Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share with you a summary of H.R. 417, legislation I recently introduced that would change the paradigm for financing medical R&D and pricing prescription drugs in the United States. Rather than rely on high drug prices as the incentive for R&D, the bill would directly reward developers of medicines, on the basis of a drug's incremental therapeutic benefit to consumers, through a new Medical Innovation Prize Fund. Prices for prescription drugs to consumers would be at low generic prices immediately upon entry to the market. By breaking the link between drug prices and R&D, we can provide more equitable access to medicine, end rationing and restrictive formularies, and manage overall R&D incentives through a separate mechanism that can be increased or decreased, depending on society's willingness to pay for medical R&D. The bill, by rewarding only truly innovative products that provide new therapeutic benefits to consumers, would also dramatically reduce wasteful expenditures such as those on research, development and marketing of ``me-too'' medicines. Summary of the Medical Innovation Prize Fund The current system for financing research and development of new medicines is broken. High prices are a barrier to access. Companies invest too much in non-innovative ``me-too'' products and too little on truly innovative medicines. Massive expenditures on marketing of products consume too many resources with very little if any net social benefits. My legislation, H.R. 417, creating the Medical Innovation Prize Fund is an attempt to fundamentally restructure this system. It presents a new paradigm for R&D of new medicines. This is how it would work: The legislation would separate the markets for products from the markets for innovation. Products would become generics immediately after FDA approval. The innovators would be rewarded from a massive Medical Innovation Prize Fund, MIPF. The MIPF would make awards to developers of medicines, based upon the incremental therapeutic benefits of new treatments. The MIPF would also have minimum levels of funding for priority healthcare needs such as: (1) Global infectious diseases; (2) diseases that qualify under the U.S. Orphan Drug Act; (3) neglected diseases primarily affecting the poor in developing countries. These pay-outs would take place over the first ten years of use of a medicine. The payments from the MIPF would always go to the developer of the new medicine, regardless of who actually sells the product to consumers. The legislation proposes to set the MIPF pay-outs at .5 percent of the national income of the United States (as measured by GDP). An independent Board of Trustees would manage the MIPF. Trustees would include key government officials, as well as persons from the private sector, representing industry, patient groups and medical researchers. Inventors would be free to obtain patents, and to use patents normally, until the FDA approves a new medicine. At that point, the patent owner would be remunerated from the MIPF, rather than from royalties on high drug prices.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 31st, 2005, I held a town meeting at the Vermont Law School on the state of civil liberties in America. Joining me at the meeting were Professor Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School; Professor Stephen Dycus of Vermont Law School; Trina Magi, Past President of the Vermont Library Association; and Ben Scotch, the Former Executive Director of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union. Well over 200 people participated in the meeting. Mr. Speaker, in the United States today there is a great concern about terrorism. Our country suffered a horrendous tragedy on September 11th, 2001--and there is no doubt in my mind that there are people on this earth who would like to attack us again. Is terrorism a serious problem? The answer is ``Yes, it is.'' Should the United States and the rest of the world do all that we can to protect innocent people from terrorist attacks? The answer, once again in my view, is ``Yes, we should.'' But the question that we are struggling with in Congress and throughout our country is: ``Do we have to sacrifice our basic liberties and constitutional rights in order to protect ourselves from the threat of global terrorism?'' And in my view, the answer to that question must be a resounding ``No.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit an article that ran in the Rutland Herald on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, about this town meeting. Panel Discusses Civil Liberties Royalton.--Big Brother might not be watching just yet, but many believe George Orwell's nightmare is becoming more plausible by the day. ``We need to be aware that a cancer is threatening our basic civil liberties, our constitutional rights and our privacy rights,'' Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., said Monday night to a crowd of more than 200 people at Vermont Law School. The audience filled the Jonathan B. Chase Community Center for the panel discussion on civil liberties and national security with Sanders, VLS professors Stephen Dycus and Cheryl Hanna, former Vermont Library Association president Trina Magi and former Vermont American Civil Liberties Union president Ben Scotch. Much of the discussion centered on the USA Patriot Act, passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. Sanders said the issue alone was not just the Patriot Act, which broadened the powers of law enforcement and the federal government, but also how those who want to keep track of people are gaining more ways of doing so. Sanders said there was an effort in Congress last year to require trackable computer chips in all drivers' licenses. ``Someone with the right kind of device could track your every movement,'' he said. ``George Orwell, here we are. In a few short years, unless we change it, every single thing we do, every place we go, every person we meet could be recorded in a database.'' Hanna said the provisions of the Patriot Act that civil libertarians find most troublesome and unconstitutional have been difficult to challenge in court because of the secrecy with which the law allows the government to operate. ``In order to challenge something, you have to have a case,'' she said. ``You need someone who has been harmed. With the Patriot Act, so much of the harm has been clandestine. You might not even know if you were the target of an investigation.'' Scotch argued that the real dangers of the Patriot Act were its vagaries and the ways in which it challenged established legal language. Scotch presented provisions of a bill he called ``The Free Speech Enhancement Act of 2005,'' that would outlaw several forms of speaking out against the government during wartime. He then revealed that the law had been passed, under another name in 1918 and had since been repealed. ``Bills that restrict freedom are more and more subtle and more and more clever,'' he said. ``That's what we're seeing in the USA Patriot Act. When the Sedition Act of 1918 says we're going to ban disloyal speech, it comes out and says it.'' Magi said she was worried that the provisions allowing investigators to look at the records of any business, including libraries, without a warrant would destroy the effectiveness of libraries. ``As an academic librarian, it is my job to help students really dig deeper,'' she said. ``In order to do that, students must feel that the library is a safe place to seek information.'' Dycus challenged the notion that ``normal Americans'' who are not terrorists don't need to fear the Patriot Act. ``It would be a terrible mistake to believe none of this concerns you,'' he said. ``You might be right to think that you will never be taken away in the night and detained in a military brig . . . but you shouldn't be so sure. Besides, what our government does with our knowledge it also does in our name.'' The floor was opened to questions from the audience, which ranged from angry rants against the Bush administration to questions about what can be done. One student challenged the one-sidedness of the discussion. ``I was a little surprised the Vermont Law School would have only one side presented,'' she said. ``I would think they would want both sides presented so we, as law students, could learn.'' Sanders said the make-up of the panel was his doing and not the school's. The student went on to challenge some of the assertions about the Patriot Act, saying her understanding was the ``sneak and peek'' provisions merely expanded capabilities that law enforcement already had. Scotch replied that the earlier law on which those provisions were based included a requirement similar to probable cause, but the Patriot Act does not. One man asked how to best strike a balance between preserving civil liberties and vigilance against terrorist threats. Magi said it was something people would have to decide for themselves. ``I think it's really legitimate to be afraid of terrorists,'' she said. ``We can also be afraid of an overreaching government that stretches too far into our lives. There are plenty of examples of lives that were ruined by a government that was not restrained.'' Sanders said there was more to the issue than a simple tradeoff and that reductions in privacy don't necessarily lead to increases in security. Sanders cited the deportation of people advocating trade unions in the 1920s, the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, the McCarthyism of the 1950s and government surveillance during the 1960s as examples of how the government can be just as much of a threat to the people as those from whom it is supposed to protect them. ``We have got to be vigilant,'' he said. Sanders said people need to put as much effort into defending their civil liberties as the Republican Party leadership has put into promoting the policies of the Bush Administration. ``Tom Delay works day and night, fighting for what he believes in,'' he said. ``You have to begin to think about changing the political culture. All of us are going to have to roll up our sleeves and talk to our neighbors.'' The key, Sanders said, lies not in just organizing liberals, but reaching out to conservatives. ``It is not moderate Republicans, it is conservative Republicans, people who love their guns and don't want their guns taken away, who are going to join you,'' he said. ``Do you talk to them and or just think they're jerks who aren't as bright as you? Well, that's what they think about you.'' Sanders said nobody on the left has the luxury of being depressed or defeatist. ``On issues like this, I believe that once people hear the issues, they understand we can deal with terrorism without the provisions of the Patriot Act,'' he said.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to announce today the reintroduction of the Oral Health Promotion Act, a bill I previously sponsored in the 107th Congress. I will reintroduce this bill tomorrow and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me as original cosponsors on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, oral health care in the United States is in a sad state of decay. Congress cannot neglect it any longer. While the number of Americans without private health insurance of any kind is staggering enough at over 45 million, the number of Americans without private or public dental insurance is more than two times that figure. One hundred and eight million Americans--at last count--had no dental insurance at all: no coverage for emergency services, no coverage for fillings, no coverage for braces, no coverage for check-ups. Amazingly, despite great advances in oral health sciences, the Surgeon General has reported that tooth decay has become the single most common chronic childhood disease--five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than hay fever. What does our neglect of oral health cost us? Surveys have shown that dental problems cause children to miss more than 51 million hours of school and adults to miss more than 164 million hours of work each year. That's a lot of lost education, lost productivity and lost pay. And let's be clear--lack of access to dental care does not strike evenly across the socioeconomic spectrum. According to the U.S. Surgeon General: Poor children suffer twice as many cavities as their more affluent peers, and their disease is more likely to be untreated. Poor children suffer nearly 12 times more restricted-activity school days than children from higher-income families. (In my own state, which is doing a lot better than the national average on many oral healthcare indicators, a recent study found that 23 percent of children in grades 1-3 experienced 82 percent of all decay found.) Medicaid has not been able to fill the gap in providing dental care to poor children: Fewer than one in five Medicaid-covered children received a single dental visit in a recent year-long study period. For each child without medical insurance, there are at least 2.6 children without dental insurance. For every adult 19 years or older with medical insurance, there are three without dental insurance. Obviously, there are a lot of factors at play in this problem. But when it comes down to what we can do to increase access to dental care for the largest number of people, the solution, I think, already exists. While many other dental providers close the door to Medicaid and uninsured patients, often because they do not receive adequate reimbursement for the services they provide, Federally Qualified Community Health Centers provided dental services to millions and millions of them last year. Currently, over 1,000 community, migrant, and homeless health centers serve over 15 million people in 3,600 urban and rural communities in every State and territory. It is clear that focusing on expansion of the dental care infrastructure through these and similar community-based providers will get us the biggest bang for our buck. Community health centers--which serve all patients in their communities regardless of their ability to pay--are on the front lines of getting dental care to those who are least likely to get it, namely those on Medicaid and those with no insurance at all. A lot of praise has been showered on this successful program for many years and from both sides of the aisle, including from President Bush, and rightly so. Now I think we really need to put our money where our mouths are and fund the creation of more dental care infrastructure based on the community health care model. That is why I am introducing the ``Oral Health Promotion Act'' to address our national crisis in access to dental care. This bill will make a serious commitment to developing a dental health care infrastructure across our country and expand access to high-quality, affordable dental and health care for all Americans. It will: (1) Create a $140 million fund for the workforce, capital and equipment needed to establish or expand oral health services at community health centers, school-based dental centers (and other community-based sites) across the country; (2) Provide states with an enhanced federal match (FMAP) for agreeing to cover full adult dental benefits under the Medicaid program; (3) Require that State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage include dental benefits for children; (4) Authorize and provide additional funding for states to provide dental services under SCHIP as a supplement to other health coverage; (5) Create incentives for states to pay market-based reimbursement for dental services under SCHIP and Medicaid and to cover the Medicaid level of dental benefits under SCHIP. I urge my colleagues to join me as original cosponsors of this important legislation, which I will introduce tomorrow.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I agree with John Kerry. I think George W. Bush won Ohio. But I agree with millions of American citizens that no American should have to wait 4 hours to cast a vote. I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are very worried that when they cast a ballot on an electronic voting machine that there is no paper trail to record that vote in the event of a recount. What today is about is to demand that the Federal Government begin to move forward, to guarantee that every voter in America feels secure and confident that all of the votes cast in this country are counted accurately and that all of our voters are treated with respect and dignity. That is what democracy is about and that is what we are fighting for.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in praise of the White River Junction Veterans Administration Medical Center, which has received the Robert W. Carey Trophy Award for Organizational Excellence. This award, named after a former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, was presented to recognize the truly excellent care that the White River VA Center provides to veterans in Vermont and the Connecticut River Valley. This award is the highest quality award the Department of Veterans Affairs can bestow. In the two previous years, the White River VA Center was recognized for excellence for the quality of its care by winning back-to-back Carey Achievement Awards. This year it took the top award in the nation. Under the leadership of Gary De Gasta, the staff at the center-- doctors, nurses, health professionals, administrative support--are committed to providing the very best in health care. They are attentive to veterans and their needs; they offer state-of-the art medical care; they honor the service of the brave men and women who answered, and answer, our nation's call decade after decade. I am very proud of the excellent work done by those who work at the White River VA Center. They are deserving of this highest of commendations, and we in Vermont are very proud of them. We are equally proud that this high level of performance helps to deliver the very best in health care to our veterans.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention a remarkable company, located in my home state of Vermont, that can and should serve as a model for corporate responsibility in this era so unfortunately marked by greed of CEO's, who last year paid themselves 301 times as much as the average worker in their companies. The company I speak of is Chroma Technology Corporation of Rockingham, Vermont. It is completely employee owned. The firm has a flat pay scale, where no employee makes less than $37,500 and no one more than $75,000. Thus no top-level specialist makes more than twice what anyone on the shop floor earns. Yet Chroma competes in the global marketplace, taking the risks that other corporations do. It is a global, high-tech manufacturer of optical filters for microscopes used by the world's top biologists. It is the major supplier to three of the four major microscope manufacturers in the world (Zeiss and Leica from Germany and Nikon from Japan). Chroma is also the second source for Olympus of Japan and was recently chosen as primary supplier to Motic, an emerging Chinese microscope company. Chroma is today a premier manufacturer of high-tech products, and expects sales of $16 million in 2004. While other companies practice outsourcing, Chroma remains locally rooted, with virtually all 68 employees living within a 50-mile radius of its facility in Rockingham. So amazing is its story--and so important is its lesson to how American companies can not only survive but thrive in the international marketplace--that I want to tell that story to the American nation. When it began, Chroma had a policy of paying everyone the same wage, a wage pegged to the local living wage. By the time the firm grew to 17 employees in the early 1990s, everyone was making an identical $30,000 per year. ``If we would have changed our wage structure at that point, we would have had a revolution,'' says Chroma's CEO, Paul Millman. In 1996, Chroma instituted the policy that tenure would determine pay. ``The criterion is longevity, rather than job description,'' Mr. Millman explains. Today the maximum salary of $75,000 is the same for everyone, though new employees can start higher than the minimum of $37,500. The disadvantage of this flat pay structure, according to Mr. Millman, is that some people with graduate degrees or business experience won't work there, because they'll be paid the same as someone in production. The advantage, he counters, is the cooperative atmosphere, the self-direction, and the lack of a managerial class. Chroma practices not just worker ownership, but worker democracy. At one time the company made decisions through a Quaker meeting format where consensus ruled, though that's being revisited now that there are more employees. Still, there are no designated managers at Chroma, and employees occupy all seats on the board of directors. More than 95 percent of company decisions are made on the shop floor. ``We call it full exposure management,'' says Gabe Capy, a member of Chroma's shipping department who has been with the company eight years. ``It is peer pressure that then encourages people to perform.'' Nor does Chroma cut corners on environmental issues to cut costs. Chroma recently invested $130,000 to make its new 28,000-square-foot factory energy-efficient. The company will recover those costs in less than two years through savings in electricity and propane costs. ``They have gone far beyond the efficiency measures associated with standard building practices,'' says Gabe Arnold, technical coordinator for Efficiency Vermont, a statewide energy efficiency utility. While most companies focus on lowering costs, he says, Chroma showed an innovative willingness to invest heavily up-front in efficiency. Because employee-owners intend to pass this company on to future generations, it is virtually impossible for Chroma to be sold. After the founders leave, no single employee will own more than 5 percent; a super-majority is needed to sell the company. Employee ownership, worker democracy, environmental stewardship--and an all-American work force: instead of being liabilities, these practices help Chroma compete in its global, high-tech markets. The structures of employee ownership and involvement contribute significantly to the high quality products that are Chroma's trademark. ``Other companies can build these filters quicker and cheaper,'' Mr. Millman concedes, but because Chroma has educated the biologists who actually use the microscopes about its optics, it has developed strong customer loyalty. ``That adds to the romance of our product,'' he says. ``We now have three Ph.D. biologists on our staff, and that is no happy accident. No other optical filter company can say that.'' While competing internationally, Chroma defines itself by a different economics than that touted by most business schools. ``I prefer the term `sustainable economy,' or an economy that keeps us living. That's what Chroma is all about,'' says Mr. Millman, CEO of what has been the fastest growing technology company in Vermont for the past five years. He credits the business environment in Vermont for nurturing Chroma's value structure. ``Vermont is the prototypical state for the creative economy,'' he said. ``This was the first state to abolish slavery. Outcasts from the '60s and '70s came here and created communes. This is where Ben & Jerry's started.'' Vermont, I should mention with pride, along with Ohio, boasts the greatest concentration of employee-owned companies. At Chroma Technology, where committed employees lead naturally to loyal customers, being local goes hand-in-hand with being global. Chroma Technology shows us all that it's possible to make a mark in the global economy and do it in a way that is sustainable and humane.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, even though this is the richest and most productive nation in the history of the world, hunger is still a major problem in the United States. In my State of Vermont alone, 55,000 households are living in poverty. In Vermont, many of these people find that the existence of food shelves provides the final protection to keep them from sinking into malnutrition and even starvation. Of those who go to food shelves, almost one out of four is elderly and over half are families with children. Most of these are working families. It is a terrible fact that 21,000 children under the age of 12 either go hungry or are at risk of hunger in Vermont. The situation is so severe that nationwide, over 29 percent of households that received emergency food last year literally had to choose between paying for food or paying for medical care. Clearly our Nation's governmental policies are entirely wrong, placing as they do tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate welfare as high priorities, and ignoring the need to feed the hungry, guarantee health care to all, support the construction of affordable housing, and make college available to those who wish to attend. We need to change our skewed priorities which, rather than to making life better and more secure for the vast majority of Americans, lead to the increasing gap between rich and poor, and to ever-increasing economic pressures faced by the middle class. But while we struggle to change the United States, to make it into a more just and equitable society, we also need to make sure that no American goes hungry. I want to commend, today, the Vermont Foodbank for its years of exemplary service to fighting hunger. The Vermont Foodbank serves food shelves, community kitchens, homeless shelters, domestic abuse programs and programs which provide services for the elderly and children. Well over 100,000 people are served through Foodbank's network of 295 agencies each year. From its building in Barre, the Foodbank supplies agencies and NGOs all over Vermont with food for those who are hungry. It is greatly assisted in its work by hundreds of volunteers, who contributed over 23,000 hours--over 11 years of work weeks--in just the past year alone. The Vermont Foodbank helps assure that none among us go hungry, that every community group and agency that seeks to combat hunger has a resource upon which it can call. It, together with our many community food banks, the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger, the work of shelters, the Salvation Army, churches, and countless other groups, is doing essential, life-sustaining work in throughout our State.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago the Howard Center for Human Services was established. It is a remarkable organization, one which provides essential services to the citizens of four counties in northern Vermont. Although its origins are in the nineteenth century, its earliest forebearer was a ladies' aid and relief society in 1873. Its willingness to join together several different NGOs in 1994, overriding several smaller portfolios in the interest of providing a broad umbrella of services to the community, is testimony to its commitment to serving the needs of Vermont. The focus of its staff and programs is on developmental disabilities, those with mental problems, and on children, youth and families who face difficulties of many sorts. It serves those in crisis and those with ongoing problems. Altogether, the Howard Center serves over 15,000 Vermont residents each year through Howard Community Services, the Baird Center, and Adult Behavioral Health Services. It does so efficiently, dedicating almost 90 percent of its budget directly to programs and outreach for those thousands of Vermonters in need of the services it provides. The Howard Center provides accredited services in the areas of mental health, alcohol and other drug addictions programs, family services, and employment services. Its many programs range from crisis intervention and stabilization to outpatient treatment, case management services coordination, community housing, residential treatment, job development and supports, and criminal justice service case management. In addition to a dedicated staff and hundreds of contracted workers supporting individuals and families in their homes and in the community, 500 volunteers help the Howard Center meet the needs of our friends and neighbors in northern Vermont. I could go on at length about the individual programs of the Howard Center, but in the interest of time I will mention just one, one that is representative of the remarkable commitment and innovation that the Howard Center brings to providing human services to northern Vermont. The Streetwork program provides daily assistance and support to people with psychiatric disabilities, and to those dealing with substance abuse, homelessness and other unmet social service needs; it provides those services on the main streets of downtown Burlington, by going out to people rather than waiting for them to come into offices or clinics. In these difficult times, when the middle class is under siege and shrinking and low income families see the social safety net in shreds, when fringe benefits for many jobs axe disappearing and more people are medically uninsured, when low and moderate income housing is often unavailable, the Howard Center provides a bulwark and a refuge to those who are in need of social services. I congratulate them on the past ten years, and look forward to a new decade in which they continue to sustain tens of thousands of Vermonters.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of this body, and the Nation, the wonderful work that has been done by the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA), and in particular the wonderful work its affiliate does in Vermont. In a time when the family farm is under great destructive pressures, in a time when agribusiness blindly ignores the potential for damage that accompanies chemical pesticides and GMOs, in a time when corporate agriculture ignores the need to sustain and replenish the soil that sustains life, there are those who fight to maintain a good, healthy, ongoing source of food for all of us. NOFA Vermont has been fighting, and continues to fight, for family farms, for responsible husbandry of the soil, for a secure and healthful food supply. NOFA Vermont has been in existence for over 30 years, and is one of the oldest organic farming associations in the entire United States. The Vermont chapter, one of seven state chapters in the northeastern region of the United States, currently has over 1,000 members. It has been a sustaining force for the 333 certified organic growers and producers in our New England state. They sell their produce and products in 52 farmers markets in Vermont, to local groceries and food stores, to grocery chains operating in Vermont, and indeed to distributors nationwide. In an especially noteworthy development, they have forged new relations with local buyers, and new distribution networks, through the formation of 42 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms which provide food directly to consumers on an ongoing and regular basis. NOFA Vermont's dual commitment is to local agriculture and to organic agriculture. It strives to be a steward of the soil, a preserver of the ongoing vitality of the environment, a proponent for healthy and nutritious foods. Through education, organic certification and technical assistance it strengthens the agricultural community in Vermont. Through its efforts to sustain community food security, and to promote both the marketing of organic products and the development of new markets, like the farmers markets and CSAs I mentioned a few minutes ago, it builds a stronger presence for healthful foods in Vermont. It is important that we take time to recognize the individuals and organizations which not only nourish--in every way--our present, but look forward with vision to creating a strong and sustainable world for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. NOFA Vermont, and its hundreds of members, nourish us and show us the shape of a vital, vibrant and human-centered future.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the October 10th inauguration of Dr. Ronald D. Liebowitz as the sixteenth president of Middlebury College. Middlebury is one of the nation's finest liberal arts colleges. We in Vermont are proud that we have, in our midst, a beacon of learning for students all across the nation. Dr. Liebowitz was chosen as Middlebury's forthcoming president after a five-month search during which 400 prospective candidates were reviewed. Despite the fact that the prestigious position attracted many of the nation's foremost educators, Middlebury selected one of its own, the third time it has chosen a member of its faculty to head the institution. His able predecessor, John McCardell, was also a longtime faculty member when he became president in 1992, and Dr. McCardell's thirteen-year leadership has amply confirmed Middlebury College's confidence that its own faculty have some of the finest minds and some of the most humane administrative abilities that can be found in the entire nation. A professor of geography, Dr. Liebowitz is a widely recognized authority on Russian economic and political geography. Dr. Liebowitz has served as provost and executive vice president of Middlebury College since 1997. Earlier, he served for two years as dean of the faculty. During his administrative years he played a significant leadership role in the internationalization of the curriculum, including the introduction of innovative interdisciplinary, team-taught senior seminars in international studies, the establishment of a new major in international studies, and the strengthening of the program in international politics and economics. We in Vermont welcome his leadership as he shepherds this outstanding college into the future. We look forward to a rich partnership as Middlebury brings its student and faculty resources to bear on helping us address Vermont's, and the nation's, problems and priorities. And in these difficult times, we have confidence that Middlebury's long- standing choice to focus on international affairs will educate yet more generations of students to look outward, to recognize that they have a dual obligation: to work for domestic justice by helping those in America who are less fortunate than themselves, and to work for international justice by giving support to foreign nations as they attempt to realize social justice for their own citizens.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, from Vermont to California, there is an affordable housing crisis in this country and it is only getting worse. Millions of Americans who are working 40 hours a week, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities are paying over 50 percent of their limited incomes on housing. For families living paycheck to paycheck, one unforeseen circumstance--a sick child, a lost job, a medical emergency--can send them into homelessness. These life-shattering events happen every day in America and it is a national disgrace. Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe us, just ask the half-million veterans who put their lives on the line defending this country or the more than one million children who will experience homelessness this year if they believe there is an affordable housing crisis. Ask moms and dads who are working 40 hours a week that have to sleep in their cars or out on the street because they can't pay the rent, if there's an affordable housing crisis in this country. Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that there is not a single place in America today where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford an average 2 bedroom apartment. Not a single place in America. Legislation that I have introduced to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund (H.R. 1102) will begin to put an end to this crisis once and for all. It will give states and localities the resources they need to build at least one and a half million affordable housing rental units in this country leading to the creation of 1.8 million new jobs and nearly $50 billion in wages. In other words, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a win-win that will put people back to work and into affordable housing. Unfortunately, despite over 200 tri-partisan co-sponsors; despite the support of over 5,000 organizations representing organized labor, big business, environmentalists, banks, religious leaders, and affordable housing advocates, a vote has not been scheduled for this bill. For over 3 years, the Administration has opposed this legislation, while its policies have made the affordable housing crisis even worse. While Congress has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent over the past 3 years, we are forcing our nation's low-income senior citizens, veterans, and families with children to pay the price. Well, in less than 48 hours, over 100 Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition to force a vote on the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act immediately. Mr. Speaker, while 218 signatures are required in order to succeed, I hope you don't make us wait that long. I hope that we can convince you that this bill is needed now more than ever. Mr. Speaker, I know that is a tough decision for you to make. But, quite frankly, people all over this country are making much tougher choices. This evening a mom and dad will be at the kitchen table staring at their bills. They will have to make a choice. Do we pay the rent; or do we feed our children. Tomorrow morning a senior citizen who worked hard and played by the rules all of her adult life will have to make a choice. Will she pay the rent; or will she pay for her life saving prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. In the richest country on earth, families should not have to make these unacceptable choices. That's what the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund campaign is all about. And, just today, Jack Kemp and Henry Cisneros, former HUD Secretaries under President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively have endorsed the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. David Broder, wrote in the Washington Post this morning that the Kemp-Cisneros ``Recommendations strike me as practical and specific-- not tilted to the left or the right. . . . They endorse the establishment of a National Housing Trust Fund, an idea that has gathered increasing support in Congress, to provide the capital needed to produce, preserve or rehabilitate at least 1.5 million affordable housing units over the next 10 years.'' And, according to the bipartisan National Millennial Housing Commission, created by Congress, and co-chaired by our former colleague Susan Molinari, ``The addition of 150,000 [affordable housing rental] units annually would make substantial progress toward meeting the housing needs of extremely low income households, but it would take annual production of more than 250,000 units for more than 20 years to close the gap.'' Mr. Speaker, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act will close this serious affordable housing gap. In fact, if H.R. 1102 was signed into law, we could more than triple affordable housing construction next year and provide accommodations to more than 100,000 families. In short, the establishment of a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund is needed now more than ever. I urge my colleagues to sign the Discharge Petition. By doing this today, we can mark the beginning of the end of the affordable housing crisis.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). This amendment also has the strong support of the AARP, the largest senior citizen group in this country, representing over 35 million Americans; the AFL-CIO, representing all of organized labor; and the Pension Rights Center. Mr. Chairman, last year, this amendment passed the House by a vote of 258 to 160. Two years ago, a similar amendment passed by a vote of 308 to 121. By voting for this amendment today, we will be protecting the retirement benefits of some 8 million American workers who have seen their pensions slashed by as much as 50 percent through age discriminatory cash balance pension schemes and the 14 million more American workers who still have traditional, defined benefit plans that could be converted to cash balance schemes. That is the issue today: standing up for those workers and protecting the pensions that they have been promised. The reason that this amendment is coming up again today is, despite the very strong, tripartisan support that we have seen in the House, this bill has yet to be implemented into law, and it is imperative that we keep fighting and keep standing with American workers who want us to do that. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and straightforward. In July of 2003, a Federal court ruled that IBM's cash balance pension plan violates Federal anti-age discrimination law. The judge in this case is expected to award damages to IBM employees any day now, after which the company will appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Our amendment today would simply prohibit the Federal Government from assisting in overturning this pro-worker court decision. IBM deserves its day in court, like every other litigant, but taxpayer money should not be used to support an age-discriminatory cash balance plan. And this amendment gives Congress the opportunity to make that very clear. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear. While this particular lawsuit involves IBM's conversion to a cash balance plan, there are hundreds of other companies that have done exactly the same thing. This is not just IBM; it is hundreds of companies, companies like AT&T, Duke Energy, CBS, Bank of America, Enron, WorldCom and many others. It is not only IBM employees who are hurting but millions of workers from one end of this country to the other who have also been affected, people whose retirement dreams have been shattered when companies change the rules of the game and slash the retirement benefits that were promised to their employees. This precedent-setting court ruling against cash balance plans confirms what American workers have been saying for years: Cash balance pension conversions discriminate against workers based on age, are illegal and, without adequate protections for older workers, must be stopped. And that is what we are here to do today. Mr. Chairman, let me just read a brief excerpt from the ruling of Judge Murphy: ``In 1999, IBM opted for a cash balance formula. The plan's actuaries projected that this would produce annual savings of almost $500 million by 2009. These savings would result from reductions of up to 47 percent in future benefits that would be earned by older IBM employees. The 1999 cash balance formula violates the literal terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. IBM's own age discrimination analysis illustrates the problem.'' That was Judge Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I became involved in this issue several years ago when hundreds of IBM employees in Vermont contacted my office and told me that the pensions that they had been promised by the company had been cut by 20 to 50 percent. In fact, the largest town meeting that I have ever held in Vermont, and I have held many, was for some 700 IBM workers who came out to demand that the company rescind the changes that had been made in their pension plan. Mr. Chairman, think about it. Think about workers staying at a company through good times and bad times, providing loyalty to their employers because, among other reasons, they expect to receive certain agreed-upon pensions when they retire. And then, Mr. Chairman, one day, out of nowhere, the company sends a document, maybe it is an e-mail, which says, in so many words: Thank you, employees, for your dedicated service to the company, but forget about the promises that we made to you regarding the retirement that you and your family were anticipating. Forget about it. That is gone. And, in many instances, while pulling the rug out from under their employees, we are seeing older workers, years of service to a company, suddenly find that the pensions that they had been planning on, the retirement dreams that they had been expecting, slashed by up to 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, for those Members who will tell us that cash balance conversions are good things and should be supported, and there will be some today, I would remind them of a report from the Congressional Research Service that I requested. And very simply, what I asked the CRS to tell me is, what impact would a conversion to cash balance mean for Members of Congress, because I hear over and over again, Members of Congress, they want the American people to have what they have. Well, surprise, surprise. What the CRS reported was that, if Congress converted to cash balance payment plans, our retirement benefits would go down, down, down. So, if any Member today thinks that it is a great idea to force cash balance payment plans on the workers of America, I hope that they will do the same thing for the Members of Congress and cut their pensions by up to 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, all over this country today, there is enormous pension anxiety. People who have worked for decades are wondering whether the promises made to them will be kept. That is the issue today. Let us vote for this tripartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a gentleman who has been very active in supporting workers on pension issues.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have additional speakers?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman's status remain the same?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to the amount of time left both on sides.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that I inadvertently missed a vote this afternoon on H.R. 4571. If I had voted, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a time for celebration of higher education in the Green Mountain State: One hundred years ago Saint Michael's College was founded in Winooski, Vermont. In the past century the college has seen its enrollment burgeon from 34 students to 1,900 students. It has grown from very modest beginnings into a major institution of higher education, widely known as one of the finest liberal arts colleges in the Northeast, and one of the premier Catholic colleges in America. With the diversity of its student body, and its long history as one of the first schools to offer education in teaching English as a second language, its reputation for academic excellence is not just national but international. Priests of the Society of St. Edmund emigrated to North America, fleeing religious persecution in France in the late nineteenth century. They settled in Vermont, and changed forever the shape of education in their adopted state. As an order dedicated to education, the Edmundites founded Saint Michael's College in 1904. With an initial investment of $5,000 they began the college on the Kelly Farm in Winooski Park. Their initial effort was modest, just under three dozen students ranging in age from 10 to 22. Few, except the visionary founders, would have believed that from such small beginnings would emerge the thriving institution which, a century later, is widely known for both its rigorous academic program and its deep commitment to service. The founders themselves probably did not foresee that the college, originally open only to men, would go co-educational in 1970, or that its commitment to excellence in every pursuit--in developing the ethical as well as the intellectual and spiritual side of human existence, in improving the body as well as the mind--would lead to the Ice Knights winning the NCAA Division II hockey championship. (Nor have the women far behind: in 2000 the St. Michael's field hockey team advanced to the NCAA Division II Final Four.) The founders knew they were sowing the seeds for building character and giving a base for achievement in the secular world, but even they could not have foreseen that graduates of St. Michael's would serve in the United States Senate, and head some of America's largest and most important corporations, or win the Pulitzer Prize. Many graduates serve their fellow men and women, here and abroad, with great dedication, though that they could have foreseen, for commitment to the welfare of the underprivileged and dispossessed has always been central to the Edmundite mission. Today, the 1,900 full-time undergraduate students at St. Michael's reside in an environment in which learning takes place both in and out of the classroom. In addition to its undergraduates, a multitude of graduate and international students experience its commitment to moral and ethical development, a commitment inspired by the strong Edmundite tradition of service. Although it is now run by a secular Board of Trustees, and no longer are the majority of its teachers Edmundite priests, St. Michael's still is guided by the spirit of its founding order, the recognition that service and education are inextricably linked, and intellectual growth must proceed in concert with spiritual and ethical deepening. St. Michael's was one of the first colleges to institute an Alternative Spring Break, enabling students to work in inner cities and rural areas to rebuild communities and provide needed services. Today, the college lives out its commitment to service in many ways at home and abroad. In the past few years, student programs have gone to Calcutta, Tanzania, Haiti and elsewhere to learn and do good work. St. Michael's remains dedicated to teaching biology and literature, history and philosophy--but is also enduringly dedicated to working with the impoverished, the homeless, and the victims of AIDS. It is a particular mark of St. Michael's excellence that it was recently invited to join the elite ranks of colleges and universities hosting Phi Beta Kappa chapters on campus. And Saint Michael's continues to grow ever stronger academically. For fourteen consecutive years it has been highly rated in rankings of colleges by US News and World Report, and in 2003 it was identified by Newsweek magazine as one of thirty ``hidden treasure'' colleges that deserve wider national recognition. Under the able leadership of President Marc vanderHeyden, a dedicated and excellent faculty teaches courses which are at the cutting edge of knowledge, while still rooted in the great traditions of learning. The staff at the college are as committed to excellence and the growth of students as are the faculty. The alumni, those prior generations of St. Michael's students, have gone on to do significant work in the world, serving as models for the engaged students of today, and contribute as generous benefactors to the fiscal well-being of the college. I have spoken at St. Michael's, met with classes there, and had its students serve as interns in my office. So I say with confidence that its students are remarkable young people, for they embody that dedication to conjoining learning with service which is the hallmark of the college. As St. Michael's College moves into its second century, the people of Vermont salute its past achievement and its present accomplishment. Situated above the Winooski River, overlooking the splendors of Mount Mansfield, it is my firm expectation that St. Michael's College and its campus community will continue to sparkle, a bright jewel in the Green Mountain State.