Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for yielding to me, and just concur with everything he said. I simply make a point that I think it is important to hear this. Number one, there were no hearings on this idea, so we do not know what the long-term implications are. It is one thing to say, oh, all the States will jump on to this program, but that is not the case. In fact, what we do know is that the National Association of State Energy Officials did a survey in response to a July 1, 1999 survey. Most States have indicated for a variety of reasons, given the short notice that they received, that they cannot meet this new 25 percent State match requirement. I have a list of those States that said that they cannot. So I would say this, the major argument, whatever the long-term wisdom or lack of wisdom is, that to just suddenly go ahead without informing the States I think will be a disaster. I think the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is absolutely right.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I think we both recognize that the problem that we have is we do not have enough money to do all of the things that we would like to do. The gentleman is not hearing me argue against SPR. We are arguing priorities. The gentleman will not deny that there were no hearings on this important issue. And I know that the gentleman cannot tell us with certainty, because it is not the case, that all 50 States are prepared to put in their 25 percent. And the gentleman cannot tell us, I know he cannot because nobody can, that there are not perhaps a number of States who for a variety of reasons will not participate and that a lot of low-income people will be hurt as a result.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification purposes, there are two separate amendments. The amendment that we are discussing now is the cut of $13 million below level funding. The next amendment is what the gentleman was talking about, this 25 percent. And I know the relationship between the two.

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

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for his kind offer. I cannot accept it at this time because I think the administration is correct in expressing very serious questions about that 25 percent at this point. I am going to have to go forward with both amendments.

Mr. SANDERS. I know the chairman has financial constraints. I do know that. The gentleman has to balance a whole lot of priorities. I appreciate that very much. However, I think the gentleman would not disagree with me that if we help the lower-income senior citizens with LIHEAP to adequately heat their homes, their electric bills are going to go up because their energy is going out the door and out the roof, would the gentleman not agree with that?

Mr. SANDERS. Not really, I would say to the gentleman. Here is the problem. I understand LIHEAP very well, and am a strong supporter of LIHEAP. But here is the problem, Mr. Chairman. As I am sure the gentleman knows, LIHEAP helps people pay their energy bills. But what is the sense of helping somebody pay their energy bills if their energy costs are going to be much higher because their homes are poorly insulated? So the two issues really are very directly related.

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

Mr. SANDERS. The bottom line here on this amendment, and there should not be confusion, there are two separate amendments, this one simply restores the House's contribution to level fund where it was last year, to match where the Senate is, and all of this does not go as far as the President appropriately wanted to go. The bottom line is that we should not be cutting back on a very much needed program, on a cost-effective program that keeps many Americans, including senior citizens, warm in the wintertime and cool in the summertime. We do not want to see another occurrence of where elderly people are dying because they cannot afford to maintain their apartments to be cool or to be dying when it gets to be 20 below zero.

Mr. SANDERS. I understand. That is the second amendment that we have. This amendment deals with the $13 million. The gentleman would not be kind enough to agree with my amendment and restore the $13 million so we could begin with the next debate, would he?

Mr. SANDERS. To the best of my knowledge, he has not. On the other hand, let us be very clear that Secretary Richardson in this letter makes it very clear that he does not want any cuts in the weatherization program, and he is very strongly opposed to the matching 25 percent proposal that came out of the committee. So I am not here to tell the gentleman that he has endorsed taking money from SPR. On the other hand, what this letter tells us is that he does not support the cuts that the committee has brought forth.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the second amendment would question and challenge what the committee has done in requiring that the States provide a 25 percent match. The bottom line here in terms of the weatherization program is that it is cost-effective. It is environmentally sound. What sense does it make to have low-income people put money into their heating bills, into their electric bills, and see the energy go right out the door? So what the weatherization program has done, which has been very successful, is allow lower-income homes all over the United States of America to have decent insulation, storm windows, decent roofing to retain the heat or to keep their homes cool. So this is a sensible program. It is a program that has worked. What we are asking in this particular amendment is to restore the funding that has been cut, to raise the funding by $13 million, and to allow us to have the level funding that we had from last year and the funding that the Senate has provided. This is not as much as the President has asked for, but, at the very least, we should level fund this very important program, which is very important to so many lower-income families throughout the United States.

Mr. SANDERS. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I will be offering today on what I consider to be one of the very, very important issues dealt with in this appropriation bill, and that is the issue of weatherization. It is no secret that all over this country when the weather gets 20 below zero, as in my State, or when the weather gets 120 degrees, as in some of our southern States, that a lot of people, including many senior citizens, suffer terribly because they do not have the resources to adequately warm their homes or, when the weather gets too hot, adequately cool their homes. A number of years ago, I know the chairman will remember that in the city of Chicago, for example, in a hot weather period we had a terrible disaster where hundreds of senior citizens in that city actually died from heat exhaustion. We are seeing that problem right now as the hot weather hits various parts of our country. Certainly in the northern States there is no question that cold weather is not only a problem in terms of potentially hurting people, but what the weatherization program deals with is creating a cost- effective approach so lower-income people can have good insulation, good storm windows, good roofing. Historically what has been shown is the weatherization program is enormously cost-effective and environmentally sound. What sense is it that we have low-income people see their energy go out their windows, go out their doors, go out their roofs, because those homes are not adequately insulated? Similarly, what sense is it that in those States where the weather becomes very hot and seniors have air conditioners, they lose the coolness in their homes because their homes are not adequately ventilated and adequately insulated? Unfortunately, the subcommittee has cut funding for weatherization by $13 million beyond where it was last year. The first amendment that I am offering would require that we at least level fund the program. This amendment that I am offering, as cosponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), this amendment is simple and it is straightforward. It would simply increase the highly successful and cost-effective weatherization assistance program by $13 million to its fiscal year 1999 level, and reduce the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account by the same, $13 million. The Senate level-funded this program at $133 million. The President had requested $154 million for this important and much needed program. Unfortunately, as I just mentioned, the committee chose to cut funding for last year by $13 million, from $133 million to $120 million. This amendment level funds the program and brings it up to the level provided by the Senate. That is all we are asking to do. Let me quote from a letter of July 13 from Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy: In this time of economic prosperity, it is questionable for Congress to target a program that helps a population with the greatest need and the least resources. We are also disturbed that Congress would act, and now I am talking about the next amendment that I am going to offer, which we are really concerned about, as well, That Congress would act without being provided a more thorough analysis of the impact of the proposed action, without public hearings, and without the opportunity to hear from the States and the people affected. What Mr. Richardson and the Energy Department are talking about is another amendment that came from the committee which I think has disastrous consequences which would require a 25 percent matching fund from the States. Let me go back to the letter from the Secretary: The administration is strongly opposed to a reduction in weatherization assistance program funding and to the legislative language that would change the distribution criteria for the program by requiring about $30 million in State cost share. Under the committee language, no State would receive its formula share of the weatherization assistance program's appropriation in fiscal year 2000 unless it provided 25 percent in State matching funds. So Mr. Chairman, the two amendments that we are dealing with are, number one, to restore funding for the very successful weatherization program to the level fund that it had last year, to be put where the Senate is.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Point of information, Mr. Chairman. What page does that go up to?

Mr. SANDERS. That takes us to the next amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, in many ways we have already touched on this particular amendment. This is a second amendment. What this amendment deals with is a new proposal that came out of the committee that would do the following: what this proposal would do is say to any State in the country that wants to participate in the very successful weatherization program that they must come up with a 25 percent match. And if they do not come up with that match, they will not participate in the program. There is no debate that that is what the committee is proposing. Now, the objections to this are many. For a start, the very serious objection is that this proposal comes before us today without any hearings. We have not heard from the States. We talk about trying to improve Federal-State relations and yet we are imposing a significant mandate on the States which they have never had in the history of this program, and yet no one has bothered to ask the governors or the people who are in charge of the energy departments of the various States what the impact will be. Within that regard, let me mention to my colleagues that in July of 1999, recently, a survey was done by the National Association of State Energy Officials, these are the people that implement this particular program, and what they found was that most States have indicated that they cannot meet this new 25 percent State match which has suddenly been imposed on them. The following 23 States have said that they will not be able to match 25 percent of the weatherization funds and that they will not be able to apply for the fiscal year 2000 funds. This is the result of a survey done by the States, and I presume they are trying to develop and improve Federal-State relations: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. They have said, for a variety of reasons; maybe their legislature is out of session; maybe they are unable to debate this at the appropriate time. Now, it seems to me to be extremely unfair to those States and other States, to the lower-income people, to the senior citizens in those States, that suddenly out of nowhere this very cost-effective, successful program will not be able to be implemented in their States. And this is my fear, and nobody can answer this question, because there have been no hearings on this question, what happens, for a variety of reasons, when 10 States say we choose not to participate in that program? The chairman cannot tell me that that is an impossibility. Nobody can because we do not know. Now, my fear is twofold. If 5 States or if 10 States say we cannot participate in the program, tens of thousands of low-income people will not be eligible to participate in this cost-effective program. Secondly, this is what will happen in years to come, and I think the gentleman understands this, that if 10 States do not participate in the program, somebody will come before the Congress and say, ``Listen, why are we funding a program when we have 10 or 15 States who are not participating? Who needs this program? Let us end this program.'' I believe this is a good, cost-effective and important program. Low- income people spend a substantial part of their limited income on energy. It makes no sense to our State as a whole and to the individuals to see energy dissipate through the windows, through the doors, through the roofs because homes are not adequately insulated. And in some cases, and people may not recognize this, this is a life and death issue. Our friend and colleague from Chicago got up here and talked passionately about the issue. He will remember, as we will all remember, that a number of years ago hundreds of elderly people in the City of Chicago died from heat exhaustion. They died from heat exhaustion. The President has made mention that people are dying today from that problem. This is not a program we want to cut. So I simply say to my good friend, I do understand the difficult problems we have balancing this program with that program. But we have a program that has worked, that has been cost-effective, and we have not gone out to the States. And let me read something, if I might, to the gentleman. This is a letter that comes to me from the Governor of West Virginia, and he states that, ``With the considerable demands for the limited State funds available, I doubt that West Virginia would be able to meet the match requirement.'' In the State of Oregon, the energy program manager writes, ``If the United States House of Representatives is successful in requiring a 25 percent match in order for States to be awarded low-income weatherization assistance program funds, then Oregon, and perhaps many other States, will not be able to assist the economically disadvantaged with Department of Energy WAP funds.''

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

Mr. SANDERS. I think we have heard from a number of the States that say, we have not heard about this. We do not know if we can participate in the program. So at the very least, I would have thought that there needed to be hearings and input from the States that were going to be affected by this.

Mr. SANDERS. I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. The problem is, without getting into that argument right now, that the gentleman I think will acknowledge that there have been no hearings, no real discussion, no input from the States.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record statements by high school students from my home State of Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. I am asking that you please insert these statements in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Financing Education (On behalf of James Lucas, Caitlin Stone-Bressor, Jesse Pixley and Kim Junior) Kim Junior: We are talking about financing our education. Education is a paramount concern because it affects everyone. Hilary Clinton said that it takes a village to teach a child, and it does. Currently, the United States educational system is going through a rebirth. Many states are attempting to improve their education systems. Vermont has recently shed itself of its old education system and has donned a new, more equal method. This new educational plan, led by Act 60, has helped equalize the percent a property owner is taxed towards education. Now that the state has money coming to the schools that are in need of funding, the state, the school and the community have to decide how they want to improve their school. The consensus believes that better facilities will make better schools. They think a new gym, arts center or a classroom will make children more capable in that particular area. A new building, however, does not change students. Jesse Pixley: Teachers are needed to change students and help them to become more educated. But to improve how educators teach is difficult. Many teachers feel that they are not competent. In a January 29th New York Times article, William Honan said that only one in five full-time public school teachers said they felt qualified to teach in a modern classroom. This is a scary revelation. There is a definite need to enhance the qualifications of teachers and to help them gain sufficient confidence to be able to teach. The New York Times printed an article on April 23rd telling of over 4,000 Washington teachers and educators who protested because they are not being supported in their pursuit of higher education. Deben Gruber, a special education teacher in Highland School District, said ``I can't afford to have a computer, the Internet or a newspaper anymore''. The teachers in Washington were not given the opportunity, financially, to attain a greater level of learning. Caitlin Stone-Bressor: A recent addition for $75.9 million is being added to the $159 million that is already promised to school districts under the Education Reform Act. Of this $76 million addition, only an eighth of it will be given to teachers. The proposal also calls to give $4.2 million to school nutrition programs. While school nutrition is certainly important, America is setting its priorities in the wrong position when it gives so much to food and so little to educators. Tenureship is also an important issue because it allows unqualified teachers to keep teaching. Established because of the frequent changes in the administration, it allowed teachers to have faith that they would be able to keep their jobs despite changes in authority. Yet the system is proven to have flaws. James Lukas: Many teachers who are granted tenureship are not fully qualified. The school system then finds that it would cost less to keep these teachers than to get rid of them. The most prominent and meritorious suggestion to remedy this problem is having teachers paid on the basis of skill and quality, and not on seniority. The education system should be run as a private enterprise, and if a teacher is not making the standard, they should not be favored as well as the teacher who excels in his or her area. Reform is needed to improve our education system. The current system needs to enhance teachers, special education, advanced learning, sports, arts, and all the other aspects of education to make sure Vermont's education system is as good as it can be.