Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held this summer. 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 the government do regarding these concerns. I submit these statements for the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Mike Flower and Brett Michaud Regarding STUDENT NIGHTLIFE--May 26, 2000 MIKE FLOWER: I am Mike Flower from Youth Build, and it is an organization that we do construction and do school every other week. And basically my subject is how there isn't a lot of things for youth to do at nighttime. And I just think that there should be a club for just youth or something every night that they can do instead of drugs. So that is my thought. BRETT MICHAUD: I basically have the same idea as him because, I mean, without any clubs what do students resort to? They resort to gangs and drugs, and that is not what people want and that is not what people want to see in the youth of Burlington. They want to see people active in their community, and sometimes the activities are just not there for the students and they just have no other place to resort to.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National History Day program. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy, and the National History Day program is promoting history education in Vermont and throughout our Nation. National History Day is a yearlong not-for-profit program in which students in grades 6-12 research and create historical projects related to a broad annual theme, culminating in an annual contest. It provides students the critical thinking and research skills used in all subject areas. I had the opportunity to meet with Vermont students who came to Washington for National History Day. This program encourages students to draw attention to important historical events that shaped their own hometowns as well as our Nation, and in the process it improves their writing, reading, and critical thinking skills. It gets students excited about learning, while teaching them skills that will help them throughout their lives. For its efforts to promote the National History Day program, I would like to commend the Vermont Historical Society. National History Day has had a significant impact in history and social studies classrooms in Vermont and across the country. But there is still much to be done. Many teachers are unable to take advantage of the National History Day program because of a lack of funding. I urge my colleagues to support funding for the National History Day program in the Fiscal Year 2000 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations legislation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, as well as the committee staff, for working with all of the parties interested in this legislation so that we can bring a fair and well-crafted bill to the floor today. Madam Speaker, House Joint Resolution 72 grants a consent of Congress to the River Boundary Compact entered into between the States of Oklahoma and Texas. This compact establishes a new practical boundary between the two States and ends over 200 years of jurisdictional uncertainty. The State legislatures of both Texas and Oklahoma have approved the compact with overwhelming support. Madam Speaker, the Red River is 1,290 miles long. For about half of this distance, it serves as the Texas-Oklahoma border. To the great frustration of many of those trying to use the river as a jurisdictional marker, mature rivers like those of the American Midwest tend to meander a great deal. The natural tendency of a river flowing across flat country is to meander and flow loose as it erodes the outer side of a bend and deposits sediment on the inner side. It is clear that several of the loops of the Red River have changed in this way. As the Speaker undoubtedly knows, the State of Texas was an independent nation from the years 1836 to 1845. In 1841, engineers surveyed the border along the Red River between the Republic of Texas and the United States. The survey set the boundary between the two countries on the southern bank of the river. This definition was later refined by the Supreme Court of the United States as the gradient boundary line on the south bank. The survey was carefully done, and the results of the survey as recorded in the engineers' report and monuments placed along the border were accepted by both governments as the true and legal boundary. Unfortunately, however, the river paid no attention to the survey; and in the years since 1841, the Red River has left that border high and dry. As a result, the artificial boundary line long the Red River has caused general confusion in our States for many decades. The States of Texas and Oklahoma recognize that there are actual and potential disputes, controversies, and criminal and civil litigation problems arising out of the location of the boundary line between these two States along the Red River. In particular, an inability to identify the boundary at a point in time is a significant problem for law enforcement personnel, taxing authorities, and citizens on both sides of the river. It is in the interest of the party States to establish the boundary between the States through the use of a readily identifiable and natural landmark. This identifiable line is established in the Red River Boundary Compact. The Compact sets the boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma as the vegetation line on the south bank of the Red River, except for the Texoma area where the boundary is established pursuant to procedures provided for in the compact approved by both States. The vegetation line, which includes trees, shrubs and grasses, is easily recognizable. More importantly, the use of the vegetation line as the boundary marker also maintains historical significance. Surveyors of the General Land Office and Bureau of Land Management have confirmed that the vegetation line is substantially the same as the gradient boundary line, with the important distinction of being identifiable without a survey. Like the Red River itself, this compact is the culmination of years of work. It is not easy to settle a jurisdiction battle that dates back to the Louisiana Purchase. The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank. However, true to the slogan ``One Riot, One Ranger,'' the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse. Madam Speaker, this is good legislation. A great deal of effort went into ensuring that the interest of all parties along the Red River are protected in the compact. It is important to note that the terms of the Red River Boundary Compact will not affect private property ownership or boundaries. The compact is strictly political in nature and will in no way alter the property or the claims of individuals or federally recognized Indian tribes. Finally, I want to take this opportunity before the House to recognize the tireless efforts of the chairman of the Red River Boundary Commission of the State of Texas, Mr. William Abney, from Marshall, Texas, a well-respected East Texas attorney, as well as the other members of both the Texas and Oklahoma commissions. I would also like to offer special thanks to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) who is here today for his work and for the work of his staff. I think both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I recognize that the true work of the House is done by the staff. I urge Congress to pass House Joint Resolution 72. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett). It is also supported by the AARP, the Pension Rights Center, the Communication Workers of America and many other unions. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It simply would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using any funding for activities that violate current pension age discrimination laws, laws that have been on the books since 1986. Mr. Chairman, if a company reduced pension benefits based on race or religion or gender, the Federal Government would be sure to take appropriate action against the company. We can do no less when it comes to age discrimination in pension plans. The truth is that with regard to cash balance plans, the Federal Government has been asleep at the wheel and it is time to give them a wake-up call. That is what this amendment does. Let me quote from a letter I received from the AARP today: ``This issue has largely been brought into focus because of the most recent corporate pension trend of changing traditional pension plans to so-called cash balance plan formulas. Older workers face inequitable treatment under these plans, and AARP believes the cash balance plans violate current law prohibitions on age discrimination. Already, hundreds of charges of age discrimination have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the IRS, in consultation with other government agencies, has begun a process of review of the age discrimination issues involved in cash balance conversions. All this amendment requires is that the IRS not take any action in contravention of current age discrimination law. AARP hopes that this amendment will send a strong message that we value older workers and that we reaffirm that older workers should not be subject to age discrimination.'' Mr. Chairman, this tri-partisan amendment is co-sponsored by Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Barrett. It is also supported by the AARP, the Pension Rights Center, the Communication Workers of America and many other unions. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It simply would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from using any funding for activities that violate current pension age discrimination laws--laws that have been on the books since 1986. Mr. Chairman, if a company reduced pension benefits based on race, or religion, or gender, the federal government would be sure to take appropriate action against the company. We can do no less when it comes to age discrimination in pension plans. The truth is that with regard to cash balance plans the federal government has been asleep at the wheel and it is time to give them a wake up call. And that's what this amendment does. Mr. Chairman, let me quote from a letter that I received today from the AARP: This issue has largely been brought into focus because of the most recent corporate pension trend of changing traditional pension plans to so called ``cash balance'' plan formulas. Older workers face inequitable treatment under these plans, and AARP believes that cash balance plans violate current law prohibitions on age discrimination. Already, hundreds of charges of age discrimination have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the IRS (in consultation with other government agencies) has begun a process of review of the age discrimination issues involved in cash balance conversions. All this amendment requires is that the IRS not take any action in contravention of current age discrimination law. AARP hopes that this amendment will send a strong message that we value older workers and that we reaffirm that older workers should not be subject to age discrimination. A vote in support of this amendment is a vote to protect the pensions of older Americans and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Why are we offering this amenmdent? Mr. Chairman, hundreds of profitable companies across the country, including IBM, AT&T, CBS and Bell Atlantic have converted their traditional defined benefit pension plan to a controversial cash balance plan. Cash balance schemes typically reduce the future pension benefits of older workers by as much as 50 percent. Not only is this immoral, it is also illegal because the reductions in benefits are directly tied to an employee's age. What makes the conversions even more indefensible is the fact that many of these companies have pension fund surpluses in the billions of dollars. It is simply unacceptable that during a time of record breaking corporate profits, huge pension fund surpluses, massive compensation for CEOs (including very generous retirement benefits), that corporate America renege on the commitments that they have made to workers by slashing their pensions. Mr. Chairman, Congress must stand with older workers and insist that anti-age discrimination statutes are enforced. Mr. Chairman, I have heard from hundreds of workers throughout the country who have expressed their anger, their disappointment and their feelings of betrayal by cash balance conversions. These employees had stuck with their company when times were tough, and there have been some tough times for American workers. Some of these people are salaried employees who worked 60 or 70 hours a week for their company with no additional compensation, and missed their kids' Little League games or family activities because they were determined to do their jobs well. These are employees who went to work for their company and stayed at their company precisely because of the pension program that the company offered. And these are the same employees who woke up one day, to discover that all of the promises that their companies made to them were not worth the paper they were written on. Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous. We must provide protections for these workers that have been screaming out to Congress for help. We must pass this amendment. Large, multinational companies with defined benefit pension plans receive $100 billion a year in tax breaks from private pension plans alone according to the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Chairman, the IRS should not be giving tax breaks to companies that willfully violate the pension age discrimination statutes. To do so, not only violates public law and policy, it also provides taxpayer subsidies for illegal pension conversions. Mr. Chairman, there should be no tax breaks for companies that discriminate on the basis of age. The fact that cash balance plan conversions violate current pension age discrimination laws is clear. According to Edward Zelinsky, law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, As a matter of law, the typical cash balance plan violates the statutory prohibition on age-based reductions in the rate at which participants accrue their benefits . . . There is no dispute about the underlying arithmetic: as cash balance participants age, the contributions made for them decline in value in annuity terms. Mr. Chairman, if you are still wondering if cash balance schemes violate pension age discrimination laws, consider this: Mr. Chairman, pension security is vital to the working men and women of America, and we must do all we can to ensure that employees of the most profitable companies in America do not lose their retirement benefits as a result of age discrimination. I urge my colleagues to stand up for American workers and vote for this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, there are tens of thousands of IBM workers and millions of other workers who have seen significant reductions as the result of the conversion to cash balance. What will this legislation do for any one of those people?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1102. This bill is being touted as a package of pension provisions designed to increase pension benefits for Americans; yet some of the pension provisions included in the bill are simply new tax breaks that mostly accrues to the wealthiest Americans and may have the effect of slashing the pensions of lower- and middle-income families. Mr. Speaker, if Congress is really concerned about protecting the pensions of American workers, it should quickly address the cash balance pension rip-off scheme being implemented by hundreds of large corporations all over this country. Since 1985, despite large profits and growing surpluses in their pension funds, over 300 companies have slashed the retirement benefits that they promised their employees. Cash balance schemes typically reduce the future pension benefits of older workers by as much as 50 percent. Not only is this immoral, it is also illegal, because the reductions in benefits are in violation of Federal age-discrimination laws. What makes the conversions even more indefensible is the fact that many of these companies have pension fund surpluses in the billions of dollars, and these surpluses have grown significantly in recent years. Frankly, it is simply unacceptable that, during a time of record- breaking corporate profits, huge pension fund surpluses, massive compensations for CEOs, including, interestingly, very generous retirement benefits, that corporate America renege on the commitments that they have made to workers by slashing their pensions. Last year, I held a town meeting in Winooski, Vermont, for IBM workers, the older IBM workers who had seen their pensions cut by as much as 50 percent. Over 700 older workers came out and expressed their outrage at what the company had done. I congratulate the IBM workers and look forward to working with them. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1102. This bill is being touted as a package of pension provisions designed to increase pension benefits for Americans. Yet some of the pension provisions included in the bill are simply new tax breaks that mostly accrue to the wealthiest Americans and may have the effect of slashing the pensions of lower and middle income families. Last November, Treasury Secretary Summers and Labor Secretary Herman, criticized these pension provisions, saying that they ``could lead to reductions in retirement benefits for moderate and lower-income workers.'' Mr. Speaker, if Congress is really concerned about protecting the pensions of American workers it should quickly address the cash balance pension rip off scheme being implemented by hundreds of large corporations all over this country. In fact if this Congress is really concerned about protecting the pensions of American workers it should pass H.R. 2902, the Pension Benefits Preservation and Protection Act, legislation that I authored and that now has a total of 84 co-sponsors. Mr. Speaker, all across this country, American workers are deeply concerned about the status of their pension plans. That concern is well founded. Since 1985, despite large profits and growing surpluses in their pension funds, over 300 companies have slashed the retirement benefits that they promised their employees. Cash balance schemes typically reduce the future pension benefits of older workers by as much as 50 percent. Not only is this immoral, it is also illegal because the reductions in benefits are in violation of Federal age discrimination law. What makes the conversions even more indefensible is the fact that many of these companies have pension fund surpluses in the billions of dollars and that have grown huge in recent years. Frankly, it is simply unacceptable that during a time of record breaking corporate profits, huge pension fund surpluses, massive compensation for CEOs (including very generous retirement benefits), that corporate America renege on the commitments that they have made to workers by slashing their pensions. Last summer, I held a town meeting in Vermont for IBM workers who live there. Seven hundred came out. According to the Office of Management and Budget, corporations currently receive $100 billion a year in federal government subsidies through the tax code by offering pension plans. American taxpayers have a right to expect that corporations who take advantage of this special tax treatment will not slash the pensions of American workers. Yet, hundreds of corporations throughout the country from IBM to AT&T are doing just that by converting their traditional defined benefit pension plans to these cash balance schemes. Cash balance schemes are nothing but a replay of the corporate pension raids we experienced during the 1980's. While these companies claim that they are converting to cash balance plans to attract younger workers into their workforce, the fact of the matter is that cash balance plans are intentional attempts to slash the pension benefits of older workers. The reason why large corporations are targeting their older workers' pensions is easy to understand. Millions and millions of Americans in the so-called ``baby boom'' generation are rapidly approaching retirement age. Companies that reduce the pensions of older workers will thus realize tremendous cost savings when these people retire. Companies claim that they are converting to cash balance schemes to attract a younger, more mobile workforce. But, worker mobility is not the rationale for converting to a cash balance plan, money is. As 11,000 people a day turn 50, which cash balance promoter Watson Wyatt claims will turn us into a ``Nation of Floridas,'' employers are looking for any way possible to reduce older workers' promised benefits. This is outrageous. But, what is even more outrageous is that they are not being honest to the employees whose pensions they are slashing. As Joseph Edmunds stated at a 1987 Conference of Consulting Actuaries, ``It is easy to install a cash balance plan in place of a traditional defined benefit plan and cover up cutbacks in future benefits.'' Despite the protestations of cash balance promoters, cash balance schemes are implemented to unlawfully cut the benefits of older employees and to disguise those cuts by implementing a plan that makes it virtually impossible for employees to make an ``apples to apples'' comparison of their benefits under the old and new plans. Not only does the federal government need to enforce the laws that are on the books, Congress also must pass meaningful pension protections right now. That is why I introduced H.R. 2902. This legislation would primarily do three things: (1) It would send a directive to the Secretary of Treasury to enforce the laws that are already on the books; (2) It would provide a safe harbor making cash balance plans legal only if employees are given the choice to remain in their old pension plan with detailed disclosure; and (3) It would provide a major disincentive for companies to slash the future pension benefits of employees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2902 would provide meaningful pension protection to millions of Americans, unlike the current bill being considered right now. My legislation is being supported by the Pension Rights Center, the National Council of Senior Citizens, the Communications Workers of America, the IBM Employees Benefits Action Coalition, and several other groups. I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 1102, and work with me to pass real pension protection.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if what I am hearing the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) say is that he is prepared to put $2.5 million from a source that he will determine into indigenous NGOs to combat trafficking.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is I know that we all agree on the crisis and we all want to do something about it. My concern is that at least $2.5 million go to indigenous NGOs. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying that he is prepared to try to find money to do that?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is technically correct, what it does do is take $2.5 million from IMET and transfer it and increases funds for USAID's development assistance account. Clearly the intent of everything that I am speaking about is to use that $2.5 million to go to NGOs to combat the trafficking crisis which exists, but the gentleman is technically correct. Is the gentleman supportive of what we are trying to do?

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

Mr. SANDERS. It increases U.S. AID's development assistance account by $2.5 million to provide assistance to indigenous and locally-based NGOs.

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

Mr. SANDERS. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is correct in interpreting the intent of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if that is the purpose of it, then I will withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. As long as the gentleman says yes, I will withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). What this amendment does is increase U.S. AID's development assistance account by $2.5 million to provide assistance to indigenous and locally-based nongovernmental organizations for the protection and reintegration of women and children who are victims of international trafficking. The committee's bill provides, unfortunately, no funds, zero fund, to assist the millions of people, primarily women and children, who are trafficked across international borders each year and forced into prostitution, sweatshop labor, and domestic servitude. The fastest-growing international trafficking business is the trade of women, trailing only behind trafficking in drugs and arms. According to the U.S. State Department, between 1 and 2 million women and girls seeking a better life abroad unexpectedly find themselves in brothels, the sweatshop labor industry, or exploitative domestic servitude. This tragedy continues to grow as economic globalization expands, increasing the movement of people across borders. In a world of rich nations and poor nations, these exploitative and inhumane practices feed on the poverty and despair of poor women, children, and families in the developing world, particularly in Southeast Asia and the former Soviet Union. Earlier this year, the House passed legislation sponsored by my colleague and cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) highlighting the problem of trafficking in persons and authorizing funds to assist victims. These initiatives have bipartisan support in the House and Senate and the support of the administration, which requested $10 million in assistance for trafficking victims. Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide any funds to deal with this tragedy. The $2.5 million for this vitally important assistance comes from the international military education and training IMET account by reducing the amount in the bill for this program by $2.5 million which level-funds IMET. I should add that IMET has seen a 100 percent increase in the last 5 years. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we are level-funding a program that has increased by 100 percent in 5 years in order to provide a small amount of funding to an area which is in dire need of these funds.