Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the issue here is so clear-cut that it is almost laughable. I was a mayor of a city for 8 years, and when someone from the business community came in and said they wanted something, I said, Let's talk about it. What are you going to do for the people? What the Export-Import Bank does is they say to General Electric, You told the whole world your policy is to move jobs to China; we have no problem with that. You can help us with 200 jobs? That is fine. You are laying off 10,000 workers tomorrow? We are ignoring that. People who have discussed this have used the word ``carrot.'' I believe in carrots. Use the carrot. What is the carrot? The carrot is if you come in and want taxpayer support, radical idea though it may be, you have got to protect American jobs. It is beyond comprehension to me that we would provide huge amounts of funding to a company where the leadership says, like General Electric, This is our policy: Our policy is to lay off American workers and go to China. And the Ex-Im Bank says, Can we give you any more money? Thank you. Eighty percent of the loans and subsidies given to the Export-Import Bank go to the Fortune 500 companies. Check their record. It is not just General Electric, it is not just General Motors, it is not just Motorola. Company after company are laying off American workers and going abroad. It seems to me that if you want to use taxpayer money, if they want to take taxpayer money, the very least they can do is to work very, very hard to give us commitments to protect jobs in this country. We have a $360 billion trade deficit. The Ex-Im is a small part of that, but it is part of a failed policy which is selling out American workers; and I urge the Members of the body, finally, stand up to the campaign contributors and all these big companies that pour millions into the political process. Stand with American workers. Let us reverse our trade policy. Let us demand that these companies, radical idea though it may be, invest in the United States of America. My word, what a radical idea. Create jobs in America, so that high school kids do not have to work at Burger King, but they can have a decent job. The Ex-Im can play a role in that. Let us say ``yes'' to the Sanders amendment and work for the ordinary people of this country for a change, rather than the multinationals. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters.) (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. But, Mr. Chairman, they have laid off hundreds of thousands of workers. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to dialogue with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). Jack Welch is the former CEO of General Electric, and this is what he said. ``Ideally what you want is to have every company on a barge.'' This is a man who advertised to the world that he is taking American jobs all over the world, laying off American workers. Why would we give a company like that Export-Import Bank money?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that was 1997. We are in the year 2002.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been one of the strongest fighters in the U.S. Congress for American workers.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I hereby submit for the Record a letter sent to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), by every large multinational corporate trade organization in the country, people who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process, because they are opposed to the amendment. Aerospace Industries Association, American Business Council of the Gulf Countries, AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology, Bankers Association for Finance and Trade, Coalition for Employment Through Exports, Emergency Committee for American Trade, International Energy Development Council, National Association of Manufacturers, National Foreign Trade Council, Small Business Exporters Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-China Business Council, U.S Council for International Business, April 16, 2002. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: As the House Republican leadership considers scheduling floor action on H.R. 2871, to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, we write to reiterate our strong support for the Bank. Our collective members include many of the U.S. exporters and financial institutions that rely on the Bank as the lender of last resort in meeting the fierce competition for export opportunities in world markets. In FY 2001 alone, the Bank financed some 2,300 export transactions, 90 percent of which were for small and medium- sized firms. Ex-Im Bank plays a crucial role in supporting the export of American-made goods and American-provided services in markets where commercial financing is difficult to obtain and when foreign competitors have the active support of their governments' export credit agencies. In 2000 alone, the most- active export credit agencies worldwide financed more than $500 billion in exports. Ex-Im Bank financed $15.5 billion in U.S. exports that year. To deal with this increasingly aggressive foreign competition, H.R. 2871 would authorize the Bank to respond to new export financing programs offered by foreign governments, including so-called ``market windows''. The bill also provides the Bank with clear authority to use the tied-aid war chest to respond aggressively to foreign governments' use of foreign assistance to supplement their export credit activities (so-called ``tied-aid''). It is important to note that Ex-Im charges risk-based interest, premiums and other fees for its loans, loan guarantees and insurance. These fees are paid by exporters, banks and overseas customers. Last year, the Bank's revenues generated a $1 billion net income for the U.S. government. Moreover, the Bank maintains some $10 billion in reserves to protect against the risk of loss. The Bank's conservative lending policies and aggressively loss-recovery efforts have resulted in a very low 1.9 percent historical loss rate. Amendments of Concern Two amendments may be offered which, in our judgment, would impede the ability of U.S. exporters to effectively utilize the Bank, thus weakening the Bank's programs and causing a loss of U.S. exports and the jobs of American workers. We urge you to oppose these amendments if offered during House floor action: (1) Rep. Sanders may offer an amendment to deny Ex-Im Bank financing for U.S. companies that are growing internationally. It would make the Bank completely unusable for any U.S. exporter that is succeeding in world markets. The proposal runs contrary to U.S. trade policy and market- based economic growth. It would make no sense for the Congress to seek open world markets, but then deny U.S. firms access to one of the key tools to take advantage of these new opportunities. Since Ex-Im Bank only finances U.S.-origin goods and services, shutting off the Bank would only result in making the Bank less effective in creating and keeping U.S. jobs here at home. Rep. Schakowsky may offer an amendment to require a human rights assessment of about 600 export transactions supported by the Bank annually. This proposal is unnecessary because the Export-Import Bank Act already includes a procedure under which the Bank relies on the U.S. State Department for human rights analysis. The amendment would require the Bank to establish an unnecessary new bureaucracy that would duplicate the long-established State Department human rights office. The amendment would require U.S. exporters to submit any proposed transaction over $10 million to a costly and time- consuming notice and comment period, which inevitably would lead to the loss of export sales to our foreign competitors. The current, long-established, process works well to ensure that human rights issues are analyzed by the State Department's experts and included in the Bank's consideration of export transactions. We urge the House to approve H.R. 2871 and to oppose amendments that would weaken the Bank and impede U.S. exports. Sincerely, Don Carlson, President, AMT-The Association For Manufacturing Technology; Calman J. Cohen, President, Emergency Committee For American Trade; Timothy E. Deal, Senior Vice President, U.S. Council for International Business; John W. Douglass, President, and CEO, Aerospace Industries Association; John Hardy, Chairman, Standing Committee, International Energy Development Council; Robert Kapp, President, U.S.-China Business Council; James Morrison, President, Small Business Exporters Association; John Pratt, Chairman, American Business Council of the Gulf Countries; William Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade Council; Edmund B. Rice, President, Coalition For Employment Through Exports; Consider W. Ross, Executive Director, Bankers Association for Finance and Trade; Franklin J. Vargo, Vice President, National Association of Manufacturers; Willard A. Workman, Senior Vice President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, these gentlemen, representing the largest multinational corporations in this country, are opposed to this amendment. And why not? They are receiving huge amounts of corporate welfare. They think it is a good deal. So, yes, they will be opposed to the amendment. And I would hope that gives Members a good reason why they should think about voting for this amendment. I am very proud that this amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and we are united, along with many other Members here, to protect American workers and to fight corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues will say that the Ex-Im Bank has helped businesses and workers throughout the United States. They are right. But that should not be a great surprise for an agency that has a budget of some $1 billion and has the capability of guaranteeing some $15 billion in loans a year. If we stood outside on street corners all over America and gave out money, we would do some good. We would help people. We would create jobs. The question that we want to ask is: Given the amount of money that we are spending, are American taxpayers and are American workers getting good value for their dollars? And I think any objective analysis of Ex-Im would suggest that we are not. At the present moment, Ex-Im is wasteful, it is inefficient, and it is a major example of corporate welfare. If we cannot make fundamental changes in the way that program is run, it should be killed. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about who the major beneficiaries of Ex-Im are. My colleagues have heard a lot about how small businesses are benefiting. The reality, however, is that 80 percent of the real dollars goes to the Fortune 500, some of the largest corporations in America. Now, let us hear who those tiny small businesses are who receive this corporate welfare from the American people. Well, they are Boeing, General Electric, Caterpillar, and Mobile Oil. They are a struggling small company. Westinghouse and AT&T. Another little tiny mom and pop company. Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Enron, IBM, FedEx, General Motors, Haliburton, Siemens, Raytheon, and United Technologies. The list goes on and on. Workers in this country, working 50, 60 hours a week to keep their heads above water, veterans not getting the benefits they are entitled to, but, hey, all these little tiny companies they are on the welfare line. Name the largest multinational corporation in America, many of whom make substantial campaign contributions, and there they are getting their money from Ex-Im. Further, many of these companies pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. One example, which I have experience with, IBM, on the welfare line, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner, over $260 million in stock options, while they cut back on pensions and retirement health benefits of their workers and retirees and they are opening plants in China. No doubt, no doubt that the American taxpayers should be giving them their welfare check. Now, even more importantly, what else do these companies have in common? What they have in common is that company after company that receive Ex-Im money are some of the largest job cutters in America. In the name of job creation, we are giving huge amounts of money to large corporations who are laying off hundreds of thousands of American workers, and they are moving their plants to China, where they are paying desperate people there 20 cents an hour; moving to Mexico, moving to Vietnam, moving anyplace in the world where they can get cheap labor. Well, that is a smart public-policy move on our part. Let me give a couple of examples. General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result? From 1985 to 1995, GE reduced its workforce from 243,000 to 150,000. A real success story for the Ex-Im Bank. General Motors. They received $500 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from Ex-Im. The result, GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce from 559,000 to 314,000. Congratulations Ex-Im. Motorola. They have reduced their workforce; only 56 percent of their workers are from the United States. Now, if a company wants to receive taxpayer support, fine. But what that company has got to do is say we pledge to protect American jobs. And the amendment that I am offering is very, very simple. What it says is that if a company is going to lay off workers, then they cannot lay off more American workers than they lay off people abroad. Now, I do not think that is too much to ask for companies that receive subsidies from the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order which we will be debating later today, and I especially thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who promised me that he would support getting that amendment on the floor, and he did. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, and I must say, unlike many others, and perhaps as one of two independents in the House of Representatives, I have some very, very strong concerns about the direction of the Export-Import Bank. It is my belief that unless we make fundamental changes in that bank and the way that it functions, that we should eliminate it because as presently constituted, it amounts to huge corporate welfare for some of the largest multinational corporations in America. The truth of the matter is, and I think it is high time Congress woke up to it, and this goes well beyond the Export-Import Bank, the trade policy of the United States is a failure. Mr. Speaker, we have a $300-plus billion trade deficit. It is not just steel, it is not just textiles. All over America, in rural America, in my State, small manufacturing plants are going out of business because they cannot compete with imports that come into this country made in China where workers are being paid 20 cents an hour. The big untold story of trade policy is that corporate America has sold out American workers, sold out the American people, laid off millions of American workers in search of cheap labor all over the world. We have a $360 billion trade deficit, tell me how our trade policy is successful. The mythology out there is we do not have to worry about old manufacturing jobs, steel, textiles, cars, those are not good jobs. All of our young people are going to have high tech, computer jobs, minimum $50,000 a year, let the Mexicans and the Chinese have those other jobs. What a terrible thing to say to millions of workers. The result is that high school graduates today who go into the job market are making 20 percent less than was the case 25 years because the factory jobs are not there, and what is there are McDonald's and Burger King, low wages, part-time, no benefits. We have to rebuild manufacturing in this country and create decent paying jobs for our working people. Export-Import Bank is part of the problem, not the cause. Check the record. Over 80 percent of the money that comes from Export-Import Bank goes to large, Fortune 500 corporations. We give them the money, and General Electric and Motorola and Boeing say thanks, taxpayers. By the way, we are laying off American workers because we are off to China and Mexico; but give us some more money. Some of us have a radical idea. We think before we give taxpayer money out to large, multinational corporations, maybe, just maybe, we might want to insist that they do something about creating jobs in the United States of America. I know that that is a very radical idea, that taxpayer money be used to create jobs in America. The bottom line is that if we are going to give these Fortune 500 companies money, let them sign on the line and work on ways to create jobs in America. The major companies that have received Ex-Im money are the major job cutters in America. I want somebody to explain that to the workers in America that have been laid off, that their tax dollars go to precisely the companies that are laying off more workers than anyone else. It is absurd on the surface. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment that will address it, and I hope we will get strong bipartisan support. It is time that we change the trade policy in America. This is a good way to start.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman comes from Detroit where General Motors is. How many workers have been laid off by General Motors, a major recipient of the Export-Import Bank? Does the gentleman have any idea?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last summer, I worked with my very good friend, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on issues relating to the Export-Import Bank. In fact, we introduced a bill, H.R. 2517, that would have gone a very long way in protecting the taxpayers of this country from corporate welfare and in protecting American workers, and I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his support of that effort. A markup was scheduled to take place on that bill but, out of nowhere, the markup was canceled, and my suspicion is that the moneyed interests who like the Export-Import Bank as it is right now sent down the word from on top that that markup never take place. What we have in front of us is an outrageous example of corporate welfare. Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that the American people who, in many instances, are working longer hours for lower wages than was the case 20 or 30 years ago, many of whom have no health insurance, our seniors do not have prescription drugs, we face a housing crisis, a child care crisis; in the midst of all of this, people are saying, why are the taxpayers of this country providing huge subsidies and loans to the largest multinational corporations in the world who pay their CEOs huge salaries, give them huge benefits, and companies that take this money from the taxpayers say, thank you very much and, oh, by the way, we are laying you off because we are going to China and hiring somebody at 20 cents an hour. I think the American people want us to protect their dollars. I think they want us to protect American workers. What is so bad about saying to a corporation, if you want taxpayers' money, then you have to protect American jobs? What a radical idea. But it is an idea that has not yet come to the Export-Import Bank. There are a number of reasons why we should vote ``no'' and send a message to the Export-Import Bank. Number 1, major corporations take the money, lay off American workers, and run abroad. Number 2, the Export-Import Bank, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) indicated, has provided $673 million in financing to questionable Enron-related projects, projects, in some instances, that the taxpayers of this country may have to pick up the tab for. Number 3, the Export-Import Bank is hurting steel workers. The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the U.S. According to the United Steel Workers of America, ``It is disgraceful that the U.S. Government is bankrolling Chinese steel production when U.S. steel companies are declaring bankruptcy and American workers are being laid off.'' Number 4, the Export-Import Bank is helping the Chinese military. The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to the Chinese military. According to the President of Machinist Local 751, ``Boeing used to make tail sections for the 747s in Wichita, but they moved the work to a military factory in Xian, China. Is this Boeing's definition of free trade, to have American workers compete with Chinese labor making $50 a month under military discipline?'' Number 5, the Export-Import Bank is helping General Electric ship jobs to Mexico. Number 6, the Export-Import Bank is helping AT&T ship jobs to China. And on and on and on it goes. Mr. Speaker, in my view, if we keep the Export-Import Bank, we should have firm guarantees from the companies that receive the money that they are going to grow American jobs, they are going to hire more and more workers, not lay them off. In my view, a much larger percentage of money from the Export-Import Bank should go to the small business community, the people who are creating jobs in America, not to the big corporations who are sending our jobs abroad. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time is now to send a message to the Export-Import Bank who have, for so long, ignored the needs of the American taxpayer and have ignored the needs of American workers. Let us shut them down. Let them think. Give them some time to think. This is going to be a very good reflective time, contemplative time. They could take the time off, go home, meditate, and try to understand how they can represent American workers and American taxpayers, rather than just the multinational corporations. So I urge a ``no'' vote. I will insert into the Record at this time a statement from the United States Business and Industry Council, which opposes the extension; a statement from the Cato Institute that opposes the extension; and a statement on behalf of the Paper, Allied- Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers representing 320,000 American workers who want to keep their jobs in this country. The statements are as follows: United States Business and Industry Council, April 29, 2002. Oppose The 30-Day Extension Of the Export-Import Bank--Require That It Support Jobs and Industry in America, Not Overseas On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, a 30-day extension of the Export-Import Bank will be on the House Suspension Calendar. On behalf of our domestic American member companies, we urge that you vote against S. 2248. The Export-Import Bank was created in 1934 to increase U.S. jobs through exports. Today, the Export-Import Bank has strayed from this mission. It is now providing billions of dollars to multinational companies that are laying-off hundreds of thousands of American workers and shipping their jobs overseas. By opposing the 30-day extension, you will be sending a message to the Export-Import Bank that it should only support companies and projects that increase jobs in the United States. Export-Import Bank's Top Clients Cut Their Workforce Time Magazine reports the top 5 recipients of Ex-Im subsidies over the past decade have reduced their workforce by 38%--more than a third of a million jobs lost. These five companies, which include giants Boeing and General Electric, have received more than 60% of all Ex-Im subsidies. The Export-Import Bank Has Helped Chinese Steelmakers The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the American market. The U.S. government should not bankroll Chinese steel production when U.S. steel companies are being forced into bankruptcy by imports. The Export-Import Bank Is Helping the Chinese Military The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to China. Yet, Boeing has been increasing the amount of aircraft production it does in China. It used to make tail sections for the 737 in Wichita, but then moved the work to a military factory in Xian, China. Besides being questionable on commercial grounds, such deals amount to the Ex-Im Bank subsidizing Beijing's defense industry at a time when China's military buildup threatens the stability of Asia. These practices must end. Oppose the 30-day extension of the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, they must be doing a good job with the money that they are getting. They sure are.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my very good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), I rise as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade in strong opposition to this 30-day extension to the Export- Import Bank. I think it is time to send this bank a message, and I think we should vote down this extension and this bill this afternoon. This bill, I should say, is being opposed by 10 of my colleagues who have sent a letter to every Member of Congress urging a ``no'' vote on this legislation. These Representatives are the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns). This bill is also opposed by the Paper Allied Chemical and Energy Workers International, PACE, a union with over 300,000 members. It is opposed by the Independent Steel Workers Union. It is opposed by the U.S. Business and Industry Council and by the CATO Institute, a conservative think tank. Mr. Speaker, this is an example of where progressives, such as myself, and conservatives, are coming together to protect the American taxpayer and the workers of this country in opposition to an outrageous example of corporate welfare. While I do not often agree with the conservative columnist Robert Novak, I urge Members to read the article he wrote which appeared in yesterday's Washington Post which raises some very strong concerns about the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Speaker, many supporters of the Export-Import Bank argue that the bank is necessary in order to create jobs. What I want to know, therefore, is if this bank is supposed to create jobs, how come the major beneficiaries of the Export-Import Bank, the corporations who have received the most assistance year after year, have substantially reduced their American workforce? In other words, instead of creating new jobs, these large corporations have taken money from the Export- Import Bank and, year after year, they have thrown tens and tens of thousands of American workers out on the street. I think it is time to tell those folks who are at the trough for corporate welfare that if they want money from the taxpayers of this country, if they want help from the working people of this country, you do not lay off hundreds of thousands of American workers. Mr. Speaker, some have talked about how 86 percent of the transactions from Ex-Im go to small business. That is correct. But that is a bit misleading, because 82 percent of the money, what is really important, goes to the Fortune 500 companies, while only 18 percent of the dollars and the subsidies go to small business. Mr. Speaker, let me give a few examples of the work and the actions of some of the major beneficiaries of the Export-Import Bank. General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. They are, I believe, the second largest major beneficiary. Not exactly a small business. In fact, they are one of the largest corporations in the world. So all the taxpayers in America who are struggling to keep their heads above water, GE thanks you very, very much for your assistance. What is this company doing? What do they say. Jack Welch, as everybody knows, was the very successful CEO of GE for many years. Let me quote Mr. Welch: ``Ideally, you have every plant you own on a barge.'' That is his philosophy. I respect the guy. He is up front. He says that the way you make money is to move to China and Mexico, pay workers there sub-standard wages, and throw American workers out on the streets. That is his business. I do not have a problem with that, but I do have a serious problem that American taxpayers' money, American workers' money, goes to companies who say, ``Hey, wouldn't it be ideal if we could have all of our jobs on a barge and move to any country in the world where wages are lower?'' GE has moved jobs from State to State and country to country in search of lower wages. The company's biggest export is, in fact, jobs. In 1975, GE had 667,000 American workers. In 1995, they employed 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. Now, is that not something? What a success story for Ex-Im; the number 2 recipient lays off hundreds of thousands of jobs. Now, I was a mayor of a city for 8 years and we provided help to the business communities. But, you know what? We did not just give them a blank check. We said if you want taxpayer money, this is what we want from you in return. And I would suggest very strongly that what the taxpayers of this country want when they subsidize corporations is they want those corporations to reinvest in America, create jobs in America, and not run to China, Mexico and every country in the world where they can pay workers starvation wages. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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 Sam Parker, Becca Van Horn, and Eli Brannon Regarding FREE TRADE (April 8, 2002) ELI BRANNON: Free trade is a method for countries to trade internationally without having to worry about tariffs or barriers. The first step towards free trade was taken in 1948 with the creation of GAT, the General Agreement Tariffs rate. GAT was formed as a way to provide rules for countries to dismantle trade barriers and organize a system of commercial business. Unfortunately, it did not live up to expectations. GATT was transformed into the World Trade Organization, or WTO, on January 1, 1995. Before the World Trade Organization was created, North America had already created its own system of trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. NAFTA has grown to include Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Free trade is supposed to help support the countries involved. It does create more jobs, lowers taxes on trade, and makes some Second World Nations like South Korea and Taiwan want to attend trade liberalization. However, the advantages are overshadowed by the numerous disadvantages, including worker exploitation, job loss effects on the agricultural community, and the obvious attempt for corporate profit. SAM PARKER: NAFTA was originally established to help solve North America's problems, increase of trade surplus, standard of living, and better jobs, among other things. Before NAFTA, the U.S. agricultural trade surplus with Mexico and Canada was $203 million. Since NAFTA was established in 1994, this surplus fell $1.498 million. What NAFTA does not openly stop our economy's advancement, it has set it far behind. NAFTA promised an increase in jobs for Americans. Not only has this not happened, but more than 350 U.S. workers have lost their jobs. Many of these jobs were given to Mexican workers being paid one-third of what Americans are paid. Another promise of NAFTA was to boost the agricultural economy. The farming community has been given nothing but false hopes with the promise of more jobs. Farming income has declined and consumer prices have gone up. Although NAFTA and free trade look appealing on the outside, the effects are devastating to most working-class persons. BECCA VAN HORN: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the multinational corporations, and to the profit for which they stand, one interlocking directorate under no government, indivisible, with monopoly and cheap labor for all. This pledge epitomizes the only noticeable progress of the World Trade Organization. Free trade, and therefore NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, which attempts to globalize economies without globalizing human rights, only leads to big corporations exploiting the Third World. While supporting the capitalists, the big corporations who benefit most from free trade, the World Trade Organization advances by exploiting the Third World proletarians, opposing human rights and demands for adequate working conditions. The World Trade Organization thrives on maintaining the status quo by taking American jobs and giving them to eleven- year-old Indonesian children working in a Nike factory for 83 cents per day. Free trade helps the First World, but leaves the poorest with barely .4 percent of all global trade. That is barbaric. You do not keep the standard of living for America by exploiting one group of people. The Third World has taken an incredible hit. The World Trade Organization supports groups like the International Monetary Fund, whose only purpose is to loan money to countries in dire situations, and then demand the money back at an incredibly high interest rate. By supporting organizations like the IMF, and only looking at how the rich can flourish, the World Trade Organization is dooming the Third World to never advance economically. This is not an impossible situation. If free trade focuses on advancing all social classes, it will be beneficial to the First and Third worlds. There would be more American jobs, farmers could prosper, and, although big corporations would lose money, they could begin to cleanse their moral values. If the Third World is able to focus on trading with each other and the First World on an equal basis, their children could go to school and their economy progress. If an organization like the U.N. helped put that eleven-year-old Indonesian child into a plausible trade, their population would not be doomed to factory work at subsistence wages and no benefits. Of course, it would be difficult. But free trade attempts to globalize only one aspect of our world, increasing the disparity in every other way. Free trade, and therefore NAFTA and the WTO, globalizes economies, not for the betterment of the world, but for corporations and consumerism, creating a never-ending spiral of the rich remaining rich and the poor remaining poor. On Behalf of Ruth Blake Regarding STRAIGHT TALK VERMONT (April 8, 2002) RUTH BLAKE: Straight Talk Vermont is one of the programs run out of the Community Justice Center, and some of the things they are involved in is Arts are Wonderful, a group of high school students getting together and working on art projects and learning different types of art. They have a Team Reaching In, which is like a song-poetry kind of group. They have Art from the Inside Out, which is a group of UVM art majors who are teaching majors, teaching middle schoolers and young students art. And the Teen Expressions, which is what I'm part of. It is a group of high schoolers from around the area, and they get together, and plan different events, and fun things to do, as something else to do besides drinking and drugs and that kind of stuff. Straight Talk Vermont is the overall thing. They help people at high risk, and it--they just help build and become better. What I'm involved in is the Teen Expressions Dance Company, and they're putting on a dance performance. It is a group of young amateur performers. We are just getting together and choreographing and dancing, performing.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an excellent article that recently ran in Seven Days, a weekly newspaper in Burlington, Vermont. The article discusses the increasingly superficial reporting and a growing conservative agenda dominating the nation's televisions, radios and newspapers. The article also highlights a Congressional Town Meeting that I held to discuss the topic of corporate control of the media. [From the Seven Days, Apr. 24, 2002] Media Mergers Ate Our News! (By Susan Green) The families flocking to Palmer? Here are some of the things that took place last Thursday: An Amtrak train derailed in Florida. Families of Flight 93 passengers listened to the September 11 cockpit voice recording. The Senate defeated a Bush administration proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And four Canadian soldiers were killed by American ``friendly fire'' in Afghanistan. But what did all three cable news channels--CNN, MSNBC and Fox--spend the night broadcasting? The arrest in Los Angeles of actor Robert Blake for murder. Their reports included his entire uneventful 40-minute ride to the police station. ``We're inundated with scandal and sensationalism in the media. Important topics get very little attention,'' suggests U.S. Congressman Bernie Sanders, who is alarmed that just a few multinational corporations ``own and control the flow of information in the United States.'' This week Sanders will come home to host ``The Media and Democracy,'' two back-to-back forums on what he sees as increasingly superfical reporting and a growing right-wing agenda dominating the nation's television, radio and newspapers. The town-meeting-style discussions, on Sunday in Montpelier and Monday in Burlington, will feature Robert McChesney and John Nichols, co-authors of It's the Media Stupid. Sanders and his two guests are particularly alarmed that a handful of media outlets--AOL/Time-Warner, Fox, NBC and Viacom--recently won a lawsuit to abolish a longstanding Federal Communications Commission rule that prohibited cable companies from acquiring local TV stations. In addition, any one company may soon be able to provide television service to more than 35 percent of the nation's households, an arrangement that was previously forbidden. Smells like a monopoly. ``I'm organizing members of Congress to justify why it's important to maintain those rules,'' Sanders explains. ``Radio was deregulated in 1996, and that's been a disaster. Big companies, like Clear Channel, have bought up hundreds of locally owned stations across the country. Talk radio is now completely dominated by the Right. It's a very frightening situation.'' Of the 1225 stations Texas-owned Clear Channel owns nationwide 10 are in Vermont, four of those in the Burlington market--WCPV, WEZF, WJVT, and WXZO. Independents like Ken Squier find it challenging to compete. ``They've got all the syndicated shows we might want and they go after the same advertising dollars,'' says the head of Radio Vermont, a family of stations that includes WKDR, WCVT and WDEV. ``Vermont Public Radio is also a problem. They are government-subsidized but hitting on the same sponsors we do.'' Vermont's radio wars make more noise than corresponding battles in the print media. For one thing, there are fewer paper soldiers. The Burlington Free Press, purchased by the Virginia-based Gannett Corporation from a local publisher in the 1970s, maintains a moderate political tone in a one-daily town. But ``following the standard corporate line,'' as Sanders puts it, may explain why the largest newspaper in Vermont never took a stand on the civil-union controversy, while David Moats at the independently owned Rutland Herald won a Pulitzer Prize for his editorials advocating equal rights for gay couples. Author John Nichols, a Washington correspondent for The Nation, believes that the impending changes in FCC regulations ``could have a profound effect on corporations like Gannett.'' Despite owning 95 daily newspapers, 22 TV stations and the flagship national publication USA Today, the company is ``not a major player'' compared with an outsized media mogul like Rupert Murdock, says Nichols. Sanders asserts that the Australian honcho is an ``extreme right- winger'' who is ``pushing the other media to the right.'' The U.S. holdings include The New York Post and Fox. Murdoch's News Corp. is fifth on a list of media monopolists, after Time Warner, Disney and Viacom. General Electric ranks seventh. Nichols thinks it's probably just a matter of time before News Corp. or an equivalent mega-media organization grabs Gannett and turns all the little Free Press-like rags into strident conservative mouthpieces. Of course, many Americans are getting out of the reading habit altogether. Television rules. Sanders points out that the three area network affiliates, WVNY, WPTZ and WCAX, are cogs in the machinery of giant conglomerates: Disney's ABC, GE's NBC and Viacom's CBS, respectively. Dianne Lynch, chair of the journalism department at St. Michael's College in Colchester, suspects Sanders is ``right about mainstream TV,'' but, she suggests, ``mainstream TV is no longer our only choice in getting information.'' As someone who's professionally ``wired''--she writes a column about women and technology for ABC.com--Lynch sees the Internet as a wellspring of diverse voices, along with cable television and many small publications. ``When I was growing up, we only had four television channels to choose from. Today, I can get the BBC on my cable channel or read The London Times online,'' she says. ``People looking for a range of opinions know where to go for them.'' Nichols and McChesney believe those diverse views should come to us more easily--and claim it's not too late to make sure they do. ``We are actually at a critical transition point,'' Nichols observes. If the 800-pound gorillas get their way, he contends, ``in places like Burlington, newspapers, cable companies, TV and radio stations could all be owned by the same company. That's not healthy--and I'm not overstating the case. We must be vigilant. A lot can be done at the grassroots level.'' That's where Nichols, now 41, got his start. As a kid, he wrote for weekly newspapers in rural Wisconsin. ``I'd take a camera and ride my bike to every little town meeting,'' he recalls. ``Apart from a few deviations into rock bands, journalism is what I've done all my life.'' In addition to the book he wrote with Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois research professor, Nichols penned last year's Jews for Buchanan, about the 2000 presidential election fiasco in Florida. The duo teamed up again for Our Media, Not Theirs, a sequel to It's the Media, Stupid due out this fall. McChesney hosts ``Media Matters,'' a weekly radio AM program in his home state. He's also written or edited a total of eight books, including Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, which was published two years ago. Like Nichols, he has rock 'n' roll roots. In 1979 McChesney founded a Seattle music magazine, The Rocket, that helped give birth to the grunge scene. Not surprisingly, both men advocate self-empowerment. ``The American people own the broadcast airways,'' Nichols says. ``We have not begun to exercise our legitimate authority. But first, we have to think about what we would like. Once we imagine a media we want, then we can act. We have the ability to develop BBC-quality programming.'' Nichols acknowledges that the ``unmitigated crap'' now on TV should not be censored, however. ``I'm not saying that, in my perfect media world, all we'd do is sit around and watch PBS. It doesn't mean everything has to be of redeeming value. I just want citizens to understand they have a right to demand better.'' ``Jerry Springer,'' ``Fear Factor'' and ``Judge Judy'' should take note: Mindless programs can co-exist with more intellectual offerings. ``But that lowest-common-denominator media does affect public policy,'' Nichols says. ``Stations like Fox have such jingoistic and irresponsible journalism. The Florida recount coverage was woefully inept, driven by the spin of the Democratic and the Republican camps. That's what happens when you have bad media.'' Nichols, who has written for the New York Times and other prestigious publications also warns, ``Until we get a better media, a lot of work we do on fundamental issues will go for naught. Without a media that allows diverse voices, it's going to be hard to get the message out on all other important struggles.'' MSNBC runs a promo that boasts it's a channel ``with so many different points of view, one of them is bound to be yours.'' But it's unlikely any of them is Bernie's. Sanders asserts that both newspapers and cable channels fail to present a true leftist or even balanced perspective. Programs devoted to serious news only explore opinions ranging from the center to the extreme right. Oliver North, the Marine colonel who masterminded much of the covert and seemingly illegal Iran-Contra dealings in the '80s, has been recruited by Fox News to command his own talk show. Not to be outdone, MSNBC boasts Alan Keyes, an ultra- conservative candidate in the last presidential election, now offering nightly punditry. CNN's ``Crossfire'' always manages to find arch Republican cheerleaders like Robert Novak who can overpower even formidable Democratic operatives like James ``Ragin' Cajun'' Carville. Yet the tone of debate--when there is any--tends to be purposely theatrical. ``Politics has become entertainment,'' Sanders laments. Nobody's talking about the nuts and bolts, he argues. ``Despite all the hoopla over the economy, Americans are working longer hours for less wages. People have two or three jobs. That doesn't sound like a boom economy to me. Who's focussing on the plight of the middle class? It's a good issue, right? It's never discussed. The richest 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent does. Ever hear that on a TV program?'' Ditto for unionization, health care and a plethora of other themes neglected in favor of shallow examinations of movie stars who murder their wives, or the personal indiscretions of political figures. ``We get endless coverage of sex, celebrity and crime,'' Sanders says. He wonders why right-leaning news outfits have become so influential when ``we are really a centrist country. Al Gore and Ralph Nader got a few million more votes than Bush, so actually we might be a hair to the left.'' Even in left- leaning Vermont, Sanders laments the dearth of progressive voices on the radio. As one of only two Independents in the House of Representatives--Virgil Goode, Jr. of Virginia is the other-- Sanders worries that the very notion of independence is being erased from what Americans see, hear and read. He compares the media monopoly by the Communist Party in the former Soviet union to today's corporate totalitarianism here. The motivation is different, though. ``If the progressive point of view was a marketplace seller, you would find it everywhere,'' Lynch suggests. ``I do think everything's market-driven. Welcome to the world.'' Whatever the agenda, Sanders sees diversity of viewpoints itself as crucial to our way of life. In a brochure announcing his ``Media and Democracy'' town meetings, he writes, ``If just a few corporations are allowed to control both production and distribution of the news and programming across America, democracy itself is in danger.'' In a world in which cable companies, TV stations and local newspapers are all merged, ``Millions of Americans will be receiving virtually all of their information from a single source,'' he points out. Though she is also wary of ``media consolidation,'' Lynch is more skeptical about championing the alternatives. ``We have to be careful not to idealize independent ownership,'' she says. ``Commercial pressures do not go away when you're individually owned. You don't suddenly have total freedom of expression, freedom from the marketplace. The homogeneity of the message is as much about commercial pressure as it is about corporate structure.'' But Nichols hails the Green Mountain State as one of last bastions of media liberty. ``Look at the Rutland Herald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning small newspaper. Vermont ain't perfect, but it's better than many places in the country. You still have a lot of locally owned operations. Things aren't so bad there.'' Halfway around the globe, there's evidence of a movement to create a people's media. Nichols has spent time in New Zealand, which is ``expanding the number of radio stations in the public sphere.'' He touts a station operated by the island nation's indigenous Maori people, and another ``run by and for those under the age of 25.'' In this corner of New England, ``an individual state can have a lot of impact,'' Nichols adds. ``You guys can really be part of a solution. Why not increase public funding for public radio or crate an all-news-all-the-time station? In the little state of Vermont, there is a lot you can do. If one place does it right, you can dramatically influence the rest of America.'' Congressman Bernie Sanders, Robert McChesney and John Nichols weigh in on ``The Media and Democracy'' on Sunday, April 28, 7:30 p.m. at the Unitarian Church in Montpelier; and Monday, April 29, 7:30 p.m. at the CC Theater in Billings Student Center at the University of Vermont. A special free media workshop for teachers, and students and community members will be held on Monday at 4 p.m. in Waterman's Memorial Lounge at UVM.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Dear 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 be included in the Congressional Record. On Behalf of Jessica Walters and Falinda Hough Regarding UNDERAGE DRINKING April 8, 2001 JESSICA WALTERS: We are talking about teen alcohol. There is a lot of teen alcohol going around, and it needs to stop. If it doesn't stop, a lot more people are going to get killed. We think the reasons why teens drink is because they get into fights with their parents, and they get so mad where they end up drinking. Teens go to parties where they have peer pressure to drink, and they end up doing it because they think they will be cool. Then they get hooked on it where they can't stop. It only takes one time. It can also be inherited by their parents that are alcoholics, and it already is in their bloodstream. Over in Canada, the teens are allowed to drink at the age of 18. They should not be allowed. They might be more responsible at that age, and then again, maybe not. FALINDA HOUGH: Ways we can help. Police in every bar. The national government can give grants to cities that can help police in every bar. Watch out for fake IDs. National governments can give states money to buy the technology where, when they enter the bar, they can scan on the back of IDs to tell whether they are of age or not.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We should not be borrowing trillions from Social Security to give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent, and then have inadequate funding for education, prescription drugs, and veterans' needs. Mr. Speaker, it may make sense to some people to borrow trillions of dollars from Social Security in order to give tax breaks to millionaires. It may make sense to some to raise the $6 trillion dollar National debt for our kids and grand kids, and increase the deficit-- and then have inadequate funding for education, veterans' needs, prescription drugs, environmental protection, and other important social needs. It does not make sense to me and poll after poll shows that it does not make sense to the American people. Let's be honest. This bill has nothing to do with good social policy. It has everything to do with rewarding the rich folks who have contributed hundreds of millions to the Republican Party. Thirty eight percent of the benefits in this proposal would go to the richest one percent--people who have a minimum income of $375,000 a year. Tax breaks for millionaires, inadequate funding for veterans, the elderly, the kids. That's what this bill is about. It is an outrage. Let's vote ``no.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to inform you about a very important and exciting Town Meeting for Young People that I held at the University of Vermont on Monday, April 8, 2002. This meeting brought young people together from all over the state of Vermont to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing our country. Fifteen high schools and youth organizations and about 100 students attended this all day event and provided some excellent and well- researched testimony that I intend, at a later date, to enter into the Congressional Record. I want to thank UVM President Edward Colodny for welcoming the students to UVM, and I want to thank the University for their hospitality. I also want to thank Professor Huck Gutman for spending the entire day with the students and me and doing an excellent job in flushing out their ideas. Let me at this time mention to you who was at the event and some of the topics that they addressed. Let me also suggest that other Members might be interested in putting on similar events in their congressional districts. The young people of this country have a lot to say, and I think that it's important for members of Congress to listen to them. Following are the names of the students who participated in the Town Meeting and their schools or youth organizations: Jessica Walters and Falinda Hough from the Lund Family Center discussed problems relating to Teenage Drinking; Dan Hill from YouthBuild Burlington discussed Affordable Housing issues; Becca Van Hrn, Eli Brannon and Sam Parker from Proctor High School talked about ``Free Trade not being Fair Trade''; Lee Goldsmith, Greg Howard and Robby Short from Mt. Anthony High School spoke about Student ID cards; Ruth Blake from Straight Talk Vermont talked about the Teen Expressions Dance Company; Troy Ault, Reid Garrow, Stefanie Gray, Danielle Harvey and Andrea Shahan from Straight Talk Vermont discussed the Problem of Child Labor, Erica Hollner, Katie Kervorkian, Kerry McIntosh and Bethany Wallace from Mt. Anthony High School talked about being pen pals with students in Pakistan; Matt Alden from the Craftsbury School spoke about Underage Drinking; Candace Crosby, Kim Dickenson, Katie Lanigan and Gladys Wong from Spaulding High School discussed the issue of Inadequate Financial Aid for College; Steph Bernath, Nicolette Baron, Alan Blackman and Halie Paradee from Lamoille High School talked about the rights of Abenaki Indians in Vermont; Marcia Lo Monoco, Sarah Kunz, Delia Kipp and Colin Robinson from Brattleboro High School talked about CLEA-Child Labor Education Action and their trip to Guatemala; Joseph Ferris from Rutland High School talked about the importance of Amtrak; Sean Fontaine, James Nichols and Krystal Turnbaugh from YouthBuild Burlington discussed issues related to Juvenile Justice; Katie Blanchard, Cady Merrill, Jesse Butler and Stephanie Horvath from Rutland High School talked about the issue of Abortion and parental involvement; Kelly Green from Craftsbury School talked about the Cost of College and the Burden of Debt; Peter Hicks, Kristy Lamb, Brittany Hickman, Evan Worth and Nick Smith from Lamoille High School discussed Education Reform; Travis Buck from Mt. Abraham High School talked about Genetically Modified Foods; Elizabeth Echeverria and Damon Rooney from Craftsbury School spoke about Labor Exploitation; Jessica Predom and Autumn Rozon from the Boys & Girls Club of Vergennes discussed Teen Image issues; Daniel A. May from Rutland High School talked about Student Representation on School Boards; Amy Canton, Shana Griffin, Ashley St. John and Jamie Walbridge from Spaulding High School discussed Graduated License issues; Megan Sullivan, Matt O'Brien, Rebecca Emmons, Alex McKenzie and Carson Gazely from Harwood High School talked about educational funding and Other Peoples Children- National Act 60; Heidi Neil and Martha Mack from Mt. Abraham High School addressed the issue of Teen Smoking; Keith Blow, Jessica Davis, Jessica Oakes, Shirlaine Miller and Ruhin Yuridulla from Spaulding High School talked about their concern regarding Income Taxes for Student Workers; Chastity Norris and Kim Lunna from Mt. Abraham High School gave their views on the need for a National Civil Unions; Amy Downs and Anissa Coward from YouthBuild Burlington talked about Affordable Childcare; Lindy Stetson from Mt. Abraham High School talked about Drug Testing for Students; Thomas Lamson, Vanessa Hinton and Monica Brooks from Spaulding High School spoke about the Attack on Individual Rights; Jack Fleisher and Elden Kelly from Mt. Mansfield High School talked about Alternative Energy Vehicles; Jonathan Edmondson from Rice Memorial High School spoke about Arafat: Leader of Freedom Fighters or Terrorist Leader; Tim Fitzgerald from Rice Memorial High School spoke about US Aid to Third World Countries; Elizabeth Christolini from Rice Memorial High School talked about Bettering Education; Rebecca Lee Marquis from Rice Memorial High School talked about a Multinational Impact; Timothy Plante from Rice Memorial High School addressed the issue of Israel and Palestine: Change of Leadership For Progress; Hailey Davis from Rice Memorial High School discussed Is NATO Necessary?; and Pierson Booher also of Rice Memorial High School discussed the issue of The Arab-Israel Conflict and America's Position. I am extremely proud of all of the students who attended this Town Meeting. I was deeply impressed by their testimony and applaud their initiative in seeking to make their communities a better place in which to live. Too often, in my view, the media focuses on the problems facing young people. As a nation we do not pay enough attention to the hard and constructive work being done by millions of students and their teachers all across our nation. Let me conclude by thanking all of the young people and their teachers for their participation.