Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his presentation, but when you talk about who is paying what in income tax, you are forgetting a very important part of the equation, and that is who is making what in income. As the gentleman knows, or should know, in the United States today we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on Earth. The gentleman knows, or should know, that the wealthiest 1 percent in America own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. And the gentleman should know that the wealthiest 13,000 families earn more income than do the bottom 20 million families. So when the gentleman said, my goodness, look at how much the wealthy are paying, those are the people, and in many cases, the only people who are seeing an increase in their income. The gentleman knows that family household income is stagnant, that working people are working longer hours for lower wages because the jobs that are being created by and large in this country are low wage jobs.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and also strong opposition to the budget resolution that we will be dealing with later this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that we will be debating is wrong and very bad public policy for at least three reasons: First, it is grossly unfair at a time when the middle class is shrinking, when the incomes of ordinary people are not keeping up with inflation, at a time when under President Bush 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, and at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good, it is wrong, wrong, to continue to give tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America. They do not need it. Frankly, Mr. Lee Raymond, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who received a $398 million retirement package, can survive. He will just about make it okay, trust me, without another Republican tax break. Secondly, while the middle class is struggling, it is just plain wrong, as Mr. McGovern has just indicated, to cut back a desperately needed program. At a time when the cost of college education is soaring, when middle-class families are finding it harder and harder to afford a college education for their kids, how do we cut back on financial aid for college education at the same time as we give tax breaks for billionaires? That is wrong. Everybody knows that the Veterans Administration is undergoing enormous financial stress. There are waiting lines for veterans in the State of Vermont, all over this country. 17,000 American soldiers have been wounded in Iraq. More and more are coming back with post-traumatic stress disorder. At a time when the VA is already underfunded, we cannot cut back on the needs of our veterans. Thirdly, thirdly, we presently have a $8.3 trillion national debt, a heck of a legacy to be leaving to our kids and our grandchildren. This budget resolution will increase the national debt. This is bad public policy. This martial law rule should be defeated and the budget resolution should be defeated.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, Vermont has lost one of its finest, most ethical and courageous residents. The Reverend William Sloan Coffin, Jr., who lived in Strattford, Vermont, has died at the age of 81. When the Civil Rights Movement began, when a brave coalition of black and white Americans brought the attention of the Nation to the injustice of segregation, Rev. Coffin was there, standing up for what was right. He was a Freedom Rider in Montgomery, Alabama in the early years of the Civil Rights struggle, and was arrested there in 1961. He was arrested in Baltimore two years later in an anti-segregation protest and again a year later in St. Augustine, Florida as he tried to integrate a lunch counter. He was one of those who, in the phrase of the day, ``put their bodies on the line'' to bring about a more equitable and just America. When the United States entered Vietnam, and the war escalated, Rev. Coffin was an articulate voice for peace. As Chaplain at Yale University, he offered the chapel as a sanctuary for those who refused to serve in Vietnam. He delivered the draft cards of antiwar protesters to the Justice Department in an effort to mount a legal challenge to the draft. Instead, the government challenged him, arresting Rev. Coffin, Dr. Benjamin Spock and three others for counseling draft evasion. He was convicted but the verdict was subsequently overturned by an appellate court. In his years at Yale and later at Riverside Church in New York, his was an eloquent voice for the disadvantaged and disinherited in America. He showed great courage in questioning the ethics of America's military decisions and unstintingly opposed the nuclear arms race. He was a foremost proponent of nuclear disarmament, calling for a nuclear freeze. He opposed both the Persian Gulf War in 1991 under first President Bush, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the current President Bush. William Sloan Coffin, Jr. was a man of strong and passionate views. Needless to say, not everyone agreed with all of his positions. But whoever knew him--and I count myself fortunate to be among them-- recognized his courage, his dedication to ethical reasoning, and his profound commitment to social justice. He served as a model of the engaged intellectual to generations of students and to countless Americans. The Nation will miss him, Vermont will miss him, and I will miss his strength and passion for justice.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill that would name the United States Post Office in Fair Haven, Vermont, in honor of Matthew Lyon, one of our nation's early defenders of the First Amendment, a former member of the Vermont House of Representatives, and Vermont's fourth Representative to the United States Congress. Matthew Lyon is also recognized as the founder of Fair Haven, Vermont. Matthew Lyon plays an important role in the history of our country. He was the first person to be tried and convicted under the repressive 1798 Sedition Act. The Sedition Act was sweeping legislation passed during a period when America was engaged in hostilities with France. The purpose of the legislation was to punish Americans who opposed President John Adams' foreign policy toward France. This legislation was unquestionably a direct attack on rights explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Matthew Lyon's only crime was writing a letter to the editor critical of President Adams' foreign policy towards France and submitting another person's similar writings to a local newspaper that published them. Solely for expressing his views and exercising his First Amendment rights, Matthew Lyon was sentenced to four months in jail, required to pay the cost of his prosecution, and fined $1,000. He was, however, subsequently pardoned by President Thomas Jefferson. 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 look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee to move this bill through committee and onto the House Floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Northshire Books, honored as this year's Bookseller of The Year. The selection and award was made by Publisher's Weekly. Northshire Books is located in the small town of Manchester, Vermont. Owned by Ed and Barbara Morrow, it is a wonderful example of a locally- owned bookstore. It boasts a handsome environment for browsing books and a huge selection of titles. The selection it carries is not chosen by corporate giants seeking maximum sales, or by a central office following national trends. Quite the contrary, Northshire's wonderful inventory of books is the result of the informed knowledge of its staff: people who read and value books. Northshire Books regularly presents readings by authors, allowing it to serve as a rich cultural resource for all of southwestern Vermont. It introduces young people to reading, through its fine children's section, and ``Story times'' for young readers. Vermont authors value this wonderful store. ``Northshire is everything one could want in a bookstore,'' said Vermont novelist Chris Bohjalian. ``It's a huge gift to the state.'' And best-selling novelist John Irving agreed: ``What's remarkable about the quality and range of the Northshire Bookstore is that Manchester isn't a college town, or even a very big town, yet the store is both broad and deep--it is literary, friendly to children, and welcoming to tourists. I love the place.'' Novelist Howard Frank Mosher said, ``Every time I walk through there, the first thing I see is a dozen or so of my favorite contemporary novels and non-fiction books. He continued, ``Then, the booksellers that the Morrows have hired over the years are, I think, the most knowledgeable booksellers I've ever met. They've actually read the books they sell and know an enormous amount about them.'' Northshire has not been purely commercial. In 2003 its owners sponsored ``Cry Out: Poets Protest the War,'' a collection of the anti- war poems were read by eleven renowned poets, including Galway Kinnell, Grace Paley and Jamaica Kincaid, to an overflow crowd of 500 in Manchester's First Congregational Church. That event was announced after the White House canceled a poetry reading out of a fear that poems critical of the war in Iraq might be read. The poems read were subsequently published by Braziller. And when the Patriot Act eliminated reader privacy--making it easy for investigators to check bookstore purchases without judicial oversight--Northshire actively opposed the law with American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. As a result, a petition with 185,000 signatures was sent to Congress, asking that it restore protections for reader privacy which were eliminated by Section 215 of the act. Small, local business is the heart of the American economy. Local bookstores are, and have been ever since the times of Benjamin Franklin (a bookshop owner), a center of American learning. Congratulations to Northshire bookstore, to owners Ed and Barbara Morrow, to its manager Chris Morrow, to its staff, and to its dedicated and supportive patrons.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the middle class of this country is being assaulted in so many ways. Millions of Americans are working longer hours for low wages. In the last 5 years, 6 million Americans have lost their health care. We have lost 2.8 million good-paying manufacturing jobs. New jobs being created are low wage and low benefits. But of all of the attacks taking place on the middle class, I think the most unspeakable is the assault by corporate America against the pensions that were promised to American workers. Just think about it. There are millions of people today who have worked for a company for 20 or 30 years, and one of the reasons they worked for that company is that they were promised that when they retire, they are going to have a certain pension. And then suddenly out of nowhere a company says thank you for working for us for 30 years, thank you for not going to another company when you had a better opportunity, but we have changed our mind and we are going to cut your pension by 20, 30, 50 percent. It is too bad you are 60 years of age and you have no place else to go, that is the reality. That is unspeakable, it is unacceptable. When those workers have no place else to turn to, it is the job of the United States Congress to stand up for them. 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, pension anxiety is sweeping this country. Millions of Americans are worried that the pensions they have today will not be there for them when they retire, and with good reason. Over the past two decades, large corporations have been breaking the retirement promises they made to their employees, and that is wrong. Some companies are declaring bankruptcy for the sole purpose of breaking those retirement commitments. Other companies are freezing pension plans in order to slash retirement benefits of older workers. 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. That is what Mr. Miller's motion is all about. 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 their 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, unlike last December, 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, interestingly, a couple of years ago I asked the Congressional Research Service a simple question: What would happen if Members of Congress had their pensions converted to cash balances? If it is a good idea for millions of American workers, it must be a good idea for us, right? We want to lead. Well, guess what, very few Members of Congress thought it was a good idea for this institution. So if it is not good for the Members of Congress, I think it is not good for the American working people, and I urge strong support for the Miller amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important debate. I want to begin by expressing my disappointment that this bill is being considered as a suspension along with the naming of post offices. Well, you know what, this is not a post-office-naming bill. This is a bill that deals with constitutional rights. It is an issue about which seven States in this country have raised concerns, as have hundreds of municipalities from one end of America to the other. This is a bill that should allow for amendments and serious debate and not be considered simply as a suspension. Madam Speaker, many Americans are wondering how it could be that in terms of national security, our President believes that it is okay for a foreign government with terrorist ties to run major ports in America; that that is okay. But when some of us say that maybe kids or just ordinary American citizens should be allowed to read the books that they want in libraries without being investigated by government agents, without any evidence that they are engaged in terrorist activities or have any ties to terrorism, that we cannot protect. Madam Speaker, there is growing concern in this country with regard to the state of our civil liberties and our constitutional rights. Whether it is the President of the United States engaging, through the NSA, in illegal wiretaps without court orders, or the widespread use of national security letters, millions of Americans, whether they are progressives, whether they are conservatives or in between, are very concerned about Big Brother investigating the private lives, the private reading habits of ordinary Americans. Madam Speaker, in June of 2005, I offered an amendment that passed with a very strong bipartisan vote, which said that libraries and book stores should be exempt from section 215, that it is wrong for the government to be able to access the reading records or the book purchases of innocent Americans unless they can establish that those individuals have ties with terrorism. All of us want our government to be vigorous in protecting the American people against terrorism. But we want to do that in a way that does not undermine the constitutional rights of the American people. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership took that amendment, which passed with strong bipartisan support, and they tossed it out. They rejected the will of a vast majority of the Members of the House of Representatives and did not incorporate that language into the final bill. Madam Speaker, this is an issue of huge consequence. Fighting terrorism is an enormously important issue, but we can and must do it without undermining the constitutional rights of the American people.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak today about an extraordinary achievement by the teachers, administration and students of a small school in Vermont. The Robinson Elementary School of Starksboro was one of five schools in the Nation chosen to receive this year's ``Creative Ticket National Schools of Distinction Award.'' The Creative Ticket School Awards provides national recognition ``of the role individual schools play in providing a creative learning environment for outstanding student achievement'' by recognizing ``schools that have developed exemplary arts education programs.'' The arts are a vital part of education, by connecting us through words and images and sounds to our past, by connecting us to one another in a vibrant human community, and by helping us to imagine a future where none are isolated or lonely or without hope. The wonderful work done at Robinson Elementary School is testimony that the arts are alive and flourishing--not just in, but especially, in the small towns of Vermont. And most especially, in Starksboro, a town of just under 2,000 residents. This award is testimony to the inspired teaching which takes place at Robinson Elementary School, where art, drama, music and writing are integrated into the school curriculum. In particular, let me single out Vera Ryersbach, the art teacher at Robinson Elementary. And of course I want to single out the students, for schools exist for their students, and the success of any program is measured by how hard and eagerly students pursue their studies. Twenty-five of the students at the 142-student school will be going to the Kennedy Center to perform on the Millennium Stage this coming March. But before that, there will be a community dance celebration in Starksboro, so all the students and community members can share in this great achievement. Congratulations, too, to Robinson's principal Dan Noel, and to the supporting group for this endeavor, the Vermont Alliance for Arts Education and Anne Tyler, VAAE's executive director, and Elizabeth Miller, VAAE chair.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend a group of young people in Vermont who have done a wonderful thing, worth bringing to the attention of my colleagues in the Congress and the American people. A group of students in the Sunday School of the United Church in Lincoln, Vermont, have raised over $5,000 dollars for Heifer International. Lincoln is a beautiful community in the Green Mountains of Vermont, but it is not a large community, so a fundraising effort of this magnitude, for the benefit of a rural village in an underdeveloped country is testimony to how much the youth of America care about the world. This project began with conversations about world hunger. Students, as young as 3 and as old as 14, decided that raising money for Heifer International would be a good way to address, positively, the issue of world hunger. Many people are trapped by poverty, underdevelopment, and the impossibility of finding the resources they need for self-improvement. Heifer International believes in self-help: if human beings are given the tools they need, they can improve their lives. So Heifer International provides livestock, education in agriculture, and small business counseling, so individuals and entire communities get a hand up instead of a handout. Over the course of 18 months the kids of the United Church Sunday School made countless cow-shaped cookies and holiday ornaments and sold them for a dollar each. It took a lot of cookies and ornaments to reach the goal of $5,000. They were helped by the school superintendent, Chris Bohjalian and a group of dedicated Sunday school teachers. But the real effort, the real credit, goes to the young people, for on this past Christmas Eve, their goal of $5,000 was reached. An ``ark'' of farm animals will be delivered to a village, most likely in Armenia, the gift of visionary and committed children from Lincoln, Vermont. According to Pastor David Wood, the ark will have everything ``from fish to llamas to cows. And chickens and pigs, and also trees to provide ongoing food and medicinals.'' Yes, we do live in a global village, and our children are showing us how it can be rich in generosity and neighborliness.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share with you some information regarding a bold new system that will help a small hospital in my state save hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in energy costs, while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental pollutants. North Country Hospital in Newport, Vermont, has instituted an ingenious heating and electricity co-generation system that utilizes biomass wood chips instead of traditional heating oil as its fuel source. It is believed to be the first use of such technology in any hospital in the country. At today's energy prices, this new biomass gasification system could save the hospital as much as $328,000 annually in energy costs. In addition to providing heat for the hospital complex, the process heats water from the chips into steam, which not only provides a supplemental source of electricity, but will produce the hospital's hot water and also help operate other critical equipment within the hospital, such as sterilization equipment, dishwashers and clothes dryers. Energy cost savings realized by this environmentally sound energy choice will save the hospital, and hence its patients, substantial money that can be better directed toward critical healthcare services. This system provides an innovative example to hospitals and other public buildings in Vermont, across the country, and throughout the world. Already, business people, government officials and hospital administrators from other regions are touring the new facility with an eye toward implementing such a system themselves. A company in Spain is designing a system based on North Country's model, with the exception that it will actually burn tomato vines instead of wood chips as its energy source. Surely, a system so versatile has tremendous potential to be effectively used far and wide. Wood chips are a renewable source of energy, which recycles carbon that already exists in the natural carbon cycle; meaning no new carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere from this biomass energy source. Wood chips are supplied from within Vermont; hence money spent on wood chips stays in the local economy and supports jobs in the area's forest products industry. For buildings 50,000 sq. ft. and larger, fuel cost savings likely more than offset capital financing costs and additional maintenance staff time requirements; hence, in many cases, a system can pay for itself in 5 to 10 years. I enthusiastically commend the Board of Trustees at North Country Hospital and their innovative staff, especially Larry Labor, Steve Wolff and Terry Robbins, for taking energy matters into their own hands and raising the bar for how local leadership can have national and international significance and positive impact. Each of them deserves high praise for their efforts. They have given us a sterling example of how American hospitals can save substantial money on energy costs, help improve environmental conditions related to heat and energy production, and help support their local job markets in the process. I encourage other hospitals and institutions in Vermont and across the country to study the potential of this new system for their own facilities and to duplicate it where appropriate.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2830, the so-called Pension Protection Act. It should be pointed out that H.R. 2830 is opposed by AARP, by the Pension Rights Center, and pension advocates across the country. While I recognize that the Republican leadership included some modest provisions to attract some union support, H.R. 2830 still has a number of provisions that will jeopardize the retirement security of millions of American workers. Among other harmful provisions, this bill would legalize age discrimination in cash balance pension conversions. Year after year, Congress has voted against cash balance pension conversions because of the harm they have caused older workers. Mr. Speaker, we do not tolerate discrimination in this country based on race, gender, religion, or disability; and we must not tolerate discrimination based on age with regard to pensions. Unfortunately, that is exactly what H.R. 2830 does. According to the GAO, cash balance conversions without protections slash the pension benefits of an average 50-year-old by $238 a month. Younger workers are also hurt. As the GAO reported, a typical 30-year-old would see his or her pension benefits slashed by $59 a month under a cash balance conversion. H.R. 2830 would legitimize these harmful pension cuts by legalizing cash balance conversions without requiring employers to protect older workers. That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, let me read to you what the AARP and the Pension Rights Center have to say about this legislation. According to the AARP: ``We cannot support legislation that would clarify the legal status of cash balance pension plans without providing protections for older, long- service workers involved in cash balance plan conversions.'' I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. All of us are in agreement that the United States government must do everything it can do to effectively fight terrorism and protect the American people from another terrorist attack. There is no debate about that. But some of us believe that with strong, well-trained and well- funded law enforcement, we can in fact protect the American people without undermining the constitutional rights that make us a free country. In that regard, I am happy to say that there has been a very strong coming together of Members of Congress and Americans from very different political perspectives, people who usually agree on nothing but who have come together to protect the Constitutional rights of the American people as we fight terrorism. We should be very proud that, on this issue, such diverse groups as the ACLU, the American Conservative Union, the Gun Owners of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Library Association and the American Book Sellers Association have come together to say to Congress, please support the Senate version. And this is a message that I hope all Members heed. The simple fact of the matter is that the original Senate bill is a far better piece of legislation than what we are looking at today, and that is the legislation that we should pass. Mr. Speaker, day after day, we hear the Republican leadership telling us about the virtues of small and limited government, about how we have got to deregulate almost everything and get government out of our lives. In that regard, are my Republican friends really comfortable with allowing the FBI to access Americans' reading records, gun records, medical records and financial records without judicial approval; allowing the FBI to search someone's home without probable cause and without telling that person about the search; allowing the FBI to serve a librarian or a bookstore owner with a section 215 order demanding records without having to provide facts that a person whose records are being sought is involved in a terrorist investigation? Please vote no on this conference report.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. You did not answer the question. You talked about new jobs being created. You said exported jobs pay better. That is true, but most of the jobs being created are service industry low-wage jobs.

Mr. SANDERS. I wish to amplify.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend for yielding. You talked about job creation. What kind of wages are these jobs paying people?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and along with millions of American workers in the AFL-CIO, I rise in very strong opposition to this flawed agreement. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once more, the proponents of unfettered free trade are telling us about all of the good jobs that will be created if we pass this agreement and how great this agreement will be for the economy, and once again, they will be wrong. Let me be as clear as I can be. Our unfettered free trade policies, NAFTA, PNTR with China, and the other trade deals have been a demonstrable and absolute disaster for the average American worker. It is incomprehensible to me that failure after failure after failure takes place, and then people come to the floor of the House and they say let us do it again. Mr. Speaker, in 2004, we had a trade deficit of $617 billion, and by the end of this year, that trade deficit is expected to top $700 billion. Industry after industry has been decimated in this country by unfettered free trade, and we have lost millions of good paying manufacturing jobs to China, to Mexico and to other low-wage countries. In fact, after losing millions of good paying, blue collar jobs, we are now on the cusp of hemorrhaging millions more of white collar information technology jobs. When will you stop bringing these agreements forward? When there are virtually no decent jobs left in America? Well, you are doing a good job in that effort. In the last 5 years alone, we have lost almost 3 million manufacturing jobs, more than 17 percent of all jobs in that sector. Is trade the only reason that we are losing those jobs? No. Is it a major reason? Of course it is. Why do we have these trade agreements? The answer is obvious. Corporate America comes in here and they say we do not want to pay working people a living wage, we do not want to respect environmental standards, we do not want to provide health care to our workers; so give us the opportunity to move to China, to other low-wage countries; please pass these trade agreements. Congress says, yes, boss, that is what we are going to do, and this is, in fact, what has happened. Today, at 14.3 million, we now have the fewest manufacturing jobs in this country since the 1950s, and these manufacturing jobs are the jobs that pay workers a living wage with good benefits. What is going on in our economy today and what is destroying the middle class is that we are losing good paying jobs in manufacturing and information technology, and we are replacing those jobs with low paying service industry jobs that provide low wages and minimal benefits. We have gone from a General Motors economy, good wages, good benefits, producing real products, to a Wal-Mart economy of low wages, minimal benefits and vehement anti-unionism. Let me say very clearly, that if we do not turn this trend around, including totally rethinking our trade policies, our kids, for the first time in the modern history of the United States of America, will have a lower standard of living than we do. Mr. Speaker, in America today, the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wide. Over the past 5 years, more than 5 million Americans entered the poverty ranks. Over 6 million Americans have lost their health insurance. Income for the average American fell by over $1,600, and childhood poverty increased by over 12 percent. In 2003, the last study done by the IRS showed that 99 percent of Americans had an income which did not keep pace with inflation. Mr. Speaker, we have got to stop the race to the bottom. We have got to reform and rethink our trade policies. Let us vote this proposal down.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. Its effects were compounded by human ineptitude, as FEMA, State officials and the President all reacted slowly and without adequate concern for their fellow Americans. We rightly witnessed their inaction and unconcern on our television sets. But there is another America, an America which responds to distress with generosity and a willingness to pitch in. An America which provides an outpouring of funds for the Red Cross and countless truckloads amounts of donated supplies. I want to tell you a story about what is best in America. When they learned of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, two members of the Vermont's South Burlington Fire Department, Lieutenant Micah Genzlinger and Firefighter Trevor Poor, volunteered to help their fellow firefighters on the hard-struck gulf coast. They went to areas devastated by the hurricane and helped other fire companies fight fires. They also helped citizens rebuild and recover from the destruction wrought by the storm. And, in the spare time they could muster, they helped their fellow firefighters take care of the damage to their own homes. And the fire company they left behind? According to their union contract, firefighters must be given notice of shift changes two weeks in advance. Generously, all their colleagues waived this requirement, so that they could cover all shifts, without charging massive overtime to the city of South Burlington. They changed their work schedules to make sure the city was protected and that Genzlinger and Poor's trip to help others did not undercut local fire protection, all at no additional cost. This story was repeated all over America. In Vermont, firefighters from Barre and Hartford also headed south to help their firefighting brothers and sisters. In other states, firefighters responded to the call to protect and rebuild--as they always do, not only for their own cities and towns, but for Americans everywhere. This kind of generous solidarity is what makes America a great and wonderful Nation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, many thousands of American men and women are serving in Iraq under very dangerous conditions. Often, we at home go about our daily business and forget the deep loyalty and responsibility of our brave soldiers half a world away. And even more, we often forget what war means for the children in Iraq. I want to tell you, today, about a community of young people who have not forgotten that our soldiers are in Iraq, or that their mission is, ultimately, to build peace. These first, second and third graders at Elmore Lake School in Vermont not only remember the larger mission of our soldiers, they have sent packages to reach out to the children of Iraq, who like themselves are students in schools. These young students at Elmore Lake School also wrote letters to Iraqi schoolchildren, made pictures for them, and then put the letters and pictures into parcels filled with school supplies that the Elmore children packed and weighed for mailing. They were assisted by their teacher, Annamary Anderson and parent Sarah Southall, and by Vermont National Guard Captain Dave Matzo, who distributed the packages when he returned to Iraq from a home leave. The contents of the packages were provided by the school's children and their families. The Lamoille Valley Chamber of Commerce found kind sponsors who paid the cost of postage. The letters written by the children remind us, remind us all, that war is not something abstract, but a situation which involves human beings. Here is one example, a letter from a student named Sebastian that was reprinted in the News and Citizen of Morrisville. It is remarkably eloquent, not only in its ability to reach out across oceans and continents to children elsewhere, but in its reminder to all of us of just what war may mean to those who must live in its midst: Dear Children in Iraq, I feel bad for you because you are probably scared because you have a war going on in your country. I don't think it is right for kids to have to deal with this. I don't even know why people are fighting! I would definitely be very scared if I had a war going on close by! So my class in school thought we should give you kids school supplies. I hope the war stops soon, there is already enough bad things going on in your country! I wish you good luck! Sincerely, Sebastian L.W. I offer my deep respect, and that of my state and Nation, to these thoughtful and giving young students in Elmore, who have taught all of us to think deeply about war and about generosity.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. The reason for all of that is obviously very clear. Virtually every piece of legislation that comes to this floor of the House is frankly bought and paid for. Why would you stand up to our China policy, which has now a $160 billion trade deficit, the loss of millions of jobs, the lowering of wages throughout this country, why would you stand up and try to fight that when you have corporate America investing tens of billions in China, donating huge amounts of money to the President and other political people, why would you stand up for American workers in the middle class when you could defend China and the large corporations that go to China? When we speak about our trade policy, I don't want anybody to think that we are just talking about blue collar jobs. One of the major economic crises facing our country today is not just the loss of manufacturing jobs in the auto industry, the steel industry, textiles, furniture, et cetera, et cetera. That is hugely important. But what is happening now, in addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, we are beginning to see the hemorrhaging of white collar information technology jobs. For many years, the rhetoric here in Washington was, well, don't worry too much if you're going to lose the blue collar jobs in your community because that's kind of old-fashioned economics. We're not into that anymore. The real trick is to make sure your kids get a college education and they can go out and get white collar, computer, information technology jobs, make 50, 60, $70,000 a year, good, clean, solid income. That's the future of America. But what is happening there? What is happening now is corporations are beginning to understand the same thing. Information technology companies are understanding what manufacturing companies are understanding. And, that is, why do you want to hire American workers at 40 or $50,000 a year when there are people in India, China, Russia and elsewhere who can do information technology jobs very, very well for 10 percent of the wages paid in the United States? So what you are beginning to see now is a hemorrhaging of white collar information technology jobs which are impacting people who have college degrees, people who have graduate degrees. We are seeing this taking place at an increasing level. The answer is if we lose blue collar jobs that paid middle-class wages, if we lose white collar jobs that paid middle-class wages, what is left? Well, I guess it is Wal-Mart time. We have a situation now, in a company like Wal-Mart, which is far and away the largest employer in America today, a company which pays low wages, minimal benefits, virtually no pension plan, that is the future of America, lose good- paying blue-collar jobs, lose good-paying white-collar jobs and move towards the Wal-Mart-type job in which our standard of living becomes less and less.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, let me begin by suggesting that as the only Independent in the House of Representatives, my view of things is a little bit different than my Republican friend; in fact, some of my Democrat colleagues. When I look out in America today, what I see that is important are not just statistics, but what is going on in the real lives of real people, of what is going on in the middle class in America, the vast majority of our people, what is going on in our communities. And in a broad sense, when I look at America today, I see an economic reality which includes the shrinking of the middle class, the reality that ordinary people in my State of Vermont and all over this country are working longer hours for lower wages. I look out at a time when in family after family it is absolutely necessary for two breadwinners to be working in order to pay the bills and often at the end of the week have less disposable income than a one-income family had 30 years ago. So I look out and I see that despite a huge increase in worker productivity, a huge explosion in technology, which makes us a much more productive society, that at the end of the day, despite all of that, the middle class is shrinking. And when I look out in my State and I look throughout this country, I see another phenomenon, and that is that poverty is increasing; that in the last 5 years alone, since George W. Bush has been President, over 5 million more Americans have entered the ranks of the poor. And when I look at what is happening in America today with the middle class shrinking, with poverty increasing, I see another reality, a reality, in fact, that is not talked about terribly much on the floor of this House or, in fact, in the corporate-owned media, and that is that the wealthiest people in America today have never had it so good. Poverty increasing, the middle class shrinking, and people on the top doing phenomenally well. That is the economic reality of America today. Madam Speaker, since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,500, approximately 4.8 percent. Furthermore, earnings also declined last year. This decrease in earnings was the largest 1-year decline in 14 years for men, but women also saw a decline in income. So what we are seeing in America, despite all of the rhetoric, all of the statistics being thrown around, is that people are not keeping up with inflation. Madam Speaker, a recent income analysis by the IRS showed that in 2003, the last year that they studied, only those Americans in the top 1 percent saw an increase in their income above inflation; and amazingly enough, it was not just the top 1 percent that did well. It was the top one-tenth of 1 percent that really made the increased income. Meanwhile, while the top 1 percent in 2003 was the only group to earn more money above inflation, 99 percent of the American people were unable to earn enough income to keep up with inflation. In fact, the IRS data shows us that the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent earned more income than the bottom one-third of American taxpayers. So what we are seeing in our country today is a decline of the middle class, an increase in poverty, and a growing gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, with the exception of Russia and Mexico, the United States today has the greatest gap between the rich and the poor of any major country on Earth, and that gap today is substantially wider than it was at any time since the 1920s in this country. When we talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, when we talk about increase in wealth among the very wealthiest people in our country, it is rather incredible to understand that the richest 400 Americans, the wealthiest 400 Americans, are now worth $1.1 trillion. Madam Speaker, that incredible amount of money among 400 families equals the annual income of over 45 percent of the entire world's population, or 2.5 billion people. On the one hand, 400 families have more wealth than is the income of 2.5 billion people in this world. In 2004, when we talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, what we see is that in 2004 the President of the United States said, yes, we have a serious problem here. What is the answer? Well, the answer is that in 2004, American families making more than $1 million a year received tax cuts averaging $123,000 a year. So we have a situation where the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, where the wealth of the upper-income people, the wealthiest people in this country, is getting bigger; and this White House and Republican leadership responds by giving those particular people huge tax breaks. Madam Speaker, when we talk about what is going on in America, it is important to recognize that in 1980, the average pay of the CEOs of the largest corporations in America was 41 times larger than that of what blue collar workers then earned. By 2004, the average pay of those CEOs increased to 431 times larger. So in 2004 we have a situation where the CEOs of the largest corporations in America are now earning over 400 times what blue collar workers in this country are earning. Is that what America is supposed to be about? Are we supposed to be a country in which the wealthiest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, where the richest 13,000 families earn more income than the bottom 20 million families, where the people on top are able to use their wealth to make enormous political contributions that shape policy that benefits them, that the wealthiest people are able to own the media which describes reality for ordinary people in a way that benefits them? Is that what America is supposed to be about? I think not. Madam Speaker, I am delighted that I have been joined by a very good friend of mine, in my view one of the outstanding Members of the United States Congress, a leader, fighting for the middle class, fighting for our environment, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments. My friend mentioned the Delphi Corporation, which is in Michigan, I believe. I want to say a word about that. It is not in my district. Why is it important, what is happening there? In general, and we will get to the whole trade issue, the whole globalization that has been pushed on this country by corporate America in order to make the wealthiest people and the large corporations richer while working people see a decline in their standard of living, we will get to that in a moment. But what this attack on the workers, unionized workers, UAW workers at the Delphi Corporation is about is something of huge national significance. As the middle class declines, it is absolutely not uncommon, from Maine to California, that workers see some decline in their wages; workers are forced to pay more for their health care; workers are losing some or all of their pensions. That is going on all over this country as we move in a race to the bottom. But what this Delphi Corporation business is about is something more. That is not a slow decline in our standard of living; that is a precipitous collapse in the standard of living of working people. What I fear very much is that what happened at Delphi, that particular concept can spread all over this country. What happened at Delphi, which recently filed for bankruptcy, is that the workers there had solid, middle-class incomes. They were doing well. They could send their kids to college; they had decent homes. They were making $25 or $30 an hour, solid, middle-class income. The company files for bankruptcy, and what the CEO there says is you are not going to make $25 an hour anymore; you are going to make $10. You are going to go from the middle class to poverty, like that. Then a fellow named Jerry Jasinowski, who is the president of the Manufacturing Institute at the National Association of Manufacturers, which, by the way, has been one of the leading forces in this country in pushing unfettered free trade and unfettered globalization on America, they push it on America, and then in responding to the attack on the workers at Delphi, this is what he says: ``From airline pilots to auto assembly workers, employees need to help reduce their costs. We can't afford to live with the very generous benefits we provided 10-15 years ago.'' What he is saying in English is, if you are a working person, what is happening to the Delphi employees could happen to you, should happen to you. The rich get richer. Last year the CEOs of major corporations earned a 54 percent increase in their compensation. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, and what these people at the National Association of Manufacturers say is, hey, working people all over this country, tighten your belt. We are taking it away from you. You thought you were in the middle class. You thought you could provide an education to your kids, have decent health care, have some security. Forget it. We are in a race to the bottom, and there are workers in China who are making 30 cents an hour. How dare you think you could earn $50,000 or $60,000 a year? Not anymore. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SANDERS. If I might, let me just pick up on that point, because you are absolutely right. Let us be clear about what has happened here in the last 20 years. Corporate America woke up one day and they said, hmm, why do we have to pay American workers American wages, provide health insurance, negotiate on occasion with unions, obey environmental laws, pay taxes in the United States of America? Why do we have to do that when you have billions of people in China, desperately poor people in Latin America, in other countries, who will work for us for almost nothing? Now, just because we, who are the heads of major corporations that grew grapes here in the United States because of American workers, who became profitable giants because of American consumers, well, we do not have to respect that. We do not owe any allegiance, in fact, to the United States of America. In fact, they say, we are not American corporations. Oh, yes, we are American corporations when we come to D.C. in order to get billions of dollars in corporate welfare from the American taxpayers. Oh, yes, we speak English well, and we are American corporations on those days. But on every other day, if we can throw American workers out on the street, move to China, hire desperate people there at 30 cents an hour, who go to jail if they try to form an independent union, who are breathing air that is highly polluted because the environmental standards are virtually nonexistent, we are international corporations. We are off and running. And that was clearly what they had in mind at the very beginning of this whole debate on free trade, and that is, in fact, what they have done, and that is, in fact, what they are doing. From their perspective, what globalization is about is telling an American worker, hey, shape up, fellow, because there are people over there who can work for 10 percent of what you are working for. And if you are not prepared to take cutbacks in health care, cutbacks in wages, give up your pension, we are picking up, we are going to China, and guess what? Because of permanent normal trade relations, which Congress passed, my goodness, they could bring those products back into this country without any tariff whatsoever. We do not need you anymore. So industry after industry, whether it is steel, whether it is furniture, whether it is textiles, whether it is footwear. In fact, one of the interesting things, Christmas is coming soon, and during Christmastime people do an enormous amount of shopping, and they go to the stores and they look and they try to find products made in the United States of America, and they look and they look and they look. And as Mr. DeFazio mentioned, it is harder and harder to find products manufactured in America, because our corporations have essentially taken our manufacturing base and sent it to China. As Mr. DeFazio indicated, this is really bad not just for the standard of living for American workers, it is very dangerous for the future of our country in a dozen different respects. How do you defend yourself as a nation in terms of national defense if you are not making products in this country anymore to be used by the military? How are you a great country when you are no longer producing real products, but are now engaged only in service industry-type work? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SANDERS. Just so that everyone remembers, one of the points that the President made during his campaign, he comes from an oil background. The Vice President comes from an oil background. They know about these things. So for all folks in America who are paying outrageously high prices for gas at the pump, outrageously high prices for home heating oil, well, we have a President and a Vice President who are very chummy with the oil industry which maybe helps explain why the oil industry is enjoying the highest profits they have ever seen while people all over this country are absolutely getting ripped off. While we talk about oil, I want to divert just a little bit and go back to the trade issue because I know you and I have worked on this one together as well. I always find it so amusing for folks who say, We're great free traders. We believe that competition is where it is. As everybody in Congress and everybody in America knows, there is an organization called OPEC, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC's very reason for existence, the reason they came together, was to be a cartel which could limit production and raise profits. That is what they are. They acknowledge it. This is a self- acknowledged cartel. So I find it just so curious that for an administration, for leaders here in Congress who tell us how much they believe in competition and the free market, I find it quite amazing that I have not heard one word from the White House about the need to take action at the World Trade Organization to break up OPEC so that we can see honest competition from different countries and companies in terms of the oil they are producing. Have you heard the President, the great exponent of free enterprise and competition, raise that issue?