Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, congratulate the gentleman for his leadership, and thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her support, and concur with the gentlewoman's remarks. Mr. Chairman, all over this country, the people are asking a simple question: When will the United States Congress stand up and protect those workers in Vermont and all over this country who are spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year more at the gas pump? Our Republican friends talk about tax breaks given to people. Those tax breaks have been eaten up many times over by people who are forced to pay outrageously high prices in order to get to work. This affects not only people in rural States like Vermont. It affects small businesses, farmers, the airline industry, the trucking industry; and, in fact, nobody denies it is affecting our entire economy. When is Congress going to stand up? Meanwhile, while working people are paying more and more to fill up their gas tanks, the large oil industry corporations are reaping record-breaking profits. I think it is about time that we started paying attention to the American worker and we did something, at least right now, to lower the cost of gas at the pump. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) mentioned, this is not a new idea. In fact, it is not a partisan idea. This is a concept that has been supported by Democrats and by many Republicans. It has been supported by the first President Bush and by former President Clinton. Specifically, this amendment would suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is what President Bush did in 1991, what President Clinton did in 2000. This action would have the very immediate impact of lowering gas prices in America now. Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently contains about 693 million barrels and the administration is pushing to increase that number to over 700 million barrels. Today, approximately 72,000 barrels of oil per day are still being added to the SPR, over 2 million barrels per month. This amendment would suspend these oil deliveries and put this oil back on the market which could lead to lower prices immediately upon its implementation. It would also keep gas prices down by making sure the government is not competing against consumers in the marketplace at a time when gas prices are so high. Mr. Chairman, extrapolating from at least three economic studies done by Goldman Sachs, the largest crude oil trader in the world, the Air Transport Association, and petroleum economist Phillip Verleger, the estimate is, by releasing some 15 million barrels from SPR, we could reduce gasoline prices at the pump by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. By voting for this amendment today, we will be sending a very strong message to the President and that is, Mr. President, release oil from SPR right now. Mr. Chairman, in the spring of 2002 when the price of gas was starting to increase, the staff at the Department of Energy recommended against buying more oil for SPR. DOE staff said, ``Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high, and economic growth is slow. The government should avoid acquiring oil for the reserve under these circumstances.'' Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, there is bipartisan support for this concept. The time is now for the United States Congress to listen to those working people in the State of Vermont and elsewhere who have to travel 100 miles back and forth to work each day. That is not uncommon in this country. These workers, who are seeing in many cases a real decline in their wages, need help. It seems to me that at a time when the profits of the oil industry are soaring, when workers are struggling to keep their heads above water, when the price of gas is soaring, now is the time for us to act and act immediately. I would hope we would have strong support from both sides of the aisle for this important amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to offer the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The legislative intent of this amendment is to increase the funding for the EnergySmart Schools Program administered by the Department of Energy by $1,000,000, offset by a reduction in administrative expenses for the Department of Energy's public affairs department. It is the intent of this amendment that the increased funds for the EnergySmart Schools program will be directly administered and the grants be directly made by the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory and that they will not go through a third part. I am aware that the public affairs department of the DOE has received an increase of $1,000,000 above Fiscal Year 2005 funding and it is the intent of this amendment to return the funding for the public affairs department to the Fiscal Year 2005 level. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's school systems are in crisis. 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 42 years--and the vast majority could greatly benefit from energy-saving improvements. 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 their teachers of the future. Fortunately, the Department of Energy has an energy conservation program to 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 Department of Energy's EnergySmart Schools Program--an integral and active part of the Rebuild America program--is committed to building a nation of schools that are smart about every aspect of energy. The program provides information on energy efficient solutions for school bus transportation, conducting successful building projects and teaching about energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. It also works with school districts to introduce energy-saving improvements to the physical environment, enabling many schools to leverage their energy savings to pay for needed improvements, and it takes a proactive role in promoting and supporting energy education in our schools. Often, this enables school districts to save big on utility bills and maintenance costs, in turn freeing up funds to pay for books, computers and teachers, and improve indoor air quality and comfort. According to the Department of Energy, nationally, K-12 schools spend more than $6 billion a year on energy and at least 25 percent of that could be saved through smarter energy management, meaning energy improvements could cut the Nation's school bill by $1.5 billion each year. As an added benefit, many of the same improvements that help to lower a school's energy consumption also serve to improve the classroom environment, removing noisy, inefficient heating and cooling systems, inadequate lights, and ventilation systems that don't restrict indoor contaminants. In short, Mr. Chairman, the EnergySmart Schools 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. My amendment would add $1,000,000 to support this excellent program--offset by a reduction in administrative expenses for the Department of Energy's public affairs department.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, in Vermont we are celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Community Action Programs which have transformed the lives of thousands and thousands of people in our state. These CAP agencies provide citizens with assistance: the young and the elderly, rural residents and urban residents, homeowners and renters and the homeless, those with jobs and those without. These are not programs created to give handouts; instead, they work to develop comprehensive approaches to addressing the root causes of poverty, and to alleviating the consequences of poverty. Nor are they spinoffs of some far-distant Washington bureaucracy: the CAP agencies are locally staffed and their programs result from collaborative efforts with the lower-income people they are meant to serve. Vermont's Community Action Programs are community-based networks for social and economic development. There are five of them: Southeast Vermont Community Action (SEVCA), Central Vermont Community Action Council (CVCAC), Community Action in Southwestern Vermont (BROC), Northeast Kingdom Community Action Agency (NEKCA) and Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO). Nearly 3,000 individuals (in 1165 families) were provided services through the SEVCA's Community Services department last year. NEKCA serves more than 6,000 moderate- to-low income families. Over 8,000 individuals obtained early childhood education, crisis fuel assistance, meals, and household insulation through CVCAC. CVOEO provides a wide variety of vital services to approximately 8,000 households (just over 19,000 individuals) every year. But numbers alone, as impressive as they are, do not tell the whole story. From child care to fuel assistance in cold weather, the CAP agencies are always there when people have needs. CAP agencies not only help hard-pressed families find food, they support family farms through the Farm to Family coupon redemption program. They help retrain workers who have lost their jobs, and they provide a sound basis for a lifetime of learning through Head Start. They run micro-business development programs--and help citizens with their tax returns. In SEVCA's building there is a wonderful version of the Washington mural of men waiting in a breadline in the 1930's, a reminder that economic need is--unhappily--always among us. That mural reminds us too of Franklin Roosevelt's eloquent words, which are painted on the mural itself: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.'' Those words ring, today, with truth. Too often the glowing colors of our television and the bold headlines of our newspapers ignore the actuality of life in America: that in the midst of the richest Nation in the history of the world, many go hungry, or are without health insurance, or lack adequate education, or search fruitlessly for decent-paying jobs. The CAP agencies of Vermont never forget the realities in which we all live. They know that there are people who can benefit from the help of the government programs established by Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, programs begun in times when it was the purpose of government to serve all Americans--and not just wealthy Americans. The CAP agencies, and those who work for them, do much to help tens of thousands of Vermonters live the life that should be theirs, a life free from hunger, homelessness, hopelessness and want. So after 40 years of hard and extraordinarily important work by those who work for and sustain the CAP agencies, let me say on behalf of all the citizens of my state: Congratulations on what you have done! All of us in Vermont are richer for the community you have built and sustained.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the School for International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont. As one of the foremost schools for cross-cultural education in the world, its record is one trail-blazing effort after another, a whole series of initiatives that have transformed both the world, and the way education about the world is shaped. The SIT, as it is known, was an outgrowth of the Experiment in International Living, which originated in 1932 when Donald Watt took twenty American teenagers to Europe to live together with teenagers from several European nations. Year after year that program grew and prospered. In the wake of World War Two the Fulbright Program for the international exchange of scholars and the establishment of the Peace Corps increased this Nation's commitment to the exchange of citizens between different countries and cultures. The SIT was founded in order to provide training and ultimately advanced degrees to those who wanted to work and teach in a global context. It was an early and important resource for Peace Corps training--an unsurprising fact, given that Sergeant Shriver, the first Director of the Peace Corps, had in 1934 been a member of one of the earliest Experiment in International Living programs. The core of the SIT has remained the same for forty years: language training, field-based practice, and a commitment to internationalism. The School for International Training is not only about technical training for international exchange and work. It has a central vision and a central mission: world peace. Its motto is, ``Building peace through understanding--one person at a time.'' It has lived up to this motto by educating individuals to work in a world where human need is more important than political borders, religious groupings, ethnic identities, or geographical boundaries. It tries to construct a new world in which human beings are united rather than divided by working together to shape a more equitable and peaceful society. Too often our world today is rent by violence or plundered by corporations looking only to make a quick profit. Building peace and community takes time and steadfast effort. It also takes vision, and a deep sense of generosity. The School for International Training--its leaders, its teachers, its generation of students--have devoted time, effort, vision and generosity in extraordinary measure. As it celebrates its first forty years, I, the people of Vermont, and the citizens of both the American Nation and the world, wish the School for International Training forty more years of success.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend the Craftsbury Chamber Players, who this year are celebrating a double anniversary. For 40 consecutive years they have performed chamber music in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, and for 25 consecutive years they have performed in Burlington, Vermont's largest city. Founded and still directed by pianist Mary Anthony Cox, the Craftsbury Chamber Players bring chamber music of the highest order to northern Vermont. The Northeast Kingdom is the least populous area of Vermont, yet every summer the woods of Craftsbury, Hardwick and Greensboro reverberate with the sounds of Haydn, Schubert, Dvorak, and twentieth century music. The Craftsbury Players present concerts that are both innovative and broad. Their repertoire spans over 300 years of music, introducing audiences to little-known works of the past and present, as well as those great chamber pieces which have sustained generations of music lovers. Every concert explores music which should be heard, but often isn't: forgotten works by major composers, supposedly difficult compositions by twentieth century modernists, and seldom-preformed works from our very own day. These world-class performers come to Vermont to play together, to make music because they love the great richness which comes from measured rhythms and ordered sound. It is fitting that this year their anniversary celebration will be capped by the world premiere of a quintet by Kenji Bunch, a long-time violist with the Craftsbury Players. Commissioned especially for this anniversary, it will be performed on July 20, 2005 in Burlington and July 21 in Hardwick. The Craftsbury Chamber Players have shared their love of music with thousands of people in Vermont. On this, their 40th anniversary, the people of Vermont salute them for their dedication to music and for bringing the best in music to our communities.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because, on a bill of this magnitude, it is undemocratic and an outrage that amendments are not being allowed.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this is actually one of the more absurd debates that I have ever heard in my life, and I think anybody who turns on the television and wonders what is going on here in Congress will then conclude that the reason that this institution is held in so low regard is because we have debates like this. Let us look at what is going on in America today. The middle class is shrinking. Study after study shows that real wages for American workers are going down; and in the last 4 years, 4 million more Americans have entered the ranks of poverty. While the middle class shrinks, poverty increases. The richest people in America have never had it so good. CEOs of large corporations now make 500 times what their workers make. In America today we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the history of our country and of any major country on Earth. So what are we discussing here today? Are we going to raise the minimum wage to a living wage? Are we really going to protect family farmers from low prices? Are we going to stop the hemorrhaging of decent-paying jobs going to China? Do not be silly. We do not talk about that because corporate America does not fund those concerns. The richest people in America said several years ago, Hey, yes, we are worth billions of dollars. That is not enough. We are going to contribute money to our Republican friends, and do you know what they are going to do? They are going to lower our taxes even more. Mr. Speaker, we are here debating an issue that has zero impact on 98 percent of the American people. Nobody in the middle class, nobody in the working class, no low-income person pays one penny in the estate tax. All of the estate tax is paid by the wealthiest 2 percent. If their proposal passes, half of the benefits go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. I want to ask my friends a question. This is a question. As my colleagues know, President Bush and the Republican leadership are supporting increased fees on our veterans. They are raising prescription drug fees for our veterans, and they want to charge a $250 co-pay for veterans of wars who enter the VA hospital. I would like to ask my Republican friends do they think it is a good idea to give tax breaks today to billionaires and to charge veterans significantly increased fees for health care. That is my question. I am listening. I am listening. I do not hear an answer. That is the answer. They are substantially increasing health care costs for veterans who have put their lives on the line defending this country. They are increasing our deficit, increasing our national debt, all on behalf of the richest people in this country. This bill is bought and paid for by millionaires and billionaires, and anyone who votes for it should be ashamed of themselves. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to celebrate the remarkable work done by the young Vermonters who participate in the Child Labor Education and Action group at Brattleboro Union High School. CLEA is a student-run group dedicated to community education around issues of sweatshop labor in the developing world. It examines the dark and inhumane side of globalization, doing extensive research and traveling to amass the real story on what globalization means for low-income workers who toil in third-world sweatshops. The students then take what they learn and share it with their community in a variety of ways. They have also organized student groups throughout Vermont to address the problems with global sweatshops. Four years ago, over 20 CLEA members traveled to Guatemala to build a school. Last year, 13 CLEA members went to Nicaragua to learn about the effect of international trace policies on labor conditions in that country. Let me cite a brief report from one of those travelers, Sarah Maceda-Maciel: When our plane touched down in Managua, our bags might have been stuffed with light cotton shirts and water bottles, but our heads were filled with numbers like 90,000--the number of Nicaraguan children who are not in school. Or 70 percent, the amount of Nicaraguans who live on less than two dollars a day. Or 6 billion dollars, the sum that Nicaragua has accumulated in foreign debt. We found the harsh realities of life in the third world. There is something profoundly different between knowing that children are hungry and learning that eight year old children sniff glue to dull the knife of starvation. There is something profoundly different between knowing that maternity leave is not offered in sweatshops and learning that pregnant women are forced to work so hard that they end up having miscarriages in factory bathrooms. The students returned from their trip determined to make a difference in how Americans view the harsh realities occasioned by free trade. In the words of Katherine Nopper, another CLEA member, ``Within our school we hope to engage and inform our classmates on the issues of child labor, free trade, fair trade, and what it means to be part of a sweat- free campaign. And we will continue to present our message to other area schools.'' This past year CLEA students have helped with the publication of a remarkable book, Challenging Child Labor: Education and Youth Action to Stop the Exploitation of Children. Several of the contributors are present and former CLEA members; other contributors include Senator Tom Harkin, Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee, Kailash Satyarthi of the Global March Against Child Labor, and Upala Devi Banerjee of the U.N. Development Fund for Women. I admire the work CLEA does, and am continually impressed, year in and year out, by the dedication of these young people to making the world a better place. They see the whole world as their province; they also realize that speaking to their peers in school, speaking to the larger community in southern Vermont, is part of the struggle to create a world in which justice has a higher value than profit. These students represent what is best about American youth, just as their advisor, Tim Kipp, represents what is best about American teachers. Combining learning with service, the international with the local, passion for justice with the willingness to work hard to achieve justice, the members of CLEA serve as a model, a shining beacon, for what high school students can accomplish.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, like all of us who live in Vermont, and many millions across the nation, I was thrilled when the underdog Catamounts of the University of Vermont defeated Syracuse in the opening round of the 2005 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Syracuse was a national power; the nucleus of its team won the national championship two years earlier. Its players were accomplished, well- coached and a credit to college basketball. But the University of Vermont team rose to the challenge, coming from behind in the final minutes of both regulation play and overtime. Led by the greatest basketball player to come out of Vermont, Taylor Coppenrath of West Barnet, Vermont the Catamounts showed how teamwork and a tenacious defense could elevate a team to national prominence. During the regular season Coppenrath was the second leading Division I scorer in the nation with 25.7 points per game, and for the third straight year he was the player of the year in the America East conference. He was joined on the team by T. J. Sorrentine, a sharp- shooting point guard (fifth in the nation with 3.6 three-point field goals per game) whose passion and precision shooting define the Catamounts. He too has been an America East player of the year and has three first-team selections to his credit. The international contingent made up of Germain Mopa Njila of Cameroon, whose career scoring high of 20 points on 9 of 10 shooting was the mainstay of the Catamount offense against Syracuse; Martin Klimes of the Czech Republic, whose smothering defense held All-American Hakim Warrick in check, and Canadian David Hehn, who selflessly threw himself into the Cats' tight defense and patient and exceptionally effective passing game. It was talent and tenacity. All five Vermont starters played at least 40 minutes, and Klimes and Coppenrath never had a rest on the bench at all. The Catamounts stuck with a game plan devised by Coach Tom Brennan and Associate Head Coach Jesse Agel, which called for ball control, constant passing and careful work against Syracuse's famed 2-3 zone until a shot opened up. No one should be surprised that they show poised intelligence on the hardwood. The UVM basketball team had a 3.09 grade point average (GPA) for the fall semester. The starting five has a cumulative GPA, including all the courses the players have taken in their time at UVM, above 3.0. This is an exceptionally high and rare statistic for basketball teams that play at the highest level, some of which graduate less than half their teams members. Martin Klimes, majoring in business, has a 3.82 GPA, one of the highest averages in his entire college. Geramin Mopa Njila, a computer science and information systems major, has a GPA of 3.21. Sociology major T.J. Sorrentine averages 2.75, while David Hehn has a stellar 3.57 GPA in business. Wooden Award finalist Taylor Coppenrath averaged 2.80 in secondary education and competed at the elite level in basketball, while student teaching in the math department at Colchester High School. Their academic performance is exceptional for UVM athletes. The state university is as dedicated to graduating student athletes as it is to fielding fine teams (its men's hockey team recently played in the ECAC Final Four, and its ski team was second in the nation at the NCAA national championships). The overall GPA for student athletes is 3.08, which is higher than the GPA for the student body as a whole. The Catamounts captured the attention and the heart of the entire nation. To the wonderful, inspired members of that team, and their dedicated coaches, the state of Vermont sends its salutations. Perhaps no one can say it better than their retiring coach, Tom Brennan, who said these words after losing to Michigan State in the second round, ``We can't thank everyone enough on what the support has meant to us. We gave more back than what we took and what we did this weekend was the thrill of a lifetime. It was the greatest ride that I could ever, ever have had. You know you're in a very special place when your realities outweigh your dreams. And that's where I am.'' For all of us in Vermont, for one special night, reality did outweigh dreams. Thanks, Catamounts.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, Vermont's great jazz saxophonist, Big Joe Burrell, died on February 2 at the age of 80. He was born and spent his early years in Port Huron Michigan. The story of his start in music is legendary. Here is how Brent Hallenbeck recounted it in the Burlington Free Press: As a shy 10-year-old, he approached his mother's boss and asked to borrow $5 so he could buy a saxophone. ``Saxophone?'' the man asked. ``What are you going to do with a saxophone?'' ``I'm going to play it,'' little Joe Burrell told him. And he did, mastering his instrument in the next few years. After serving in the U.S. Army during World War Two, his musical career took off. At an Akron dance he played the opening act for a B.B. King performance, and King thereafter asked Big Joe to play saxophone in his orchestra. He would go on to tour with King for almost two years before meeting up with another major figure in American music, Count Basie. Basie invited Big Joe to play in his club in New York and would become the major musical influence in Big Joe's life. ``Count Basie was the predominant influence on me until the day he died, and still is today,'' Burrell said in 2002. Ten years of playing in Canada eventually brought him to Montreal, from where it was an easy journey to play a date in Burlington, Vermont. There he discovered his nephew, Leon Burrell, was a professor of education at the University of Vermont. The meeting was doubly fortuitous: Leon invited Big Joe to live with him, and he made Leon's home his own for many years. And Vermont gained its most well-known, most- well-beloved jazz musician. Big Joe jammed with fellow musician Paul Asbell, and out of their collaboration was formed an ensemble called The Unknown Blues Band. The core of The Unknown Blues Band included Asbell, Chuck Eller on keyboard, Tony Markellis on bass, and Russ Lawson on drums, and of course, Big Joe. Not only did they make music, but they shaped a whole new generation of musicians. Big Joe, who played with BB King and Count Basie, Etta James and Little Richard, was a formative influence on Trey Anastasio, the guitarist for Phish. In fact, Burrell played guest appearances with Anastasio's band in recent years. Last year, the Unknown Blues Band celebrated its twenty- fifth anniversary. The band was a Burlington staple, playing at gigs everywhere and most especially at a weekly performance at Halvorson's Upstreet Cafe in Burlington. Even as age seemed outwardly to slow him down, Big Joe kept performing at his customary high level. Cafe owner Tim Halvorson told the Free Press, ``He'd shuffle in with his walker or a cane, but, boy, as soon as the music started and he got a glass of Canadian Club and he grabbed his saxophone, he was 30 years younger.'' As his nephew Dr. Leon Burrell said, speaking of his last performance just a month ago, ``He went out doing what he did best. It's like a cowboy dying with his boots on.'' Big Joe was a big man--not only in physical stature, but big in heart. He loved music, he loved people, and he loved playing in Vermont. Vermont loved him back. He was an emblem of the amazing power of jazz, our nation's preeminent form of music. He showed all who lived in the Green Mountain State how jazz can speak to each of us, directly, deeply; he showed us that the music born in the South and in the big cities of the Mid-west has flowed, like a mighty river, all through our nation. He was an important tributary of that river, and all of us in Vermont who love music will remember Big Joe for that, and for the wonderful performances he gave us, time and again.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform this body that Eugene Jarecki, a filmmaker in Waitsfield, Vermont, has been awarded the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival. Mr. Jarecki won this prestigious award for his documentary, Why We Fight. Mr. Jarecki provides a balanced view of what President Eisenhower warned was a danger to democracy: the ``military-industrial complex.'' He interviews, for instance, supporters of the current war in Iraq such as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board; he also interviews those who warn of dangers which may emerge from the prosecution of that war, talking with Senator John McCain, news anchor Dan Rather, and USAF Lt. Col. (Ret.) Karen Kwiatkowski. Sundance describes his film succinctly and accurately: ``Why We Fight is an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine, examining how a force so potentially counter to the balance of a democratic society influences American life. Amid the upheaval of the Iraq War, the film follows the personal stories of a group of characters in America's military family. ``Why does America fight? Time and again, why does she seem inclined toward war against an ever changing array of enemies? What are the forces--economic, political, ideological--that shape and propel American militarism? Where do they meet? And what role does the individual play?'' Writing in the New York Times this week in honor of the recently deceased Arthur Miller, fellow playright (and Vermont resident) David Mamet wrote, ``Bad drama reinforces our prejudices. It informs us of what we knew when we came into the theater. Good drama survives because it appeals not to the fashion of the moment, but to the problems both universal and eternal, as they are insoluble.'' Eugene Jarecki makes good films. The balance in his film, along with the craft and care with which it was made, propelled Jarecki's work to its Sundance Award. As Vermont filmmaker Jay Craven noted, Jarecki's ``film emerged as a top Sundance hit precisely because it articulates a view that goes far beyond the seasonal politics of elections to pose larger and enduring questions.'' In this era when too often political ``spin'' substitutes for reasoned analysis and the study of history, Eugene Jarecki has shown us that the media have a vital role to play in educating us about our political and economic past, and about our future. Vermont is as proud of him as the judges at Sundance were; and we are happy that he is once again en route to sharing his cinematic work with the entire nation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Virginia Cochran, known to generations of Vermont children as Ginny, who died last week at the age of 74. In 1961 Ginny Cochran and husband, Mickey, created a ski slope in their backyard and opened it as Cochran's Ski Area. In its early years it was a training course for all four Cochran children, Marilyn, Bobby, Barbara Ann, and Lindy. As everyone in Vermont knows, all four proceeded to compete and win in the Olympics and on the World Cup, FIS, and U.S. national circuits. While Mickey groomed, maintained and expanded the course, Ginny began an after-school skiing program, which taught generations of Vermont schoolchildren, and countless other families to ski. The 10,000 children who learned to ski at Cochran's all remember with deep fondness the kind, energetic, and passionate woman who taught them. Ginny's method of teaching was revolutionary. She taught parents to teach their own children to ski. Of course, for every child who was frightened of going down the small instructional hill, for every child who needed help in learning to go up the Mighty Mite ski lift, Ginny was there with advice and support. She encouraged children to extend themselves, to compete not so much against others as with themselves, and to be more than they thought they could be. Every week of the ski season saw Lollipop races at Cochran's, where skiers as young as four and five years of age would compete against Olympic gold medalist Barbara Ann and her mother, Ginny, and World Cup winners Bobby and Marilyn and Lindy. Today it is no surprise that skiers who learned to ski at Cochran's compete on the U.S. national team, including Ginny's grandson Jimmy, the U.S. National slalom and GS champion, and her granddaughter Jessica, with both silver and bronze in the National championships, have won collegiate championships, like grandson Roger Brown, slalom, and ski for major college ski teams such as Dartmouth, Middlebury and UVM. More important than such successes, however, are the generations of young people who learned that hard work brings many rewards, including loving what you work at and a maturity which has been shaped by self- discipline as well as joy. Ginny Cochran and her husband, Mickey, knew the importance of combining hard work with pleasure, and taught it to their children and many others. Over the course of decades, with great commitment, Ginny not only taught children to ski, but to take their lives as seriously as she taught them to take skiing. It is a tribute to her as role model that her children, Barbara Ann and Lindy at Cochran's, and Marilyn at Hanover, NH, High School and the Quechee Ski Club, continue the legacy of their mother in teaching young people to ski, and through the lessons learned in skiing, they will reach a rich and fulfilling adulthood. Today, many of her former students are coaches and teachers of skiing. I know that Cochran's Ski Area, with its Mighty Mite lift and its fast but clearly anachronistic rope tow, will never compete in vertical feet with our State's large ski areas. But Ginny Cochran's work in hewing a ski area out of a forested mountainside in Richmond, Vermont, is not an anachronism: Through the work and commitment and vision she put into it, it remains one of our great Vermont institutions. More importantly, the lives she touched and shaped are part of her enduring legacy to the State of Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, but this bill leads to self-censorship. Small stations who are fined a half a million dollars are going to be very cautious. ``Saving Private Ryan'' was kept off of dozens of ABC affiliates because they were afraid of a fine.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman help us define what inappropriate is? Does the gentlewoman think that the film ``Saving Private Ryan,'' which depicted the incredible sacrifice by American troops on D-Day, is inappropriate and should have been kept off of ABC?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and opposition to the underlying legislation. As someone who voted in favor of similar legislation last year, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is being done by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media; but it is also significantly being done by the government, and that is what this bill is about today. What we are seeing is an increasing and insidious chill on free expression in the airwaves. There are a lot of people in Congress on that side of the aisle, my conservative friends, who talk about freedom and freedom and freedom; but apparently they really do not believe that the American people should have the freedom to make the choices themselves about what programs they see on television or on the radio. There are a lot of people in Congress, including Conservatives, who talk about the intrusive role of government regulators; but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society. Mr. Speaker, I am not a Conservative. I am a proud Progressive. But on this issue, I agree with some important conservative thinkers. Let me tell my colleagues what Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, extremely conservative think tank, says, and he has it right: ``Those of us who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times, but that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children. Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me and every other American family. Censorship on an individual parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole Nation is permitted to see, hear, or think.'' That is and that should be the Conservative position. That should be the position of people who say get the government off our backs; we do not want government regulations. Mr. Speaker, increasingly in this country we are seeing censorship on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org, and on and on it goes. Let us vote ``no.'' Let us vote against this bill and support freedom. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That goes without saying. As someone who last year voted in favor of similar legislation, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is being conducted by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the government. This result is an insidious chill on free expression on our airwaves. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom, freedom and freedom but, apparently, they do not really believe that the American people should have the ``freedom'' to make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of ``government regulators,'' but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society. Mr. Speaker, I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute--a very conservative think tank. And here is the very common sense, pro-freedom position that he brings forth: Those of use who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times. But that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children. Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me and every other American family. Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole nation is permitted to see, hear or think. I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal and parental responsibility about most economic issues, seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural issues. Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not necessarily liking what you have to say or agreeing with you, but it is your right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern's vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow? Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship on the airwaves. In January 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in cheating the Federal deficit. Last November, 66 ABC affiliates refused to air the brilliant World War II movie ``Saving Private Ryan,'' starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This ironically was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their Church. The networks felt that it was ``too controversial'' to air. And just last month, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of Postcards with Buster, a children's show, because Education Secretary Spellings objected to the show's content, which included Buster, an 8-year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont. Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different aspect of the culture of censorship that is growing in America today. My fear is that the legislation we have before us today will only compound this problem and make a bad situation worse. This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any relief from the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could drive some of them into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already doing it now. Imagine what will happen when a violation can bring a $500,000 fine. If this legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and Americans' First Amendment rights. In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters in my own State of Vermont and I have heard from many of them. Without exception they are extremely concerned about the effect this legislation will have on programming decisions. Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television. Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television on H.R. 310 Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters, does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in H.R. 310 are extreme. The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity, indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying these proposals into law will make the situation worse. While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling the effects every day. Public television's educational programming for children has always provided a safe haven. The same public television stations that take such care of their young viewers also respect the intelligence and discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing choices for themselves. Vermont Public Television has always operated responsibility in our programming for adults. At times, our programs included adult language and situations appropriate to the informational or artistic purpose of a program. While there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it seems that context is no longer considered. Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights, we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small station like VPT out of business. Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told broadcasters there was one word that would never be appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations, including Vermont Public Television, began to make content choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions. PBS programmers began making edits to national programs being distributed to stations. An ``American Experience'' documentary on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might possibly look like a bare breast and edited, just be to sure. On ``Antiques Roadshow,'' a nude poster was edited. This month, most PBS stations will air a drama from HBO called ``Dirty War.'' In the story, a woman showers to remove radiation. When the program airs on PBS, that shower scene will be edited. Our programming director, and no doubt most local programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing programs with words and situations that might even come close to content that could be subject to fines. At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers live on the air. There has never been a problem with language, but the legislation's reference to using a ``time delay blocking mechanism'' makes us worry. We don't use a time delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a caller uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane? Our programming director says the FCC proposals have already made us rule out airing independent films on our ``Reel Independent'' program. Films by Vermont filmmakers that we would have aired in past years are not being accepted for broadcast now. We cannot support H.R. 310 as it is written.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. But they did not, Mr. Speaker. ABC affiliates took it off the air. Is the gentleman happy? Does he think that is good?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan raises an important point about ABC, not a small company. They self-censored themselves. He is right. He is absolutely right. The FCC said that they would not fine them, and yet 66 affiliates said, We are still nervous. ABC, not a small station. In my State we have got small stations who are very nervous. The issue here, and the gentleman just really said it, is self-censorship. Is he happy about the fact that affiliates are afraid of showing ``Saving Private Ryan''?

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is a dangerous bill. I get a little bit tired of people in Congress talking about freedom, freedom, freedom. But apparently they do not want to give the American people the freedom to make the decisions with regard to what radio and television programs they can watch or hear. I am not a conservative, but let me quote from an honest conservative who does not want government regulating what the American people see and hear. This is a gentleman from the Cato Institute, Mr. Adam Thierer: ``Those of us who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times. But that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children. ``Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must this job for me and every other American family. ``Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole Nation is permitted to see, hear, or think.'' Cato Institute. Honest conservatives. Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not my agreeing to what one says; it is my agreeing that they have the right to say it. That is what we fought for. I am particularly outraged when I read in Reuters on December 13, ``Sixty-six ABC affiliates refused to air the uncut movie on Veterans Day last month'' of ``Saving Private Ryan,'' ``citing concerns they could face fines for profanity and graphic violence from the FCC.'' The men who fought in World War II against Hitler, who gave their lives on D-Day, we cannot see that film because ABC is afraid to show us, and that is under the old rules. In addition to the self-censorship imposed by ABC on ``Saving Private Ryan,'' there is more. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement, paid political advertisement, during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in creating the Federal deficit. They could not pay to get an ad on because CBS was nervous. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome into their church. They were afraid to run that. And just last month many PBS stations refused to air an episode of ``Postcards with Buster'' because they showed a lesbian couple. In other words, this legislation cannot be taken out of context with the overall move towards censorship which is taking place in this country. And I would hope that my conservative friends who get up here every day talking about government regulators, get those government regulators off the backs of the people, I hope they will remember their rhetoric today. Let us not have a handful of government bureaucrats telling radio and TV stations and the American people what they can see and hear.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, Vermont's great jazz saxophonist, Big Joe Burrell, died on February 2 at the age of 80. He was born and spent his early years in Port Huron Michigan. The story of his start in music is legendary. Here is how Brent Hallenbeck recounted it in the Burlington Free Press: ``As a shy 10-year-old, he approached his mother's boss and asked to borrow $5 so he could buy a saxophone. `Saxophone?' the man asked. `What are you going to do with a saxophone?' `I'm going to play it,' little Joe Burrell told him.'' And he did, mastering his instrument in the next few years. After serving in the U.S. Army during World War II, his musical career took off. At an Akron dance he played the opening act for a B.B. King performance, and King thereafter asked Big Joe to play saxophone in his orchestra. He would go on to tour with King for almost two years before meeting up with another major figure in American music, Count Basie. Basie invited Big Joe to play in his club in New York, and would become the major musical influence in Big Joe's life. ``Count Basie was the predominant influence on me until the day he died, and still is today,'' Burrell said in 2002. Ten years of playing in Canada eventually brought him to Montreal, from where it was an easy journey to play a date in Burlington, Vermont. There he discovered his nephew, Leon Burrell, was a professor of education at the University of Vermont. The meeting was doubly fortuitous: Leon invited Big Joe to live with him, and he made Leon's home his own for many years. And Vermont gained its most well-known, most well-beloved jazz musician. Big Joe jammed with fellow musician Paul Asbell, and out of their collaboration was formed an ensemble called The Unknown Blues Band. The core of The Unknown Blues Band included Asbell, Chuck Eller on keyboard, Tony Markellis on bass, and Russ Lawson on drums. And of course, Big Joe. Not only did they make music, but they shaped a whole new generation of musicians. Big Joe, who played with B.B. King and Count Basie, Etta James and Little Richard, was a formative influence on Trey Anastasio, the guitarist for Phish. In fact, Burrell played guest appearances with Anastastio's band in recent years. Last year, the Unknown Blues Band celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary. The band was a Burlington staple, playing at gigs everywhere, and most especially at a weekly performance at Halvorson's Upstreet Cafe in Burlington. Even as age seemed outwardly to slow him down, Big Joe kept performing at his customary high level. Cafe owner Tim Halvorson told the Free Press, ``He'd shuffle in with his walker or a cane, but, boy, as soon as the music started and he got a glass of Canadian Club and he grabbed his saxophone, he was 30 years younger.'' As his nephew Dr. Leon Burrell said, speaking of his last performance just a month ago, ``He went out doing what he did best. It's like a cowboy dying with his boots on.'' Big Joe was a big man--not only in physical stature, but big in heart. He loved music, he loved people, he loved playing in Vermont. And Vermont loved him back: He was an emblem of the amazing power of jazz, our nation's preeminent form of music. He showed all who lived in the Green Mountain State how jazz can speak to each of us, directly, deeply; he showed us that the music born in the South and in the big cities of the Mid-west has flowed, like a mighty river, all through our nation. He was an important tributary of that river, and all of us in Vermont who love music will remember Big Joe for that, and for the wonderful performances he gave us, time and again.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I salute the Essex High School Cheerleaders, from Essex Junction, Vermont, for winning third place in the National High School Cheerleading Championship on February 12 in Orlando, Florida. The Hornet cheerleaders were competing for the first time. But they knew they had something going for them, despite their relative inexperience: They had already won the first place award at the New England Regional qualifier last fall. That victory, of course, put them on a collision course with the nation's very best cheerleading teams, all thirty-one of them. After a tough preliminary round, Essex was in fourth place, one spot out of the medals. But they bore down in the finals, and leaped into the medals with a third place, outpaced only by the three-time national champion, Sparkman High of Alabama, and a talented team from Archbishop Shaw High School in Louisiana. These exceptional young athletes and their coaches at Essex High School have worked long and hard to achieve this national recognition. Combining grace with athleticism, they have shown the nation that with determination and the desire to excel, any door may be opened, even a door leading to a top place in national competition. All of Essex High School, all of Essex and Essex Junction, all of Vermont, are proud of these young women and men. May this be the beginning of a proud new tradition.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today that along with 61 cosponsors, 45 Democrats and 16 Republicans, I am introducing legislation that will repeal Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, with China. Anyone who takes an objective look at our trade policy with China must conclude that it is an absolute failure and needs to be fundamentally overhauled. There really can be no other conclusion. Today, as part of our overall record-breaking $600 billion trade deficit, we have an estimated $160 billion trade deficit with China. Incredibly, this trade deficit with China has increased by 29 percent over the last year alone and almost 50 percent since the passage of PNTR in 2000. Very few experts in this area doubt that the trade deficit with China will continue to escalate in the years ahead. In industry after industry, corporate America is shifting our manufacturing plants, our good-paying jobs to China where desperate people are forced to work for wages as low as 20 cents an hour. Anyone who went Christmas shopping this year knows that more and more products on the shelves are made in China: toys, bicycles, computers, televisions, shoes and sneakers, all kind of clothing and hats, telephone, furniture, auto parts and even artificial Christmas decorations. Ironically, the little American flags that Members of Congress wave around are often made in China. In the last 4 years, the United States has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, over 16 percent, of our entire manufacturing sector. In my own small State of Vermont, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs during that period. PNTR with China and our disastrous trade policies in general are one of the key reasons for that, but we should be very aware that PNTR with China is not only leading to the destruction of traditional manufacturing and blue collar jobs. It is leading to the loss of millions of high-tech, information technology jobs as well. These are the jobs that we were told would be there for our kids and would secure them with a place in the middle class. The question that the American people have to ask is why it is that corporate America, with the active support of the President of the United States and the congressional leadership, is selling out the American people and making China the economic superpower of the 21st century. Not only is China rapidly becoming the manufacturing center of the world; it is quickly becoming the information technology hub as well. Andy Grove, the founder of Intel, predicted last year that the United States will lose the bulk of its information technology jobs to China and India over the next decade. John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, was typical of many high-tech leaders when he said, ``China will become the IT center of the world. What we're,'' at Cisco, ``trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company.'' At a time when poverty in America is increasing, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider and most of the new jobs projected for the future are low wage with minimal benefits, the great economic struggle of our time is whether the middle class of America can be saved. Will we be a country in which ordinary workers have bright futures with good-paying jobs and decent benefits, or will we continue to move in an oligarchic direction in which the rich get richer and most everyone else gets poorer? To a significant degree, the answer to that question will depend on whether Congress has the courage to make fundamental changes in our trade policy, including PNTR with China. The word has got to go out loud and clear to companies like Wal-Mart, GE, GM, IBM and dozens more, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that they cannot keep sending America's future to China. Trade is a good thing, but must be based on principles that are fair to American workers. The U.S. Congress can no longer allow corporate America to sell out the middle class and move our economy abroad. It is not acceptable that Jeff Immelt of General Electric, the CEO, says, ``When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China.'' It is not acceptable that Thomas Donahue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ``urges'' American companies to send jobs overseas. It is not acceptable that Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in America, tells us that Communist authoritarian China has created ``a brand new form of capitalism, and as a consumer it's the best thing that ever happened.'' We need to repeal PNTR to China.