses account. I am not here to bash the FDA or its hard-working staff, and it is not my intent to cut food safety initiatives or tobacco control enforcement activities with this amendment, but I do believe this $5 million will better serve the country if it is spent on hot meals for homebound senior citizens rather than administrative expenses at FDA.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we are trying to do in a bipartisan way is to provide $5 million to some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country, senior citizens who are in need of nutrition but are too weak to get out of their own homes to get it, and we are taking that money from the salary and expense account of the FDA. I think it is the proper thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and just make a couple of points. First, allegations have been made about improper behavior. Those allegations should be followed up. If people acted improperly, we should deal with them in accordance with the law. And I do not think that there is anybody who disagrees with that. And when somebody on the other side says, we do not care, that is wrong. On the contrary, because we believe in these programs, we demand that they be administered properly. We do care, and we wanted to know about any illegalities, and we will work with anybody to address those problems. It is of concern that, as far as I understand it, the ranking member of that committee was not officially informed about these problems, and that does not suggest to me a nonpartisan way to address them. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is, there is an enormous need for capital in low-income communities. And the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] made a point a moment ago that needs repeating. I brought forth an amendment to cut funding for the intelligence communities after I learned that the National Reconnaissance Office had ``lost $4 billion.'' We were not successful in lowering funding for the intelligence agencies. Time after time, cost overruns occur in the military; and through defense contractors, they continue to get increases in their programs. What we are saying is, we have a program here where the need is desperate. Low-income communities in Vermont and throughout this country need the capital to help small businesses and other institutions. If people have acted improperly who are in the administration of that program, deal with that. But do not kill or paralyze the program because of the misdeeds of those people.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, if I might, may I ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], I think what he is hearing on this side is no tolerance for misbehavior in the administration of that program. Are we in agreement with that?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, and what the gentleman is hearing, sir, is that we wanted to move forward in a nonpartisan way. Is the gentleman hearing that?

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, OK, so let us do that. But can we have some assurance from my colleague that we should not be punishing people and small businesses in needs, that we should pass the appropriation that came out of the committee, and then let us proceed tomorrow to do the proper investigation and let us deal with that? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, I am really aware of that.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, I would just ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], if the Senate has done that, then it is more important that we come forward with the full appropriation. I would just urge the gentleman to understand that people on this side are not tolerant of any improper behavior in terms of the administration of those funds, and we will work with them to get at the root of the problem. We would hope, however, that he would support the full appropriation and allow this important program to go forward.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in adamant support of continued funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. As we work through the budget process, deciding to build weapons of destruction, and spend unknown billions on the intelligence community, we must maintain spending for the arts and humanities. Arts and humanities are a critical part of what civilized life is about, and I have very serious disagreements with those who want to increase funding for B-2 bombers and cut back on cultural programs for all Americans at the same time. Each B-2 bomber costs at least $1.5 billion, 15 times more than the entire funding for the NEA. This Congress must decide whether we will continue to increase the destructive capability of this Nation without regard to creative and artistic expression. The NEA helps enhance the lives of the children and adults by supporting organizations which encourage individuals to cultivate their creative energies. Further, public funding of the arts allows many more people the chance to attend exhibits and performances, not just those who can afford expensive theater tickets. NEA is not pork for the rich and elite. It is crucial funding that brings art to people, schools, and communities that otherwise would not be able to afford them. Arts teach our children understanding, self-expression, cooperation and self-discipline, and tell the story of a nation. Today's children should be inspired by music and theater and creative art, rather than desensitized to violence on television by a Congress that sends a message to the young people of this country that bombs and bullets are a higher priority than painting and singing. In my State of Vermont, NEA funding has supported symphony concerts in rural underserved communities. NEA dollars have assisted in community-based artist-in-residence programs and a collection of the work and biographies and self-taught artists in northern rural Vermont. The NEA is a major funder of the Vermont Council on the Arts, an organization that brings the arts and festivals to communities across the State. NEA moneys have funded many other projects in Vermont that otherwise would not have been possible. The elimination of the NEA would decimate funding for the arts across the country. We would likely witness a domino effect wherein local and State governments redirect their spending priorities in reaction to changes in Federal spending. private support cannot possibly replace the role of Federal dollars in arts funding. From 1992 to 1995, there was a $270 million decline in real dollars in private giving to the arts. Small and rural communities are even more at risk, since they receive far fewer private dollars toward the arts. The elimination of the NEA is contrary to the public will. Recent polls show that 79 percent of the American public favors a governmental role in funding the arts. Every year the nonprofit arts community creates nearly $37 billion in economic activity in this country and 1.3 million American jobs. For every dollar the NEA invests in communities, there is a twenty-fold return in jobs, services, and contracts. The arts are an important part of the foundation of every healthy democracy. The NEA brings the arts to communities all across the country regardless of geographic location or level of income.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for the help that he has given us in the past, and I look forward to working with him in the future.

Mr. SANDERS. While I appreciate the very tough decisions faced by the committee, construction funds are critical for the Marsh-Billings Park. The funds are needed to construct new restrooms, visitor orientation space, staff offices, and an art storage facility. Without these improvements the park will not be able to provide basic visitor, museum and administrative services. The Senate allocation is more generous than the House number. Should the Senate provide funds for this project, can I ask the gentleman to consider supporting this construction project?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman's assistance, last year Congress provided some initial funding for the park, and I am pleased that the fiscal year 1998 bill fully meets the park's needs for its operating costs. However, the bill does not provide the construction funds needed to refurbish the park's historic Carriage House.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this opportunity, if I might, to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the subcommittee. I want to thank the gentleman for his support over the years for the Marsh-Billings National Historic Park in Woodstock, VT. This park, scheduled to open in 1998, is very important to Vermont and to others interested in sustainable agriculture.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the outstanding work that he has done on this budget. I applaud his efforts. We just disagree on this issue. This is the bottom line. It is not complicated. You have heard it from conservatives and progressives, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. This is tripartitism. The issue is that we have 1,700 communities throughout the United States of America in 50 States who are not receiving fair compensation from the Federal Government. In fact, in 1980, in real dollars, they were receiving then $180 million in PILT payments. Today it is $113 million, significant reduction in PILT payments. In terms of the fossil energy research and development program, what we have got to ask ourselves is whether or not we should be subsidizing Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, ARCO and Shell. These are profitable multinational corporations. I frankly do not think they need these subsidies. I would simply point out that opposition to the fossil research program is widespread from conservatives, from progressives. It was targeted as one of the quote unquote dirty dozen corporate subsidies by the Stop Corporate Welfare Coalition which includes the National Taxpayers Union, not necessarily a progressive organization, I do not get a terribly high rating from them, Taxpayers for Common Sense, USPIRG, Citizens Against Government Waste. The choice is clear. Do we stand up for the kids who are not getting adequate education throughout this country because of lack of Federal payments, or do we stand with some companies that really do not need the subsidies. I would urge a ``yes'' vote for the Sanders-Bass amendment.