[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 23 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H728-H733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   SOCIAL SECURITY, WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH, AND PREVENTING RECIDIVISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiberi). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have been 
intrigued with some of the discussion that has taken place relative to 
Social Security and what we need to do with it. And I count myself as 
one of those who believe that our Social Security system, which was 
actually developed and generated by Democrats, a Democratic President, 
of course, undergirded much of it; and, of course, Democrats want to 
preserve and protect it.
  I am one of those who believe that at all costs we must, in fact, 
protect and preserve our Social Security system as we have known it. 
But that is not what I really came to talk about this evening. As a 
matter of fact, I have two things that I am going to discuss.


                         Women's History Month

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Last month we praised our forefathers as we 
observed President's Day, and this month is Women's History Month. And 
as it gets underway, I want to recognize some of the outstanding women; 
women who dared to be first; women who strove for equality and social 
justice; women who not only broke ceilings but shattered spheres in 
pursuit of rights that should have been inalienable at the time, and 
whose contributions continue to pave the way and continue to inspire 
others.
  Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you know I am from Chicago, a city that is 
rich in women pioneers and trailblazers in both the past and the 
present. One such woman that I would like to mention is Ida B. Wells, 
who founded the first black female suffrage club in Illinois as well as 
the first kindergarten in a black neighborhood.
  Ida B. Wells was born in 1862, was a slave for the first 6 months of 
her life, and spent the remainder of her life fighting for civil and 
economic rights for African Americans and for others. Declaring that 
one had better die fighting against injustice then die like a dog or 
rat in a trap, Wells crusaded against lynching and segregation until 
her death in 1931.
  Another outstanding Chicagoan and another outstanding pioneer in the 
suffrage movement was labor activist Sylvia Woods, who was a pioneer in 
civil rights, a woman that I got an opportunity to actually know. 
During World War II she held the union organization drive at Bendix 
Aviation. She spent much of the 1940's organizing the United Auto 
Workers Local 330 and formulating the UAB resolution against sex 
discrimination. Following the war, she assisted women who were laid off 
in Chicago and co-founded the National Alliance Against Racism.
  However, at present there are future history makers who are also 
making a tremendous impact on the lives of citizens in Chicago and 
throughout the Nation. Exemplary individuals from today include 
Reverend Addie Wyatt, Reverend Willie Taplin Barrow, Dr. Johnnie 
Coleman, and Ms. Mamie Bone, as well as a number of others.
  Reverend Addie Wyatt has the distinction of having had active 
involvement with the three major movements of the 20th century: labor, 
civil rights, and women's rights. Her leadership roles in labor were 
the international vice president of the United Food and Commercial 
Workers International Union, and she broke ground as the first female 
local union president of the United Packing House Food and Allied 
Workers and as international vice president of the Amalgamated Meat 
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America.
  One of the most eloquent spokespersons I have ever heard, Addie Wyatt 
also played a founding role in Operation Breadbasket and Operation 
PUSH, as well as her work with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., illustrates 
her commitment to civil rights.
  Her involvement in the women's movement has also generated a number 
of worthy achievements. Reverend Wyatt is a founding member of the 
National Organization of Women and in the early days was appointed by 
Eleanor Roosevelt to serve on the Labor Legislation Committee of the 
Commission on the Status of Women. During her distinguished career, she 
advised Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter and other important 
leaders on these causes.
  She and her husband, Reverend Claude Wyatt, currently serve as 
pastors emeritus of the Vernon Park Church of God in Chicago, which 
they helped to develop and which stands as a monument to their 
tremendous religious and spiritual leadership.
  Reverend Dr. Willie Taplin Barrow is the co-chair of Rainbow/PUSH 
Coalition. She is well known for breaking barriers in a male-dominated 
profession. She is an ordained minister and on the Governor's Committee 
on the Status of Women in Illinois. She is a member of the Democratic 
National Committee, is a dynamic preacher and inspirational speaker, 
and travels all over the world motivating, stimulating, activating 
people to realize their own potential for not only self-sufficiency, 
but the potential that they have to help shape and mold the society of 
which they are a part.
  Almost any Saturday morning you can encounter Reverend Barrow at 
Operation PUSH where she co-leads that organization along with its 
founders, the Reverend Jessie Jackson.
  Another fine citizen of Chicago is Reverend Dr. Johnnie Coleman, 
sometimes referred to as the first lady of the religious community. She 
is the founding minister of Christ Universal Church where 4,000 people 
go to hear her words of wisdom and healing every Sunday.

                              {time}  1645

  To her credit, Reverend Coleman has several organizations in Chicago; 
the Universal Foundation for Better Living, Incorporated, the Johnnie 
Coleman Institute, and the Johnnie Coleman Academy, as well as a book 
of teachings entitled ``Open Your Mind and Be Healed.''

[[Page H729]]

  Also, an outstanding minister is Reverend Jennie Pettis, who is the 
founder and pastor of the Family Altar Evangelistic Church. In a 
relatively short period of time, the Reverend Pettis and her 
parishioners have built a brand new edifice, which they expect to 
inhabit during the spring of this year.
  Chicago is a magnificent city, a tremendous city. I represent a 
Congressional District that is one of the most diverse in the Nation. 
It includes downtown Chicago, the Gold Coast, the Magnificent Mile, 
outstanding museums and universities, 23 hospitals, 4 medical centers, 
4 medical schools, almost anything that one can imagine. But also in 
that landscape, of course, I represent Chinatown, I represent Greek 
Town, I represent what is called Little Italy, a great Italian 
community, and I represent the Ukrainian Village.
  I also represent a large percentage of the public housing in Chicago, 
more than 68 percent; and as the chairperson of the Central Advisory 
Council, Ms. Mamie Bone fights for the residents of public housing. She 
currently serves as a member of the CHA Board of Commissioners and 
continues to champion and continues to work and advocate for the 
employment, security and safety of public housing residents.
  Other individuals who provide leadership in public housing are people 
like Deverra Beverly, who is the chairman of the local advisory council 
at the Abla Public Housing Complex. Also, Ms. Cora Moore at Cabrini-
Green, and Ms. Carolyn Willingham. Both provide tremendous leadership 
in the Cabrini-Green complex. Ms. Maner Wiley and Lorena Nellum at the 
Hilliard Homes. Ms. Gloria Williams at the Nazariah Safe Haven. Ms. 
Brenda Bolden in the Lawndale area. Ms. Cora Dillard in Robert Taylor. 
Ms. Deborah Martin and Ms. Mildred Dennis in Robert Taylor. Ms. Mary 
Baldwin at Rockwell Gardens. Ms. Francine Washington at Stateway 
Gardens. Ms. Beatrice Harris at Wentworth Gardens. And, of course, Ms. 
Shirley Hammond, who has developed a business in the Cabrini area and 
represents the senior housing on the north side of the city; and Ms. 
Martha Marshall, who represents the Senior Housing Central and has 
developed a business which is part of the business development activity 
for the area.
  The last woman that I will mention, as we talk about outstanding 
Chicago women, is one of great historical significance. Jane Addams, 
the mother of social work, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and an 
individual extolled by President Franklin Roosevelt as Chicago's most 
useful citizen.
  Jane Addams established Hull House, Chicago's first settlement house 
for the underprivileged in 1889. Hull House quickly became an 
innovative place for gathering, learning, obtaining a free meal, 
gaining employment, and even organizing union activity. She later 
became a vocal advocate for women's suffrage and humanitarian causes in 
the early 20th century and reasoned that ``civilization is a method of 
living and an attitude of equal respect for all people.''
  She held leadership positions in several key organizations throughout 
her life, including the National Progressive Party and the 
International Congress of Women. Fortunately, Jane Addams was not 
destined to always be a suffragette, never a voter. She lived until 
1931 and saw an American woman's right to vote become a reality in 
1920.
  In closing, Jane Addams also sagaciously stated that national events 
determine our ideas as much as our ideas determine national events. 
Indeed, Women's History Month is a national event which celebrates the 
ideas of our Nation and the spirit and triumph of the women's movement; 
and so it makes sense for us to stop, to pause, to realize and to 
recognize the tremendous contribution that women have made and continue 
to make in the development of this country.


                Reintegrating Ex-offenders Into Society

  I think I will shift at this time a bit, Mr. Speaker, and talk about 
an issue that I think is one of the most serious issues facing our 
country, and that is the issue of successfully reintegrating ex-
offenders back into the normalcy of society; that is, successfully 
reintegrating ex-offenders back into normal life after they have been 
incarcerated, after they have served time and are now looking for a way 
to become, one might say, normal again.
  On February 7, I introduced what is now called the Public Safety Ex-
offender Self-sufficiency Act of 2002. The Public Safety Ex-offender 
Self-sufficiency Act amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
reflect an ex-offender low-income housing credit to encourage the 
provision of housing, job training, and other essential services to ex-
offenders through a structured living environment designed to assist 
the ex-offenders in becoming self-sufficient.
  The United States Department of Justice, the National Institute of 
Justice, said in November of 2000 that in the United States, and I 
quote them, ``There are virtually no systematic, comprehensive 
approaches to dealing with reintegrating ex-offenders.'' This is a 
comprehensive legislative initiative that will address recidivism, cost 
of crime to victims, and public safety. Let us see if we can make the 
case.
  The problem of successfully reintegrating ex-offenders back into 
normal life is one of the major issues facing low-income and minority 
communities throughout the Nation. It is a serious public safety issue 
that requires serious public attention. While 5 percent of the world's 
population lives in the United States, 25 percent of the world's prison 
population are in United States' jails and prisons. Nationally, the 
United States Department of Justice reports that there are now over 2 
million people in State and Federal prisons, more than a threefold 
increase since 1980.
  This year, more than 600,000 people will leave prison and return to 
neighborhoods across the country. The problem of ex-offenders impacts 
all levels of our society. In 1998, there were 225,700 veterans held in 
the Nation's prisons and jails, 56,500 Vietnam War era veterans, and 
18,500 Persian Gulf War era veterans. The Justice Department reports 
that 20 percent of those veterans in prison or jail reported seeing 
combat duty during their military service.
  As of November 2000, 45,617 adults were incarcerated in Illinois 
prisons. During that same period, 29,120 were on parole. We have even 
looked at a study prepared by Claritas and commissioned by the Stein 
Family Foundation that 70 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 45 
in one particular Chicago community are ex-offenders. In America, the 
poor and people of color are more likely to be incarcerated. Fifty-
three percent of people warehoused in our Nation's prisons earned less 
than $10,000 a year prior to incarceration.
  Although the minority population is approximately 13 percent, 66 
percent of the Nation's prison population are people of color. Nearly 
4.6 million adult men and women were on probation or parole at the end 
of 2000, an increase of almost 70,700 during that year. While 52 
percent of those on probation have been convicted of committing a 
felony, 46 percent were convicted of misdemeanors. Of the offenders on 
parole, 97 percent had been sentenced to incarceration of more than 1 
year. According to the Soros Institute, 72 percent of those entering 
State prison for the first time were nonviolent offenders.
  Studies indicate that the median education level of released 
prisoners is 11th grade. In addition, three-fourths of those reentering 
prison have a history of substance abuse. Not surprisingly, 16 percent 
suffer from mental illness.
  According to the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice 
statistics, at the end of 2000 State prisons were operating between 
full capacity and 15 percent above capacity, while Federal prisons were 
operating at 31 percent above capacity.
  As our Nation's prison population explodes and prison operating costs 
skyrocket, little is done to prepare these adults for reentry. In fact, 
the National Institute of Justice reports that 14 States have abolished 
discretionary parole and the parole boards that historically managed 
prisoner reentry.
  There is a shortage of vocational, educational and substance abuse 
programs in prison. In fact, like States all over the country, Illinois 
recently cut the post-GED programs. According to the sentencing 
project, more than 100,000 prisoners are being released each year 
without any form of community correctional supervision.

                              {time}  1700

  The recidivism rate remains high, and studies show that a direct 
correlation between homelessness and recidivism exists. The Chicago 
Continuum of

[[Page H730]]

Care reported that 6.5 percent of respondents noted that release from 
jail was a contributing factor for homelessness. In addition, 7.1 
percent responded that release from incarceration was the primary 
factor for homelessness. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 
62 percent of those released from State prisons will be rearrested 
within 3 years, and 40 percent will be reincarcerated, including many 
for technical violation of parole.
  In 1997, the Illinois recidivism rate for African Americans exceeded 
the national norm: blacks, 48.2 percent; whites, 35.7 percent; 
Hispanics, 30.9 percent; and others, 28 percent. A staggering 36.4 
percent returned due to a new sentence. Ex-offenders that are truly 
interested in reintegrating back into community life, interested in 
finding employment and taking care of themselves and their families, 
locating housing, going to school, oftentimes have no place to go. 
There are very few second chances.
  What happens to a man or woman who cannot find an employer willing to 
give them a second chance, refused TANF benefits, cannot receive 
subsidized housing, educational or medical assistance? We have seen 
over and over again that they return to prison. We hope to convince the 
Nation that by supporting these initiatives we begin the process of, 
one, saving ourselves; two, protecting our persons and property; three, 
reducing the human and capital costs of recidivism; and, four, we begin 
to seriously impact in a positive way the quality of life for everyone.
  Neighborhoods across the Nation are absorbing the economic and social 
cost of reintegrating hundreds of thousands of ex-offenders back into 
society each year. In 1991, the Bureau of Justice reported that the 
cost of the justice system per resident was $299. In 1996, the 
Department of Justice reported that the cost of crime to victims rises 
to approximately $450 billion a year, or $1,800 per man, woman, and 
child.
  That is to say if we could find a way to seriously reduce crime, 
reduce recidivism, provide opportunities for these individuals to 
become self-sufficient, to learn a trade, develop a skill, go to 
school, get a job, then not only are we providing for them, but we are 
in reality helping all of America. According to a poll commissioned by 
the ACLU, people across the Nation are not satisfied with the current 
prison system. In addition, the poll released in July 2001 found that 
six in 10 Americans believe that it is possible to rehabilitate a 
nonviolent offender. Other key findings of the ACLU poll support 
alternative punishments for many nonviolent offenses. In addition, 69 
percent of respondents believe that prisons should be required to teach 
skills. That is, individuals ought to be able to develop to the extent 
that when they leave a correctional facility they are in better shape 
than they were when they first went in.
  As these men and women transition from incarceration to freedom, what 
they need most are comprehensive reentry solutions. What they find 
instead are often cold stares, unreturned phone calls, and closed 
doors. The jobs are like an old man's teeth, few and far apart. Housing 
is scarce, and other social services are in most cases nonexistent for 
the serious and earnest men and women desirous of working to clean up 
their act and transition into productive citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, with the implementation of this bill nationally, the 
recidivism rate just might decrease. Prevention, treatment, and 
rehabilitation are just as important as incarceration. These men, 
women, and children always must live in some communities. Increased 
public safety is a primary concern of communities and neighborhoods all 
over the country. In the Seventh Congressional District of Illinois, 
Ex-offenders Task Force representing a broad group, including 
representatives from national and local civil rights organizations, 
community-based organizations, ex-offenders, academicians, law 
enforcement officials, elected officials, community activists, faith-
based organizations, block club residents, businesses and community 
residents, are all in serious collaboration to try and find direction 
and, hopefully, solutions.
  The Public Safety Ex-Offender Self-Sufficiency Act addresses several 
serious needs and barriers this population must overcome in order to 
successfully reintegrate. Through the efforts of the task force, we 
confirmed that housing still remains a key barrier. In fact, secure and 
safe and affordable housing is a stabilizing force for the formerly 
incarcerated.
  From Los Angeles to New York and in Chicago, ex-offenders are 
deterred from a fresh start, a second chance. These men and women face 
countless legal barriers. In Chicago, for example, ex-offenders are 
prohibited from living in public housing and from working in many 
public agencies. In Illinois, ex-offenders are prohibited from working 
in 57 occupational categories without some form of waiver. Nationally, 
ex-offenders that are convicted of drug offenses after 1996 are unable 
to receive Pell Grants.

  According to a 1998 NACRO study, 13 percent of prisoners were 
homeless before their sentence, and 34 percent had lost homes because 
of prison. As a result, half the sample were therefore at risk of being 
homeless on release. The study also notes that prisoners that are 
released homeless are much more likely to offend or to reoffend. In 
addition, a housing research study, ``The Housing Needs of Ex-
Prisoners,'' identified three factors to determine whether ex-offenders 
succeeded in retaining their homes: one, the quality of family 
relationships; two, the availability of housing entitlements; three, 
current financial status.
  The study also noted that ex-offenders face other problems in 
rehousing which includes access to independent mainstream 
accommodations, arranging housing accommodations other than in hotels 
prior to release, and very few ex-prisoners agree to live in hotels or 
homeless shelters because of concern about recidivism.
  But the issues are much broader than housing alone: Federal Pell 
Grants, expungement, jobs, health care. Through our legislative 
initiative, we are looking at reintegrating ex-offenders from a 
holistic perspective, trying to address factors while acknowledging 
that affordable and available housing is an overarching need. This 
legislation will help to meet that need. But the other thing about this 
legislation is that it is cost effective. It is not designed to just 
ask the government or somebody to provide grants. It really uses the 
low-income housing tax credit system that we are all familiar with 
where States receive credits based upon population.
  In this instance we simply take the number of ex-offenders who are 
released to a particular State, and then provide credits to that State 
based upon its number of ex-offenders. Private developers will be 
encouraged to develop the housing that is needed which they must hold 
for 15 years. After 10 years, they will have recouped the money that 
they have invested so it makes good business sense, good business sense 
for the private developers who will develop the housing that is needed; 
good business sense for the communities who will have help in aiding 
their ex-offenders; and good business sense because it will help a 
category of individuals to become self-sufficient, contributing members 
of society who then will be in a position to give rather than to take, 
will be in a position to become substantial helpers, to make America 
become what America has the potential of being.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, I urge business and industry, I 
urge social workers and social scientists all to get behind this 
legislation because I believe that it could provide hope for the 
hopeless and help for the helpless.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
congratulate the gentleman for touching on an issue of enormous 
consequence that does not get the attention that it deserves, that is, 
we have in this country the largest per capita rate of incarcerated 
people; and I think the evidence as the gentleman has just indicated is 
very clear that we do not do a good job of reintegrating those people 
into society. The result is an enormous amount of pain, human 
destruction, and a great deal of expense to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, what I want to touch on, and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis) might be interested in this issue, is another issue that 
does not get a great deal of attention, and that is the increasing 
concentration of media ownership in the United States today.

[[Page H731]]

  In my view we cannot be a vibrant democracy unless the people get 
information, unless the people know what the most important issues are 
that are facing them. I fear very much that in recent years what we 
have seen is fewer and fewer large, multinational corporations own and 
control the media of this country. We are seeing huge corporations like 
General Electric, like Disney, like Rupert Murdoch's News Incorporated 
control major television networks. We have seen fewer and fewer large 
companies control radio outlets so that increasingly it is difficult 
for people in various communities to get local news because their local 
radio stations have been bought up by large national organizations.

                              {time}  1715

  We see in terms of newspapers and in magazines fewer and fewer large 
corporations controlling those as well.
  I think people are not aware of the degree of corporate ownership of 
the media in this country and the fact that recent court rulings will 
make that situation even worse and allow fewer and fewer large 
companies to own more and more of the media.
  Some of the largest media conglomerates in this country are AT&T, AOL 
Time Warner, the Liberty Media Corporation, Viacom, Walt Disney 
Corporation, the News Corporation, General Electric, Vivendi, 
Bertelsmann and Sony. And if you add together what these 10 
corporations own, one would be absolutely amazed to the degree that 
they own television, radio, newspapers, magazines, book publishing, 
movie companies and so forth.
  A concern that I have is that, given this corporate control over the 
media, the American people get relatively little discussion about some 
of the most important issues facing this country. For example, Mr. 
Speaker, I am not aware that most Americans know that the United States 
of America today is the only industrialized nation on earth that does 
not have a national health care system guaranteeing health care to all 
people and yet we spend twice as much per capita on health care than 
any other nation. Some people may think national health care is a good 
idea. Some people may think it is a bad idea. But I wonder how much 
discussion there has been on corporately controlled media or on the 
radio stations pointing out that every other industrialized nation has 
a national health care system and we do not. That is an issue that 
should be discussed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding. I would 
like to listen attentively to my friend from Vermont for just a couple 
of minutes, and then I would like to briefly, if the gentleman has 
time, respond to the question that the gentleman just posed.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, what are some of the most important issues 
facing the vast majority of the people? The President of the United 
States seems to think that the most important issue is that we give 
huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. In fact, as a 
result of recent legislation passed here, some $500 billion over a 10-
year period are going to be given in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 
percent, people with a minimum income of $375,000 a year.
  Maybe there are some districts in this country where that is the most 
important issue, but it is not the case in Vermont, I doubt it is the 
case in Chicago, and I doubt that it is the case in most districts in 
this country.
  I will tell you what some of the issues are that the American people 
are concerned about. They are concerned about health care and wondering 
why 44 million Americans do not have health care and why we are the 
only major country without a national health care program while we 
spend twice as much as any other country per capita on health care. 
They are wondering about why pensions are being cut for working people 
all over this country, health care benefits are being cut for workers 
all over this country, while the CEOs of major corporations now earn 
500 times what their workers earn.
  There are some people who may think, hey, that is a good idea. No 
problem. No problem that the United States has the most unfair 
distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world, where 
the wealthiest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent. No 
problem.
  But I just met with paralyzed veterans in this country who were in my 
office saying, why can we not put more money into the Veterans' 
Administration so we take care of the men and women who put their lives 
on the line to defend this country? Some people think that taking care 
of veterans, putting money into education, putting money into child 
care, paying off our national debt, might be more important than giving 
huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say at the outset, as far as the first question that my 
friend posed about the control that the large media has had in 
preventing people from having the opportunity to engage in a debate on 
whether or not we should have a nationalized health care system, I 
would say very clearly, my friend from Vermont and I have together 
appeared on a number of fora on television programs that are provided 
because the technological advances that have been made in this country 
due to large investments that come from those in the media providing a 
wide range of choices for the American consumer and the television 
viewer to engage in debate.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me reclaim the time from my friend. I have appeared 
on national TV programs, I am going to be on one tonight, as a matter 
of fact, but the issue of why the United States is the only country in 
the world without a national health care system has never been the 
topic of discussion on any program that I have been on and I doubt any 
program that my friend has been on.

  Mr. DREIER. Let me give my friend a little bit of advice. I have 
found, from having appeared on the different CNN and Fox News Channel 
and MSNBC programs, you can provide whatever answer to whatever 
question you have. I know that my friend who is so committed to 
bringing up the issue as to whether or not we should have a national 
health care system, that he can engage in that debate regardless of 
what question that they are posing to him.
  Mr. SANDERS. Taking my time back, my friend is right. I can probably 
get 15 seconds into the debate before a moderator jumps in.
  Let me ask my friend a question. I am glad that he is here.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could just raise one more issue before you pose 
that. That is, that we at this moment, and I know that as chairman of 
the Committee on Rules that we are not to address those who might be 
outside of this Chamber viewing it, but because of technological 
advances that have been made in this country due to investment that has 
taken place into a wide range of new and innovative and creative areas, 
we are able to have this coverage carried beyond this Chamber. I think 
that by virtue of our having a discussion right now on this issue that 
my friend raises is a very important one, that has come about because 
of the level of creativity that exists in the United States.
  I should say that it is a complete mischaracterization to say that we 
are not committed from this side of the aisle or in a bipartisan way to 
dealing with the concerns of veterans, because we have dramatically 
increased the level of funding for veterans. At the same time, the 
focus on education and health care continues to be a priority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). Respectfully, the Chair would 
remind Members that the time is controlled by the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me.
  Mr. SANDERS. I appreciate my friend from California being here. This 
is a good discussion.
  The issue that I wanted to pose is, yes, I can get on national shows 
and I occasionally do, but we have a problem. Let us talk about the 
radio for a second. I would characterize the United States as being 
kind of a centrist country, not right wing, not left wing, kind of 
centrist. In the last election, as you

[[Page H732]]

know, Gore and Nader got more votes than did Mr. Bush and Mr. Buchanan, 
by a few million votes. Kind of a centrist country.
  If you turned on talk radio today, would my friend agree with me that 
what you would hear is one extreme right winger after another right 
winger after another right winger? So that even a moderate or 
progressive voice, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I are 
probably progressives, we know that our people are not going to have a 
radio station with Rush Limbaugh and his friends out there, Gordon 
Liddy and all these other folks out there.
  But is it somehow interesting, I would think it is somehow 
interesting, that a country which is basically centrist, that one talk 
radio show after another is dominated by not right wingers but extreme 
right wingers.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.
  I would say the answer is, number one, it has to do with the market 
and the listenership. The fact is those programs would not be on were 
it not for the fact that there is a demand for that listenership. I 
would say that there are other programs that are out there that do, in 
fact, offer a perspective. I consider myself to be very progressive 
myself, I should say.
  Mr. SANDERS. You are a progressive?
  Mr. DREIER. I consider myself a progressive, yes.
  Mr. SANDERS. If you are a progressive, then I would hate to see who 
is conservative, with all due respect.
  Mr. DREIER. It all depends on the definition. But I will tell you 
that I clearly do believe that there are a wide range of opportunities 
out there for voices from any side of the issue in this country.
  Mr. SANDERS. I have suggested to you, and you do not deny it, that in 
the last election more people voted for Gore and Nader than voted for 
the President and Mr. Buchanan, suggesting that we are somewhat of a 
centrist country. You say that the reason is the market.
  Mr. DREIER. I did not say that. That is not what I said.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is exactly what you said. These stations are there. 
They are listened to by the people. But I am suggesting that it is not 
the market. The people in this country want a variety of viewpoints. 
Talk radio is predominantly extreme right wing. It is extreme right 
wing because the stations are owned by conservative multinational 
corporations.

  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, that is just a 
preposterous claim, to say that it is based on the ownership. The 
programming that has come forward and the demand for more conservative 
talk radio is in large part due to a level of frustration that the 
American people have with what is interpreted by many to be a leftward 
tilt for the control of what is called the mainstream media.
  Let me just say, I am not one of those harsh critics who says that. I 
happen to believe that we need to do everything we can to encourage a 
free-flowing debate on a wide range of issues and concerns. But I will 
say this. I know full well that the ownership of the media out there 
does not play a role in the editorial comment when it comes to the talk 
show messages that are getting out there.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, let me suggest this, that 
ownership determines who the commentators are; and so in a sense you 
cannot discount the impact of ownership on what ultimately becomes the 
direction and content. I find that people listen to those stations more 
often that they relate to. And so if they relate to the right-wing 
station, that is where they are going to go. And so if the owner hires 
a right-wing commentator, then I would have to agree with the gentleman 
from Vermont, that ownership does play a role in what ultimately gets 
on.
  Mr. DREIER. If my friend would yield on that point, I would say that 
there clearly is a leftward tilt by a lot of the ownership, then.
  I represent Los Angeles. A lot of people in southern California spend 
a great deal of time in their automobiles. I will say that I, as I know 
my friends from both Vermont and Illinois, participate on these 
programs. There are a wide range of programs that are carried by people 
who my friend from Vermont would describe as progressive or very 
liberal. I am happy to participate on those shows. I can name them for 
you in Los Angeles.
  Mr. SANDERS. There are a diversity of viewpoints. There is no 
argument about that. But I would say any objective look at what goes 
out there, say, in terms of talk radio, is that the tilt is not only 
right but extreme right.
  Mr. DREIER. I disagree.
  Mr. SANDERS. You would be hard-pressed to name national progressive 
radio talk show hosts. We could name one of the Limbaughs of the world 
ad nauseam on the right. But the bottom line is, as the gentleman from 
Illinois just indicated, when you have a multinational company like 
General Electric, what is General Electric's shtick? What do they do?
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman has asked the question, what does General 
Electric do? I am happy to tell you what they do.
  Mr. SANDERS. If I could finish, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that all time is 
controlled by the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DREIER. I suspect the gentleman from Illinois wants the gentleman 
from Vermont to continue.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. The bottom line here is that one has got to be very 
naive not to understand that companies like General Electric that spend 
millions of dollars on lobbyists here to take jobs to China, that send 
money to lower their taxes, that send money to build nuclear power 
plants, to increase military spending and so forth are not going to, 
within the confines of what they own, present that point of view and 
discourage discussion on a whole lot of other issues.
  If you are a member of a trade union in America, you make 30 percent 
more than workers who are not in a trade union. Frankly, I have never 
seen that discussion on television or radio in my life, an enormously 
important issue like that. The growing gap between the rich and the 
poor is discussed far, far too little.
  I am not going to deny that there are different points of view that 
are heard. But I think the bottom line is, no question, that corporate 
ownership of this country is growing in terms of the media and that we 
are hearing fewer and fewer points of view that represent working 
people, middle-income people and minority people.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, let me 
totally disagree with the assessment that my friend from Vermont has 
just provided. For starters, I do not think I have ever owned a share 
of stock in General Electric, and I have no idea whether I have 
received contributions from their lobbyists here. I suspect some of 
them may have contributed to my campaigns.
  But I happen to believe that companies like General Electric have 
dramatically improved the quality of life for the people in the United 
States of America, and I say that because it is very clear that 
consumer products, regardless of where they are manufactured in the 
world, that are sold here in the United States, the best quality at the 
lowest possible price, is something that is very good for the United 
States of America.
  I know that we have the most productive workers on the face of the 
Earth; and when it comes to technology, the United States of America is 
on the cutting edge, creating a wide range of new technologies. This is 
one of the reasons that I was so proud to work on behalf of Trade 
Promotion Authority, so that we can pry open new markets around the 
world which will create an opportunity for goods and services here in 
the United States to be able to move into those economies in other 
parts of the world.
  When it comes to the issue of ownership, I am convinced that with 
cable television, with the multifarious radio programs that are out 
there representing a wide range of views, and I know from having talked 
with many of the owners, they do not exercise control over much of the 
programming.

[[Page H733]]

 Some of them may be more sympathetic than some of the others; but I 
will tell you, we happen to believe that the editorial pages of the New 
York Times and Washington Post have a leftward tilt, and I think the 
success of talk radio on the conservative side is in large part a 
response, a response, to a level of frustration that many Americans 
have felt over the message that has come from the New York Times and 
the Washington Post editorial pages.
  So I happen to believe that we have some wonderful, wonderful things 
taking place in this country; and we need to do more to encourage 
creativity. And the idea of having the government clamp down, 
jeopardizing the opportunity to pursue new technologies, which it will 
take investment to do, would just plain be wrong.
  I have to go upstairs, but I thank my friend for yielding; and I very 
much appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion and look 
forward to again another free-flowing debate with hundreds of thousands 
of people following us as we talk about whether or not we should have a 
national healthcare system.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I think both gentlemen 
would, in fact, have to agree that in our country and in a democracy 
like ours, we live often by the golden rule; but we also have to 
acknowledge that whoever has got the most gold, most often makes the 
rules. And I am afraid that too much of the gold is becoming 
concentrated in too few places, which really means that corporate 
ownership is becoming too powerful; and when it does, then it makes for 
a skewed democracy or a more one-sided decision-making process, and it 
needs to be balanced off a little bit, which really means that more 
people need to become part of the ownership of America, rather than too 
few people owning too much.
  If that is the thesis that the gentleman from Vermont is promoting, 
then I would agree with him, and yield for further amplification.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I think my friend said it very, very well. 
This is a great Nation, and we have enormous things to be proud of. But 
I remain very, very concerned that fewer and fewer people own more and 
more of our economy, own more and more of our media, while, at the same 
time, the average person that the gentleman and I represent are 
working, in many cases, longer hours for lower wages just to keep their 
heads above water.
  But the point of my remarks tonight was not just to talk about the 
economy and ownership in the economy, but was to talk about the media; 
and my deep concern is that the American people are not hearing all 
points of view; that corporate ownership of the media is preventing a 
large segment of ideas which represent the thinking of many, many 
Americans from getting out there, and I think that is not good for our 
democracy.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman, and, reclaiming my 
time, I would have to agree. I would even go beyond just the media. I 
mean, one of the reasons, for example, that I am so much in favor of 
employees reaching the point where they exercise more ownership of 
where they are and where they work is because the more you spread the 
ownership, the more you open up the process; and the more open the 
process, the greater the potential for this commodity that we call 
democracy. I think that is what we are constantly striving for, a more 
democratic Nation, where more people are engaged and are part of the 
decision-making.
  I want to thank the gentleman for coming down.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend for allowing me to participate.

                          ____________________