Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this telecommunications bill cripples consumer protections and should be soundly rejected. It is being touted as pro consumer when, in reality, it will cause inflated rates and will limit consumer choice. It is touted as pro-competition when it actually promotes mergers and the concentration of power. It ignores the success of the 1992 cable regulations which provided some $3 billion in savings to cable consumers. It deregulates cable rates within 15 months and immediately deregulates cable companies that serve about 47 percent of Vermont's cable subscribers. In rural areas there just aren't enough customers to sustain more than one or two local cable companies. Without sensible regulation, these companies would be able to raise rates on their captive consumers. Furthermore, if this bill becomes law, the FCC would no longer be allowed to review rate increases when it receives a customer complaint. The greater of 10 subscribers or 5 percent of the subscribers must complain before the FCC can review a rate hike. This bill also substantially weakens laws that prevent media monopolies and removes the law that prohibits one owner from controlling the major newspapers, networks, and cable stations that serve a community. It makes it easy for a handful of media moguls to buy up every source of news, especially in rural areas. This would lead to less diversity of opinion, more prepackaged programming, and less local programming. This bill has been widely criticized by virtually all consumer advocacy groups, President Clinton has threatened a veto, and I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the people of this country want to know why the taxpayers of the United States are providing billions of dollars a year to the National Institutes of Health to research and develop new drugs, and the major beneficiaries of that investment are not American consumers, but large multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies. The taxpayers pay for the research, and the pharmaceutical companies make huge profits by selling the taxpayer-developed drugs at outrageously high prices. Mr. Chairman, 42 percent of all U.S. health care research and development expenditures is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. The result of this is that the NIH has created many of the new and most important drugs which are on the market today. Of the 37 cancer drugs discovered since 1955, 92 percent of them, 34 cancer drugs, were developed with Federal funding. In other words, the overwhelming majority of new cancer-fighting drugs developed in the last 40 years were developed with taxpayer funding. Mr. Chairman, given that reality, it seems to me that the citizens of this country, who have already paid for the development of these drugs with their tax dollars, should not be ripped off when they purchase these products at the drugstore. They should not be forced to pay outrageously high prices so that the pharmaceutical companies can make exorbitant profits. Sadly, that is not the case today. In April, 1995, the NIH dropped the Bush administration's reasonable pricing policy, which was aimed at giving U.S. taxpayers a return on their investment by preventing drugs developed with taxpayers' dollars from being sold back to them at competitive prices. This amendment would simply restore the Bush administration's reasonable pricing clause, but would still provide the NIH with flexibility to waive the pricing clause if it is in the public interest to do so. Mr. Chairman, let me give the Members a few brief examples of why we need a reasonable pricing policy. Over the course of 15 years, the U.S. taxpayer spent $32 million at the NIH to develop Taxol, an anticancer drug that treats breast, lung, and ovarian cancers. Following the successful development of this anticancer drug, Bristol-Myers-Squibb was provided commercial rights and extensive government information on Taxol. Bristol-Myers-Squibb then turned around and sold the drug to consumers at roughly 20 times what the drug costs to produce. The result, a cancer patient taking Taxol today may pay in excess of $10,000 for the treatment, while the cost to Bristol-Myers-Squibb of manufacturing the drug is about $500.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is not price controls. I am surprised to hear my colleague referring to George Bush as a socialist. He would be very upset about it. His administration developed this policy, because they believed quite correctly that if the taxpayers put money into the development of a drug, they have the right to get something out of that investment, that the company cannot simply charge any amount of money they want making that drug unaffordable to the American people. Let us stand up for the taxpayers. Let us stand up for the consumers. Let us vote for this policy that was instituted by George Bush.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Legal Service Corporation, and in opposition to the destructive 30 percent cut of that program in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, a bedrock principle of this Nation is equal justice for all. But we all know that access to justice for ordinary Americans usually means access to legal counsel. Often, the most vulnerable among us--those most in need of legal help and representation--cannot afford an attorney. That is why the Supreme Court ruled everyone has a right to a lawyer in a criminal case, and it is why President Nixon founded the Legal Service Corporation to offer low-income Americans representation in civil court. Mr. Speaker, when this House voted to slash funding for the Legal Service Corporation, in my view it voted to restrict access to justice for the over 15 percent of Americans who live in poverty. Mr. Chairman, that is unconscionable. Legal services attorneys were there for family farmers who couldn't afford high-priced, downtown lawyers, when they helped prevent over 250,000 illegal farm foreclosures. In Vermont and across this country, they are there for battered women seeking orders of protection, child support enforcement, and divorces from abusive spouses. These attorneys were there to safeguard coal miners' rights in Kentucky, and to protect Oregon farmworkers from beatings, kidnappings and illegally low wages. These public servants are funded by a model of efficiency and federalism. Only 3 percent of Legal Service Corporation expenditures go to administrative costs, meaning 97 percent goes directly to provide legal services for poor Americans. There is no large bureaucracy; the approximately 100 employees of the Corporation spend their time distributing Federal funds to 323 independent, local legal services programs and ensuring they receive the support needed to deliver top notch legal level help. Each individual program is a private, nonprofit corporation governed by a locally appointed board of directors. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Service Corporation simply extends equal rights and justice to all Americans; it does exactly what Government should be doing. If we are serious about deficit reduction, we should cut the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare in the Federal budget. We should eliminate tax giveaways to the rich before we eliminate these protections for the most vulnerable members of our society. For the benefit of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a resolution from the New England Bar Association board of directors, which succinctly makes the case for the Legal Service Corporation. New England Bar Association board of directors resolution Whereas, equal justice is fundamental to the American system of government under laws; and Whereas, the inability to afford legal counsel effectively denies access to justice for individuals with legal needs; and Whereas, the New England Bar Association is strongly committed to support adequate legal services for the poor; and Whereas, the federal Legal Services Corporation is the organization charged by Congress with funding legal services programs throughout the country to deliver civil legal services to the poor; and Whereas, local legal services programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation represent the federal government's effort to fulfill the promise that all Americans have an equal opportunity to utilize the justice system, and Whereas, local legal services programs funded by the federal Legal Services Corporation are a frugal and effective expenditure of federal tax dollars, inexpensively and efficiently serving a broad range of persons with typical legal problems through more than 900 local offices and effectively leveraging local, state and private funds as well as pro bono services from the private bar, and Whereas, the future of the Legal Services Corporation is at a critical juncture, facing Congressional threats to eliminate or severely cut funding of the Legal Services Corporation; and Whereas, it is imperative that bar associations and others concerned with equal access to justice and legal services for the poor continue to express support for the civil legal services delivery system which has served the legal needs of the country's poorest citizens; and Now, therefore, be it resolved that the New England Bar Association Board of Directors urges all members of the Congressional delegation to support adequate funding for the Legal Services Corporation to address the tremendous unmet need for civil legal services for the poor. Be it further resolved that the New England Bar Association strongly opposes any amendments to the Legal Services Corporation Act to restrict legal services and pro bono programs in their use of IOLTA and other government and private monies; create obstacles to low income people obtaining justice in the courts and legal system; impinge on confidentiality between attorneys and their clients; or dismantle local control and destroy the effectiveness of the current legal services delivery system.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in complete opposition to this Interior appropriations bill, which could very well be the death knell for the National Endowments for the Arts. The bill itself terminates arts and humanities funding within 3 years. Mr. Speaker, arts and culture are a vital part of human existence, and the opportunity to enjoy and appreciate the arts must be open to all of our people--and not just the wealthy who can pay $50 for a concert ticket. Today, the United States spends only 64 cents per person to support the Arts Endowment, 50 times less than our major allies. In contrast, we spend $1,138 per person on military expenditures. Why is it that this Congress can lower taxes on the wealthiest people in our country, but cut back on programs which bring art and culture into the classrooms of Vermont and America? Why is it that this Congress can pour billions of dollars more into B-2 bombers that the Pentagon doesn't want, or an absurd star wars program, but eliminate funding for museums, symphony orchestras, and theater groups all over America? The $1 million that Vermont receives from the NEA is essential to many groups like Vermont Council on the Arts, the Flynn Theatre, and the Vermont Symphony Orchestra Association. The Arts Endowment opens the doors to the arts to millions of school children, including at-risk youth. Not only do the arts teach our children understanding, self-expression, cooperation, and self- discipline, but the arts tell the history and the soul of a nation. More and more children are becoming mesmerized by canned entertainment, with the average 5-year-old spending 33 hours per week in front of the television. Today our children should be inspired by music and theater and creative arts, rather than become desensitized to violence by television. Unlike urban centers where art and cultural experiences are more readily available, arts funding enables programs to go out to the people in the rural communities of Vermont. Without Federal support, arts programs would be affordable only to the rich. The average American would be faced with rising ticket costs and would be shut out from arts centers, galleries, community festivals, live music performances, and other institutions where families can experience the arts. Support the National Endowment for the Arts--oppose these draconian cuts to the arts and humanities.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this week the new memorial on The Mall to the brave Americans who fought in the Korean war was dedicated. It is long overdue that we have lasting tribute in our Nation's Capital to the near 1.5 million Americans from Vermont and all across our Nation who answered the call to stop North Korean aggression in the 1950's. I hope there will be many occasions when Vermonters will be able to visit this powerful work of art and to honor those who fought and those who died in the Korean conflict. I also want to call to the attention of my colleagues that Frank Gaylord of Barre, VT, who saw extensive combat action in World War II as a member of the 17th Airborne Division, 513th Parachute Infantry Regiment, is the sculptor of the column of 19 poncho-swathed soldiers featured in the Korean War Memorial. Frank Gaylord has been a professional sculptor for 44 years, having received his bachelor of fine arts degree from Temple University in 1950. He returned to Vermont where he has worked in his own sculpture studio in Barre, VT for 38 years. He has been chosen to create sculpture for municipalities, States, and educational institutions throughout the United States and Canada, including statues of Pope John Paul II, U.S. President Calvin Coolidge from Vermont, and Martin Luther King, Jr. He is equally comfortable designing sculpture using granite, marble, resin, or metal as a medium. Frank Gaylord's latest composition at the Korean War Memorial is a moving reminder to all of us of the power of art. The Washington Post, in applauding his work, affirms that Gaylord's soldiers stand unpretentiously for the common soldiers of all wars. I am proud that one of Vermont's native sons has bestowed this gift upon all of us, especially our Nation's deserving Korean war veterans. I also ask that the text of a feature article about the Korean War Memorial that appeared on July 22, 1995, in the Washington Post be reprinted in the Congressional Record following this statement. [From the Washington Post, July 22, 1995] A March to Remember--Moving Monument to Korea Veterans Surpasses the Tortured History of Its Design (By Benjamin Forgey) When the Korean War Veterans Memorial is dedicated next Thursday--the 42nd anniversary of the armistice ending the war--veterans and their families will be celebrating an honor long overdue. They can also celebrate a work of beauty and power. Given the tortured history of the memorial's design, this seems almost a miracle. But there it is. Situated on proud symbolic turf southeast of the monument to Lincoln, in equipoise with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to Lincoln's north, the Korean memorial is a worthy addition to the national Mall. Despite some big flaws, our newest memorial is incredibly moving. And what could have been its most glaring weakness--a column of realistically sculpted soldiers in combat formation--turned out to be its major strength. Unheralded sculptor Frank Gaylord of Barre, Vt., created 19 figures that are convincing individually and as a group. It is a case of art rendering argument superfluous. There were obvious dangers in the concept of a memorial featuring a column of battle-ready soldiers. If excessively realistic, they could be off-putting. If strung out in too orderly a row, they could be deadeningly static. And yet, if inordinately animated, they could be seen as glorifying war. Indeed, in one of Gaylord's early versions, they came perilously close to doing just that. But in the end, none of this happened. Placed dynamically on a triangular field of low juniper shrubs and cast in stainless steel at a scale slightly larger than life, these gray, wary troopers unself-consciously invite the empathy of all viewers, veteran and non-veteran alike. The sculptures and triangular ``field of service'' are one of three major elements in the memorial. With an American flag at its point, the field gently ascends to a shallow, circular ``pool of remembrance'' framed by a double row of braided linden trees. There also is a memorial wall.'' Made of huge slabs of polished black granite, each etched with shadowy faces of support troops--nurses, chaplains, supply clerks, truck drivers and so on--the 164-foot wall forms a subtly dramatic background for the statues. High on the eastern end of the wall, where it juts into the pool of water, is a terse inscription. Freedom is not free. The memorial was designed by Cooper Lecky Architects of Washington--although, in an important sense, the firm acted like the leader of a collaborative team. Important contributions were made by Gaylord and Louis Nelson, the New York graphic designer of the memorial wall, and also by the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board and the reviewing agencies, especially the Commission of Fine Arts. Not to be forgotten are the four architects from Pennsylvania State University who won the design competition back in the spring of 1989--John Paul Lucas, Veronica Burns Lucas, Don Alvaro Leon and Eliza Pennypacker Oberholtzer. This team dropped out after it became apparent that its original design would have to be altered significantly to pass muster with the advisory board, reviewing agencies and others. The team sued, and lost, in federal court. Key elements of the competition design remain in the final product--particularly the central idea of a column of soldiers moving toward a goal. But the finished product is a big improvement over the initial scheme. It's smaller and more accomodating--not only was the number of soldiers cut in half (the original called for 38 figures), but also a vast open plaza was eliminated in favor of the contemplative, shaded pool. It's easier to get into and out of--the clarity of its circulation pattern is outstanding. Its landscaping is more natural--among other things, the original called for a grove of plane trees to be clipped ``torturously,'' as a symbol of war. The symbolism of the memorial is now simple and clear. Still, Cooper-Lecky and the advisory board went through many versions, and many heartbreaks, on the way to getting a design approved--and the finished memorial shows the strain of the long, contentious process. It cannot be said that this memorial possesses the artistic grandeur and solemnity of the Lincoln Memorial. It does not have the aesthetic unity of Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans wall. It is not quite so compelling a combination of the noble and the everyday as Henry Merwin Shrady's Grant Memorial at the other end of the Mall. But this is to put the new memorial in elevated company--together with the Washington Monument, these are our finest expressions of memorial art. To say that the Korean War memorial even comes close is a tribute. Without question, its worst feature is a sequence of parallel strips of polished black granite in the ``field of service.'' Unattractive and unneeded, they threaten to reduce the soldiers' advance to the metaphorical level of a football game. And on one side of the field, they end in obtrusive, triangular blocks of granite, put there to discourage visitors from walking onto the granite ribbons. The junipers may in time cover the strips--at least, one can hope--but these bumps, unfortunately, will remain bumps. The wall gets a mixed review. A clever if somewhat shameless adaptation of Maya Lin's idea--with faces rather than names etched in--it honors support troops, who always outnumber those on the front lines. It is beautifully made. The heads are real ones from photographs in Korean War archives, digitally altered so that the light source is always coming from the direction of the flag. The etching is wonderfully subtle: The faces seem to float in a reflective gray mist. The wall tugs the heartstrings, for sure, but it's also a bit obvious, a bit much. It has the feel of a superfluous theatrical trick. Fortunately, the wall does not interfere too much with the sculpture, which from the beginning has been the primary focus of this memorial, It was an extraordinary challenge, one of the great figurative commissions of the late 20th century, and Gaylord came through. To walk down from the Lincoln Memorial and catch a first, apparitional glimpse of the soldiers, as they stalk from under the tree cover, is quite a thrill. Even from a distance and from the back, the gray figures are compelling. And, as choreographed on that field, they become more compelling the closer you get until, with a certain shock, you find yourself standing almost within touching distance of the first figure: a soldier who involves you in the movement of the patrol by turning his head sharply and signaling-- Beware!--with the palm of his left hand. He is a startling, daring figure and, with his taut face and that universal gesture of caution, he announces the beginning of a tense drama. It is an old device, familiar in baroque painting and sculpture, to involve the viewer directly in the action by posture, gesture, facial expression. Gaylord adapted it masterfully here: The figures look through you or over your shoulders, enveloping the space beyond the memorial with their eyes. The air fairly crackles with the vitality of danger. The soldiers communicate tersely among themselves, too--in shouted commands or gestures and glances. The most critical contact, though, may be that first one, between the visitor and that initial soldier. His mouth is open--you can almost hear him hissing an urgent command. You slow down, and then you behold the field before you. There is fatigue and alertness everywhere you look. Each figure and each face is as charged as the next. Appropriately, the gray metal surfaces are not polished and shined. Gaylord's rough treatment of the matte surfaces adds to the nervous intensity of the piece [[Page E 1559]] It is quite a feat to give such figures such a feeling of movement--they're only walking, after all, and they're carrying heavy burdens. But Gaylord performed that feat, 19 times--he proved himself a master of contrapposto, another time-honored sculptural technique. Underneath the gray ponchos and the weight of the stuff on their backs, these figures twist from hip to shoulder and neck. Some shift dramatically, some just enough, so that the ensemble takes on an extraordinary animation. Every gesture seems perfectly calculated to reinforce the irony. These ghostly soldiers in their wind blown ponchos seem intensely real. Dedicated to the concepts of service, duty and patriotism, the new memorial stands in sharp contrast to its companion across the Reflecting Pool. But the Korean and Vietnam memorials make a complementary, not a contradictory, pair. In honoring the sacrifices of soldiers in Vietnam, Lin's great V-shaped wall invokes a cycle of life and death, and physically reaches out to the Mall's symbols of union and democracy. The Korean War Veterans Memorial is more straightforward, and speaks directly of a specific time and place. Yet it attains an unmistakable universality of its own. Gaylord's soldiers (and Marines and airmen) served in Korea, yes. But they also stand unpretentiously for the common soldiers of all wars.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment, but pending a colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], I will withhold on that amendment. Mr. Chairman, what the amendment was about was adding $429,000 to the Court of Veterans Appeals. The $429,000 was cut by the committee from the 1995 appropriation level. According to the Chief Justice of the Court of Veterans [[Page H 7908]] Appeals, this cut will kill the pro bono legal program for low income veterans, as well as further delay hearings and timely decisions on all claims appealed to the court. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] about his intentions regarding the sum of money.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman think we have a good chance to capture this money?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, is it really appropriate to be talking about another $74 billion investment for a space station when we have 5 million children in America who are hungry and this Congress is cutting back on nutrition programs and food stamps? I do not think that that is a proper or moral tradeoff. We should not be doing that. Mr. Chairman, the budget that we are dealing with now devastates programs for affordable housing. How can low-income people bring up a family when they make $6 an hour and are forced to pay 50 or 60 percent of their limited incomes for housing? How many more families, how many more children, will be made homeless as a result of this budget? That is not right. Mr. Chairman, the wealthy in our country have the resources to send their kids to the finest private schools and the finest colleges, colleges which often cost $25,000 a year or more. The working class and the middle class of this country do not have that luxury. In fact, it is harder and harder for the average American family to afford college for their kids. Mr. Chairman, how do we tell the working families of this country that we are prepared to spend tens of billions more on the space station, but we are cutting back drastically on student loans, on Pell grants, on upward bound, on the National Service Program; congressional decisions which will make it impossible for millions of American kids to afford college. Billions more for hardware in space; major cuts in education. That does not make sense. The Republican budget that we are operating under eliminates LIHEAP. Elderly people in Vermont, throughout this country, will go cold when the weather becomes 20 below zero. Mr. Chairman, $74 billion more for the space station; elderly people in America going cold. Those are wrong priorities.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the CBO scored this amendment and found it saves both budget authority and outlays. This amendment is simple: It cuts funding for the Foreign Agricultural Service by $3 million, and adds back only $2 million, $1 million to the chief economist to report on the impact of synthetic RBGH on small dairy farms, and another $1 million to the FDA to develop an RBGH level test. The remaining $1 million goes into deficit reduction. Mr. Chairman, injections of synthetic bovine growth hormone, otherwise known as RBGH, or BST, are presenting a very serious and multifaceted problem since the Monsanto Corp. introduced the product into the market last year. RBGH or BST is a new genetically engineered hormone that forces cows to produce greater than normal amounts of milk. The introduction of RBGH is having the impact of lowering farm income and threatening the very existence of the family dairy farm. Soon after the introduction of BST, the Milwaukee Sentinel reported on the ``Sea of new milk triggered in part by the introduction of bovine growth hormone.'' As milk production increases, the prices that farmers receive for their product declines. Given the reality that family dairy farmers have already seen a major drop in the real prices that they receive for their milk, the further decline of milk prices because of Monsanto's BST is an absolute disaster. The truth of the matter is that in my State of Vermont, family farmers are being driven off of the land in increasing numbers. This is happening in Wisconsin, in Minnesota, all over the America, and this is a terrible tragedy for those of us who believe in family farming. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that dairy surpluses caused by BST injections will cost farmers $1.3 billion in lost income over the next 5 years. They acknowledge that farmers are going to be receiving significantly less income. Let me tell you something, Mr. Chairman, that the loss of family farms in Vermont or Wisconsin is not only a tragedy for our States, it is a tragedy for America. It will be a very bad thing when a handful of large agribusiness corporations control the production and distribution of dairy products in this country. It will be a tragedy when all over this country we see family farmers going out of business. That is why this amendment provides the chief economist in the Department of Agriculture with $1 million to report on the economic impact of BST on the small dairy farms in America. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to support this study and vote for this amendment. The introduction of RBGH to dairy farming also results in higher Federal spending. Deficit hawks, listen up. With more milk being produced, more money is spent on purchasing the milk surplus. OMB estimates it will cost the Federal Government $500 million over the next 5 years to pay for the surplus created by the introduction of BST. Further, Mr. Chairman, the irony of all ironies is that the synthetic bovine hormone serves no useful purpose other than making Monsanto, a multibillion dollar corporation, a little bit richer. That is all that it does. If you are interested in deficit reduction, you should support this amendment that provides $1 million in direct savings and addresses this expected $500 million lost. Synthetic BGH is not just an economic issue, it is a consumer issue. Consumer polls show us that up to 90 percent of American consumers want RBGH milk labeled. They want it labeled. State labeling legislation that has been passed in Vermont and other States clearly underscores this very strong consumer support for labeling. Labels would enable consumers to support the continued existence of family farms, deficit reduction, and the humane treatment of cows. Consumers around the world are leery of RBGH. The European parliament voted unanimously to extend its ban on the import of dairy and meat products from animals which had been treated with the drug. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides $1 million to the FDA to develop a simple and inexpensive test so that we will know whether the milk coming from a cow, if that cow has been injected with BST or not. It is a very important consumer issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely untrue what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] said. This does not call for labeling on BST.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there are two main aspects to this issue. No. 1, in my view it is not inevitable that we continue to see a decline in family farms who in Vermont and throughout this country are the backbone of America. It is important that this Congress stand up and fight as hard as we can to protect those extraordinarily hard-working Americans who have given us so much. No. 2 is, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] pointed out, this is also a consumer issue. Without getting into a great debate, the time is not now to do that, consumers do have a right to know whether the dairy products they are injecting come from cows that were injected with bST or whether they do not. My friend from Illinois is not quite right, because tests, if made available, if developed, can tell us whether the milk comes from bST- injected cows or not. That is why we are providing funding to develop that test. My friend from New York also pointed out that in Europe they are concerned about the issue. They have placed a moratorium on the use of bST. So, from the point of view of saving the family farm, from the point of view of giving the consumer the right to make a choice about the product he or she ingests, let us pass this amendment. It is terribly important. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time to me.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend from Wisconsin has got it wrong, and my good friend from Illinois has got it wrong. So-called progress is not necessarily a good thing. It is the function of human beings to determine what is good and what is not good. Right now one of the reasons that family farmers all over this country are being driven off of the land is the prices that they are receiving are dropping precipitously. The reason their prices are dropping is we have too much milk. If we believe in the importance of the family farm, and I know the people in Vermont do, I know the people in Wisconsin do, and I know the people in America do, then we have a right to say, why are we using a synthetic hormone. And here is where my friend from Illinois is wrong. All of the studies that I have seen suggest that BST makes cows sicker and increases the rate of mastitis. That is not, that is an established fact by many studies. When cows get sicker, farmers are obliged to use more antibiotics. Nobody here suggested that the milk that comes from those cows is unhealthy. What we are simply saying is, what sense does it make when we already have too much milk to be supporting a product which increases milk production, which makes cows sicker, which drives family farmers off of the land? Whether we can do anything about that or not, I do now know. But at the very least, we can do two things: No. 1, $1 million for a study so my friend from Wisconsin will know what the impact of BST has been on his farmers. No. 2, a simple study developed by the FDA so we can have a test to know whether the milk comes from BST cows or does not. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. What is the issue?

Mr. SANDERS. That is why I want the study.