Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is a very great personal pleasure to extend best wishes on his eightieth birthday to Governor Philip H. Hoff of Vermont. During my own years of service to Vermont, I have found no finer example, no better counselor, no more steadfast friend, than Phil Hoff, the Governor of Vermont from 1962 to 1969. Educated at Williams College and Cornell University, Phil Hoff ran for Governor of Vermont in 1962. His was an uphill battle: Although Democrat William Meyer had been elected to one term in the U.S. House in 1958, no Democrat had won the governorship in the state of Vermont since before the Civil War. Vermont was steadfastly, resolutely, a one- party state, even resisting national plebiscites for Democratic candidates, standing alone with Utah in voting for William Taft in the Woodrow Wilson victory in 1912, alone with Maine in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt landslide in 1936. With energy, vision and a great personal warmth that touched voters deeply, Phil Hoff boldly took a simple message to Vermont's citizens: It was time for a change. And people listened, and agreed. Phil Hoff was elected Governor of Vermont in 1962 by defeating the incumbent chief executive, F. Ray Keyser Jr. His vigor was put in service of his dual linked commitments, to social justice and to making those changes that would bring it about. During the next six years, everything in Vermont was changed, opened up, made more responsive to the people, reshaped in the visionary spirit of those exciting times of growth and renewed democracy. With Phil Hoff as governor, it seemed anything was possible: Stale tradition, entrenched power, historical limitations, all gave way to the bold vision and active involvement of this remarkable human being. While we have many differences, many different points of view, in our state, for many years Vermont has been to people all over America a beacon for what politics can be. Here, ideological conservatism does not rule, nor narrow self-interest, nor recriminations of one group against another. Our political figures far more often than not speak out on the side of justice and fairness. That is the legacy of Phil Hoff, who not only governed our state but left a legacy that ever afterwards politics would be about inclusion and not exclusion, about moving confidently into the future rather than cowering in the shadow of the past. Phil Hoff kept up an active life in the public sector, serving in more recent years as a Vermont State Senator, as a Trustee and President of Vermont Law School, as Chairperson of Vermont Advisory Committee of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. His greatest honors have come not from institutions, corporations, bureaucracies, but from the place held for him in the hearts of his fellow citizens. Deeply honored and revered by all in Vermont, Phil Hoff remains accessible and warm, a good neighbor, a good friend, a model citizen, to thousands and thousands of Vermonters. On my own behalf and on behalf of the entire state of Vermont, Let me conclude by wishing Phil Hoff, our finest public citizen, our model of what a human being can and should be, a very, very happy eightieth birthday. Phil, the nation, as well as Vermont, is proud of you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will close in a minute by saying that what we are talking about here is not a huge sum of money. It is $30 million. And one can always argue that where you take the money there is a reason for that money, and I respect that. But I think the evidence is overwhelming that we are on the cusp of major breakthroughs which can change our entire use of energy in this country and lead us and the entire world to move toward clean, sustainable energy and away from nuclear power, of which we do not know how to dispose of today, and away from fossil fuels, which are causing so many serious environmental problems. So this amendment is not just a $30 million amendment, but I think it is an indication of the sentiment of this Congress to tell the American people and the world that we are prepared to go forward in a bold new way with huge potential, and so I would urge support for this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Ranking Member Visclosky) for all of their hard work on this important legislation. The amendment that I am offering is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals, in fact, with one of the important issues of our time, and that is, whether the United States Government will take the bold step to break our dependency on fossil fuels, break our dependency on nuclear power and move forward as aggressively as we can into the new world of safe, clean, cost- effective, sustainable energy. The truth is that we have made some progress in recent years, but the truth also is that we have a long, long way to go; and this amendment will help us move in that direction. Mr. Chairman, specifically, the legislative intent of this amendment is to increase funding for renewable energy programs such as solar energy, wind, biomass, clean hydrogen, and geothermal by $30 million, to be offset by a decrease of $30 million in funding for the nuclear weapons advance simulation and computing program in the weapons activities budget. That offset, by the way, is a decrease of less than 5 percent for this program and a tiny fraction of the $6.5 billion for weapons that are funded in this bill. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bolster critical research and development so that we can deliver unlimited clean energy for generations to come. Improving the technology for sustainable energy is a huge step forward in protecting our environment, improving our economy and making this world a safer place so that our foreign policy is not significantly dictated by energy needs. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by every major environmental organization in the country, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, American Rivers, U.S. PIRG and Public Citizen. Mr. Chairman, if one looks at the big picture, it is clear that we are on the cusp of a historic opportunity to move from finite polluting fossil fuels to abundant, nonpolluting, clean energy sources that can be developed, refined, and manufactured here in the United States of America, not in the Mideast. The potential for these technologies is without limits as long as we adequately fund the research and development now. The programs increased under this amendment, solar, wind, clean hydrogen, biomass and geothermal, offer our country a new path of abundant clean energy that will revolutionize our impact on this planet. Passage of this amendment would send a message to the Nation that we are going to take the right path, that we are going to break from our destructive fossil fuel habits of the past and commit to a sane, clean, and cost effective energy future. When taken together, the funding for renewable energy sources in this bill falls $31.6 million below the President's own request. So this amendment for $30 million simply brings us up to what the President wants, which is, by no means, a radical concept. Certainly we can add a modest amount of money to research, develop, discriminate and disseminate these technologies, which will prevent smog, acid rain, and global climate change. Certainly we can redirect a mere $30 million in a bill of over $28 billion to R&D that promises to dramatically reduce lung damaging sulfur dioxide and neurotoxic mercury in the air we breathe and the water we drink. For those who might wonder whether we are already doing enough to support renewable energy, let me put our Government's support for different energy sources in historic perspective. From 1943 through 1999, cumulative Federal Government subsidies to nuclear photovoltaic, solar thermal and wind electric generating technologies, excluding hydropower, totaled about $151 billion. The nuclear industry received $145 billion, or over 96 percent of the subsidies. Remarkably, even the alternative technology available today, which has been subsidized at a fraction of the amount we have historically thrown at nuclear power and fossil fuels, is competitive in the market and can eliminate substantial amounts of toxins from the air. If it is competitive in the marketplace today, let us think about what we can do if we adequately fund research. In solar, we are making significant progress, but we are not funding solar any more today than we did in 1993. In wind, we are making progress, making real efforts to lower the cost of generating electricity from wind, but we are not adequately funding wind. Biomass, in my State of Vermont, 23 schools are now heated with wood chips. We are making progress. But everybody understands we can do a lot more. Geothermal the same, hydrogen the same. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it is an important step forward in telling the world that we understand that a revolution can happen in breaking our dependency on fossil fuels, on nuclear power, and moving forward to clean, safe, sustainable energy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlemen be willing to work with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and me to develop conference report language that would indicate the conference's expectation that the Department of Defense make a significant commitment to continue the breakthrough research which has recently indicated that the neurological damage associated with Gulf War Illness is caused by low-level chemical exposure?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I were originally going to offer an amendment, but we are not going to do that. We are withdrawing the amendment; and instead, we look forward to engaging in a colloquy with the chairman and the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, the issue that we are discussing today is of extraordinary importance. In the midst of Iraq and Afghanistan, let us never forget that 100,000 veterans from the first Gulf War continue to suffer from a yet not fully understood debilitating illness commonly known as Gulf War Illness. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I for a number of years have been working together on this issue, and I want to applaud him for his leadership. The fact of the matter is that over the years, while the Congress has appropriated many, many millions of dollars to research and tried to understand Gulf War Illness, in fact, much of that money has not been effective in getting us to better understand this problem. As many will recall, at the beginning of this discussion, the DOD and the VA were both saying, hey, there is no problem; and then more and more veterans came forward and they said, well, there is a problem, but it is stress related. Finally, after many, many years, I think both the VA and the DOD now understand that we have a very serious physical problem. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to inform my colleagues that the good news is that real progress is now being made in our understanding of Gulf War Illness. Medical researchers like Dr. Robert Haley of the University of Texas and other researchers can now measure real physical neurological damage in many Gulf War Illness sufferers. These injuries are likely the result of low-level exposure to chemical nerve agents during the first Gulf War. Much of the evidence suggests that exposure to these nerve agents is the direct result of the destruction of a major chemical weapons dump in Iraq by the U.S. military that created a plume of chemicals that may have exposed hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel and civilians in the region. In hearings held by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) in the last couple of weeks, we heard from Dr. Haley about the status of his research. Dr. Haley's findings were corroborated at the hearing by Dr. Paul Greengard, a 2000 Nobel Laureate and head of the Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience at the Rockefeller University. He agreed that research into neurological damage caused by low-level nerve agents is the most promising in terms of finding a cause and a treatment for Gulf War Illness. There has also been a change in attitude in the Pentagon and the VA about this illness. It appears that both now acknowledge that this is a very real physical injury. Secretary of VA Anthony Principi has taken an active interest in supporting Gulf War Illness research and has committed $15 million to continuing the fight. Mr. Chairman, I would introduce into the Record at this point a letter from Jim Binns, who is the chairman of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, who supports this line of research. VA Eastern Kansas Healthcare System, Topeka, KS, June 22, 2004. Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee on June 1. As you could tell from the hearing, we are at a moment of truth on Gulf War illnesses. On the one hand, the science is finally there to show that this is a medical problem, an important component of which is neurological in nature. Furthermore, researchers like Dr. Paul Greengard of Rockefeller University are waiting in the wings with projects that have a real chance of producing a cure. As you know, Dr. Greengard received the Nobel Prize in medicine in 2000 for his work to uncover the brain mechanisms involved in Parkinsons disease and to develop a treatment for that disease, and he testified that the same approach can succeed in Gulf War illnesses. In response to these new scientific findings, research managers at VA and DoD recognize the opportunity to pursue this type of research. On the other hand, while Secretary Principi is going to increase VA funding to $15 million, DoD, which has historically funded three-quarters of Gulf War illnesses research, is currently funding no new projects in this area because of its internal priorities. In addition to the financial implications, this withdrawal of DoD from Gulf War illnesses research dramatically limits the universe of researchers whose talents can be brought to bear, because VA by law can only fund VA internal research. Unlike DoD or NIH, VA cannot give grants to outside researchers. Thus, researchers like Dr. Greengard and others who have done important, DoD-funded work in the past, cannot be funded with the possible exception of minor sub-contractor roles. Other respected scientists with relevant expertise similarly cannot be engaged unless they work for VA. So just as there is finally something solid to research, and a willingness on the part of the research managers to spend in the right places, funding is dramatically down, and the cadre of potential researchers is dramatically limited. On behalf of the membership of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, I urgently request you to seek an amendment to the DoD appropriations bill to provide $30 million to the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command for Gulf War illnesses research in FY 2005. I have been told that Gulf War illnesses formerly was a line item in the DoD budget, in the period when federal spending was at the $45 million annual level (direct and indirect) in 1999-2002. It would also be constructive to include language requiring that ninety percent of this funding be placed with non- governmental researchers, that DoD develop with VA and NIH (specifically the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke) a comprehensive federal research plan for Gulf War veterans illnesses, and that DoD seek the input and review of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses in the creation of this plan and decisions on which research to fund in pursuit of the plan. I apologize not to have brought this matter to your attention earlier, but our energies have been focuses on VA. Thank you for your consideration of this request at this critical juncture. Respectfully, James H. Binns, Chairman, Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses. Mr. Chairman, I would also enter into the Record at this point a letter from Ross Perot, who has been one of the leaders on this issue over the years, who also understands that we are dealing with neurological illness. Plano, TX, June 22, 2004. Congressmen Bernie Sanders and Chris Shays, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Congressmen Sanders and Shays: As you both know, I have long been active in promoting and funding research to find treatments and a cure for Gulf War Illness--which now affects over 100,000 veterans of the first Gulf War. In recent years, great strides have been made in our understanding of the actual physical harm that these veterans have suffered. Researchers like Dr. Haley and others have been able to detect brain damage that likely resulted from exposure to low levels of sarin nerve agents. While the advances have been impressive, so much more still needs to be done. That is why I am pleased to support your amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill to provide $30 million in Gulf War Illness research. Not only will this type of research help victims of Gulf War Illness, but it could provide us with knowledge that would increase our ability to defend soldiers and civilians against future chemical attacks. This research could also provide clues to other illnesses in both the military and civilian context that may be caused by low level chemical exposure. Once again, I strongly support this amendment and look forward to working together to end the terrible suffering that so many Gulf War veterans are suffering. Sincerely, Ross Perot. Mr. Chairman, I now move into the colloquy between the chairman and the ranking member, if I might. Am I correct that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) are committing to work with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and me to secure additional funding for Gulf War Illness research when the bill goes to conference?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) very, very much for their support for this important breakthrough.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Does that commitment include the gentleman's willingness to support higher funding for Gulf War Illness research that might be included in the Senate version of the bill?

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I am not quite sure I understand the chairman's confusion on this issue. The gentleman is correct. No money would go to maintain the SPR unless oil was released, and that certainly can be done, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) indicated, through a swap. That is not a difficult process. What we are saying very clearly is that millions of working people are paying through the nose in high gas prices; it is imperative that this Congress act. We have had Republican presidents, Democratic presidents, Republican Members of the House, Democratic, Independent Members of this House, who have shown sympathy to this idea. It is a simple idea. It could lower the price of gas, and we should go forward on it. It is a totally practical approach.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have to convince any Member of this body that the American people are outraged by the extremely high prices they are currently paying for gasoline. I am sure that you are getting the same calls that I get in my office in Vermont. As we all know, these exorbitant prices are a serious drag on our economy. They affect small business and farmers, they affect airlines and the trucking industry, they affect middle-income people who drive to work every day and are seeing their wage increases going into their gas tanks. This is a serious national problem. Now, I understand that there are differences of opinion in this body about long-term solutions to this crisis. We have debated that over the last couple of days. I personally believe we have to take a hard look at OPEC, the cartel which today functions directly in opposition to international free trade law. I think we have to deal with the increased concentration of ownership in the oil industry, and I think the time is long overdue that we have to break our dependency on fossil fuels and move to sustainable energy. But whether one agrees with my long-term solutions or not, there should be no debate about the need for us to come together now to provide immediate short-term relief to the American people who are hurting from high gas prices. The concept I am introducing in this amendment has had support from Democrats and Republicans, people from all political views, and I hope and believe that it will win strongly today. Specifically, this amendment would suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and cap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at 647 million barrels of oil, the level that it was in in March of this year, just a few months ago. In other words, we would immediately stop the purchase of more oil for the reserve and release into the market 15 million barrels of oil. This action would have the very immediate impact of substantially lowering gas prices in America. Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently contains approximately 662 million barrels and the administration is pushing to increase that number to some 700 million barrels. My amendment would increase the amount of oil on the market and lead to lower cash 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 that 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 Burleger, the estimate is that this amendment could reduce gasoline prices at the pump by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. It is not going to solve the whole problem, but 10 to 25 cents per gallon is not an insignificant step in helping the American consumer. Mr. Chairman, even the staff at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve recommended against buying more oil for the SPRO in the spring of 2002. They state, ``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, a lot of people have come up with this idea. This is not just mine. Members may remember that in March of this year, 53 Members of the House, including 39 of our Republican colleagues, wrote to President Bush calling for a halt of oil deliveries into the SPRO. Let me quote from this letter: ``Dear Mr. President, we are writing to urge that you suspend shipments of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allow more oil to remain on the market and available to consumers when supplies are tight.'' I agree with those 39 Republicans and other Democrats who made that request of the President. They are right. Mr. Chairman, in addition, on March 16 of this year, the Senate passed an amendment by Senators Carl Levin and Susan Collins with a bipartisan majority of 52 to 43 to suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Frankly, there is nothing magical about the 647 million barrels of oil in this bill which this amendment proposes; that is the cap we propose. In conference, that number could be changed. That number simply came about with this amendment because it is where the SPR was in mid-March when the Senate passed its resolution and when the 53 Members of the House, including 39 Republicans, wrote their letter to the President.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I heard a moment ago an estimate from the DOE that this amendment would lower the cost of gas by one cent. Well, let me tell my colleagues that Goldman Sachs has studies which suggests that it would be 10 to 25 cents. They are the largest crude oil trader in the world, 10 to 25 cents a gallon. People say this is a new and radical idea. It is not a new and radical idea. George Bush, the first, did it; Bill Clinton did it; and in both instances, it was successful. It drove down the price of gas that consumers were purchasing. This is an amendment and a concept supported by Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention for the record that if this amendment passes, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would have 93 percent of its capacity, and we could fill it as soon as the oil prices went down. And, again, when people talk about concern about national security, we are all concerned. Let me remind that 53 Members of this House urged the President to do this, including 39 Republicans. The Senate passed a bipartisan resolution. So as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has indicated, the issue is will we finally stand up for the American consumer and lower the cost of gasoline.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very modest amendment and I would hope that in fact both sides could accept it. It does not add any more money to this bill. It simply shifts within the Rebuild America program $1 million dedicated to the Energy Smart Schools program which will encourage schools all over America to become more energy efficient. Mr. Chairman, I got into this issue because a number of months ago I went to a high school in Vermont called U-32 outside of Montpelier, Vermont. They escorted me around the school after I spoke to the kids and what I discovered is that in that school they were heating that building, a large campus, with wood chips. They were heating with a virtually nonpollutant fuel, they were creating jobs within our local economy and they were saving taxpayers' money. It was a win-win-win situation. It turns out, I later discovered, that 23 schools in the State of Vermont are doing that. It seems to me that we all around our country have a lot to teach each other about energy efficiency, how we can save taxpayers' money in terms of making our schools sustainable, cost effective and energy efficient. All that this amendment does is take $1 million from the Rebuild America program and dedicate it to the Energy Smart Schools program. The Department of Energy is running a good program. It is teaching young people about energy efficiency. It is saving taxpayers' money. I would urge support for this amendment and hopefully we could have both sides accept it.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to call the nation's attention to the exemplary work done by the staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic in Bennington, Vermont. Recently, the Federal Executive Association gave its ``Federal Employee of the Year Award'' to the entire Bennington VA Clinic staff. As the Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) housed at the Vermont Veterans Home in Bennington, the facility and its staff serves the primary health care needs of eligible veterans in the region of southwestern Vermont. Over 1800 veterans in Vermont get exceptional medical care from Dr. Peter King and his colleagues in the clinic. As a sign of their remarkable dedication to the health and well-being of veterans, the Bennington VA Clinic was rated among the top ten clinics in the nation in ten of twelve categories. Ranking so highly among the more than 850 community-based VA clinics is a clear indication of the extraordinary work done by the Bennington staff, Established in 1998, the Bennington VA Clinic affords veterans a single primary care provider to coordinate their care on an ongoing basis. It, along with the Fort Ethan Allen CBOC in Colchester, the CBOC in Rutland, and the CBOC in Littleton, NH (which serves veterans in the St. Johnsbury area), makes primary medical care more accessible to those who cannot always make the long journey to our excellent VA facilities in White River Junction. We in Vermont are proud both of our veterans, and of the dedicated people who honor them by meeting their medical needs.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize that two businessmen in Vermont, Steve Birge and Mark Curran, the owners of Black River Produce of Proctorsville, VT, were recently selected runners-up for the National Small Business Person of the Year by the Small Business Administration. Twenty-five years ago Steve Birge began Black River Produce, today a $27 million produce company, when he saw the poor quality of the produce used in the local restaurant in which he worked. Black River originally delivered fresh, local produce to local restaurants in the Proctorsville area of central Vermont. But after he met Mark Curran (while hitchhiking), the two expanded the company, working with local farmers so that they could supply restaurants with the freshest and most healthful produce available. Today, Black River delivers high- quality produce not only throughout Vermont, but also into parts of western New Hampshire, northern Massachusetts, and eastern New York. It supplies not just restaurants, but grocery stores, schools, hospitals, ski areas, and nursing homes. Black River Produce has sales of more than $27 million a year, a work force of 100 employees, and a fleet of 30 refrigerated trucks and two tractor trailers. I salute Black River Produce's commitment to providing its customers with the highest quality foods. The company distributes high-quality Vermont foods, supporting not only local farmers, but other small businesses such as Grafton Cheese, Cold Hollow Cider Mill, and products from Vermont Butter and Cheese. They are an integral part of the Vermont Fresh Network, which links local farms to local chefs. Although during out-of-season periods (Vermont, after all, has long winters) Black River distributes produce from out of State, and although it buys fish in Boston, its commitment to local agriculture and local business is noteworthy. In a time when both agribusiness and outsourcing have wrought havoc with traditional American family farms and with American businesses, I salute the remarkable accomplishment of Black River Produce in supporting local access to locally produced foods. Steve Birge and Mark Curran, and their many employees, have shown businesses around the nation that distributing the products from family farms is and can be good business, and that profits can flow both from helping local businesses, and from providing consumers with healthful foods.