Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. This amendment simply provides for full and unbiased information. It provides that the CBO include an estimate of long- and short-term health care and environmental cost savings and other benefits of unfunded mandates. The bottom line is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act threatens to dismantle many laws that protect the public health and the environment. This is because State and local governments need to heed these laws just like the private sector. When we consider the merits of mandates like the Safe Drinking Water Act, OSHA, and bills regulating the disposal of medical waste, we should be aware of the costs imposed on local governments. That is absolutely appropriate. But we should also be equally aware of the cost savings, the cost savings expected from these mandates. The true cost of a bill is the direct cost imposed minus the cost savings. This amendment ensures that the CBO estimate the true cost. If this amendment is adopted, we will be less likely to discard preventative legislation that is cost effective in the long run. Prevention is much cheaper than a cure. But prevention has a short- term direct cost. If this amendment is not adopted, we will only be informed of that short-term direct cost and will not be told about the expected cost savings. Cost savings is not a small part of the equation. H.R. 5 threatens astronomical health care costs at a time when we want to save money. Today one in three of us will get cancer and, frankly, one in four of us will die of it. Over 60 different occupations are at a documented risk of cancer, including farmers, petrochemical workers, asbestos workers, plastics manufacturers, and radiation workers. Under H.R. 5 it will be much harder to respond to this expensive and debilitating health care crisis and easier for shortsighted private industries to ignore it. We need access to real costs, including the long-term medical costs that will result if we fail to respond. Lung cancer is the No. 1 cancer killer in America, yet H.R. 5 will hamstring us from imposing indoor air laws limiting tobacco smoke in workplaces and public places. The cost of imposing no-smoking areas is minuscule--minuscule in comparison to the cost of treating lung cancer. This amendment would clearly show the cost difference. H.R. 5 also threatens, in my view, unacceptable environmental contamination and extremely expensive cleanup costs. Superfund sites littering the Nation are left festering because they are so expensive to clean up. It would have been more cost effective to prevent that contamination in the first place. We cannot foresee all future environmental problems. That is one reason we cannot say that current laws do an adequate job protecting us, but the CBO estimate of environmental cost savings will help us identify those cost-effective bills. Fortunately, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to ``emergency legislation,'' but how will we know when there is a health care or an environmental emergency? The best way is to adopt this amendment which would indicate when the savings strongly outweigh the short-term direct costs and a crisis is at hand. This amendment also requires a CBO analysis of the benefits of the legislation. As I mentioned earlier, H.R. 5 could very well destroy our environmental and public safety laws. These laws not only save money, but they prevent needless deaths, pain, suffering and environmental degradation. These benefits should not be ignored. This amendment provides for a CBO estimate of the benefits to human health, welfare, the environment, and the economy. Costs should not be viewed in a vacuum. Intelligent decisions require a cost-benefit analysis. If CBO provides information on costs, which is absolutely appropriate, and benefits, we would have access to a consistent and an unbiased cost-benefit analysis.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by just saying this: The truth is there is not a heck of a lot of difference of opinion on this issue. says, provide information, information, objective information to the Members of Congress so they can assess the benefits of a particular piece of legislation. If we spend a billion dollars and we get minimal results, it is a bad piece of legislation. If we spend $1 billion and we save $5 billion, you would not disagree with me that it is a good piece of legislation. All that this amendment does is to try to make objective that process. If I present to you a bill and I say trust me this is going to save huge amounts of money, you are probably not going to trust me, you will think that I just want to get the amendment through for a dozen different reasons. But if I say, ``Hey, the objective CBO people who have done the costs associated with it have also done the benefits associated with it,'' I hope and expect that you would look at it and you would say, ``You know what, it is a good investment for a billion dollars.'' So what this does is it takes away the partisanship, it takes away the politics, and asks for an objective analysis so that all of us could make a good cost-benefit analysis. I would very much hope that my friends would support this legislation.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, I really sincerely believe this should not be a political debate for this reason: Any sensible business person invests in the future. He or she purchases, say, new machinery, new technology. If the only part of the equation that one looked at was the million dollars one invested in new technology without looking at the cost savings that are coming down the road, that would be a very poor business person. I do not think we disagree on that.

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

Mr. SANDERS. That is right. What you have proposed which makes sense is you want an objective analysis of the costs involved in a mandate. Fair enough. I agree with you. It seems to me what we want is an objective, nonpolitical analysis as best as they could do which certainly will not be perfect in terms of the benefits, as well. So that they could come forward, not in a political way, not on a 16 to 13 committee vote; they say, ``Look, if you invest $10 million, you are going to save $100 million in health care costs.'' Then you analyze that objectively as opposed to the partisanship which so often exists in committees.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the $40 billion bailout of Mexico and in very strong opposition to President Clinton's effort to circumvent the congressional process. At a time when this country has a $200 billion deficit and when Members of Congress are proposing cutbacks in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans programs, and nutritional programs for hungry children, it is absurd to put $40 billion of American taxpayers' money at risk in an unstable Mexican economy and an unstable Mexican political system. If large banks and Wall Street investment houses want to purchase Mexican bonds at high interest rates, they have every right in the world to do so. But these big money interests do not have the right to be bailed out by Government when their investments turn sour.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. The small businesses.

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is quite right. That was in the Washington Post, I believe, yesterday. It dealt with the Small Business Administration, that is correct.

Mr. SANDERS. The other irony, I think, perhaps the interesting irony in this whole affair is that I personally happen not to be a great believer in the free enterprise system for many reasons. I do respect people who take a risk and, having taken that risk, if they do well, they earn a whole lot of money. I think that is okay. But when you take a risk by definition, there is a chance that you may lose. I find it really outrageous that the people who invested in Mexico, especially after the NAFTA agreement, they invested a whole lot of money, and they expected a high rate of return. Well, things did not turn out the way they expected. That is unfortunate. But in Vermont, small businesses are having very great difficulty, family farmers, workers, having very great difficulty. And yet they do not have the U.S. Government guaranteeing their investment. What a wonderful world it is for Wall Street investors. It is heads, I win; tails, you lose. Heads, I win and get a large rate of return from my investment in Mexico or tails, you guarantee my investment. Sorry, the American taxpayer. So they make these investments. And then they come crawling into the Congress and say, gee, Congress, gee, Mr. President, we very, very wealthy people may have to lose some money. That is unacceptable. We are very wealthy. We are not supposed to lose any money. So you ordinary Americans, average taxpayers, workers who may have seen your jobs go to Mexico, we want you to bail us out. And the leadership of the Republican party and the President and Mr. Greenspan say, well, that makes sense to us. Hey, that is a good idea. We will guarantee your investments. Oh, that the average American small businessperson had that type of support behind him or her.

Mr. SANDERS. I think at this point maybe some Americans are wondering what they can do about this fiasco. I think the iron law of politics is that government will often try to get away with as much as they can until people stand up and say, sorry, you are not going to do that. So I think I would speak for you and many Members of Congress who are saying to the American people, we have enough problems at home. We have a $200 billion deficit and a $4.6 trillion national debt. We do not think it makes a lot of sense within that context to be bailing out an authoritarian and unstable government and a very shaky economy in Mexico. I would very strongly urge the American people, write to the President, write to your Members of Congress and say, wait a second. We want you to stop this $40 billion bailout. So I would hope that the American people would stand up and say, no, Mr. President, no Republican leadership, deficit. I hope we do not take this lying down. If people stand up and fight back, we can yet turn around this fiasco.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Oregon, [Mr. DeFazio], what especially distresses me, as the gentleman knows, in this last election only 38 percent of the American people bothered to vote. I think the reason for that is so many people are just shaking their heads and shaking their hands and they are saying, ``Hey, I really have no power. I have no authority.'' With this whole business, what this whole business indicates is that we can understand why people are giving up on the democratic process, because here we have, for once in a very long time, the Congress of the United States actually doing the right thing and saying no to the bailout, and yet we still cannot win. So next time when we run for reelection and we go back home, people are going to say, ``What difference does it make? You are trying to do a good job but they are going to go around you anyhow. You do not have enough power to represent ordinary people.'' I think that is a very sad thing at a time when many of us, I know the three of us, are reaching out. We want working people and we want poor people and we want the elderly to get involved in the political process. This action on the part of the President just discourages, I think, millions of people who say, ``Hey, it does not make a difference. Wall Street has made a demand and the President has succumbed to it, and it does not matter what ordinary people think about it.''

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me congratulate the gentleman from Oregon and Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Hunter for their excellent work. I find myself just a little bit nervous in agreeing with the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] with whom on many issues we do not have much in common. But the point I just heard him make is an excellent point. It frightens me to think that if the global economy means that the future of a decent standard of living of the American people rests on the prosperity of an authoritarian corrupt government in Mexico, then we are in very, very deep trouble. It also seems to me that in a time when this Congress and this President are having such a difficult job improving the standard of living of every ordinary American--today there was a piece in the paper which indicated there are about 6 million children in America under the age of 6 who are living in poverty. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Forty million Americans have no health insurance. We are losing millions of decent manufacturing jobs to Third World countries. We have enormous problems in this country, which this Congress, this President, President Clinton, and President Bush and others have been unable to solve. If we cannot resolve our own problems how in God's name are we going to be running the country of Mexico? So I would simply suggest that we leave to our Mexican friends the difficult charge that they have to run and try to improve the lives of their people and that we should try to concentrate on our own needs here. The other point that I would make is that I was at a Banking Committee hearing last week and at the meeting in pursuing the bailout for Mexico we had the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, we had the head of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan, and we had the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Rubin. My, my, my, all of these heavy hitters working night and day trying to help us bail out Mexico, and yet I look at what happens to family farmers in Vermont working 80 hours a week losing their farms; 2 million people in America who are homeless; children who are hungry. Where are the heavy hitters who are standing up and saying we have an emergency right here in the United States of America. Our standard of living is in decline, let's pay attention to that need. So I get a little bit resentful, a little bit resentful when all of this energy, all of this big money focuses on bailing out Mexico and yet the needs of the American people seem to be ignored.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] mentioned that she read in the Wall Street Journal, I gather, that not only are the vast majority of the American people in opposition to this bailout, but in Mexico City, for interesting reasons having to do with the sovereignty of the Mexican people, very strong opposition to this bailout as well. So, on one hand you have the American people in opposition. On the other hand we have the Mexican people in opposition. But probably in the Wall Street Journal, if we went to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, let me guess. The Wall Street Journal is strongly in support of the bailout, which takes us back to the scenario that took place some 14 months ago when we debated this issue of NAFTA right here on the floor of the House. And interestingly enough the proponents of this bailout are trotting out all of the same figures once again. We have all of our former Presidents who told us what a great deal NAFTA would be. They are out again. And all of the former Secretaries of the Treasury who told us what a great deal NAFTA would be, they are out again. And all of the major newspapers in America and all of the large corporations in America who told us that NAFTA would significantly improve the standard of living of Mexican workers, why they are out again telling us editorially what a good deal this bailout would be. The truth of the matter is that, and I say this, and I know you have made this point before: We are not gleeful, we are not delighted to say that we were right about NAFTA and they were wrong. We are not gleeful. But we do think it would be helpful for some of these editorial writers and the Wall Street Journal, instead of saying, ``Let us pump another $40 billion of loan guarantees into Mexico, and then maybe they may want to acknowledge that they were wrong and that maybe we want to rethink.'' And I know that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has introduced a very important piece of legislation that I know we are on which says, ``Let us break the NAFTA agreement, let us withdraw from the NAFTA agreement,'' but it really does bother me that, after misleading the American people, they are back 14 months later saying, oops, we made a little bit--they do not acknowledge that they made a mistake, but now they have proposed that we have--we put another $40 billion of loan guarantees.

Mr. SANDERS. I think the points that the gentleman is making are absolutely correct. Ostensibly we live in a democracy, and ostensibly it is the President of the United States and the House and the Senate that represent the American people, and presumably are elected to do the best that we can to represent the interests of the American people, and presumably are elected to do the best that we can to represent the interests of the American people. And one of the aspects of this whole bailout which bothers me very, very much, is that all over this country the American people know what a lemon it is. They know that with the $290 billion deficit, and with people in this body talking about cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and nutrition programs for the elderly and for the children, that it is absolutely insane to be talking about putting $40 billion of American taxpayers' money at risk in this bailout. It is not often in my view, as the only Independent in the Congress, that actually the Congress hears the needs of the American people. But guess what? On this particular instance, the Congress, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Independent, heard what the American people were concerned about and made it very clear that the U.S. Congress was not going to support the Mexican bailout. So some of us last night, we were saying hey, every once in a while we actually win a victory. It looks like we are going to win this particular fight. But lo and behold, guess what? So what if many of the vast majority of the American people do not want the bailout? So what if the vast majority of Congress does not want the bailout? I guess the Wall Street Journal, the major corporations and the major banks in America do want it. So, hey, if it is between the American people and the Congress on one hand, and the corporate world and the banks on the other hand, which way are we going to do? So what the President does, which is really disturbing, I would have been disturbed if Congress had voted for the bailout. But I could have lived with it, just as I had to live with NAFTA. But the idea that the President circumvented the Democratic process, pulled out some ancient, arcane law which ostensibly gave him the authority, is very, very disturbing. And I frankly think those of us in Congress who are concerned about this issue have got to deal with that statute and make some changes to it.

Mr. SANDERS. I think the gentleman and gentlewoman might agree that if we were talking about loan guarantees, it might be appropriate to talk about loan guarantees right here in the United States of America. Can you imagine how many decent paying jobs we could create right here at home rebuilding our economy, both the public sector and the private sector, if we had loan guarantees right here. But apparently, uplifting the poor people of America--I always get a kick, I get a kick out of hearing how good it would be for our economy if we can improve the standard of living of Mexican workers. I happen to be very strongly pro-Mexican and very concerned about the problems and the poverty that exists in Mexico, and we all want to uplift the Mexican people. But how ironic that that same argument is not used here in the United States of America. Fourteen percent of our people live in poverty. Now maybe if we invested in a jobs program, maybe if we rebuilt our cities and towns and our infrastructure and provided decent jobs for our people and uplifted them, maybe they would also be able to purchase the goods and services that right now corporate America wants to sell to Mexico. But apparently that is a very, very radical idea to suggest that we might want to uplift the poor people in America rather than the poor people in Mexico.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, in contrast with the GOP's Contract With America, we shall offer a positive legislative alternative during the first 100 days of the 104th Congress to extend a fair shake to all Americans on the Progressive Promise. Our plan shall be rooted in the principles of social and economic justice, nondiscrimination, and tolerance. It shall embody national priorities which reflect the interests and needs of all the American people, not just the wealthy and powerful. Today the Progressive Caucus in bringing to the floor for a vote our 1st in 11 alternative bills to the Republican Contract--The Fiscal Fairness Act, which allows a waiver of the balanced budget requirement in any fiscal year when the national unemployment rate exceeds 4 percent, thus sustaining our long-standing national commitment to full employment. The second bill in the Progressive Promise is The Equal Justice Before the Law Act, which is an anticrime package that retains key aspects of the anticrime legislation enacted in 1994 to prevent crime as well as punish that which happens; to crack down on white-collar Government on procurement, criminal penalties for willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in serious bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace, eliminate deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime--and on drug trafficking and abuse. The third bill in the Progressive Promise is The Corporate Responsibility Act, which cuts corporate welfare in the form of special subsidies and tax loopholes of benefit to many of America's wealthiest corporations; to require companies to internalize pollution clean-up and other costs of production instead of continuing to foist them on the American taxpayer, and to reform basic labor laws to restore collective bargaining rights and balance in employer-employee relations. The fourth bill in the Progressive Promise is Family Foundation Act, which will enable parents to get decent-paying, stable jobs in order to afford child care and health care for their families; to raise the minimum wage and index it for inflation; to strengthen child support collection; to abolish financial penalties for two-parent families; to protect the sanctity of the family and safeguard the health and well- being of all our children; and to ensure that all Americans are well fed. The fifth bill in the Progressive Promise is The American Homemakers and Caregivers Act, which target IRA's and other savings incentives on middle- and low-income Americans; special provisions to extend generous IRA options to spouses who stay home to nurture children under 6 years of age, thus recognizing the importance of parental child-rearing; to allow penalty-free IRA withdrawals for home health care, education expenses, or to start a small business; and targeted deduction for child care expenses. The sixth bill in the Progressive Promise is The National Economic Security Act, which cuts the Pentagon and CIA budgets and star wars spending in favor of shifting limited resources to meet domestic social needs and investments to strengthen the U.S. national economy. The seventh bill in the Progressive Promise is The Cradle-To-Grave Health Care Act, which require a vote on sense-of-the-Congress resolution against cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; to establish a state-based, single-payer health care plan that provides cost-effective, comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans, including long-term care and prescription drug coverage; and to stress disease prevention and health promotion in our communities. The eighth bill in the Progressive Promise is The Job Creation and Invest in America Act, which would create at least 1 million jobs in the United States in each of the next 2 years from $127.2 billion in new investment to rebuild and upgrade America's physical infrastructure and clean up the environment; to pay for these investments by closing tax loopholes for offshore production while rewarding U.S. companies that invest, produce, and create jobs in the United States; to require the wealthiest U.S. corporations and citizens to pay their fair share of taxes; and to establish a national commission to finds ways to encourage social investment of billions in pension funds to meet domestic needs in America. The ninth bill in the Progressive Promise is The Taking Back our Congress Act, which curbs influence-peddling and special-interest lobbying through tougher lobbying restrictions and campaign finance reform; to prohibit ex-members of Congress and executive branch officials from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments and companies; to improve ballot access so more Americans can run for office; and to authorize some public financing of congressional elections to make it more affordable for more candidates to run regardless of personal wealth. The tenth bill in the Progressive Promise is The Public Interest Legislature Act, which strengthens financial disclosure requirements and to prevent financial conflicts of interest in voting decisions by Members of Congress. The eleventh bill in The Export American Products, Not American Jobs Act, which eliminates or limits special tax and trade incentives and taxpayer-backed programs that reward U.S.-based multinational corporations for producing offshore; no new fast-track and trade agreements without enforceable worker rights, environmental, agricultural, and safety health standards; to prohibit importing child and forced labor products; and to reduce U.S. trade deficit by eliminating unfair trade barriers to U.S. exports.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the $40 billion Mexican bailout which is supported by President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, and other congressional leaders. Mr. Speaker, at a time when Members of Congress are proposing cutbacks in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' needs, nutrition programs for hungry children, grants and loans for middle- class college students, and the elimination of public broadcasting, I regard it as insane to put $40 billion of taxpayer money at risk through this loan guarantee project with Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we have enough problems taking care of the needs of America without trying to run Mexico. Mr. Speaker, if large banks and Wall Street investment houses want to purchase Mexican bonds at 19 percent interest rates, they have every right in the world to do so. But these great proponents of the free enterprise system who lecture us every day on the value of risk should not go running to Congress for a guarantee on their investments.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I know something about unfunded mandates and municipal government. I was the mayor of the largest city in the State of Vermont for 8 years. But I also know something about the responsibility of the Federal Government and the responsibility of the U.S. Congress to all the people in the United States. There may be some people in this Chamber and there may be State legislatures in America who are not concerned that we have millions of Americans working for starvation wages. There may be no concern on that area. But it does seem to me to be appropriate that here, in the U.S. Congress, we stand by boldly and say that if you are going to work in the United States of America, you should be working for a wage that can provide adequately for your family. A gentleman earlier talked about the earned-income tax credit. Well, you know what, I voted for that bill. But I will tell you something, I do not believe that the working people of America and the middle class through increased taxes should be subsidizing McDonald's and Burger King and other low-wage employers in America. If somebody is going to employ somebody, they should be paying a living wage and not a starvation wage, and this Congress should not put roadblocks in the way of those of us who want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Now, there may be some people here in Congress who are not concerned that in terms of worker safety we have one of the worst records in the industrialized world in terms of the number of accidents and the death that takes place for workers in America. There may be some mayors and State legislatures that are not concerned about that issue. But we are in the U.S. Congress, and our job is to make laws which protect all of the people in America, and I think we should make sure that we have the highest standards for worker safety in the world, and not put roadblocks in the way of those of us who want to protect worker safety. Several of my colleagues have already alluded to the fact that child labor exploitation is growing in America. This, colleagues, is not 1910 or 1870. We are talking about 1995 and children being exploited all over America. Some of us want to protect those children. This issue, Mr. Chairman, really comes down to what those of us believe is the proper responsibility of the U.S. Government. We understand unfunded mandates. We are against unfunded mandates, but we are not going to take away the responsibility of this Chamber to protect those people who are hurting the most, those people who are the weakest, those people who are the most vulnerable. I urge support for this very important amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Thus, if it costs States more money to enforce the same occupational safety standard, there is arguably a new unfunded mandate that can be banned. I am seriously concerned that current minimum labor standards are in serious jeopardy. I offered this amendment during the committee markup. Many of my colleagues have voted against the adoption of the amendment, said that they did not want H.R. 5 to apply to minimum labor standards. They were in agreement. I find it disingenuous that these same colleagues claims to support my amendment, yet voted against it. Let us make it clear today that we value the safety and well-being of working Americans. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments Nos. 107 and 108.