Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, ever since my first day in Congress I have been fighting to raise the minimum wage. The simple truth is that the purchasing power of the minimum wage today is 26 percent less than it was in 1970, which means that our minimum wage workers today are much, much poorer and harder pressed than they were in the past. The fact of the matter is that millions and millions of American workers cannot survive, cannot live in dignity on $4.25 an hour, and I am glad now today, finally, we are going to be raising the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour, although in truth, we should be raising it higher than that. The reality of the American economy is that more and more of the new jobs that are being created are low-wage jobs, they are part-time jobs, they are temporary jobs without benefits. Today we are saying to those workers that at least you are going to be getting $5.15 an hour and that is long overdue. The second part of this bill, which is also a positive step forward, is that we are saying to small businesses in Vermont and all over this country that we understand that you and not corporate America who are taking our jobs to China and Mexico but you, small businesses, are the people who are creating the new jobs in Vermont and in California and all over this country, and that you and not big business are entitled to the tax breaks that you desperately need so that you can reinvest in our communities and create more jobs. So this bill ultimately does two very important things: It says to every worker in America that you are going to make at least $5.15 an hour and it says to the small businesses of this country who are creating the new jobs that this Congress hears what your problems are and we are going to give you some tax breaks so you can reinvest and create more jobs.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, at a time when this country has the lowest voter turnout of any major country and millions of Americans are giving up on the political process, it is imperative that the presidential candidates in this election focus their attention on the real issues facing the middle class and the working families and not devote their energy to negative 30-second television ads. This country has some terribly serious problems, and the American people want to hear those problems discussed. For example, why does this Nation have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of all industrialized nations on Earth? Why is the gap between the rich and the poor growing wider while the middle class continues to shrink? What do we do to reverse the trend by which real wages for working people continue to decline and today are 16 percent less than they were 20 years ago with workers now working longer and longer hours just to provide for their families? What do we do about the reality that most of the new jobs that are being created are poverty level jobs? Let us talk about the real issues.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to insert into the Record the following statement by Meika Ferland. Ms. Ferland is a student from Barton, VT, and her script was the 1996 Vermont State winner in the Veterans of Foreign Wars Voice of Democracy broadcast scripwriting contest. Answering America's Call (By Meika Ferland) George Washington. Bob Hope. Betsy Ross. What do these Americans have in common? Each answered America's call in his or her own way. George Washington was the first commander-in- chief of troops as well as America's first President. Bob Hope entertained soldiers during several wars. And Betsy Ross sewed the famous red, white, and blue flag that would come to represent the best nation in the world. Each of these patriots made a memorable contribution to America's history. Although we remember these important people and the roles they played in helping our country become great and strong, thousands of others have helped in their own small ways. The boys who beat the drums to maintain the soldier's pace. The women who made bandages and nursed the wounded. The crowds that gave a hero's welcome during a parade to honor returning troops--each of these is answering America's call by contributing to the morale and the needs of the time. Today's citizens can also answer America's call. A young man can register with the Selective Service and be ready to fight if called upon during a national emergency. A young woman can volunteer to serve a meal at the local soup kitchen. A senior citizen can swing a hammer on a crew building a house in the Habitat for Humanity project. Each of these activities can make a difference and every person can make a contribution. The contribution does not have to make a huge impression like finding a cure for cancer or signing a peace treaty with a foreign nation. Each of us can answer the call in our own way no matter how humble. It is important to remember that every effort no matter how small makes a difference. I have learned this myself first hand. At my local high school I am a volunteer in the Big Brother/Big Sister program. In this program a high school student is paired with an elementary student from one of the graded schools. These children are usually needy kids who lack someone special in their lives. As a volunteer I spend part of an afternoon each week trying to be a positive role model who provides attention and security in an otherwise troubled life. Sometimes I help my little sister with her homework or we play games on the computer. She especially likes it when I read to her. Whatever we do, I can see a twinkle in my little sister's eye. I know she is thrilled while I am there. Her smile never leaves her face and when it's time to say good- bye, I know she is looking forward to next week wondering if I'll bring her a package of M & M's or a new book to read. My little sister is not the only one who benefits from our friendship. It warms my heart to know that I can have such an impact on a ten-year-old. I am contributing a little bit to society by being a Big Sister but I am also reaping the rewards of doing something good for someone else. In my own way I'm answering America's call. It is a minute contribution in relation to the whole country but it is my part, my effort. I believe that each of us has something worthwhile to contribute and it is up to each of us to do so. If every American were to do just a little bit towered answering America's call the United States would be an even greater place than it is today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, in a time when this Congress is proposing huge cuts in Medicare, and Medicaid, and education, environmental protection, veterans programs, it is absolutely insane that we continue to provide $125 billion a year in corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies which go to some of the largest, the most profitable corporations in America, and that is why I am delighted that last month legislation which I offered with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] passed this body and would take a major bite out of one of the most outrageous examples of corporate welfare, and that is the billions of dollars in Pentagon subsidies which taxpayers are providing to huge defense contractors, subsidies which, if my colleagues can believe it, are providing incentives to merge their companies and in the process lay off tens of thousands of American workers. Yes, that is what we are doing: Taxpayer subsidies are going for payoffs for layoffs, to lay off tens of thousands of American workers. Mr. Speaker, while this important legislation passed the House unfortunately it did not pass the Senate, and it will be going to conference committee. My hope is that this body will urge our conferees to say no to payoffs, for layoffs.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], a cosponsor of this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is substantively the same as an amendment No. 5 in the July 16, 1996, Congressional Record but it incorporates a technical change which I believe makes our intent clearer. The amendment that I am offering today with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] along with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] touches on an issue of enormous consequence to millions of Americans, especially given the rapid transmission we are experiencing from traditional health insurance to managed care and HMO's. We can all agree on the need to control health care costs. However, we must also ensure that health care decisions which affect our lives and our well-being are made by physicians using medical rationale and who have the best interests of their patients at heart and not by insurance companies who may be putting their drive for profits before the best interests of their patients. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we must preserve the fundamental core of successful health care, and, that is, the doctor- patient relationship. When a patient walks into a doctor's office, he or she must be 100 percent confident that the treatment that is being recommended comes from the doctor's best medical judgment and is not motivated by an insurance company's desire for greater profits. A patient deserves to be told the full truth when going to a doctor and that is what this amendment is all about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think we are all in agreement, those of us who have spoken, about what the issue here is, and it is not a complicated issue. What all of us believe is that when a patient walks into a doctor's office, we want to know that we are getting the best possible treatment that we can get and that there is not a perverse incentive being offered to the physician to give us less than the best quality care that can be offered. We do not want to believe that a physician can make more money by offering us lesser care. That is not what health care is supposed to be about and, most importantly, that is not what the doctor-patient relationship is supposed to be about. If there is any relationship built on trust in our society, it is supposed to be the doctor-patient relationship, and historically that has been the case. What this amendment does, it applies to Federal employees what already exists in law for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and it says that there cannot be perverse incentives offered to physicians so that they do not provide Federal employees the best quality care available. I thank all of the cosponsors for this amendment and look forward to the body's support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, a fitting tribute to Mollie Beattie, a leader in wilderness protection. This legislation is especially important to me because Mollie Beattie was a Vermonter and the State of Vermont was lucky enough to benefit from her work long before she became the first woman to direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Her extensive list of accomplishments has benefited wildlife habitat areas, State parks, wetlands, and forests in Vermont and across the Nation. This legislation recognizes the contribution that Mollie Beattie made to the environment and the pristine wilderness that graces our Nation. The designation will remind all of us of her strong defense of the environment and remind us that we need to do our own part in protecting it. It was a great loss when Mollie Beattie was taken from this earth she loved so much when she died of brain cancer on June 27, 1996. I urge your support for this bill that provides a suitable tribute to her work.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as many Members know, the U.S. taxpayer is the single largest supporter of biomedical research in the world, spending $33 billion in 1994 alone for biomedical and related health research. Unfortunately, our taxpayers are unwittingly being forced to pay twice for drugs because this Congress is deeply beholden to the very profitable giant drug companies. Members heard it right, our constituents are not getting a fair return on the investment of their hard-earned money, paying twice for pharmaceutical breakthroughs, first as taxpayers and second as consumers. This harms consumers, and it is a form of corporate welfare to many of the world's largest corporations. The bottom line of this amendment is that when taxpayers spend billions and billions of dollars in developing a new drug, the taxpayer as a consumer should get a break and we should not be giving all of this research over to the private industry who then sells the product to our consumers at outrageous profits.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, number 14.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader very much for his comments, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment, and I believe I will be entering into a colloquy with the majority leader in a moment, but before I do that I want to talk about what this amendment is about and why we offered it. This amendment touches on an issue that is of growing consequence to tens of millions of Americans as this country moves from traditional health care to HMO's and to managed care. What this amendment deals with is the need to break the gag rules that are being imposed by insurance companies and HMO's on our physicians and how they relate to their patients. It seems to me pretty clear that if a doctor-patient relationship means anything, that when we walk into the doctor's office we want to know that our physician is being honest with us, is telling us all of the options that are available to us. We do not want to see that our physicians cannot tell us an option because an HMO or an insurance company might think that that option is too expensive and that that insurance company has told the doctor not to convey that option to us. That is not what the doctor-patient relationship is supposed to be about. That is what my amendment deals with, specifically with Medicare and Medicaid. The fact of the matter is there is a bill moving past the House, gaining widespread support, offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], which addresses this issue and makes it broader. It goes beyond Medicare and Medicaid, dealing with all health care providers, and I strongly support that bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

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

Mr. SANDERS

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. If I might, Mr. Chairman, let me read briefly from a letter that I received from Steve Robertson, who is director of the National Legislative Commission for the American Legion. They say and I quote: We have been and will continue to be strong supporters of the veterans' pro bono representation program which will receive a substantial portion of the proposed transfer. Without adequate funding, this essential program will be unable to meet the needs of those veterans who depend on it as their only means of representation before the court. Let me also read, if I might, from Thomas McMasters, who is the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans. He says, and I quote: As you know, the DAV has been an active participant in the veterans' pro bono legal program and supports what this program has been able to do for those veterans unable to obtain legal representation for their claims before the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. Accordingly, we support your amendment which will allow the Court to fully fund the pro bono legal program without reducing activities of the Court. Mr. Chairman, what these gentlemen are saying, because they know something of the issue, because they represent veterans, they are saying we have a lot of low-income veterans who cannot make a trip to Washington, by the way, to make their claim. If they are low-income by definition, they cannot leave their communities, and I think that is a disgrace unto itself. We are talking about $1.4 million. Given the amounts of money that we are talking about in this appropriations bill, this is a tiny sum of money and I really do think we should respect low-income veterans who may have gotten a raw deal from the VA and have a right to hear their appeals before the court.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward and modest amendment. In fact, it calls for far less money than many of the other amendments we have been discussing this evening. It simply transfers $1.4 million from the HUD Secretary's office account for salaries and expenses to the Court of Veterans Appeals. In a colloquy on the House floor last year, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, and I discussed this issue and he indicated a willingness to fight to restore $429,000 trimmed from the fiscal year 1996 appropriation requested by the Court of Veterans Appeals. On the basis of that commitment last year, I did not offer an amendment to restore that cut. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, not only was that money not restored ultimately, but when all was said and done, after the budget showdown earlier this year, the appropriation for the Court of Veterans Appeals totaled $9 million, an 8.5-percent cut below the court's fiscal year 1996 request and a 4\1/2\-percent cut below the prior year' fiscal appropriation. If my amendment is approved, it will cut just $1.4 million from the $962 million account available to the HUD Secretary for next year for salaries and expenses to make up for the shortfall in requested fiscal year 1996 funding and flatline the fiscal year 1997 funding for the court at the same level. It would also include $634,000 for the pro bono representation program as well. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is a small appropriation, but it is an appropriation that would mean a lot to the veterans of America and especially low-income veterans. I would point out that my amendment is supported by the American Legion and by the Disabled American Veterans. Mr. Chairman, as you know, when a veteran is denied a claim from the VA, that veteran has the right to appeal and that appeal is heard before the Court of Veterans Appeals. Unfortunately, as a result of lack of funding, the Court of Veterans Appeals is unable to do all the things that it should be doing to protect the interest of low-income veterans. One of the very important functions of that court is to make sure that there are pro bono lawyers available to provide assistance for low-income veterans who do not have the funds to get their own lawyers so that they can make the strongest case that they can make. Now, it seems to me that while we all recognize serious financial problems that we have, we should not be cutting back programs for low- income veterans who might not have the right to appeal a claim which was adjudicated in a wrong way. I do not think those are the folks that we should be balancing the budget upon. Low-income veterans should have the right to make their case as strongly as they can. This is once again a modest request. It is all of $1.4 million but it would mean a great deal to low-income veterans. It comes out of the HUD Secretary's account for salaries and expenses, and I would hope very much that the Members of the House would support this amendment.