Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as you may recall, when this Ex-Im Bank was debated on the floor of the House, I offered an amendment that received 135 votes, including a majority of the Democrats and 22 Republicans, and that very simple amendment said that a company receiving Ex-Im funds must not lay off a greater percentage of U.S. workers than workers abroad. Frankly, during the conference committee, I was not surprised that that amendment was rejected. We did not win it on the floor of the House. But let me tell you about another amendment that I offered. I offered an amendment that would simply require companies that receive assistance, now, we are talking about billions of dollars for corporate America, that those companies that receive this assistance sign a pledge, a nonbinding pledge, that they believe in employing U.S. workers at livable wages. Now, imagine that: corporate America comes in, they get billions of dollars, and we want them to sign a nonbinding pledge that does no more than says they believe in employing American workers at a livable wage. I could not even get that amendment past the conference committee. I do want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for that amendment, but we could not get the majority to support it. So the issue comes down to the fact that when you give billions of dollars to the largest corporations in America, what do the working families of this country have a right to expect? I think at a minimum when you are giving money to Boeing, when you are giving money to General Electric, when you are giving money to AT&T, you simply cannot have them accept this money from American taxpayers and say, Thank you very much. By the way, I am on my way to China because we just shut down a plant in your district, throwing American workers out on the street, and we are opening a factory in China. Thank you very much, suckers, in the United States for that taxpayer support. I think the time is long overdue for the American people to be able to say that, corporate America, you finally have got to have some responsibility to the workers of this country, to the taxpayers of this country, and we should oppose the Ex-Im Bank.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, under clause 8 of rule XXII, I seek to control one-third of the time in opposition to the conference report.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the Export-Import Bank, and I do that as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade. Madam Speaker, there is growing anger and frustration in this country at the increasing greed and illegal activities in corporate America. The American people are sick and tired of CEO salaries in the tens of millions of dollars, in the hundreds of millions of dollars that are now on average 500 times greater than what the average American worker receives. The American people and workers are sick and tired of CEOs slashing pension programs and health benefits for their retirees while corporate profits are soaring. The workers of this country are sick and tired of corporate America shutting down American plants, throwing American workers out of the street and taking our jobs to China, to Mexico where desperate people are forced to work for 20 cents an hour. The American people are sick and tired of accounting gimmicks that cheat investors and employees. They are tired of CEOs setting up phony post office box companies in Bermuda so while the middle class pays more and more in taxes, CEOs and their corporations avoid their responsibilities in terms of taxes. And basically the American people are tired of corporate welfare. We are going to hear a whole lot in this body about making poor people responsible when it comes to corporate welfare. What about the CEOs and the major multinational corporations who get tens and tens of billions of dollars from the working families of this country? Some of my colleagues are going to tell us Export-Import Bank creates jobs, it does some good. Sure, it does. We give them a billion dollars a year, and we put at risk through loan guarantees some $15 billion a year; and if one sat out on a street corner and one gave away a billion dollars a year, he would also do some good. But the issue is are we getting value for the amount of money that we are spending, and the answer is obviously no. Madam Speaker, the outrage of the Export-Import Bank is that we are giving billions of dollars to the major job cutters in America. Yes, that is true. The largest corporations who come into Export-Import to get their corporate welfare laugh all the way to the bank because these are precisely the people who lay off American workers and then say, thank you, workers, for subsidizing our efforts. Let us look at these desperate companies that are getting the corporate welfare from Export-Import. It is Boeing, General Electric, Caterpillar, Mobil Oil, certainly in need of taxpayer support, Westinghouse, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, IBM, Enron. Enron getting helped from Export-Import. The irony here is that not only should the taxpayers of this country not be supporting profitable multinational corporations but the irony is we give them money and they say thanks, we are moving to China, we are moving to Mexico. General Electric, a major recipient of export import, we give them a lot of money. What is the result? From 1975 to 1995, GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 American workers to 398,000. Boeing, the same thing, huge job layoffs. Jack Welch, interestingly enough, the former CEO of GE, when he gets on the welfare line he said, ``Ideally what you would have is to put every company on a barge.'' In other words, what he says is thank you for the money; but we are going to go anyplace in the world where we can get cheap labor. In addition to its being corporate welfare, in addition to our, through Ex-Im, giving money to companies who have contempt for American workers, what also must be understood is that Export-Import is part of a failed trade policy. The United States trade deficit was $346 billion in 2001, and the trade deficit in goods was $426 billion. Let us wake up and understand that the permanent normalized trade relations with China is a failure. Yes, we gained some export jobs; but we are losing far, far more in terms of jobs being lost because companies have taken our jobs to China. Over the past 4 years we have lost a total of 2 million factory jobs, representing 10 percent of our manufacturing workforce. So the point here is Export-Import is part and parcel of a failed trade policy. Whether it is the most favored nation status with China, permanent normalized trade relations with China, NAFTA, that policy is failing. And it is time that we say we cannot continue to hemorrhage American jobs. Let me repeat. Under this great trade policy which Republican leaders talk about, some Democratic leaders talk about, corporate America and editorial boards say it is great; if it is so great, why between 1994 and 2000 have more than 3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs been lost? In 2001, the manufacturing sector lost 1.3 million jobs. In my own State of Vermont, a small rural State, small plant after small plant after small plant is closing down because they cannot compete against imports coming in from China where workers are being paid 20 or 25 cents an hour. And it is time that this body finally said enough is enough. Yes, we get millions and millions of dollars from corporate America for our campaigns; yes, that is great that they come to $25,000-a-plate fund-raising dinners. But what about the workers in rural Vermont, in California, in Illinois, in Ohio, who have lost their jobs? Maybe somebody should stand up for them. What about the high school graduates who used to be able to go out in the workforce and get a manufacturing job and make a living wage who today flip hamburgers at Burger King or McDonald's. Maybe they need a decent job even if they cannot contribute huge sums of money to this institution in terms of campaign contributions. Our trade policy is a failure. Ex-Im is part of that trade policy. Let us defeat it for that reason. Let us end corporate welfare. Where are all of my conservative friends who want a balanced budget? Do you really want to give a billion dollars a year to some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America? There are many reasons to defeat Ex-Im, but it is time that we stood up for the American taxpayer. It is time we stood up for the American worker. And it is time we told corporate America get off the welfare train. Start respecting American workers. Start respecting the United States of America. Do not sell our country out. Do not sell our workers out. Let us defeat Ex-Im.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our current trade policy is an absolute disaster. Export-Import Bank is an inherent part of that disastrous trade policy. The gentleman I am going to ask to speak in a moment comes from the State of Ohio, as does the chairman of the full committee, and they should know that between 1994 and 2000, under our disastrous trade policy, in Ohio alone 135,000 jobs were lost because of our disastrous trade policy. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has been a strong fighter for the working people of his State and his country.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, opposition to the Export-Import Bank is not a progressive idea, it is not a conservative idea, it is an idea that should be supported with today's vote by any Member of Congress who wants to protect our taxpayers and protect American workers. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who occasionally has different philosophical points of view from me, but I am pleased to have him speak in opposition to the Export- Import Bank. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, under our disastrous trade policy from 1994 to 2000, we lost over 3 million jobs due to our trade policies. The State and the country which has suffered the most is California, which lost over 300,000 jobs due to our trade policy. I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, one of the untold and unspoken-about crises facing this country is that in many respects we are losing our democratic traditions. As you know, France recently had an election, and 80 percent of the people voted in that election. We are going to have an election in November, and the estimate is that 35, 36 percent of the American people are going to vote in our election. And, in fact, we end up having by far the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized and major nation on earth. What makes the situation even scarier is that as low as the voter turnout in general is, it is especially low among young people, people 25 years of age or younger. And the estimates are that about 80 percent of those people do not vote. And what sociologists tell us that as these people get older, they are less likely to vote, which means the voter turnout will go down and down and down. And it is not just voter turnout, Mr. Speaker, it is that poll after poll shows that millions of Americans do not know how government functions, do not know anything about the major issues facing our country, and I think that this is a very scary situation. With these concerns in mind, Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 2002, I held a town meeting geared toward young people, high school students. I wanted these high school students to understand that as citizens of the United States of America, they have the right to ask their Member of Congress questions and they have the right to voice their opinions about some of the most important issues facing our State and our country. And I am proud to tell you that we had about 14 different schools and youth organizations participate in that process. I think the American people would have been extremely proud to have heard the intelligent comments and analysis and questions that these young people asked. I am very grateful that the University of Vermont allowed us to use their facilities. I am very grateful that we had many faculty members at high schools throughout the State helping us in this project. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do now is provide for the Record some of the very excellent testimony that we heard on that occasion. Is NATO Necessary? (On behalf of Hailey Davis) HAILEY DAVIS: America is a great nation. It is a great nation with great abilities. Fighting distant wars just happens to be one of them. When it comes to equipment and technology needed to fight its wars, America has it all. The United States has become so independent and self-sufficient militarily and intellectually speaking, that it can put up a great fight alone. So the question arises: Do we need NATO anymore? The fact that the United States is so much more technologically advanced than any of its NATO allies brings about an answer of: No. Frankly, we don't. We have increasingly lost every and any need for the NATO alliance, due not only to our technology but to the unilateralism of the Bush administration. He and his team tend to dislike fighting with aid from allies who might get in the way or limit America's room for military exercises. Will the NATO nations ever fight together again? I'm quoting New York Times journalist Thomas L. Friedman here when I say that ``to fight a modern war today you need four key issues: Many large transport aircraft to deploy troops to far-flung battlefields; precision-guided bombs and missiles that can hit enemy targets with a high degree of certitude, hence lowering number of civilian casualties; a large amount of special teams that can operate at night with the proper equipment; and secure and cryptic communications, so that ground and air troops can be connected in a high-tech war without the enemy listening in.'' Now, America has all four of these Assets. No other nation does. Although Britain comes close, with Germany, France and Italy right behind it, the United States stands alone in its military stature. The fact that the European defense industries are not nearly as sophisticated as America's today, constitutes primarily for their dependence on the NATO alliance. Adding to this is the idea Europeans don't really feel threatened by the U.S.'s enemies, such as Bush's Axis of Evil, which includes Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and therefore don't have much interest in spending a lot on defense. So if the Europeans really want NATO to last, perhaps they should invest more in military technology so that they can potentially fight a war alone, much like the U.S. can. If the NATO alliance deals with countries helping each other fight wars, and America doesn't need this help, then I ask you to consider the question: Is NATO really necessary for the United States?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this Spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. Jessica Predom and Autumn Rozon Regarding Teenage Stereotypes JESSICA PREDOM. People, when they hear the word ``teen,'' think of bombs, fires, smoking, sex. Although some teens have experience with these things at a young age doesn't mean we all have. People these days are so hypocritical. Everyone was a teen, but it is like, if people hit 30, they forget what being 18 is like. I know some kids have sex and do drugs, but a majority do not. just because some teens do, teens like us get classified into a group we would rather not be in. AUTUMN ROZON. Just the other day, I was looking at the back of Glade air freshener bottle, and it said: ``Warning. Flammable. Keep away from small children and teens to avoid substance abuse.'' I can see where the small-children statement comes in, but keeping air freshener away from teens? I mean, come on. I didn't know our reputation was that bad. It's almost painful to see someone be turned down for a job because he or she has green hair and two piercings. Automatically, when you see a teen like that, you automatically think: Druggie. What most people think is not the true story. It is almost like an instance where someone hears part of your conversation and reacts before they know the whole thing. Now, my town is small, so when you are driving down Main Street, you see some kids sitting outside the grocery store, you think to yourself: They're up to no good. When, really, they're just waiting for their friend who works there. A few years ago, there was an incident that we all remember. The tragedy at Columbine was one of the biggest scares to our country. Because of the shooting at Columbine, teens around the world were looked as something that could explode at any time. The headlines focus on the teen part of the shooting, and not on the main issue of the two kids who did it. By stereotyping like this, teens feel the need to rebel. Rebellion is the cause of most kid's sexual experiences and drug abuse. The way our world looks at teens causes them to do certain things. If people could stop looking at us as teens, and look at us as young adults, we would start to accept ourselves and our community more. I think everyone has a good side, and people in our world are not letting teens express their good side. Don't judge us because of what we wear or what we look like. Take time to get to know us, and you will see that most of us do not do drugs, do not have sex, and do not drink. We have lives and we are trying to live them while we still can. Daniel May Regarding Student Representation on School Boards DANIEL MAY. Good afternoon, Congressman Sanders. I am presenting the issue of student representation on local school boards. In our state of Vermont, there are 18 high schools that have at least one student representative on their board, while other high schools don't. I pity these schools who don't, because, by having at least one student on the school boards, there ought to be three impacts. First, the boards will be able to make better decisions and be able to implement them more easily. Second, members of the student body will have raised political awareness of their school and the surroundings of their city. And third, the student representative will be provided with opportunities to assume leadership roles and gain skills. Students should have a right for making their voices heard, because they are the people being affected by the school board's decisions. Silencing the voices of people you control isn't in the best interest of those governing bodies. Encouraging participation is a lesson that teachers need to take from the students. I want to make sure that the students get their voices heard. I fear that some school boards may be inconsistent in allowing a student on the board. First of all, I'm concerned that some school boards will fail to provide orientation from the student-trustees. Some student reps may begin their terms without any training. They will just attend their first meeting, not understanding the meeting procedures, nor jurisdictions, nor their own rules, rights and responsibilities. Then they will spend their first month learning how the board operates, and only be able to play a more meaningful role towards the end of term. My other concern is that student reps be excluded from the debate and compromise that it is a part of decisionmaking. Many student reps that feel their participation in the decision-making process is limited to their formal role during public meetings. They feel that their input is not sought out formally when the trustees discuss issues and seek support for their positions. As long as these two issues do not become a concern, school boards will become more efficient with a student representative.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. Regarding School Choice (By Kristy Lamb, Peter Hicks, Halie Paradee, and Nick Smith) Kristy Lamb: School choice is an issue that our Vermont legislature is currently voting on. What we are here to discuss is how choice within school is as important as choice between schools, and its importance on all levels. A school is made up of both faculty and students. As a part of that school, students should be allowed to help in the process of making decisions that affect us. Choices are made every day about scheduling, open campus, and many other things, but hardly ever are the students asked what they want and how they feel. It seems as if no one thinks our opinions are valid. But it is our education, it is our learning environment, so we should have a choice. Peter Hicks: With this, we would like to have the statewide student body count as one vote in Vermont in the House of Representative. Halie Paradee: And we would also like the student body to count as one vote in the local decision-making. And students should receive credits for hours on incentives for any involvement in the specific process, like being here today, we should be recognized for it by our school. Nick Smith: I'm discussing another section of education reform. High school students across the state and nation have a serious lack of interest in interest and stamina in high school that has encouraged a serious look at education reform. The average day of a high school student about is about seven hours long. This can be broken down into three parts: Six hours and 45 minutes of sitting, sometimes sleeping; 13 minutes of moving; and 2 minutes of actual decision-making. We are all familiar with the reading of boring books, reading the seemingly useless notes, hand cramps, headaches, and overall lack of stamina contribute to the long school day. No matter how many hours of sleep the night before, a day like this is still tiring. What is the use of education if the student is not awake? One may go to school with a determined attitude to learn, but soon the constant work causes them to give in and see school as a tedious chore. Opponents to the idea of recess will argue that free time will encourage tardiness, illegal behaviors, or longer days. But this isn't necessarily so. The proposed recess would consist of a small break, maybe 15 minutes in length, in which students could be somewhat free and active for one time in their day. This activity would result in the revitalization of energy, creating a higher interest in the boring books and a higher stamina to take the seemingly useless notes. These measures will reduce the headaches and increase the effectiveness of education. Students are often told the high school is preparing us for today's society. The President of UVM informed us this morning that choices are an important part of today's society. But how with can he prepare for reality if we're not given the chance to make choices for ourselves. How can the leaders of the group define themselves? How can we solve the rising problem of lower test scores and higher dropout rates? We can do it with a small reform reaping large benefits. We can do it with a 15-minute recess. Regarding Genetically Modified Foods (By Travis Buck) TRAVIS BUCK: I am going to talk about genetically modified foods, and also their organisms. Let's start out with a definition of what genetically modified organisms are, to make sure everyone knows what I'm talking about. They're plants that have been modified by inserting genes of another organism that's been engineered to change that original plant in some way. GMOs are quite dangerous to the environment and peoples' health, and also to the rural economy of Vermont and other states. GMO studies have shown that they damage good insects that help plants grow, and create produce, and they also pollute the ground and transport genetic pollution to other plants around the area. And they create superweeds, and superweeds can't be killed by conventional chemicals, so you have this breed of plants that are taking over the crops. And in human health, there are many risks, such as allergic reactions that are increased, and resistance to antibiotics. And antibiotics are--it's been a lot of genetically engineered plants and chemicals used in antibiotics, and people aren't as resistant to them. And there has also been some studies that proved that growth and internal organs of humans have been damaged due to the intake of genetically engineered products. With GMO seeds, which are the main concern, it increases the cost of farming the seeds will be more expensive. And the seeds are going to make more food, but in the end, that will decrease the price of the produce, so the farmer can't make as much money, putting him or her in a hardship. Other countries, many other countries, like Europe and Asia, look to the United States for the effects of genetically modified foods, and we have been sort of an experimental subject, without our consent, which is illegal and hasn't really been looked as an issue. Many markets for the U.S. farmers have decreased significantly from the use of GMO products. The markets in Europe and Asia reject these products, seeing what has happened in the United States, and from their studies, they found they have harmful effects. And another issue is, many people have said, or many companies say we need to, or the GMOs will help stop world hunger all over, and that is actually incorrect. Right at this point, we are producing more food per person than ever before, and all we need to do is make the food more accessible to the people that need the food, rather than trying to create more food, and wrongly use--create more food with genetically engineered products. It is not going to help anyone; it is just going to hurt the environment. And a metaphor similar to this is that the Pandora's box has been opened, and now all these genetically engineered products and foods and organisms have leaped out, and out there to do bad, in most cases. And it is very hard to put it back into the box. And if we would have waited many years and done studies to learn more about what the effects could be, it would be better, and we could bring the genetically modified foods out into the community with more knowledge, and it would help the community more than bringing them out so early, at this point.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. I respectfully request that the following testimonials be included in the Congressional Record. On Behalf of Stephanie Horvath, Katie Blanchard, Cady Merrill, and Jesse Butler Regarding Abortion STEPHANIE HORVATH. We are doing our presentation on abortion. Abortion is never an easy decision to make, but women have been making these choices for thousands of years, for many different reasons. Whenever society has sought to outlaw abortion, it has driven women to back alleys, where this procedure becomes dangerous and illegal. Each year 50,000 to 100,000 women die after receiving an abortion in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and an estimated 20 million unsafe abortions take place each year. KATIE BLANCHARD. Regardless of what people around you think about a decision such as abortion, it is the ultimate choice of the woman, their doctor, and their god. Parental involvement for minors should be necessary due to the conditions performed in this surgical procedure. Every woman should have a supportive mentor to turn to in case of an emergency following an abortion. A parent could be there to care for, protect and comfort child in such a situation. Most women experience such complications as loss of appetite, lack of sleep, persistent crying, isolation from friends, excessive anger and thoughts of suicide. CADY MERRILL. Although a parent's reaction could be unexpected, it is normal for them to have some emotional feelings about their daughter's pregnancy. It is normal to feel frightened, sad, angry, betrayed and disappointed. Regardless, most parents are and should be beside their child through hard times, and would only help their daughter through an abortion if that was her choice. JESSE BUTLER. Abortion is a highly sensitive topic. I'm not here to debate whether it is right or wrong. I am here, however, to state that I think, when an abortion is being considered by a minor, at least one parent or the legal guardian of the minor should be required to be involved. The state has already established that minors are not allowed to make many decisions or perform many actions without their parent's or guardian's consent. Abortion should not be any different. Many questions have to be considered when thinking of having an abortion. Some of those questions included whether or not the abortion or pregnancy or baby can be supported. Another question includes whether or not a minor can deal with the physical and psychological consequences of whichever decision is made. All of those questions are serious questions a minor may not have enough life experience to be able to make good judgments on. 5 percent of the time, abortion should involve a doctor's opinion. Adults will also be more inclined to recognize and respect a doctor's opinion. Young women may be afraid to tell their parents that they are pregnant. Requiring parents to be involved in the abortion decision will encourage parents to pay attention to any clues that their child may be pregnant. Overall, I think if an adult is involved in a decision, it is more likely that the best judgment will be made. On Behalf of Elizabeth Echeverria and Damon Rooney Regarding Labor Exploitation DAMON ROONEY. First of all, I would like to thank you, Congressman Sanders, for letting us come here. And I also thank Lamoille; we really appreciate you switching your timeframe with us. ELIZABETH ECHEVERRIA. We are dealing with labor exploitation, and this touches on a couple of the topics that were already talked about. It ties in with child labor, and it ties in with free trade, and things like that. Do you wear brand-name clothes? Do you drink coffee? Have you ever wondered where these things came from? The answer may surprise you. Because many of these things are made or picked by malnourished, oppressed and exploited men, woman and children. DAMON ROONEY. I would like to read a passage written by the National Labor Committee: We went there by chance on an early Friday afternoon, the Muslim holiday, when the garment workers were supposed to have their weekly day off. We met an 18-year-old girl who, minutes before, had just returned from having been forced to work three 20-hour shifts in a row. She had worked 64 hours in the last three days, 120 hours in the last week. She was working seven days a week. Her eyes were more bloodshot than I'd ever seen anyone's before. The entire eyeball was pale, glassy red. She could barely speak. She was not just exhausted, but she had nearly lost her voice, and all that was left was a painful, low harsh rasp. This woman earned 14 cents an hour, $6.83 a week, sewing clothing for U.S. companies. ELIZABETH ECHEVERRIA. That is just one example of the conditions that our American companies are fostering. People all other the world, in factories like the one this woman works in, are kept in abject misery and poverty. These factories are poorly ventilated, poorly lighted, and, basically, miserable places to be. In an article from the New York Times, Adelia Pinvata, who investigated conditions in the San Marcos Free Trade Zone in San Salvador, said, and I quote: The wages are not enough to cover the basic food basket. It is a scandal. There are workers who faint because of the heat inside the factories, and because they are badly nourished. Various workers fainted when we were there. An example is one of these types of factories, the Active Sporting Limited factory in Bangladesh, who makes hats for Rebok, Falcon Headware, Georgetown University, University of Connecticut, and various other U.S. companies and universities. I came across some disturbing facts. Many workers must put in up to 60 to 70 hours of mandatory overtime a month, ``mandatory overtime'' being illegal in Bangladesh. They have no regular scheduled holidays. They have a maximum of two days off per month. They don't even get weekends off. Their wages are below the legal minimum. A maternity leave isn't paid. Workers may not talk during their shifts. They must ask permission to use the bathroom. Their bathroom visits are timed, and the water is unsafe to drink. There are no sick days allowed. And they are reportedly slapped and beaten with sticks for misbehavior. No one could last more than 10 to 15 years. In the end, they are sick, exhausted, and penniless. And it is not an isolated occurrence, it is typical. For example, according to an article from the October 9, 1995, edition of the New York Times, in Central America free-trade zones, many factories are surrounded by 15-foot cinder-block walls, barbed wire, and armed guards. Yet these workers cannot break out of poverty and degradation, because in most places, anyone who attempts to form a union is methodically fired and blacklisted. DAMON ROONEY. Labor exploitation is a difficult problem, but we can find solutions. The biggest problem is that wages are too low to even buy adequate food. One obvious solution to this problem is to pass legislation that forces U.S. companies and their contractors to pay higher wages. But this is tricky, because we don't want to put them out of business. We also should think twice about boycotting for this reason. Because any poor laborer would agree that it is better to be exploited than to have no job at all. But getting them to raise their prices a little won't break them. The U.S. must force them to pay subsistence wages--in other words, earn enough for food, clothing, and adequate shelter. And this is not that big of a demand, considering that the estimated subsistence wage for Bangladesh, for example, is only 34 cents an hour, or day. ELIZABETH ECHEVERRIA. An hour. And that is a high-end estimate, by the way. Another approach would be to force the companies to pay the workers a higher percentage of the retail value of the product that they are producing. This would help level out the distribution of wealth. Because, for example, according to Forbes Magazine, Donald Fisher, CEO of GAP and Banana Republic, is worth $1.5 billion, while hat makers in Dacca, Bangladesh, receive an average of 1.6 cents for every $17.43 University hat they make. That means the workers are only receiving .01 percent of the hat's retail price. Double their wages, and the hat cost less than two cents more for us to buy. Where do you think all the money is going? DAMON ROONEY. Another problem is lack of inspectors to enforce labor laws. Because there are numerous labor laws and U.S. national company protocols in places that are not being followed, there are only eleven for the whole Dacca export zone, which has over one million clothing workers. We must get more inspectors in there, and also raise the penalties. We could have U.S. inspectors inspect the factories that export to the United States, and if the conditions are not satisfactory, then the products cannot be sent to the U.S. That way, factories don't get paid if they don't follow the rules. ELIZABETH ECHEVERRIA. Before any of these solutions can be put into motion, we must heighten awareness of these injustices. American people have a strong voice. Because only when these companies realize that their profit will go down will they listen. We are the consumers and we have the power. So the most important thing that all of you in the audience can do is write letters to the CEOs of these places--the GAP, Liz Clayburn, Reebok, et cetera--and let them know that the public is concerned. DAMON ROONEY. Labor exploitation is a problem that affects us all. We are the ones wearing the clothes and drinking the coffee picked by exploited hands. It is up to us to change these injustices. Thank you, Mr. Sanders, for your time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about welfare reform, I would hope that we would include in that discussion many of the largest corporations in this country who rip off tens of billions of dollars from taxpayers every year in subsidies, loan guaranties and tax breaks, while then moving their factories and bank accounts to China, Mexico or Bermuda. But that is not what we are talking about today. Today, we are talking about low-income women and children. We are talking about a severe crisis in child care that leaves millions of American families unable to afford quality child care or, in some cases, any child care they can afford. We are talking about child care workers who are grossly underpaid, who are undertrained, and who experience a huge turnover rate to the detriment of American babies. Today, we are talking about a child care situation that is a disgrace and a shame to this Nation, and I want anyone over there to deny that reality. And how have our Republican friends responded to that situation? In real, inflation-accounted-for dollars, the President has actually cut funding for child care, while the House Republicans have offered a proposal that is totally inadequate. They have provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the richest people in this country, but pennies for babies and for the kids who are the future of America. I urge a strong no vote on the Republican proposal.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. I respectfully request that the following testimonials be included in the Congressional Record. Regarding Juvenile Justice (By Sean Fontaine, Krystal Turnbaugh, and James Nichols) SEAN FONTAINE. Hi. I am going to begin. My name is Sean Fontaine. This is Krystal Turnbaugh and James Nichols. We all represent YouthBuild, and we're all members of the policy committee. We come here today to discuss juvenile justice, the idea of what ongoing problems in the community with juvenile offenders, usually in age brackets of 16- to 17-year-olds, and how it affects the community in terms of positive reinforcement and what we need to do for programs to financially fund these reinforcement types of things. I got some notes here somewhere. I'm just going to start with a brief summary. But I'm speaking on behalf of juvenile offenders on the juvenile justice system. We all know the community is just as responsible for the upbringing of these delinquents as they are themselves. Most people fear the youth of America, and it is not a surprise. There are 2.4 million 16- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. that live low-income lifestyles. 360,000 of them are in prison. There are only 300,000 job-training openings among the 2.4 million students, which means that there are a lot of kids running rampant with no positive reinforcement and nothing to do. There is a very few amount of people that are not involved in the community, because a community involves everybody, even though delinquents are the weakest links, I guess. But in 1997 alone, drug-law violations increased 125 percent, and I'm sure crime has a lot to do with drug use. Drug use is definitely an ongoing problem in my community, and that's something that we definitely need help with. We need more money for youth programs to support drug-free environments, recreational facilities, and low-income housing programs like YouthBuild that promote positive reinforcement and good life styles and living situations. The biggest problem with juvenile cases today, I believe, is the system that's handling with them. I don't believe it is right to throw kids in jail. We need to improve conditions in SRS today. I attended a meeting, there was a partnership in service, with Dave Martin, the director of SRS. According to him, the caseloads are just unmanageable for their caseworkers, and they're completely understaffed, underpaid, and overwhelmed, which leads kids to believe that no one cares about them, especially in the system of social rehabilitation services. YouthBuild honors community. YouthBuild has just made unparalleled contributions to its community, and the residents are proud of its participants. And it's one of the many programs. There are 250-something YouthBuilds nationwide, and there is a proposal for more money. We are in the process of doing a HUD grant to get more money for those programs. I know, from my experiences, it is unlike any program I have been in, in terms of juvenile offenders, and that is why I speak about this as I do. I know that the system that deals with juvenile offenders is basically a ``first-come, first- serve'' basis, that you need to be referred to by programs like Spectrum or the Department of Corrections. Now, for kids that would like to intervene on negative pathways, we need to have programs available for kids to want to enroll for themselves, alternative programs in jail. Instead of, like, CSE is a program and Pathways is a program in jail for sexual offenders and drug addicts. There should be a way to intervene and have other programs available for kids that just need positive reinforcement. These programs can't just possibly apply to everybody's need areas. But more importantly, people need to listen. Problems exist everywhere, and we see them and we try to solve them. Our current juvenile system doesn't respect individual cases. It is merely paperwork and statistics, seemingly. These conditions need to improve. I know it cannot be done in a six-minute segment, a six-year or a 600-year projection. The important thing here today is the acknowledgement of these problems and spreading of awareness to parents who are trying to raise these troubled teens. Regarding Credit Cards (By Kelly Green) KELLY GREEN. I would like to begin by asking if the people who plan on attending college would raise their hand. Thank you. How many of you have a credit card at this time? Thanks. Two-thirds of you that raised your hand for going to college will have a credit card while you are there, according to Keeping an Eye on Junior's College Habits by Terry Savage. That is completely normal. The unimaginable part is, the average undergraduate will leave college about $12,000 in credit card debt. This is due to the fact that the average unpaid balance left on a credit card is $2,200. You most likely won't just own only one credit card either. The average number is three cards. As a high school junior with college in my near future, these statistics scare me. Not only am I paying more than double what my parents did, but I also now have to worry about a credit card company luring me into a trap that could take away my future. According to chapter one of Paying for Your Child's College Education by Margaret Smith, a year at Harvard in the 1970s was barely $5,000. And between 1995 to '96, the freshmen had to come up with $27,575. And today, on average, a year in a public college costs about $6,824, and in a private college costs about $17,630. As you can see, college costs have risen drastically over the years, due to more and more students attending. The median income of families in America who have college-age age children has nearly tripled. Today only 30 percent of the public college costs is paid by a family's income. The rest is coming from loans and grants. These loans have to be paid off somehow, and what better way than a credit card or two, or that is what the credit card companies lead to you think. According to a Salliemae Financial Advice Internet site, a $2,000 tuition bill on a credit card with 18.5 percent APR, with only a minimum payment of $20 each month, will take eleven years to pay off, plus you will pay over $1,900 in interest on top of the initial $2,000. In the end, you will be paying around $3,900 total. I don't know about you, but I can't come up with that much money all the time. Credit card companies know that. They aren't stupid. But they also know, one way or another, they will have the money in the end, even at the cost of your future. Could you imagine being 19 years old, a sophomore in college, and filing bankruptcy because you owe a company $23,000? This is a true statement according to the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. This sophomore isn't alone either. In 1999, 100,000 Americans under the age of 25 declared bankruptcy. As you can see, I am not the first person to bring this issue up. The legislature, too, has discussed this issue. In this day and age, more and more young people like myself are being forced into bad credit ratings, without even starting a full-time job. We will be forced to live with this slander on our name for years after. It will affect our ability to buy a house, car, and, depending on our field of interest, starting a business will be almost impossible. Credit ratings follow you for the rest of your life. Young people like me and many others shouldn't have to file bankruptcy so young, or be haunted by bad credit ratings. We have our whole lives ahead of us. Things can change, and should. I strongly suggest that we take the time to make change happen. We can't eliminate all debt and credit problems, but we can lower them. High schools today don't offer much for money management classes. Freshman in college are going in blind to what these companies are doing. The school should be required, at some point in the senior year of high school, to educate us about what is happening and how to manage money so we can protect ourselves from such debt. Another problem that is influencing the debt is guidance counselors. They are pressuring college on to students who don't want to attend. So when they get to college, they end up dropping out, and are stuck with the costs. And that, in itself, is causing higher tuition and more debt. I'm not saying that guidance counselors should stop promoting college, but should not make students feel forced to attend. This way, in the end, it will be worthwhile for them. The credit card company should keep the amount an individual can put on a card low, instead of letting us dig ourselves a hole we can't get out of. John Simpson, of the University of Indiana, stated, ``Credit cards are a terrible thing.'' I strongly agree. College students shouldn't be forced to ruin their lives by the bright, ludicrous ideas credit card companies are putting into their head. Lastly, I would like to thank you, Mr. Sanders, for allowing teens like me an opportunity to have a voice on issues that affect us now or will in the near future.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. Regarding Necessity of Amtrak (By Joseph Ferris) Thank you for allowing me to speak here. In the winter of 1997, Congress withheld $2.2 billion from Amtrak, that had already been promised. Eventually, Congress allocated the money to Amtrak, with the stipulation that Amtrak achieve self-sufficiency by 2002. It is now 2002, and Amtrak has yet to attain self-sufficiency, and several congressional leaders, as well as the Amtrak Reform Council, are calling for the privatization. In the following minutes, I will explain to what the failures of achieving self- sufficiency can be attributed, and why such a radical idea such as privatization is unnecessary for Amtrak. First, the costs to run Amtrak are astronomical. It costs $3 million a year to maintain stations, tunnels and rails at operational conditions. Since 1997, there has been a $5.8 billion backlog in work, in yards, equipment and technology. Also, Amtrak pays $400 million to $600 million a year to freight rail companies to use their tracks outside of the northeast corridor. The funds Amtrak needs are $20 billion to repair the century-and-a-half old East River and Hudson River tunnels that enter into Penn Station. Also, several billion dollars to implement the security systems necessary after September 11th. And also, in the fiscal year of 2003, Amtrak needs $1.2 billion to operate long-distance trains along with other routes. Now the money Amtrak is actually given over their 31 years history is trifling compared to the money that government doles out to airports and roads in a singular year. Over 30 years, Amtrak has been given a total of $23 billion. last year Amtrak got $560 million, compared to 13 billion for airports and 33 billion for roads. Airlines received massive bailouts after September 11th. Amtrak was given only a token $100 million for security. Amtrak right now is caught in catch-22. It needs money to fix rails and crumbling infrastructure, but Congress won't give money to something they don't think will be around in a few years. Therefore, the following happens. Even though new trains, such as the Excel Express, are running, old rails only allow it to run at top speed for 18 miles of the 452- mile run from Boston to DC. Amtrak could be making money if the 2001 High-Speed Rail Initiative had not been killed in Congress. And also, a bill allowing for tax-exempt bonds, and loan guarantees for construction was pushed through the House and Senate. Also, there is a severe philosophical and policy planning issue in Washington, DC right now. Though several national agencies are involved, none has ever set a policy path for Amtrak. Second, Amtrak has never had a dedicated source of funding that they could build around. Also, Congress expects Amtrak to make a profit, while history clearly indicates the exact opposite. Passenger rail was never a moneymaker. Even the New York Central in its heyday, with the Twentieth Century Limited, lost money on each passenger per mile. Even the European high-speed lines, which are heralded as blueprints for privatization, are money-losers. Thus, it would be ludicrous for Amtrak, which suffers from a fundamental problem--underinvestment--to then be expected to turn a tidy profit. Even though Amtrak's funding has been severely reduced, there are many positive signs that need to be highlighted before a decision about Amtrak's fate is made. But first, right now, the status quo: We have wing-lock, gridlock, air congestion, rising gas prices, and in some major metropolitan cities, six-hour long rush hours. Also, airplanes release poisonous toxins into the upper atmosphere at rates astronomical compared to what trains release. Also, rail works. It's the safest and most reliable transportation system during storms. In the past decade, light rail and freight expansion have worked. Also, passenger trains are two to eight times more fuel-efficient than planes, and much more economical. The Pacific Northwest Corridor, which is run by Amtrak and the state governments of Oregon and Washington, has seen a dramatic increase over the past decade, after infusion of state money was allowed to build a high-speed rail corridor. Also, sleeping cars, which are often referred to as archaic, and for train-bus alone, experienced an increase of 19 percent over last year's statistics. February of 2002 was the sixth straight month that rail ridership was up and air ridership went down. Amtrak handles 40 percent of all traffic in the New York- Washington, DC, corridor. If high-speed rail corridors were developed in Florida, the southeast and Texas, per se, they could garner up to 20 to 30 percent of all traffic in that area. Ridership from 1978 to 2001 increased 24 percent, while funding was drastically cut by almost 80 percent. What should be done? I believe a one-cent tax should be instituted on all gasoline purchases, as well as a one-and-a- half cent tax on all domestic airplane tickets, which would give Amtrak a sustained source of income coming out to about $3.1 billion a year. Also, Amtrak should be given $50 billion grants spread over two years to replace antiquated signals, rails, equipment and technology. Congress shall reintroduce the $12 billion high- speed rail initiative, and will follow the DOT's report on high-speed rail corridors, which indoctrinated eleven corridors in 33 states. A system of 80 percent matching funds will be established to match funds invested by state and local government; because, right now, states and local governments get zero percent matching funds, while for highway they get almost a hundred percent. An independent committee will be formed to find timesaving and performance-enhancing changes, such as customs agents will be put aboard international trains, and will check passenger IDs at each respective station that the passenger gets on, instead of at the border, which causes a backlog of about three hours. Also, mail cars, which in the status quo are put on after the train is boarded in the yard, which costs another two hours for each train, will now be added to the train when it is put together in the yard, so there will be a flow from the station to point B. Thank you very much. Regarding Child Labor (By Colin Robinson, Marcia Lo Monoco, Sarah Kunz, and Delia Kipp) COLIN ROBINSON. Good morning, Congressman Sanders and Professor Gutman. Our testimony is going to begin with a description of the problem of child labor, and then we're going to move on to an explanation of the causes of child labor, then possible solutions, and wrapping up with what the Child Labor Education Act, CLEA, has done in Guatemala. MARCIA LO MONOCO. Exploitative child labor is when children work under conditions that are hazardous to their physical and/or mental health, when they are deprived of an opportunity to get an education, and not paid a liveable wage. Once children begin to work, sometimes as early as the age of 4, their chances to change the future are very small. It is common to think that child labor is a problem in Third World countries, but it is also a very real problem in the United States. One million children in the U.S. pick the produce we eat every day. There are an estimated 250,000 sweat shops in American cities. But child labor is a global problem. The most prevalent type of child labor is agricultural work. Children work in fields for long, hard hours, and are exposed to hazardous chemicals. Children also work in manufacturing, construction, mining, the sex trade, and bonded labor. Bonded labor is when children are sold by their parents to manufacturers, where they are sometimes chained to their machines or locked in workrooms. Child labor is a global problem which prevents educational opportunities and continues the cycle of poverty and deprivation. SARAH KUNZ. Child labor is one of the most heinous human rights violations occurring today. It can be thought of as a fire sparked by the oppressive cyclical nature of capitalism and fueled by corporate greed and corporate imperialism. American megacorporations such as Nike, Disney and Universityware exploit Third World economies through promises of mass employment. Instead, mass poverty ensues, due to subpoverty wages. The frightening phenomenon that is globalization creates homogenous global markets driven by low wages and high profit margins. New global trade agreements and organizations such as NAFTA, WTO, the IMF, and pending free-trade areas of the Americas in effect declare labor laws barriers to trade. Union-busting in sweat shops, mines and fields all around the world destroy democratic principles at their roots. The oppressive nature of capitalism inherently creates such conditions as poverty and inopportunity. The child population is easily manipulated and often exemplifies the most desperate of the human condition. Due to the plight of the economically distressed, many children have no other choice than to work. COLIN ROBINSON. The issue of a solution to child labor is one that is intimately intertwined with the global economy. However, the exploitation and abuse of innocent children cannot be outrightly ignored. A solution will come out of hard work and education. We must educate people about the human rights abuses, about the four-year-olds carrying twenty pounds of bricks, about the young boys and girls forced to work the streets, selling their bodies for sex. We need to create a conscious consumer, starting at a young age, a consumer who will think twice before buying goods made by children. Furthermore, we must appeal to lawmakers, lobbyists and corporate officers to instate rules giving children their rights. Through letters, we have a voice. The 1998 bonded labor act, written by you, Congressman Sanders, was the first step in this branch of change. Finally, the fortunate youth of the industrialized world can unite to help their distant peers. Through student organizations like ours, CLEA, Child Labor Education in Action, the youth have a voice. It gives them a pulpit from which would be heard. The child laborers of our world need a voice. So educate yourself and speak out. DELIA KIPP. In April of 2001, sixteen students from Child Labor Education in Action traveled to Pasac Segundo in western highlands of Guatemala. The people of the Pasac Segundo are Mayans and victims of extraordinary poverty. This is an agricultural community, and here is where the children work, in the fields surrounding their homes. This is a place where the land is rich and the people are poor. The children of the Pasac Segundo had no way of breaking the vicious poverty cycle until two years ago, when their parents and other community members joined together to start a school. We went to Pasac Segundo to help them build a new school. Alongside adults and children of the village, we cleared the land of stone and leveled the ground. We dug foundations and constructed rebar frames to reinforce cement and bricks. We left with unbreakable ties and eagerness to continue to support the school. We have continued to fund-raise during the past school year. We held concerts, a benefit dinner, as well as many other successful activities. In total, we have given Pasac Segundo over $6,000. In conjunction with many area elementary and high schools, we have collected school, health supplies, and shoes for children of Pasac Segundo. We are extremely excited and proud to announce that the school in Guatemala should be finished by the end of this month. We also invite students to learn more about our building project in Guatemala and our organization by visiting table in lobby or http://www.clea.sit.edu. COLIN ROBINSON. And I'd like to thank you, Congressman Sanders, for allowing us to be here.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this spring at the University of Vermont. These participants were part of a group of high school students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have as teenagers, and about what they would like to see government do regarding these concerns. On Behalf of Andrea Shahan, Danielle Harvey, Reid Garrow, Troy Ault and Stefanie Gray Regarding CHILD LABOR (April 8, 2002) REID GARROW: On the western edge of Dacca, Bangladesh, on a man-made ridge constructed to prevent flooding, dust is everywhere. The air is full of a single-sound sequence: The sharp sing of hammers hitting stone anvils. The sun beats bright as the children with their naked dust-covered bodies hammer away with tiny hammers in imitation of their mothers. Many mothers work here. Hundreds, even thousands, are employed in breaking bricks for the foundations of the buildings. And by many mothers' sides, living in horrible conditions, are their children, laboring away. There are many places such as the factory described in Dacca, Bangladesh, all over the world. Children are forced to work in horrible conditions, with extremely low wages, and with no rights whatsoever. We are the beneficiaries of child labor. Many of us here today are wearing clothing made overseas, and a significant percentage of it is made by small children. The United States has the world's largest economy, and with just a little effort, our government could drastically reduce child labor, and maybe even someday eliminate it. DANIELLE HARVEY: A common way for children to become exploited in the system of child labor is to be sold by their parents to a bondsman in order to pay off a debt. The debt is usually very small, ranging from 500 to 7,500 rupees, which, when converted to U.S. currency, mounts to about $14 to $200. Destitute families are offered these loans, and most families accept them, because they need to pay for the cost of an illness, to provide a dowry for a married child, or perhaps just to keep food on the table. A significant job in the workforce is the manufacturing of domestic and export products. Some of these products include silk, bee, which are hand-rolled cigarettes, silver jewelry, synthetic gemstones, leather products, including footwear and sporting goods, handwoven wool carpets, and precious gemstones and diamonds. Some services that bondsmen force bonded children to perform include prostitution, small- restaurant work, truck-stop work, tea-shop services, and domestic servitude. STEFANIE GRAY: Child labor prevents children from receiving a good education. Without an education, they are unable to receive jobs at reasonable pay as an adult. Children want a good education, and they believe that the only way their beliefs will be fulfilled is if they are willing to work. With the lack of support from their parents and their employers, it is hard to be a student and an employee. There are some companies in Nepal, Pakistan, that give classes to employers and parents to recognize the students' education rights. Child domestic workers cannot join a normal school. A little twelve-year-old boy cleans utensils, washes clothes, and sweeps the house. He rarely sees outside the small four- walled house where he works. He wants to go to school and study, and is unable because of his housework. Children work in the hope they will make enough money to go to school, and, in the end, they realize they won't every make enough money. And it is hard for them to get out of work once they enter. They become disappointed that they won't get the education that they had hoped for. TROY AULT: Child debt servitude has been illegal since 1933 in India, when the Children Pledging Labor Act was enacted under British rule. There are specific laws which were meant to govern child labor in factories, in commercial establishments, on plantations, and in apprenticeships. There are also laws about the use of migrant labor and contract labor. A recent law established in 1986 was set in place by the Child Labor Prohibition and Regulation Act, and designates a child as a person who has not completed their 14th year of age.'' It purports to regulate the hours and conditions of some child workers, and to prohibit the use of child labor in certain enumerated hazardous industries. Most importantly, there is a law that was established in 1976 by the Bonded Labor System Abolition Act, which strictly outlaws all forms of debt bondage and forced labor. Why these laws have not been enforced. The governing systems in Asia feel that child labor is inevitable. They think that it is caused by poverty, and cannot be changed by force, that it must evolve slowly towards eradication.It has been discovered, though, that some governments fund child labor in their country, which isn't making the population of child workers any smaller. Many feel that the systems are concerned only with maintaining a lead in the global marketplace, rather than the condition of their nation's youth. The problem at hand is really that, with the laws formed by these nations against having child labor in their countries are not being enforced harshly enough, and that an involvement with the American government, which has much more power, would make much more of an impact on child labor. ANDREA SHAHAN: Rosy, from the Philippines, who is 14 years old, has to take care of the household as well as her employer's 14 breeding dogs. She says, The dogs are so big. I'm afraid to go near them. Every day, I prepare kilos of dog food, wash out their pens, and take care of the mother dogs with newly born puppies. Sometimes I can't sleep properly for three nights or the puppies may die. All dogs are made in heaven, they say, but some domestics live in hell. My employer doesn't allow me to have any of the leftover food from their table, and I can't just help myself. I'm always hungry. One day, I couldn't tighten my belt anymore, so I ate the food of the dogs. Saneena, from Nepal, who is twelve years old, in an interview, says: I have been a domestic worker for the last two years, and recently started going to school. At first, my stepmother didn't allow me to attend, but I used to go to the class anyway, without telling her. A few days later, she caught me, scolded me, and gave me a slap. The teacher visited our house and tried to convince her to send me back. To begin with, she was not ready even to talk, but later she agreed, on the condition that I should take my younger brother with me. So I bring my baby brother to school. He can't really understand the class because he is only one and a half years old, but I'm glad at least to have a chance to go to school again. Fatima, from Bangladesh, is 14 years old. Fatima came to Dacca to work as a domestic worker. Her employer used to beat her up often. After four months, when her employer beat her up severely, she ran away, and took shelter in another home. Seeing the bruises on her body, the owner of her house took her to the police station when she was a bit better. The police brought her back to her old employer's house for investigation. The employers bribed the police and give them a written statement saying that she would be sent back to her village. But after the police left, she was locked in the toilet. She started screaming, and upon hearing her cries for help, the neighbors phoned ASK. ASK Lawyers rescued her and tried to file suit against the employer. While this was going on, the employer offered Fatima's family about 230 U.S. dollars. Fatima's mother took the money and refused to file charges. At present, Fatima is working in a garment factory. Johoya has to get up at 5 a.m., wash the utensils, sweep the compound, wash the cloths, attend to the demands of the mistress in the kitchen, attend to the old lady in the house, and also look after the pet dog. One day, Johoya was on the road, crying, holding a dog chain in her hand. When approached, she burst out crying, saying, ``the dog has run away. I am afraid. Tomorrow the master will be returning to the house, and he will kill me for losing the dog. My mistress has not given me food for two days because I have lost the dog. Have you seen my dog anywhere?'' The next day the house owner arrived, and Johoya was beaten for her carelessness and told she was not to be given any food until the dog was found. Some days later, the dog was found in the house of a neighbor, and money was paid to them for finding and keeping the dog safely. Johoya was happy the dog was returned, but her salary for the previous month was not given to her mother, when she came, as usual, to collect. She was told it had been paid to the neighbor who found and looked after the dog. When you look into a child's eyes, you expect to see hope, trust and innocence, but when you see these signs of childhood are replaced by the trail of hunger, fear and suspicion, we need to take serious stock in ourselves and the society we have created.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and in support of the legislation. As others have indicated, when we put together a bill of such magnitude, of so many commodities, of so many different parts of the country, it is difficult stuff and, at the end of the day, nobody is going to be 100 percent happy, but this is basically a good bill, and I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their efforts. To my mind, the great crisis facing this country in terms of agriculture is that every single day we are seeing family farmers being forced off the land, people who, in some instances, have been, their families have been on that land generation after generation after generation. This is true in my State of Vermont, it is true in the Midwest, it is true in the South, it is true all over this country. Some people say, well, what is the big deal? So what. Let the market work. So what if we end up with 3 companies who control the production and distribution of food in America? I say that is not good. I say that will be a disaster for the consumer. Think about what food prices will be when we have a few agribusiness companies controlling what we eat and the prices that we pay. Think about what it means to the environment when family farmers all over this country are forced off the land and shopping malls and parking lots take their place. What does that mean for suburban sprawl? Think about food security for the United States of America. Every Member of this body is concerned about our dependence on Mideast oil. What will it mean when we are forced to import food to feed our people? Vermont is a dairy State. We brought forth the North East Dairy Compact which protects New England and I thought and believe today that was good legislation. Other people in this body disagreed with that. What made sense for us was to work with our friends in the Midwest, work with our friends in the South, and say let us develop national dairy policy which protects farmers not only in the Northeast, but in the Mid-Atlantic, in the South, in the Midwest. I am proud that we were able to craft legislation that will give strong protection to dairy farmers, family farmers all over this country. I want to thank all of the representatives from the Midwest, from the South, for their help in that effort.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, American agriculture now stands at a crossroads. The question that we as a society have to answer is do we want an agricultural system that is comprised of very few, very large corporate producers--probably owned by one of the largest supermarket chains and probably overseas--or do we want a decentralized system of family based agriculture that produces food in rural communities across the nation. Foe me, the answer is clear. We need to support and preserve family based agriculture throughout the Nation in all commodities. Why do I say this? Why should Americans care that their food is produced overseas on large corporate farms? While overseas producers are not as efficient as US farmers, they are in many cases lower cost producers because the cost of land and labor are, to excuse the pun, dirt cheap. And the health and safety standards and environmental standards are far more lax than ours, if they exist at all. So, Americans may get food that is produced more cheaply overseas. But is that the only consideration that should dictate the shape of American agriculture. I don't think so. For a host of reasons it is increasingly clear that corporate controlled farming is bad for the Nation. First, I consider the preservation of the family farm a question of national security. Everyone in this room will agree that we are far too dependent on foreign oil. With all the troubles today in the Middle East we see how vulnerable our economy is to foreign upheavals over which we have little or no control. In 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, this nation went to war quickly in order to protect our oil supply from the Middle East. How vulnerable will we be if we become dependent on foreign nations for our food? Secondly, small decentralized farms are important for our environment. When farming is spread out it has less impact on the environment. In addition, family farms help reduce the blight of suburban sprawl that is gobbling up so much open space in this country. Thirdly, family farming is an integral and critical part of our rural economy. They support not only their own families, but also a host of related businesses like feed stores, equipment dealers, and local retailers. They also maintain the scenic landscape that is so important for the tourist industry in Vermont and elsewhere. Finally, consumers are ultimately the winners when food is produced on family run farms across the country. As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons that American farmers can be undersold is that we have some of the highest food safety standards in the world. While that makes our food more expensive to produce, it also means that American consumers can be more certain that the food they are buying is high quality and safe for their families. And as for the cheaper cost of production overseas, consumers are unlikely to benefit. Consolidation in the retailing and processing industry means that lower cost food from overseas is more likely to provide increased profits for them rather than lower consumer prices. Those are just some of the reasons that, in my view, we need to promote a system of family based agriculture. But as you know that trends are currently against those of us that support family farmers. In 1950, there were 5,388,437 farms in the U.S. By 1997, that number had fallen to 1,911,859. That's a loss of 3,476,578. Or to put it another way, in just 47 years, almost two-thirds of the farms in the U.S. had vanished. But while farms were getting fewer, they were also getting bigger. The average farm in 1050 was 216 acres. By 1997, the size of the average farm had more than doubled to 487 acres. Just as troubling and perhaps more troubling for farmers is that the people who buy their product--namely the processors and retailers--have become larger and larger to the point that they have far, far too much control over the price that farmers get for their milk. In 2000, the top five food retailers controlled 42% of retail sales in the U.S. This represents a staggering fast consolidation because the top five retailers in 1993 only controlled 20% of food sales and as late as 1997 the top five only controlled 24% of food sales. The same is true among dairy processors. As of 2000, the top four dairy processors controlled 35% of the fluid milk market. That's over a 34% increase in only 2 years. And regionally, control is even more concentrated. Although Suiza entered the dairy processing industry in 1993, by 2000 it controlled 70% of fluid milk processing and distribution in 13 Northeastern states. This consolidation is not limited to dairy, it is happening in every agricultural commodity. The top four beef packers control 81% of the market. Among pork packers, the top four control 59%. The top three corn exporters control 81% of their market. Those top three corn exporters also are the top three soybean exporters and they control 65% of that market. In a business environment like this, family farmers are getting squeezed harder and harder as fewer and fewer buyers control the marketplace. It's true for dairy, it's true for apples, it's true for commodities across the spectrum. This imbalance in the marketplace and this consolidation in the among producers is being accelerated by the increased amounts of foreign trade in agricultural products. In 2000, the U.S. was importing enough cheese and dairy ingredients to replace some 10.6 billion pounds of domestic milk production. The U.S. exported the equivalent of 4.3 billion pounds. That's a trade deficit of 6.3 billion pounds of milk. And this pattern is going to get worse as processors and retailers look to cheaper sources of food to fatten their profit margins. In fact, a 2001 report from the University of Missouri noted that if there was completely free trade in dairy, the world milk price would always be lower than the U.S. cost of production. This led the researchers to conclude, and I quote, ``If the dairy lobby is successful in opening up global trade through the World Trade Organization (WTO), we will find most of the remaining 90,000 US dairy farms exiting rapidly.'' What an absolute tragedy that would be. Now if you agree with me that America needs family farmers; and if you agree with me that we, at a minimum, need to protect small farmers from the increasing power of the concentrated processing and retailing sectors, what should we do? What we need to do is make sure that we have agricultural policies that protect, promote and empower family farmers in this country. That means for a start that we do not put American farmers at the mercy of world milk prices. We also need a federal agricultural policy that doesn't focus its help on large farms. Under the failed 1996 so-called ``Freedom to Farm'' program, only 40% of farmers in the US received subsidies. 60% did not. The top ten percent received 70% of the subsidies. Fifty percent of farmers received only 2%. Companies like DuPont, Archers Daniel Midland, Boise Cascade and others have received hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am therefore disappointed that the payment caps I voted to support and that the Senate included in its version of the farm bill were not included in the final bill. As the votes demonstrated, there is majority support in both bodies of Congress for this provision. However, even though the payment caps were excluded, as were other positive proposals, this Farm Bill represents a major victory for family dairy farmers in Vermont and across this country. When the Northeast Dairy Compact expired last fall, family farmers in New England were left at the mercy of the outrageously low $9.90 support price. I am also pleased to say that the entire Vermont delegation pulled out all the stops to extend and expand the Compact. But we were opposed by the dairy processors, who were working with large producers in the West, and Congresspeople from the Upper Midwest who, mistakenly in my view, thought the Compact hurt their farmers. Last October, I introduced an amendment on the floor of the House to create a national dairy program that would provide family dairy farmers across the country with benefits equal to what New England dairy farmers received under the Compact. We were opposed by the top Republican and the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, both of whom are from Texas. Much to everyone's surprise, we received 194 votes after just two weeks of organizing. Much of the credit for the strong showing that this amendment received goes to colleagues from the Midwest and the South who joined with myself and other Northeastern members in support of this national plan. It is fair to say that without the courage and leadership of those Midwestern and Southern Members was critical to our success. Vermont's Senators then took that concept into the Senate where a version was included in the Senate bill. Now the House and Senate conferees have completed working out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill and the final version includes a new national dairy program that will accomplish what we have been fighting. The new national program would provide virtually the same benefits as did the Compact with the difference being that the money would come from the Federal Government as opposed to the processors. Now I, as much as anyone, want the processors to have to pay a fair price for their product. But without the Compact, family dairy farmers in Vermont and across this country need this safety net. My hope is that in years to come we can shift the funding source back where it belongs, on the processors so that farmers are getting their money from the market. But it makes no sense to let thousands of family farmers go out of business while we work to make that happen. This program will also help make sure that farm subsidy payments are more evenly distributed across the country. Right now, the vast majority of the money goes to the Midwestern and Southern states who produce program crops. Of course, that Federal Government has much more to do if we are to save family farming in this country. In addition to making sure federal ag policy benefits small farmers, we have to address the concentration issue among processors and retailers by enforcing our current antitrust laws and perhaps enacting new ones if current law doesn't offer enough protections. The road ahead for family agriculture is not going to be an easy one. But farmers will not have to fight it alone. There are millions and millions of Americans who do not live on farms or in rural communities who understand the value--from a national security standpoint, from an environmental standpoint, from an economic standpoint, from a consumer standpoint--of decentralized family based agriculture in the country. They will be your allies. At the same time, farmers have to realize that the corporate, agribusiness interests are the opponents of family- based agriculture. They need to be cut loose so that, for example when they want outrageous free trade agreements that allow them to purchase agricultural products overseas at a fraction of the U.S. price, family farmers all over this country stand up and say no. It will be a tough fight but together we can reshape American agriculture for the better.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. When did Mr. Sweeney make that statement?

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). Again, he really did bring this legislation forward in an inclusive bipartisan way, and I very much appreciate it and I think the results speak for themselves. This is a very good bill. I support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2604, the Multinational Development Banks Authorization Act. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for working in a bipartisan manner on this bill and for the way he has reached out to Members on this side of the aisle in drafting the bill. I am pleased to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it addresses two very important issues at the regional development banks: transparency and user fees. The regional development banks are from among the most powerful institutions of the world with effective control over the economy of some of the poorest nations in the world, and yet these institutions make major decisions affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of the most vulnerable people on this planet, as well as working people throughout the world, in almost total secrecy. This bill includes significant provisions to make the regional development banks more open and more accountable to the public. It requires the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct U.S. executive directors at the multilateral development banks to work towards opening the meetings of the boards of directors to the public and the media; making transcripts of executive board meetings available within 60 days of the meetings; and making all key documents that are to be used or to be considered by the executive boards available to the public before those documents are considered. In addition, to make sure that the Treasury Department and U.S. executive directors at the multilateral development banks vigorously pursue these reforms, the bill includes a requirement that the U.S. executive directors must testify every year before the Committee on Financial Services on the efforts they have made to achieve these reforms. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we work to make these international financial institutions more open and more accountable to the public. Without that transparency, it is impossible even for Congress to know if the laws we pass are being observed at these institutions. That brings me to the second issue this bill addresses, user fees. This bill strengthens current law which requires U.S. executive directors at the regional development banks to oppose the imposition of user fees and service charges on primary education and primary health care, including prevention and treatment efforts for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and infant, child and maternal health. In other words, for the poorest people in the world, we want to make sure that health access and educational access is available without user fees. The current law on user fees includes several loopholes which the U.S. Treasury Department has unfortunately exploited. This bill closes those loopholes. For example, the Treasury Department has interpreted current law to require U.S. executive directors to oppose user fees only when they are part of a loan. This bill makes it clear that U.S. executive directors must oppose user fees in any loan, grant, document or strategy adopted by the regional development banks. In addition, the Treasury Department interpreted law to apply unless the user fee provides an exemption for poor people; but exemptions for poor people, especially in impoverished countries, do not work. User fees discourage poor people from seeking primary health care and sending their kids to school because the poor are often not told about poverty exemptions and local officials often have an incentive to collect as many fees as possible. This bill makes it clear that U.S. executive directors must oppose user fees in impoverished countries as a whole. That is a major step forward. In impoverished countries throughout the world there is documented evidence that user fees prevent people from sending their children to school and seeking medical care. In Zambia, a researcher witnessed the arrival of a 14-year-old boy at a hospital, suffering from acute malaria. His parents were unable to pay the registration fee, which was equivalent to 33 American cents, but they were unable to afford that, and the boy was turned away. Within two hours the child was brought back dead. In Kenya, the introduction of fees for patients of Nairobi's Special Treatment Clinic for Sexually Transmitted Diseases resulted in a decrease in attendance of 40 percent for men and 65 percent for women. In Zimbabwe, there are reports of girls going into prostitution to pay school fees. In Ghana, 77 percent of street children in the capital city dropped out of school because of inability to pay these fees. It is essential that our country stop supporting the imposition of user fees on primary education and health care in impoverished countries and that we make the regional development banks more open and more accountable to the public. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill, and I look forward to working with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), to see that it is enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has been an outstanding leader on the Committee on Financial Services in a number of areas including this legislation.