Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, our nation was forever changed on the morning of Sept 11. The goal of Osama bin Laden was to demoralize us, create fear, uncertainty and instability in our country--he failed. Last week Congress met in New York to pay tribute to those who were killed, and I was reminded how strong and resilient our country truly is. Last September 11 we saw amazing displays of heroism and bravery. I will never forget the sight of firemen entering the World Trade Center risking their lives to save others. We have also learned a great deal since Sept 11. We've learned that we are a vulnerable nation, and that we must lead an international coalition against bigoted, religious fanatics who believe they have the right to kill in order to impose their reactionary ideology on others. Many of us also have learned that in order to be true to American values, we must not undermine the fundamental principles and constitutional rights that our country was founded on. As an American and a Vermonter, I was enormously proud of how our people responded to this crisis in terms of blood donations, financial contributions and coming together as a community to support the victims and each other. It is my hope that we will continue to show that same sense of community that we demonstrated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program, which is reauthorized in H.R. 1646. The Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program is a program that I helped to create in 1999 with my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership on this program and for his help to ensure that it was reauthorized in this bill and that it receives proper funding in the appropriations process. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) very much for his support and for his effort, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has been very supportive of the effort as well. The Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program authorizes a $750,000 pool of grant money within the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs to fund public and private nonprofit organizations for people-to-people activities with participants from Israel, the West Bank, Arab countries, and the United States. Through this program, American organizations link up with Israeli, Arab, and American partners to exchange skills and ideas on issues such as health care, the peace process, the environment, and education. By working on issues of common interest to all, people of the region are able to form bonds that cross borders and build trust and skills that not only helps each of their individual communities, but also helps bring them closer to peace. In addition, it brings American citizens and organizations in contact with people from a region where the United States plays such a crucial role. I think it is important to note the wide range of well-respected groups that have participated in the program over the last few years. Brandeis University, Catholic Relief Services, Fairfax County Public Schools, St. Michael's College, Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, Seeds of Peace, American-Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, Conflict Management Group, and American University. Some of these groups already have well-established programs in the Middle East; for others the Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program provides an opportunity to begin programs that will grow in the years to come. The more groups we can aid in establishing ties in the region, the better chance we have to build a long lasting network of organizations which are working toward professional development, community exchanges, and peace. This summer I was able to meet with a group of 20 Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, and American students who were here in Washington to participate in a program funded through the Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program. Amid all the senseless killing and suffering going on in the Middle East, I was amazed to see this group of students come together to study the environment. For many of the Israeli students, it was their first time meeting an Arab person their age and vice versa. After working together on month-long, environmentally- focused internships all across this country, these students began to see each other not just as Arabs or Israelis or Americans, but as colleagues and friends. They were able to understand a little bit better what it was like to live as an Israeli or an Arab in the Middle East. This understanding and the real life professional skills that they learned from each other and through their internships was, to me, a ray of hope amid all the devastation in the Middle East, and it really was an honor to see people from the Middle East, from Israel, from the Palestinian Authority, from Arab countries coming together in the midst of all of the horror that is existing there, talking about the environment, talking about how people can work together to make the entire region a better place in which to live. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very strongly supportive of this effort. I think the relatively small amounts of money that we are spending here to bring people together who are living amidst all of the horror that is going on in the Middle East, to have Arabs talking to Jews talking to Christians, is exactly what we should be doing. I would hope that this becomes a step forward in continuing to have the United States fund programs like this. Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their strong support.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, our Nation was changed forever on the morning of September 11. The goal of Osama bin Laden was to demoralize us, was to create fear and uncertainty, to bring about instability in our country; and, obviously and thankfully, he has failed. Last week Congress met in New York City to pay tribute to those who were killed on September 11 in that city, and this morning we assembled at the Pentagon. At these events and similar events all over this country, we were reminded about our resiliency and how strong this Nation really is. Last September 11, we saw amazing displays of heroism and bravery. We saw what is extraordinary and best in the human spirit. None of us will ever forget the sight of firemen entering the World Trade Center, going up the stairs while other people were going down the stairs. And, as we know, most of those firemen never got out of that building alive. We also today remember the courage of the people at the Pentagon who saved lives there, and we honor the members of our Armed Forces who are fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, we have also learned a great deal since September 11. We have learned, as we have never learned before, that we are a vulnerable Nation. Yes, we are the most powerful Nation on Earth, but what we learned on that day is that we could be attacked and that thousands of innocent men and women could be killed. We have also learned that we must lead an international coalition against bigoted, religious fanatics who believe that they have the right to kill innocent people in order to impose their reactionary ideology on others. Many of us have also learned that in order to maintain true American values, we must not undermine the principles and constitutional rights that make our country great and that this country was founded on. As an American and as a Vermonter I have been extraordinarily proud of how our people responded to this crisis in terms of blood donations, financial contributions, and how we came together as a community to support the victims of September 11 and to support each other. If there is something positive out of the horrors of September 11, it is that we as a Nation, all of us, despite our backgrounds, where we come from, our religious beliefs, must continue to show that same sense of community, that love for each other, that was demonstrated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, fast track essentially extends our current trade policies. And why in God's name would we want to do that when our current trade policy is an absolute disaster that has cost this country millions of decent-paying jobs and has resulted in the pushing down of wages from one end of America to the other? The facts are clear. They are not disputable. When we have a failed policy, why do we want to extend it? I hear some people talking about how fast track and trade policies have created new jobs. What world are they living in? The reality is today, nobody disputes it, we have a $346 billion trade deficit, recordbreaking. No one disputes that between 1994 and 2000, the United States lost more than 3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs due to our trade policies. In 2001, manufacturing lost 1.3 million jobs. Over the past 4 years, this is incredible, our Nation has lost 10 percent, 10 percent of our manufacturing base. Then people come up here and they say, let us continue; let us extend this absurd and failed policy. When will they catch on, when there are no more manufacturing jobs in America? When all of our kids are flipping hamburgers? Everybody knows the truth, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said it. We all know it. When we go to a department store and buy a product, where is that product manufactured? We all know it. It is not manufactured in Vermont; it is not manufactured in California. It is manufactured in China. Why is it manufactured in China? We know the answer to that. In China, desperate people, desperate people are working for 20 cents an hour, and the corporate titans in this country have sold out our people and have taken their plants to China, where people go to jail if they try to form a union; where women are brought in from the countryside to work 15, 16 hours a day making sneakers for pennies an hour. We all know that big money has contributed huge amounts to both political parties in order to move these trade issues, but let us stand up for ordinary Americans and for the middle class. Let us not become a poor, low-wage Nation. Let us reverse our trade policies. Let us demand that corporate America reinvest in Vermont, in America, and not just in China. Let us have a fair trade policy, rather than this disastrous so- called free trade.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This legislation is an important step forward, and I support it; but it should be clear that if we are serious about tackling corporate greed, much more needs to be done. We have seen in recent years that the heads of the largest corporations in this country have lied about their financial statements, they have cheated on their taxes, moved their companies abroad, and they have thrown loyal American workers out on the street as they move companies to China. They have cut the pensions and health care benefits of their workers. Now is the time for us to address that overall question of corporate greed. The most important thing that we can do is to pass real campaign finance reform, public funding of elections. So once and for all we end the scourge of big money dominating the White House and the United States Congress, and once and for all we begin to represent all Americans rather than the rich and the powerful.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about the time for both sides, please?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining, please?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). This amendment has the strong support of the AARP, the largest senior citizen group in America, and the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO. It has the support of the Pension Rights Center and many other groups. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about corporate accountability. Today corporation after corporation has been caught misleading their investors. Many of these same companies are doing exactly the same thing with respect to employees' pensions. Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. This amendment addresses two issues. First it tells companies they must stop discriminating against workers based on age by shifting to the so-called cash balance scheme. Secondly, it tells companies that they must not cheat their employees out of their hard-earned pension benefits. Specifically this amendment would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using any funds for activities that violate current pension age discrimination laws, laws that have been on the books since 1986. A similar amendment was passed by voice vote during the consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury Postal Appropriations bill but was stripped from the conference report. Mr. Chairman, age discrimination in general and age discrimination with regard to pensions is unacceptable and must not be allowed to happen. Unfortunately, hundreds of profitable companies across the country, including IBM, AT&T, CBS, and Bell Atlantic, have converted their traditional defined benefit pension plans to the controversial cash balance approach. Cash balance schemes typically reduce the future pension benefits of older workers by as much as 50 percent. Not only is this immoral, it is also illegal because reductions in benefits are directly tied to an employee's age which is in violation of Federal age discrimination law. What makes these conversions even more indefensible is the fact that many of the companies that make these conversions have pension fund surpluses in the billions of dollars. It is simply unacceptable that during the time of large corporate profits, pension fund surpluses, massive compensation for CEOs including, by the way, very generous retirement benefits, that corporate America reneges on the commitments they have made to workers by slashing their benefits and their pensions. Mr. Chairman, Congress must stand with older workers and insist that anti-age discrimination statutes are enforced. Mr. Chairman, let me quote from the letter from the AARP written to me. ``AARP believes that cash balance plans violate current law prohibitions on age discrimination. We commend you,'' me, ``for offering this timely and important amendment. AARP hopes that this amendment will send a strong message that we value older workers and that we reaffirm that older workers should not be subject to age discrimination in their pension plans.'' End of quote from the letter that AARP wrote to me. In addition, the Pension Rights Center writes in a letter to me, and I quote, ``The Center has long been concerned that cash balance conversions have deprived older workers of their hard-earned expected pension benefits. The Center has joined labor and retiree organizations in taking the position that cash balance conversions should be stopped because they violate age discrimination laws and deprive older employees of expected future benefits that they counted on earning in their traditional defined benefit plans. As a public policy matter, cash balance conversions rank high among abusive practices that corporations have instituted to surreptitiously cut employees' benefits. It is noteworthy that before the current calamities that befell Enron and WorldCom, both companies had converted their secure defined benefit plan to cash balance plans for the purpose of reducing their older employees' benefits and increasing the corporate balance sheet. Both companies then purported to ``improve'' the 401(k) plan only to lure employees into investing into employer stock that soon became worthless.'' Letter from the Pension Rights Center. Mr. Chairman, through my involvement with the IBM cash balance conversion, I have heard from hundreds of workers throughout the country who have expressed their anger, their disappointment, and feelings of betrayal by cash balance conversions. These are employees who had often stuck with their company when times were tough, these were employees who had often stayed at their jobs precisely because of the pension program that the company offered, and these are the same employees who woke up one day to discover that all of the promises that their companies made to them were not worth the paper they were written on. Mr. Chairman, this is not acceptable. We must provide protections for these workers who have been screaming out to Congress for help. We must pass this amendment. Large multinational corporations with defined benefit pension plans receive $100 billion a year in tax breaks alone, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Chairman, the IRS should not be giving tax breaks to companies that willfully violate the pension age discrimination statutes. To do so not only violates public law and policy, it also provides taxpayer subsidies for illegal pension conversions. Mr. Chairman, there should be no tax breaks for companies that discriminate on the basis of age. This amendment also has another very important component designed to protect the pension benefits of American workers. This amendment would also prohibit any funding to the IRS to dilute the requirements of current law as articulated by IRS Notice 96-8. This notice simply tells companies what interest rate to use when calculating their employees' pension benefits. This notice has been upheld by two U.S. Court of Appeals and is vitally important to protecting American workers who have seen their pensions slashed as a result of cash balance conversions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the American people are outraged at the degree to which corporate America has ripped off investors and workers, and millions of American employees are equally outraged at the degree to which corporate America has ripped off their pension plans. Let us pass this amendment. Let us join with the AARP, let us join with the AFL-CIO, let us join with the Pension Center and say ``yes'' to American workers that they deserve what they have been promised.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the big money interests want us to have a free trade agreement with Vietnam because it works in their interest. How wonderful it is for them to throw American workers out on the street so they can move to Vietnam and China and Mexico and pay desperate people 20 cents an hour, and they can make all kinds of profits while American workers lose their jobs. The truth is our current trade policy is a disaster. In the last 4 years under NAFTA and MFN with China and trade agreements with Vietnam, we have lost millions of factory jobs. In fact, we have lost 10 percent of our manufacturing base. In my small State of Vermont, companies cannot compete against cheap imports. All over this country, companies are running to China and Vietnam to exploit the people in those countries. It is incomprehensible to me that any Member of this Congress who wants to protect American workers would vote against the amendment of my friend from California.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is being cosponsored by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Mark Udall), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). To the best of my knowledge, it has been agreed to by the majority, and I thank them very much for that. The legislative intent of this amendment is to increase funding for the highly successful Energy Star program by $3 million, bringing the total funding for this program up to the President's request of $6.2 million. This increase in funding will be offset by a $3 million reduction in salaries and expenses at the Department of Energy that I hope will be restored in conference. Mr. Chairman, the Energy Star program has a cost-effective proven track record of saving energy and saving money. In fact, for every dollar spent on program costs, the Energy Star program produces average energy bill savings of $75 and sparks $15 in investment and new technology. This voluntary partnership program helps businesses, State and local governments, homeowners, and consumers save money by investing in energy efficiency. The bottom line is that if this amendment is passed, we will increase energy efficiency, save consumers money, protect the environment and enhance our energy security. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, in 2001 alone, Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved $5 billion on their energy bills, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking 10 million cars off the road, and prevented 140,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions. To date, more than 55,000 Energy Star homes have been built, locking in financial savings for homeowners of more than $15 million every single year. Through the Energy Star Building Program, more than $25 billion kilowatt hours of energy have been saved. However, as successful as the Energy Star program has been, much more could be accomplished with increased funding. For example, it is estimated that if all consumers chose only Energy Star-labeled products over the next decade or so, the Nation's energy bill would be reduced by about $100 billion while avoiding 300 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. If all commercial building owners took advantage of the Energy Star program, they could achieve another $130 billion in energy savings and reduce 350 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 10 years. Mr. Chairman, rising energy costs and consumer demands make today's investments in energy efficiency ever more vital to America's energy security. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for accepting this amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment, and we appreciate their support as well as the support of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the minority.

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

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

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding me the time. I apologize for being late. I will be very brief. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3180, the New Hampshire- Vermont Interstate School Compact Consent. This bill will permit the residents of the Dresden School District, which includes Norwich, Vermont, and Hanover, New Hampshire, to implement a change in the procedure used to approve bond initiatives. The Dresden School District, with the approval of the legislatures of Vermont and New Hampshire, wants to be able to implement all-day secret balloting when appropriate instead of the town meeting system, which is the only approved method currently. Given that the communities involved and the respective States have approved this initiative, we in the Congress should grant our approval. I thank the chairman and ranking member for moving this bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, would my friend from California deny that today veterans all over the United States are being wait-listed, cannot get into the VA system because of lack of adequate funding for our veterans, and, at the same exact time, Congress gives huge tax breaks to the rich?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the American middle class is getting angry. At a time when the richest 1 percent of the population already owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent, what we are seeing is the CEOs of large corporations who contribute huge sums of money into the political process giving themselves giant compensation packages worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and then they cut back on the wages and health benefits of their workers. These CEOs take tax breaks from the government, corporate welfare, and they move our jobs to China. They are setting up offshore accounts in Bermuda so they do not have to pay any taxes into our government. They are cooking their books through Arthur Andersen and others so they do not have to pay their fair share of taxes. What this whole bill is about is nothing more than absolute greed. The richest people in this country, who hold $25,000-a-plate fund- raising dinners here in Washington, they are saying to Congressmen, ``Give us huge tax breaks. We do not care about veterans, who now are wait-listed when they need to get into the VA health system. Forget about them. We need giant tax breaks.'' Let us blow up Social Security. Let us forget about the elderly people, who cannot find doctors who will treat them through Medicare or Medicaid. Let us not worry about the middle class, who cannot afford college education because the Federal Government has not kept pace in financial aid in those programs. What we are looking about now is ugliness, is greed, is the richest people in this country, who already own so much of this Nation, saying to Congress, give us more, give us more, give us more. Forget about the middle class, forget about working families, forget about the poor. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to the Republican proposal.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), one of the outstanding fighters in this Congress for American workers.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, there are at least three good reasons to oppose the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. First, the Export-Import Bank is an integral part of a failed trade policy. If you like the fact that between 1994 and 2000 the U.S. has lost more than 3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs in Ohio, in Indiana, in New York State, all over the country, in my small State of Vermont, if you like and want to continue a failed trade policy, vote for the Export-Import Bank. The second reason to oppose the reauthorization is corporate welfare. This country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit. We cannot take care of our veterans, we cannot take care of education, we cannot take care of affordable housing. But, yes, we do have hundreds of millions and billions of dollars available to subsidize the largest, most profitable corporations in America, corporations which shut down plants in this country and move to China and Mexico, corporations which pay their CEOs huge salaries while they lay off their employees. Lastly, I think it is time to tell the CEOs of America they have to get off of the corporate welfare line; they have to produce jobs in America, not in China; they have to protect the taxpayers of this country. Those are at least some of the reasons to oppose the Export-Import Bank.