Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], and the other Members who have risen in opposition to this amendment. But in all due respect, what this amendment is about is one very, very simple fact. That is, whether the Members of the House of Representatives will exercise their constitutional responsibility and vote on issues of enormous consequence to the people of this country. It makes no sense that we debate endlessly on $1 million appropriations, and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility of debating and voting on legislation and on an appropriation that could cost the taxpayers of this country $20 billion. What this amendment is about is that when we go home, we will tell our constituents that we have the guts to deal with the tough issues; we will have the guts to say that if another bailout is requested, we vote it yes or we vote it no, but we did not duck the issue. So for all of those people in the House who think that we have got to stand up and be counted, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 7219]] Mr. Chairman, the speech from the gentleman from Texas was very moving and interesting but totally irrelevant to what we are talking about right now. I bitterly resent the gentleman's suggestion that anyone here is Mexico bashing. The issue is whether the taxpayers of the United States were put at risk $20 billion without one word of discussion or one vote on the floor of the House. If the gentleman disagrees with me, then he should participate in that debate on the floor of the House. Maybe he will win. Maybe he will not. But that is the way democracy works and that is what the Constitution mandates. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we have a problem. We absolutely gave the amendment that was here to the Clerk.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the point of order offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the following reason. Originally what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] had intended to do was to put the money into the weatherization program. That is what we all wanted to do. However, in fact, because the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] placed $3.5 million more into that program, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] made a point of order that any more money going into that program would be out of order. What the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is doing is attempting to put $50 million into a fund for the State Energy Conservation Program, which has not been amended. So I would argue very strongly that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is incorrect that this is a fund that has not been amended, and that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is in fact in order. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to withdraw this amendment and announce my support for another amendment to follow. I would respectfully request unanimous consent to have 5 minutes to explain my position.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, what I, and in a few moments the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], are attempting to do is something that is extremely important and that is to transfer $50 million into the low- income weatherization assistance program. I have proposed taking money from the Fossil Energy Research Fund. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] has another fund. But what is most important is that we replenish the fund that has been severely cut. Without this amendment, the bill provides for only half of the weatherization funds that were provided for last year. That is a cut of more than $100 million. What I am attempting to do, and what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is attempting to do, is to restore $50 million to that fund. Mr. Chairman, the low-income weatherization assistance program is an enormously sensible and cost-effective partnership between the Federal Government and local and State governments. What weatherization does in Vermont, and in every state in America, is prevent the waste of energy, whether that energy is oil, gas, electric, or whatever. It is enormously inefficient for low-income people all over this country to waste fuel because their homes or apartments lack adequate insulation, windows, or efficient heating or cooling systems. The Department of Energy reports that this program has a favorable benefit-cost ratio of 1 to 1.61. That is, for every $1 we invest in weatherization, we get $1.61 in energy savings and economic benefits. Clearly, if we are interested in saving money, that is not the program to cut. Mr. Chairman, we should be clear that this is a program that works well, not only in northern States but in every State in America. It is a national program that provides for the cold weather States and the warm weather States as well. Weatherization assistance is a prime example of a successful Federal- State-community partnership. Each year, State and local resources leverage an additional $200 million for weatherization, doubling the core Federal funds.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, all over this country we have elderly people who must in their homes, in order to survive, prevent their homes from becoming very, very cold or in fact very, very warm. The Chairman is aware that today on the front page of the Washington Post was an article about the suffering of so many people whose homes have overheated and, in fact, 200 deaths have occurred. Mr. Chairman, I will ask for support of the Fox amendment, which will follow. This is a humane amendment and a cost-effective amendment. It makes no sense to waste energy and to increase human suffering.

Mr. SANDERS. No, Mr. Chairman, I am finished.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose this amendment. We spend less than any other country in the world on the humanities. We should continue to fund it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple, and I want to move it quickly. It transfers $2 million from the salary and expenses of the Department of the Interior into the Council for Historic Preservation. This is a relatively small sum of money, but it is extremely important for historic preservation. Without this amendment, the bill provides for the elimination of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. This amendment saves the Council and funds it at the level requested by the Clinton administration. The Council plays an essential role in historic preservation when the Federal Government's actions, like plans to build a highway, threaten historic preservation. When the Federal Government's actions, like plans to build a highway, threaten historic properties, there is a consultation procedure that promotes input from the local community preservation interests and private property interests. Without the Advisory Council, special interests would have too great a voice in the process. The Council is extremely important, because many federally funded projects have a potentially devastating impact on our historical and cultural resources. Thanks to the Advisory Council, historical landmarks throughout the Nation have been rehabilitated rather than replaced. But today, Federal projects threaten many sensitive historic buildings and districts. Those communities have a right to be heard, and that is what this amendment is all about. This is an issue of balance. Special interests with goals that are inconsistent with historic preservation already have a significant advantage. They have the political clout to lobby the Federal Government and trample on local community interests. We need to continue allowing the communities to have a voice, and that is what this amendment is about. Mr. Chairman, everyone benefits from historic preservation. In a rapidly changing world, it is imperative for our children to understand their roots, how their communities evolved, and where they came from. What this amendment does is transfer $2 million from the bureaucracy into a council that has historically done an excellent job, and I would urge the support of my colleagues for this.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the rule that we have before us could very well begin the process of ending the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I [[Page H 6926]] stand in complete opposition to the rule and to the bill. Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities straight and let us try to understand what this country is supposed to stand for. Art and culture are a vital part of human existence. The opportunity to enjoy the arts, to enjoy culture, must be open to all of our people, and not just those who can afford $100 for a concert ticket. Mr. Speaker, the United States spends only 64 cents per person to support the arts endowment, 64 cents, 50 times less than our major allies. In contrast, we spend over $1,000 per person on the military, far more than our allies. Why is it that this Congress can lower taxes on the wealthiest people in America, do away with taxes for the largest corporations in America, but eliminate programs which bring art and culture into classrooms in the State of Vermont and all over this country? Why is it that this Congress can pour billions of dollars more into B-2 bombers that the Pentagon tells us that do not need, but we cut back on funding for symphony orchestras and threater groups all over America? Mr. Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that one B-2 bomber costs $1.5 billion, 10 times the entire allocation for the National Endowment for the Arts. The entire endowment is 10 percent of one B-2 bomber, a B-2 bomber that the Pentagon tells us they do not need. Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities? Let us speak up for the kids in this country. Let us speak up for all of the people who appreciate the arts, who appreciate culture. Let us defeat this rule.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 38.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I am going to be withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be withdrawing this amendment, which would reduce by $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1996 funding for the nuclear weapons activities of the U.S. Department of Energy. Instead, I will be offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations bill, which in fact will take a bigger bite out of wasteful Federal spending for unneeded unclear weaponry. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is absurd for this country to keep producing and deploying huge amounts of nuclear weaponry, and ignore the fact that the cold war is over. This mindless spending costs the American taxpayer over $30 billion a year. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this country has many, many problems. We have people sleeping out on the street; we have children who are hungry; we have elderly people who cannot afford their prescription drugs; we have millions of middle-class families who cannot afford to send their kids to college; we have 30 million people who cannot afford health insurance. We have many problems, but one problem we do not have is a lack of nuclear weaponry. It may be of esoteric interest to some scientists as to how many times over we can destroy humanity, whether it is 100 times over or 50 times over, through the use of nuclear weapons. That may be of interest to some people, but it really is not one of the pressing problems that this country has right now. The cold war is over. We should not be spending $30 billion a year on nuclear weaponry, $300 billion a year over a 10-year period. Mr. Chairman, we have some 20,000 nuclear warheads in our Nation's arsenal. That seems to me to be enough. Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing this amendment today but will be bringing it back in a more appropriate fashion through the Department of Defense appropriation. I believe very strongly that we must get our priorities right. We do not need more money on nuclear weaponry when we are cutting program after program that tens of millions of middle- income and working-class Americans depend upon. I look forward to the support of my colleagues when this amendment resurfaces in the Department of Defense appropriation. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.