Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Let me just pick up and agree with the gentleman. The CRS did a study on this issue: What would happen to congressional pensions if we went the direction of cash balance? Well, among other things, the Speaker of the House would not be too happy about this. His pension went down by 70 percent. So, today, I would ask the opponents of the Miller motion this question: If cash balance plans are so good for American workers, why don't we go first and adopt them here? Well, obviously, that is not going to happen. If it is not good for Members of Congress, it is not a good idea for millions of American workers. Let's support the Miller motion and stand for the rights of millions of American workers today.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Miller motion to instruct, and I commend the gentleman from California for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, the middle class in America today is under assault. Over the past 5 years, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, 6 million have lost their health insurance, and nearly 3 million manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. The Republican leadership has refused to increase the minimum wage, $5.15 an hour, which hasn't been raised in nearly a decade, and is now at a 50-year low in terms of purchasing power. And adding insult to injury, it is expected that next week we will be voting on a conference report that will allow large corporations to discriminate against their older employees by slashing their pensions up to half through cash balance pension schemes. Mr. Speaker, this motion is our only attempt to say no. Age discriminatory cash balance pension schemes are wrong. We must protect millions of employees who have seen their pensions slashed by as much as 50 percent through age-discriminatory cash balance pension schemes. That is what this motion is all about. Mr. Speaker, pension anxiety is sweeping the country. Millions of American workers who have worked at a company for 20 or 30 years, where promises have been made to them in terms of what their retirement would be, are now waking up to the fact that those promises are being reneged upon. Unfortunately, over the past two decades, large corporation after large corporation have been breaking the retirement promises they made to their employees, and that is wrong. Some companies are declaring bankruptcy so that they can break their retirement commitments. Other companies are freezing pension plans in order to slash the retirement benefits of older workers. And over 300 companies throughout this country have slashed the pensions of their employees through cash balance pension schemes, sometimes up to 50 percent. Congress must tell corporate America in no uncertain terms that when they make a promise to workers about their pensions, they must keep that promise. Mr. Speaker, last December, the House passed a so-called pension reform bill that was hundreds of pages long. Included in that bill was an obscure provision to legalize age discrimination in cash balance plans prospectively. No floor amendments were allowed to strike this provision or offer any alternatives to it. Members were forced to vote up or down on the entire bill. But the Senate did the right thing. In its bill, they provided important protections for older workers who would be negatively impacted by cash balance schemes. The Senate language is supported by the AARP, the AFL-CIO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Legislative Retirees Network, and the Pension Rights Center. Today, just like we did in April, we have an opportunity to do the right thing for American workers. We can and should instruct the conference committee to adopt the Senate language on cash balance plans. Mr. Speaker, there are some who support cash balance schemes. They argue that these plans benefit employees. Well, a couple of years ago I asked the Congressional Research Service a simple question: What would happen to Members of Congress if their pensions were converted to a cash balance scheme? If it is so good for millions of American workers, clearly it must be good for the Members of Congress. Well, shock of all shocks. Our Republican friends decided not to debate that issue on the floor of the House. And unless I am mistaken, they still do not want to convert Members' pensions to cash balance schemes, for good reason. Because if they did it, every Member would see a huge reduction in the pensions that they are looking forward to.

Mr. SANDERS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SANDERS. So overwhelmingly a bipartisan vote. Let's stand with the Senate. Let's protect American workers.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me reiterate the point Ms. Woolsey made a few moments ago. We have people who have worked for a company for 20 or 30 years. During their careers, in many instances, they had offers to move elsewhere, but they said, no, I am going to stay here because I have a good retirement plan. And suddenly, for no fault of their own, that retirement plan is being pulled out from underneath them. They had dreamed of what their retirement would be. It is no longer. And they are 50 years of age. They are 52 years of age. Where do they go?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this agreement. Unfettered free trade is one of the major reasons why in our country today the middle class is shrinking; why for 5 straight years family median income has declined, while in the last 5 years 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty; why millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. Yes, I acknowledge at a time when the CEOs of large corporations earn 400 times what their workers are making, at a time when large corporations are throwing American workers out on the street and moving to low-wage countries, yes, free trade has worked very, very well for the large multinationals. But maybe, just maybe, once in a long while, the Republican leadership might want to consider the middle class of this country, working families, lower-income people and not just the wealthiest people. Mr. Speaker, the American middle class should no longer be forced to compete against workers in China, Vietnam, and other countries where desperate people, through no fault of their own, are forced in some cases to work for wages as low as 30 cents an hour. That is not a level playing field. Throwing American workers out on the street, moving to countries where people are paid pennies an hour, is bad public policy. It has failed. One of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again. That is what this Congress does. It fails every single time. Mr. Speaker, before we vote for unfettered free trade with Oman, we should consider this. In Oman, the minimum wage ranges from absolutely zero to $1.30 an hour. The average wage in Oman is about $13,200, below the poverty line for a single mother with one child living in this country. Is that fair competition for American workers? In addition, Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from this administration and my Republican colleagues about the need to support freedom. Well, are the people in Oman free to elect their leader? What was the result in the last election? We didn't hear much about that, because they don't have elections. Oman is a hereditary monarchy. Is there freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press in Oman? No, there is not. Mr. Speaker, in the last 5 years alone, we have lost nearly 3 million decent paying manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of our total. In 1993, before NAFTA, our trade deficit was over $70 billion. Last year, after unfettered free trade, it was over $715 billion. This year it is expected to top $800 billion. The time is now to rethink our policy with regard to unfettered free trade.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this past week the Visiting Nurses Association of Chittenden and Grand Isle Counties announced that it received a generous gift of $1 million from Lois McClure. It is what we have come to expect of Mrs. McClure. She, along with her husband, J. Warren McClure, who died in April 2004, has sustained and encouraged a great variety of community-building in the State of Vermont. From support for the hungry and the homeless to the preservation of Vermont history, from concern with teenage mothers to grants to champion Lake Champlain and its heritage, Lois McClure has used her substantial resources to make Vermont a better and more caring place to live. In addition to the remarkable donation to the VNA which was recently announced, let me cite only a partial listing of the donations that Lois McClure and J. Warren McClure have given to support Vermont and Vermonters. One million dollars to the Burlington Community Land Trust, the first municipally-funded land trust in the Nation. One million dollars to the Vermont Historical Society for the study of Vermont history, and $100,000 for the Rokeby Museum which preserves that history, as does the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, also a recipient of McClure funds. And $1 million to renovate the USS Ticonderoga at the Shelburne Museum, along with generous funding to build an 88-foot working replica of a sailing canal boat, appropriately christened the Lois McClure. Two and a half million dollars to the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain to study and preserve and educate people about the lake on Vermont's western border. Education? Generous grants to Vermont's St. Michael's College, Champlain College, the Snelling Center for Government, and the UVM Bailey-Howe Library. Money for preserving our agricultural tradition to Shelburne Farms, for supporting community philanthropy for the Vermont Community Foundation, for improving health care on every level to the Vermont-New Hampshire Red Cross, generous gifts to the Vermont Respite House and to the Fletcher-Allen Hospital. And money to build community, especially focused on the needs of the elderly, children and the homeless: To establish the McClure Multigenerational Center in Burlington, to support the Chittenden Emergency Food Shelf, and to the Baird Center for Children and Families and the Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS) in Burlington. Many people work to make Vermont a special place. They tend to those in need and feed the hungry. They educate young people and secure the health of all of us. They remind us of our past and give us a firm foundation to move securely into the future. Lois McClure is just one of those many, one of the countless generous people in our state. But, always, financial support enables the work that we all do together to build and strengthen our communities. Time and again Lois McClure and her late husband have supported the efforts of those who care, and provided funds for those in need. And for that we thank her, and honor her.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 342, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the process that we are dealing with this evening is nothing less than an outrage. The idea that on an issue of this great importance those of us in the minority are not being allowed to offer a resolution of our own is an insult to the democratic process and tells us why we have to end one party government in America. The Republican resolution talks about democracy in Iraq. I am all for that. But I would also like to see some democracy on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Three and a half years ago, when we were asked to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq, I voted against that resolution, and I think history will indicate that that was the right vote. Three and a half years ago President Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was likely to attack us, and that it was necessary to wage a preemptive war against them. President Bush was wrong. Three and a half years ago, we were told that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. That was wrong. Three and a half years ago, we were shown all of those aluminum tubes which allegedly told us about a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. That was wrong. Three and a half years ago, we were told that Iraq was importing depleted uranium from Niger. That was wrong. Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a major problem for our country and the world. Unfortunately, in many respects, the war in Iraq has created more terrorists than it has stopped, and has deflected our attention away from the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Mr. Speaker, let us bring our troops home as soon as possible. Let us mount a focused campaign against terrorism with military force, with improved intelligence capabilities and with an understanding that we need to work with the entire world.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I gather many of my friends here are strong proponents of the free enterprise system. They like the idea of risk, venture taking, and I wonder why it is that when the Export-Import Bank is supposed to be the place of last resort when large oil companies like ExxonMobil are supposed to go to the banks, I wonder why ExxonMobil is not going to Citibank or other large banks to get any assistance they might need. It is beyond comprehension to me that ExxonMobil and Halliburton cannot get a loan from the private sector. Beyond belief. Furthermore, I find it unbelievable, to be honest with you, as to why the taxpayers of this country are subsidizing a state-owned industry in Mexico, PEMEX, they are a state-owned oil company, when certainly my friends over there would never think of in a million years of subsidizing a state-owned oil company in the United States of America. Here is the bottom line: historically the Ex-Im, the Export-Import Bank, has been a major provider of corporate welfare to the largest corporations in America. There are corporations that have received huge amounts of help from Export-Import and then they say, oh, thank you very much, taxpayers of America. By the way, we are shutting down plants in this country and we are moving to China. And now what we are looking at is one segment of their loans and loan guarantees to the oil industry. Thank you, taxpayers of America, for subsidizing us, and now we are going to charge you $3 for a gallon of gas while we earn record- breaking profits. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should in fact be passed unanimously. It is beyond belief; it would be beyond belief to the people of this country that there is anyone here who thinks the taxpayer money should go to the oil industry which is enjoying record-breaking profits while they rip off the American people. I would hope we have widespread support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment has wide support across the political spectrum. It has been cosponsored by Ron Paul of Texas, Mr. Hinchey of New York, Mr. Kucinich of Ohio, and has been endorsed by a number of leading national organizations, including the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Green Scissors Coalition, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. This amendment is simple and it is straightforward. At a time when this Nation has an $8.2 trillion national debt, this amendment would simply prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing corporate welfare to large oil companies for the development of oil and gas projects overseas. Mr. Chairman, in America today there are proposals coming from the White House and the leadership of this institution to cut back on health care, to cut back on Medicare, to cut back on Medicaid, to cut back on financial aid for college middle class students. And yet if we do not have enough money to take care of the middle class and their needs, working families, lower-income families, I wonder why we have billions of dollars available to provide corporate welfare for the largest oil companies in the United States of America, companies that are receiving today billions and billions of dollars in profits. It is beyond comprehension that anybody in this institution could come forward with a straight face and say that the taxpayers of America should be providing loan guarantees and subsidies to corporations like ExxonMobil, which last year earned $36 billion in profits, more profits than any corporation in the history of the world. Companies like ExxonMobil which had enough money to pay out $398 million for a retirement package for their former CEO. That the taxpayers of this country, that middle-class families, that working families should be subsidizing the largest oil companies in the world who are receiving record-breaking profits, who are paying their CEOs huge compensation packages is literally insane. We have real needs in this country. We have needs for our veterans, needs for education, needs for health care. If oil companies in America cannot make a buck today without coming for corporate welfare to the taxpayers of this country, they are never going to make a buck. Since 1996 the Export-Import Bank has given more than $7 billion in loans and loan guarantees for oil and gas projects all over this world, including $1.3 billion to ExxonMobil and nearly $2 billion to our old friends in Halliburton, another company that is obviously in desperate need of taxpayer funds. Mr. Chairman, to add insult to injury, the top recipient, and I hope you hear this, of this corporate welfare is not even an American company. It is not even a privately owned company. I didn't know that my Republican friends were so supportive of state-owned nationalized industries. I learn something new every day. But the top recipient of this corporate welfare is PEMEX, a wholly owned oil company of Mexico. Well, isn't that great that the taxpayers of America are subsidizing a wholly owned oil company of Mexico. Well, how about paying attention to some small businesses in America? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the Nation's attention, and to celebrate, the winner of this year's Deane C. Davis Outstanding Vermont Business Award, King Arthur, Flour of Norwich, Vermont. Founded in 1790, back when the Nation's President was George Washington, King Arthur is the oldest flour company in America. It is also one of the most progressive. It had three owners 215 years ago; today, it has 200. For those who work at King Arthur Flour are not just employees: They own the company. In 1996 its management began an Employee Stock Ownership Plan [ESOP]. Today, King Arthur Flour is a 100 percent employee-owned company. And King Arthur's president and CEO, Steven Voigt, is helping businesses all across the Nation follow the company's example, for Steve Voigt is chair of the ESOP Association. The ESOP Association, founded in 1978, is a national non-profit membership organization, with 18 local chapters, serving approximately 2,400 ESOPs. King Arthur Flour itself was founded in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1790 and moved its headquarters to Vermont in 1986. The company has grown since then from a regional staple to a brand known nationwide for its purity and consistent quality; from a small mail-order business with five employees in 1990 to the premier baker's resource in America with nearly 200 employees today; from a family-owned operation for five generations to a 100 percent employee-owned business. Its flour is sold in supermarkets in everyone of the Nation's 50 States. While most of America's flour makers for the retail market have seen their sales decline, King Arthur has bucked the trend: Its sales have increased 15 percent over the past decade. This should be no surprise. Employee ownership is good for business. Ten years ago, King Arthur made the move toward employee ownership. It holds quarterly owners' meetings, and its employees gather monthly in what they call ``Town Meetings'' to keep information flowing and to make sure decisions are participatory. The company's books are open. An employee-owned company can have a larger and more progressive agenda than just its core business. King Arthur's employee-owners have established a program that allows them to volunteer up to 40 hours a year to a non-profit orgnization--and get paid by the company for that time. King Arthur knows that simply making and selling healthy, non- bleached and non-bromated flour is not enough: It has been offering free bread-making classes to 12,000 people a year in 40 American cities. And it has taught over 60,000 middle school students to bake bread--and taught them about giving and sharing, by providing the students ingredients so that they can bake bread for local foodbanks. King Arthur Flour employees are worth recognizing because they show so plainly that CEOs who run companies from the top down, and who reward themselves with 431 times the amount that their average employees make, are not essential to running a corporation efficiently and well. ESOPS are soundly managed, good to work for, forward-looking, environmentally conscious. And they make a profit. So there are many reasons why, in Vermont, one of our major ESOPs, King Arthur Flour, has just been recognized by the Chamber of Commerce and Vermont Business Magazine as the outstanding business in the entire state. There is much to be learned from the model that the employees at King Arthur Flour have developed so successfully.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity today to recognize the remarkable story of Bill Carris and the company he formerly owned, Carris Reels. Carris Reels, Inc. had been a family owned company. It has been supplying wood, metal and plastic reels to the wire and cable industry for over 45 years, and it provides the most comprehensive product line of any reel manufacturer. Carris Reels has 710 employees, in 15 plants, in eight states. I said that Carris Reels was formerly owned by Bill Carris. In 1995, at a time when the company had sales of $83 million, Bill Carris decided that in the future the company should be owned by its employees. So the company began an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) by contributing about 10 percent of its stock to an ESOP. Since then, employee share of ownership has increased--and increased. This past December an issue of new shares of stock to the ESOP meant that employees owned half--50 percent--of Carris Reels. Also in December, a loan to the ESOP enabled it to buy almost a third of Bill Carris' remaining shares. That meant that, by the turn of the year 2006, 65 percent of Carris Reels was owned and controlled by the company's employees. The intention is for it to be 100 percent employee-owned within 10 years. Bill Carris strongly believes in community building and in the major role employees should play in running the business in which they work. That's why he decided on a long term plan to move his company from family to employee ownership. He hoped, and his hopes are being borne out, that in doing so he could remake the whole work situation at Carris Reels: employees would be--in fact, they are--owners responsible for charting the course of the corporation, keeping it a profitable business, and securing its long term future. Those who work at Carris Reels have moved from employees to owners, from hired workers to stewards of the company and its future. They share in the company's profits. Today, in Vermont, the Vermont Employee Ownership Center is recognizing Bill Carris and Carris Reels for taking the enormous step to majority ownership by the corporation's employees through their employee stock ownership plan. The recognition is well-deserved. I believe Bill Carris and his employees, and Carris Reels as well, can serve as a model for our Nation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5245, a bill I introduced to rename the Fair Haven, Vermont, post office in honor of Matthew Lyon, an American patriot and staunch defender of First Amendment rights. I would like to thank Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman for their help in moving this bill through the Government Reform Committee. I would also like to thank Jeffrey Schulz, the Fair Haven Town Manager, and the Fair Haven Select Board for supporting this legislation. Matthew Lyon was born in Dublin, Ireland, on July 14, 1749, and immigrated to colonial America in 1765 as an indentured servant. In 1774 he purchased land in the area of the Hampshire Grants now known as Wallingford, Vermont, and soon after joined Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys militia where he led his own unit in defending their land from competing claimants as well from British attacks from the north. In Vermont, he was involved in encouraging the formation of citizen committees across the state to discuss national and state issues, meet with their elected officials, and ensure that their government was being operated in the best interest of all citizens. In 1783, Matthew Lyon founded the town of Fair Haven. He served in the Vermont State Legislature for 14 years before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to serve as Vermont's Congressional representative from 1797-1801. Interestingly, he also represented the State of Kentucky in the U.S. House from 1803-1811. Matthew Lyon, however, is perhaps best known for being the first person to stand trial and be convicted under the 1798 Sedition Act-- sweeping legislation passed during a period when America was engaged in hostilities with France. As we're all aware, the purpose of the legislation was to curtail dissent from citizens and members of the press who opposed President John Adams' foreign policy toward France. The legislation was unquestionably a direct attack on rights explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For violating provisions of the Sedition Act, Matthew Lyon was convicted and sentenced to four months in jail, required to pay the cost of his prosecution and a fine of $1,000. His only crime was writing a letter to the editor critical of President John Adams' foreign policy toward France and submitting another person's similar writings to a local newspaper that published them. Although he was jailed, he continued to exercise his Constitutional rights by expressing his views and actively opposing the Sedition Act's anti-free speech provisions. He was even re-elected to Congress from prison in December of 1798. Eventually, the Sedition Act was allowed to sunset according to its terms and President Thomas Jefferson pardoned those still serving in prison under the Act and remitted their fines. Decades later, Congress passed a law that reimbursed Matthew Lyon's heirs and representatives for the fines he was forced to pay under the Sedition Act. This remarkable story is not only one that makes the citizens of my state proud but also represents an event of national historical significance. Too often today, we forget the struggles that many who came before us undertook to preserve freedom of speech, the press, and the right to assemble. This post office will serve as a reminder to Vermonters, the nation, and all those who visit Fair Haven, of the heroic efforts made in the past to protect the rights of all to speak freely, no matter what political viewpoint or ideas they may have. At a time when we find ourselves struggling to balance the security of our nation with the liberties we cherish, I can think of no better time to honor one of our nation's champions of the First Amendment's right of free speech. Naming the Fair Haven Post Office in honor of Matthew Lyon would be a fitting tribute to him and his fight for liberty, and would serve as a reminder of Fair Haven's connection to this great American patriot. I urge my colleagues to support this bill; to honor Matthew Lyon, a patriotic American who through his actions more than 200 years ago, reminds us of the importance of freedom of speech in our country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for almost two decades Janet Bullard has been the program manager and office manager for the Vermont Commission on Women. Her tireless and inspired work for the Commission, work done for the betterment of the conditions in which women in the State of Vermont live and for the expansion of opportunities available to women, has recently been recognized by a signal honor. On April 12 in Washington, DC, Janet Bullard was recognized by the Small Business Administration as the National Women in Business Champion of the Year. The competition for this award was nationwide. Janet first won the Vermont State award, then the New England Regional Award, and finally prevailed over a group of remarkably qualified women nationally. The SBA's award is bestowed on a person who has been an advocate for the women-owned business community, who has expanded the business and financial opportunities for women, and who has helped strengthen the role played by business owners in the community. Janet, a resident of Chelsea, Vermont, has worked for the Vermont Commission of Women for 19 years, almost half of its existence. Established in 1964 by Governor Phil Hoff, the Commission has been an advocate for women and their rights and opportunities for 42 years. It consistently, and with great success, has been the primary advocate in the State of Vermont for the economic, social and political equality of women. Janet Bullard has championed the rights of women, opened new doors for women, helped bring women together so that they can learn and strategize and about how to succeed in an economic world formerly dominated almost exclusively by men. And her involvement is concrete and financial as well: she has helped women get loans so they can establish businesses. In addition, for the last 10 years she has also worked to get funding for Vermont domestic violence and sexual assault programs. Society changes more through dedicated work than through speeches, more by enduring commitments than by public appearances. For 19 years, Janet Bullard has worked tirelessly--a labor of love--to improve the status and business opportunities of women in the State of Vermont. Her dedication, and her remarkable ability to get things done, has left its mark on generations of women in our State. I want to call particular attention to her work with Vermont's community action agencies, her unceasing effort to develop ways to help women start businesses with the aid of micro-loans. She has helped, time and again, leverage State and independent organization funds, and Federal funds, to help women--and especially low-income women--get a start in business. Here is how Wendy Love, Executive Director of the Vermont Commission on Women described Janet's work the other day: ``Janet has an outstanding history with the Commission for almost 20 years, and has shown great dedication to the Commission and to helping women. She has really been a major voice for women's economic opportunity in Vermont. Every time we talk about doing something, she is five steps ahead. Janet has been a glue, helping bind together the folks who work at the community action agencies in micro-business development, and the people who work for the Federal Government at the Small Business Development Center.'' We in Vermont are delighted with the honor bestowed upon Janet Bullard: It is richly deserved.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to provide $1.5 million in Federal funding for a revival of the National Agri-Tourism Initiative under the USDA Rural Community Advancement Program. Mr. Chairman, I do not have to explain to anybody in this room that family farmers all over this country are in desperate condition. Commodity prices are extremely low, and we are seeing the loss of thousands and thousands of family farmers and the way of life that many rural communities in Vermont and throughout this country have known. What this amendment does is pretty simple. What it says is that in many States like mine, people come to rural areas because they enjoy the beauty, the incredible beauty that farmers help create.

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

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman very much. I will be very brief. Just to say that I think we can all agree that we want to help family farmers increase their cash flow, and one of the ways we can do that is enable them to come up with ideas that will bring tourists to their farms, and that is what this amendment is about. It has worked well in Vermont up to now. I think it can work well all over the country. I thank the chairman very much for his support and Ms. DeLauro as well. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to provide $1.5 million in Federal funding for a revival of the national agri-tourism initiative under the USDA Rural Community Advancement Program. This program received $1 million in the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. The House provided $2 million in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture appropriations bill, but unfortunately this funding was stripped in conference, and this program hasn't received funding since. Mr. Chairman, it is time to bring this program back to life. Family farmers today need all of the help that they can get if they are going to stay in business, and agri-tourism is one way to help them. Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that in Vermont and throughout rural America we preserve family owned farms and maintain strong rural economies. As family farmers struggle to survive, it is important that we develop new sources of revenue for them. Reviving the national agri- tourism program will help family farmers increase their incomes. From creating advertising campaigns and working more closely with the tourism industry, to developing farmers' markets, food festivals, bed and breakfasts and farm tours, such programs have great potential for increasing the incomes of family farmers. Mr. Chairman, family farmers throughout this country deserve more revenue from tourism than they are currently receiving. Many tourists come to rural America because of the beautiful agricultural landscape. Unfortunately, however, family farmers receive relatively little direct revenue from that tourism. This program will help put more tourists' dollars into the hands of our farmers and that is very important. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would help farmers with the knowledge, networks, markets and loans critical to starting-up farm-based businesses that take advantage of the tourism dollars coming into their States. Let me give you some examples of what agri-tourism is all about and why we need additional help for family farmers to get involved in this growing enterprise. Family farmers throughout this country are converting their guest rooms to small bed and breakfast operations, and are making a few bucks in doing that. To be successful, they might need a loan to convert a room into a bed and breakfast, and they might need some help in learning how to market their enterprise. Farmers are now encouraging tour buses to stop by and to learn what family agriculture is about. In order to be successful, they might need a loan or a small grant to build a restroom or a parking facility. Farmers might want to build snowmobile trails through their fields in the wintertime. It costs a little bit of money to do that and advertise what you have. A farm family that grows apples might want to add value to their product and bake apple pies, and they might need some help in buying a large enough oven to do that and to get started in a small business venture. The list goes on and on. But family farmers all over this country, who desperately want to stay on the land, increasingly are trying to take advantage of the tourism that comes into their region. Family farmers all across America desperately need the kind of funding that this agri-tourism initiative would provide. The agri- tourism initiative can mean the difference between another family farm going out of business or finding a way to thrive. To put it simply, agri-tourism funding is about saving family farms. Without this kind of funding America will lose its family farms, agriculture will cease to be competitive and consumers will pay the price of shortsighted government policies. Mr. Chairman, family farmers deserve the support of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to stand up for America's family farmers and support this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the majority and the minority because my understanding is they have accepted this amendment, and I appreciate that very much. The legislative intent of this amendment is to increase the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's EnergyStar Program in K-12 school systems by $1.8 million offset by a reduction in administrative expenses for the Department of the Interior. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's 17,450 school districts are facing serious problems. Their budgets are threadbare, and most can barely pay their teachers a living wage. To make matters worse, America's school buildings are aging. The average age is over 42 years, and the vast majority could greatly benefit from energy saving improvements. According to the EPA, energy costs represent a typical school district's second largest operating expense after salaries, more than the cost of computers and textbooks combined. Amazingly, in a typical school, one-third of the energy used goes to waste, largely due to old and poorly functioning equipment, poor insulation, and outdated technology. Unfortunately, school administrators are often hard pressed to allocate any of their limited funds toward improving the energy efficiency of their buildings and systems, even when it is clear that such improvements would save them substantial sums of money that could help pay for their other needs. Fortunately, the EPA has an energy conservation program that can help these schools do just that: to implement energy-saving strategies that save money, help children learn about energy, and create improved teaching and learning environments. The EPA's EnergyStar Program, in its partnership with America's K through 12 school districts, is committed to building a new national infrastructure of schools that are smart about every aspect of energy. In addition to helping school districts save up to 30 percent on their energy bills each year, energy efficiency prevents greenhouse gas emissions and improves the students' learning environment. Schools that are well lit, well ventilated, and in good repair create a healthy, comfortable learning and teaching environment. A better physical environment is among the many factors that have been demonstrated to contribute to increased learning and productivity in the classroom, which in turn affects performance and achievement. Right now, more than 200 school districts across the country are partnering with EnergyStar. But for a Nation whose schools spend $5 billion annually on energy, there is obviously a lot of work to do. Of the 11,000 school buildings that have been rated, only 16 percent of the Nation's total school building inventory, only 530 schools have earned an EnergyStar rating by achieving a score of 75 or higher, a score that means that they use about 40 percent less energy than average buildings. Fortunately, the EPA is now working with partners such as the National School Boards Association, the National Parent-Teacher Association, and the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council to collaboratively improve the energy efficiency and the indoor environments of many more of our Nation's K through 12 schools. These efforts are helping school districts to save big on utility bills and maintenance costs, in turn freeing up funds to pay for books, computers and teachers, and to improve indoor air quality and comfort. These efforts deserve our support. In short, Mr. Chairman, the EnergyStar Program helps our Nation's schools to implement energy saving strategies that save money, help children learn about energy and create improved teaching and learning environments. This amendment would add $1,800,000 to this important work in our Nation's K through 12 school systems. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, how does my friend feel about a tax bill, the one that the President is signing, which will give $43,000 in tax breaks to millionaires and a $10 a year tax cut to people making $50,000 a year or less? Does my friend think that that is a fair proposal?