Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 40 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, along with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from

New Mexico (Mr. Udall), I am again offering the freedom to read amendment. This tripartisan amendment, which has the support of progressives, conservatives and people of all political stripes, would prevent the Justice Department and the FBI from using section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to access library circulation records, library patron lists, book sale records or book customer lists.

This amendment is being supported throughout our country by librarians, book sellers and all Americans who want Congress to be vigorous in protecting the American people from terrorism, but want to make sure that we do that without undermining the basic constitutional rights which have made us the free country that we are.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is similar to the amendment I offered last year, which lost by a 210-210 vote after the voting rolls had been kept open for an extra 20 minutes.

There is one difference in this amendment compared to last year's that I do want to emphasize: I have heard from some Members who have expressed concerns about the possible need for the FBI to access library Internet records. Some Members believe that by exempting library Internet records from section 215, we could be creating an opportunity for terrorists.

The amendment today addresses that concern and does not apply to library Internet records. Under this amendment, the FBI could still use a section 215 order to obtain these records. This amendment only applies to the records that contain information on which books people are checking out of the library or buying from a bookstore.

Mr. Speaker, setting aside all of the legalese, let me tell you what this amendment does. Let me also tell you why the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association and many other organizations are supporting it. Let me also at this time remind Members that seven States, Vermont, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine and Montana, as well as 379 municipalities across the country, have gone on record by passing resolutions expressing their concerns about the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want to know that when they borrow a book from a library or buy a book from the bookstore that the government will not have access to the titles of the books they are reading. They want to read what they want to read without government looking over their shoulder and without Uncle Sam becoming Big Brother and spying on them.

Under section 215 as currently written, the FBI can walk into a secret FISA court, tell a judge that he is doing an investigation on terrorism, and that judge has to grant the FBI the right to go to a library or a bookstore and obtain their reading records. The FBI need not show probable cause nor even reasonable grounds to believe that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activities. The simple truth is that the FBI could spy on a person because they do not like the books she reads or because she wrote a letter to the editor critical of government policy.

Further, those served with section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.

Mr. Speaker, that is not supposed to be what America is about and not what a free society is about. If the government can make the case that getting records from a library or bookstore can help us fight terrorism, I want them to get those records. In fact, they have always had the ability to get those records and will be able to get those records in the future through normal law enforcement processes.

But whether it is through the grand jury subpoena process or the process of getting a search warrant, there are well-established judicial safeguards to protect Americans' basic civil liberties from government overreaching. Under those long-established judicial safeguards, the FBI must demonstrate that its need for information is legitimate. They cannot get it just because they want it, and that is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I would remind my friend, as I am sure he already knows, that we have exempted computers that he referred to in several instances from the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), one of the real fighters for civil liberties in this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Can I ask my friend how many speakers he has left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is supported by the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association. Seven States in America, Democrat and Republican legislatures, have gone on record expressing serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act. And hundreds of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands, have written Members of Congress about this issue.

Mr. Chairman, all of us and all Americans grieve the horror of 9/11 and the deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens. And every Member of this Congress is on record pledged to do everything he or she can to defend the American people from another terrorist attack. We have spent tens of billions of dollars, and we are prepared to spend more. But, Mr. Chairman, the reason that conservatives and progressives and people in between have come together is that we understand that what we are talking about is freedom; is liberty; that we can fight terrorism, we can defeat terrorism, we can protect the American people without undermining the constitutional rights that men and women have fought for, have died for, and that made us the greatest country on Earth.

Let us go forward defeating terrorism, but let us do it in a way that makes us all proud, that protects the greatest document ever written, the American Constitution. And that is what this amendment is about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by mentioning that this is a tripartisan resolution, and I want to thank our cosponsors: the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). I thank them very much for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any great illusions that this resolution will win today. When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) offered it 5 years ago, it only received 56 votes. I hope, however, that as many Members as possible will vote for it today for one simple reason. It is time to send the Bush administration a message and a wake-up call that our current trade policies have failed and need to be completely rethought so that they represent the needs of the middle class and working families of our country and not just the CEOs of large corporations.

Mr. Speaker, international trade is a good thing, if implemented properly, but the evidence is overwhelming that our current trade policies, including NAFTA, including permanent normal trade relations with China, and the current roles of the WTO are not working for average Americans, they are not working for the environment, and they are not working for human rights. If we do not fundamentally change those policies, we can only expect more of the same.

The WTO was signed in 1995, and our current support of unfettered free trade has gone on for some 30 years. And what has been the result of those policies for the middle class of this country? Let us discuss it.

In a period in which technology has exploded, in a period in which worker productivity has significantly increased, we would think that the middle class would be better off.

But the economic reality today is that what every American knows is that the middle class of this country is collapsing. Poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is wider today than at any time since the 1920s. Are our disastrous trade policies the only reason for this? No. But they are an extremely important part of that equation, and that is for sure.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 when the WTO was established, our trade deficit was $96 billion. Today our trade deficit is a record-breaking $617 billion and is on pace to become $700 billion next year. Our trade deficit with China alone is $162 billion.

Mr. Speaker, while some of my colleagues are going to extol all of the wonderful virtues of unfettered free trade, perhaps they can explain why in the last 4 years alone we have lost 2.8 million good- paying manufacturing jobs, one out of six in this country. One out of six in the last 4 years. In my own small State of Vermont, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years. Many people know

that General Motors has just announced they are going to lay off another 25,000 American workers. GM is producing cars in China, and there is some reason to fear that in 10 or 20 years, Detroit and automobile production in this country will be diminished as car manufacturing moves to China.

When my friends come up here and they tell us how great free trade is for our economy, I want them to explain why real inflation accounted for wages in the United States today is 7 percent lower than they were in 1973 for the bottom 90 percent of workers. And why is it that million of workers today in Vermont and throughout this country are forced to work two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water if free trade and globalization are all so great?

When my friends talk about the so-called robust economy that has been created, perhaps they can explain to us why 4 million more Americans now live in poverty than just 4 years ago, 4 million more Americans in poverty; and why incredibly there are 24,000 fewer private sector jobs now than when George Bush first took office. If our trade policies are so successful, how could we have experienced an unprecedented net loss of private sector jobs over the last 5 years? The only new net jobs that have been created by the Bush administration have been government jobs, 917,000 of them. Maybe the Republican Party is becoming the party of big government and creating government jobs, but certainly it has not been private sector jobs that free trade is supposed to create.

Today the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. The richest 1 percent of our population now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and unfettered free trade has only made that worse. The gap between the rich and the poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000. According to the Institute for International Economics, 39 percent of the increase in income equality is due to unfettered free trade.

Further and most ominously, if our present trade and economic policies continue, the likelihood is that the next generation will be the first in the modern history of the United States to have a lower standard of living than we do. According to a recent report from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor statistics, over the next decade, seven out of the 10 fastest-growing occupations will be low-paying, low-skilled jobs that do not require a college education. Is that what free trade is giving to our kids, jobs at Wal-Mart, jobs at McDonald's, while the General Motors jobs, the General Electric jobs are going to China?

Mr. Speaker, it is not only blue collar jobs that we are on the cusp of losing. Millions of white collar information technology jobs are also on the line to go to China and India. Andy Grove, the founder of Intel, predicts that the United States will lose the bulk of its information technology to jobs to China and India within the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of this debate, and I want my friends to answer this, is that American workers should not be asked to compete against desperate people in China who make 30 cents an hour and who go to jail when they stand up for their political rights. That is not what we should be engaged in. The race to the bottom has been a disaster for the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My good friend mentioned what has happened since China has joined the WTO. I think he has neglected to mention that our trade deficit with China has soared, that millions of jobs have left the United States to go to China.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again as to how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) who has been leading this Congress in opposition to the disastrous CAFTA agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for either side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

To begin with, at a time when there is so much animosity and partisanship in this body, I am very pleased that what we have brought forth together is a true tripartisan effort.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for cosponsoring this amendment and, as I think most people know, that covers a very, very broad spectrum of political thought.

Mr. Speaker, some have argued against this resolution by saying it

would be a disaster if it were passed, that we would be withdrawing from the international economy, but the reality is that what we are trying to do here is not to withdraw from international trade. Trade is a good thing. What we are saying is let us send a message to the President of the United States to wake up and to fully recognize that our current trade policies are an unmitigated failure and that we have got to renegotiate them. We cannot continue on the policy of the race to the bottom. That has got to change.

Some of my friends say what we are talking about is international rules, and of course we are talking about international rules. The problem is that the rules within this WTO are rigged against the middle class of America. If the United States Congress said, wait a second, we are going to pass a law because we think it is unfair that slave labor in China is producing a product that is exported to the United States, or that child labor around the world is competing against American workers, we will be ruled incorrect by the WTO. A complaint will be waged against us saying, gee, why are you protesting slave labor or child labor? You are violating international free trade.

Another issue that has not been touched on today, a moral issue, which is very important, when I was mayor of the City of Burlington in the 1980s, we passed, as did cities throughout the country, as did the United States Congress, legislation which said to the apartheid regime which had then imprisoned Nelson Mandela, we are going to impose trade restrictions against an apartheid regime. Mr. Speaker, if that occurred today, if the City of Burlington, Vermont, the State of Vermont, the United States Congress, said we want to bring down economically some type of fascistic government running the country, that country would go to the WTO and the WTO would say, gee, you are in violation of free trade agreements. It does not matter the morality of the issue. The only thing that matters is unfettered free trade.

Mr. Speaker, what my friends on the other side of this debate have really failed to discuss is the impact of the unfettered trade policies that we have been developing over the last 30 years. You have not heard them say really one word about that. Yes, they have talked about economic growth that is taking place in America, but they forgot to tell you who was benefiting from that economic growth. They have forgotten to tell you that for the average American worker his or her wages have gone down significantly in the last 30 years.

Yes, the wealthiest people in this country are making out like bandits. Yes, there has been a doubling in the gap between the rich and the poor. That is true. Yes, CEOs of large corporations make 400 times what their workers make. Is that the free trade agreement that we are fighting for?

The reality is, and they know it, Republicans know it, Democrats, conservatives, progressives, when going back to their district. In my State in the last couple of months, I had to talk to workers whose jobs are gone because those companies could not compete against imports coming in from China where workers are paid 30 cents an hour.

I would yield a moment to my friends on the other side if they want to tell the American people that they think it is fair that our working people should have to compete against desperate people working for pennies an hour who go to jail when they stand up for their rights. I would yield to the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Maryland, or anyone else who wants to tell me now that that is fair. I do not hear anybody saying that it is fair.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Taking back my time, and I thank the gentleman. He says that it is unfair. But we have had this trade agreement, we have been in the WTO for 10 years. We have had a Democratic President. We have had a Republican President. If it is unfair, why is the President of the United States not going to the WTO tomorrow? Why did Bill Clinton not go? I do not want to be partisan here. Why did neither of them go? And they are not going to go.

The issue here is that these trade agreements have been forced on Congress, not forced, Congress willfully did it, because of the power of big money. It is no secret. Some of us who were here for NAFTA, some of us here for the China agreement, we know the millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions and huge lobbying effort on the part of the large corporations. Because the truth of the matter is that while unfettered free trade is a disaster for the middle class and working families of this country, it really does benefit the heads of large corporations. They are, in fact, doing very well.

We see General Electric, General Motors moving to China. That is not a good thing for Americans.

Let me conclude simply by saying, Mr. Speaker, let us send the President of the United States a message. Let us say that our current trade policies are failing. Let us stand up for working families around the country. Let us pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions that the resolution that we bring up tomorrow is going to win. Five years ago, when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) brought it up, I think we received 56 votes. I think we will probably do better tomorrow, but I do not think we are going to win. But I do think that this resolution that is coming up tomorrow, which I strongly support, is enormously important, because it is high time for the United States Congress to take a tough look at our trade policies, our membership in the WTO. I believe that any objective assessment will tell every Member of this body and the American people that our trade policies have failed the American worker, the American middle class in a disastrous way, and that it is high time to rethink our trade policies so that they begin to work for the middle class of this country and not just the CEOs of our major corporations.

Mr. Speaker, the middle class of the United States of America is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. Our trade deficit is soaring.

I find it amazing to hear the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) give his portrayal of what is going on in America and the world. He is very much at odds with what the American people perceive.

The average American worker is asking why, with an explosion of technology, with a huge increase in worker productivity, why is the average American worker working longer hours for lower wages? Why is it that real wages in the United States today are 7 percent lower than they were in 1973 for the bottom 90 percent of American workers?

Why is it that with all of this globalization and all of this free trade there are few middle-class families in America where women no longer have the option of staying home with their kids, but they have got to go into the workforce, where people in America are working two jobs, and three jobs just to pay the bills.

The reality of what is going on in America today is that globalization is not working for ordinary people. In the last 4 years alone in the United States, we have lost 2.8 million good-paying manufacturing jobs. Just yesterday, we learned that General Motors is now going to cut back on another 25,000 good-paying jobs for American workers.

Study after study shows that the new jobs that are being created are paying low wages, with minimal benefits, and the jobs that we are losing were good-paying jobs that had good benefits.

Now, the bottom line of this discussion is that, yes, international trade is a good thing. But it is a good thing when it benefits ordinary Americans. It is not a good thing when it simply makes the CEOs of large corporations even wealthier so that they can earn as much as 500 times what the average American worker in their company makes. That is not a good thing.

When we talk about unfettered free trade, let us remember that every single year our trade deficit is going up and up and up. And the singular question that we have got to address is, does our trade policy work when American workers are being forced to compete against desperate people in countries like China who earn 30 cents an hour?

My friends, that is what this debate is about. Large corporations like General Electric, General Motors, all of those companies who are throwing American workers out on the street, they think this agreement is greet, because they are moving to China lock, stock and barrel, hiring desperate people for pennies an hour, people who go to jail when they stand up for their political rights when they try to form a union.

And the result of that is an extremely unfair competitive situation against the needs of the American worker.

My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), talked about the need to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. Well, I think he is going to be disappointed, because I think that the results are so clear in terms of what NAFTA has done for American workers, what Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China have done for American workers, that not only are the American people catching on that CAFTA will be a continuation of a failed policy, I think the American people are demanding that it is time for Congress to represent workers and not just the big money interests.

I am not going to suggest that trade alone is the only reason for the decline of the middle class. But I will suggest that it is a very significant reason. The middle class in America will not survive unless we create good-paying jobs here. And what study after study suggests is that the new jobs that are going to be available to our kids are not going to be the high-tech information technology jobs, because they are off to India, they are off to China. The new jobs are going to be in Wal-Mart industry, in the service industry, where people are earning low wages with low benefits.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply conclude by saying this: all of the objective evidence in terms of job loss, in terms of the loss of good- paying jobs, in terms of the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America which is now wider than in any other industrialized country on Earth, wider in the United States than it has been the 1920s, all of that suggests that the economy is not working for the middle class.

My Republican friends talk about a robust economy. President George Bush has not created one new job in the private sector since he has been in office; he has lost jobs. All of the new jobs have been created in the government. And it is obligatory upon us to analyze why our economy is failing the middle class, why poverty is increasing, why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, why the new jobs that are being created are primarily low wage with poor benefits.

Trade is not the only cause of this problem, but it is a significant cause. We need a trade policy that reflects the interests of the middle class and working people of this country and not the CEOs who are busy sending our jobs to China.

Let me quote the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, several years ago. He said, that when I look to the future of General Electric, I see China, China, China.

Well, I think maybe Mr. Immelt should look to the United States for the future of GE, and GM and other corporations should do the same. We cannot continue to hemorrhage decent-paying jobs going to countries that do not have democracy, where people are forced to work for pennies an hour. We and the other industrialized world must do everything we can to uplift the poor of the world. But we do not have to sacrifice the middle class of this country as part of that process.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to offer the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The legislative intent of this amendment is to increase the funding for the EnergySmart Schools Program administered by the Department of Energy by $1,000,000, offset by a reduction in administrative expenses for the Department of Energy's public affairs department. It is the intent of this amendment that the increased funds for the EnergySmart Schools program will be directly administered and the grants be directly made by the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory and that they will not go through a third part. I am aware that the public affairs department of the DOE has received an increase of $1,000,000 above Fiscal Year 2005 funding and it is the intent of this amendment to return the funding for the public affairs department to the Fiscal Year 2005 level.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's school systems are in crisis. Their budgets are threadbare and most can barely pay their teachers a living wage. To make matters worse, America's school buildings are aging--the average age is 42 years--and the vast majority could greatly benefit from energy-saving improvements. Unfortunately, school administrators are often hard-pressed to allocate any of their limited funds toward improving the energy efficiency of their buildings and systems, even when it is clear that such improvements would save them substantial sums of money that could

help pay their teachers of the future. Fortunately, the Department of Energy has an energy conservation program to help these schools do just that: to implement energy-saving strategies that save money, help children learn about energy and create improved teaching and learning environments.

The Department of Energy's EnergySmart Schools Program--an integral and active part of the Rebuild America program--is committed to building a nation of schools that are smart about every aspect of energy. The program provides information on energy efficient solutions for school bus transportation, conducting successful building projects and teaching about energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. It also works with school districts to introduce energy-saving improvements to the physical environment, enabling many schools to leverage their energy savings to pay for needed improvements, and it takes a proactive role in promoting and supporting energy education in our schools.

Often, this enables school districts to save big on utility bills and maintenance costs, in turn freeing up funds to pay for books, computers and teachers, and improve indoor air quality and comfort. According to the Department of Energy, nationally, K-12 schools spend more than $6 billion a year on energy and at least 25 percent of that could be saved through smarter energy management, meaning energy improvements could cut the Nation's school bill by $1.5 billion each year. As an added benefit, many of the same improvements that help to lower a school's energy consumption also serve to improve the classroom environment, removing noisy, inefficient heating and cooling systems, inadequate lights, and ventilation systems that don't restrict indoor contaminants.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the EnergySmart Schools program helps our Nation's schools to implement energy-saving strategies that save money, help children learn about energy and create improved teaching and learning environments. My amendment would add $1,000,000 to support this excellent program--offset by a reduction in administrative expenses for the Department of Energy's public affairs department.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend very much.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, congratulate the gentleman for his leadership, and thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her support, and concur with the gentlewoman's remarks.

Mr. Chairman, all over this country, the people are asking a simple question: When will the United States Congress stand up and protect those workers in Vermont and all over this country who are spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year more at the gas pump?

Our Republican friends talk about tax breaks given to people. Those tax breaks have been eaten up many times over by people who are forced to pay outrageously high prices in order to get to work. This affects not only people in rural States like Vermont. It affects small businesses, farmers, the airline industry, the trucking industry; and, in fact, nobody denies it is affecting our entire economy. When is Congress going to stand up?

Meanwhile, while working people are paying more and more to fill up their gas tanks, the large oil industry corporations are reaping record-breaking profits.

I think it is about time that we started paying attention to the American worker and we did something, at least right now, to lower the cost of gas at the pump.

As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) mentioned, this is not a new idea. In fact, it is not a partisan idea. This is a concept that has been supported by Democrats and by many Republicans. It has been supported by the first President Bush and by former President Clinton.

Specifically, this amendment would suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is what President Bush did in 1991, what President Clinton did in 2000. This action would have the very immediate impact of lowering gas prices in America now.

Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently contains about 693 million barrels and the administration is pushing to increase that number to over 700 million barrels.

Today, approximately 72,000 barrels of oil per day are still being added to the SPR, over 2 million barrels per month. This amendment would suspend these oil deliveries and put this oil back on the market which could lead to lower prices immediately upon its implementation.

It would also keep gas prices down by making sure the government is not competing against consumers in the marketplace at a time when gas prices are so high.

Mr. Chairman, extrapolating from at least three economic studies done by Goldman Sachs, the largest crude oil trader in the world, the Air Transport Association, and petroleum economist Phillip Verleger, the estimate is, by releasing some 15 million barrels from SPR, we could reduce gasoline prices at the pump by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. By voting for this amendment today, we will be sending a very strong message to the President and that is, Mr. President, release oil from SPR right now.

Mr. Chairman, in the spring of 2002 when the price of gas was starting to increase, the staff at the Department of Energy recommended against buying more oil for SPR. DOE staff said, ``Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high, and economic growth is slow. The government should avoid acquiring oil for the reserve under these circumstances.''

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, there is bipartisan support for this concept. The time is now for the United States Congress to listen to those working people in the State of Vermont and elsewhere who have to travel 100 miles back and forth to work each day. That is not uncommon in this country.

These workers, who are seeing in many cases a real decline in their wages, need help. It seems to me that at a time when the profits of the oil industry are soaring, when workers are struggling to keep their heads above water, when the price of gas is soaring,

now is the time for us to act and act immediately.

I would hope we would have strong support from both sides of the aisle for this important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in Vermont we are celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Community Action Programs which have transformed the lives of thousands and thousands of people in our state. These CAP agencies provide citizens with assistance: the young and the elderly, rural residents and urban residents, homeowners and renters and the homeless, those with jobs and those without. These are not programs created to give handouts; instead, they work to develop comprehensive approaches to addressing the root causes of poverty, and to alleviating the consequences of poverty. Nor are they spinoffs of some far-distant Washington bureaucracy: the CAP agencies are locally staffed and their programs result from collaborative efforts with the lower-income people they are meant to serve.

Vermont's Community Action Programs are community-based networks for social and economic development. There are five of them: Southeast Vermont Community Action (SEVCA), Central Vermont Community Action Council (CVCAC), Community Action in Southwestern Vermont (BROC), Northeast Kingdom Community Action Agency (NEKCA) and Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO). Nearly 3,000 individuals (in 1165 families) were provided services through the SEVCA's Community Services department last year. NEKCA serves more than 6,000 moderate- to-low income families. Over 8,000 individuals obtained early childhood education, crisis fuel assistance, meals, and household insulation through CVCAC. CVOEO provides a wide variety of vital services to approximately 8,000 households (just over 19,000 individuals) every year.

But numbers alone, as impressive as they are, do not tell the whole story. From child care to fuel assistance in cold weather, the CAP agencies are always there when people have needs. CAP agencies not only help hard-pressed families find food, they support family farms through the Farm to Family coupon redemption program. They help retrain workers who have lost their jobs, and they provide a sound basis for a lifetime of learning through Head Start. They run micro-business development programs--and help citizens with their tax returns.

In SEVCA's building there is a wonderful version of the Washington mural of men waiting in a breadline in the 1930's, a reminder that economic need is--unhappily--always among us. That mural reminds us too of Franklin Roosevelt's eloquent words, which are painted on the mural itself: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.'' Those words ring, today, with truth.

Too often the glowing colors of our television and the bold headlines of our newspapers ignore the actuality of life in America: that in the midst of the richest Nation in the history of the world, many go hungry, or are without health insurance, or lack adequate

education, or search fruitlessly for decent-paying jobs. The CAP agencies of Vermont never forget the realities in which we all live. They know that there are people who can benefit from the help of the government programs established by Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, programs begun in times when it was the purpose of government to serve all Americans--and not just wealthy Americans. The CAP agencies, and those who work for them, do much to help tens of thousands of Vermonters live the life that should be theirs, a life free from hunger, homelessness, hopelessness and want.

So after 40 years of hard and extraordinarily important work by those who work for and sustain the CAP agencies, let me say on behalf of all the citizens of my state: Congratulations on what you have done! All of us in Vermont are richer for the community you have built and sustained.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the School for International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont. As one of the foremost schools for cross-cultural education in the world, its record is one trail-blazing effort after another, a whole series of initiatives that have transformed both the world, and the way education about the world is shaped.

The SIT, as it is known, was an outgrowth of the Experiment in International Living, which originated in 1932 when Donald Watt took twenty American teenagers to Europe to live together with teenagers from several European nations. Year after year that program grew and prospered.

In the wake of World War Two the Fulbright Program for the international exchange of scholars and the establishment of the Peace Corps increased this Nation's commitment to the exchange of citizens between different countries and cultures. The SIT was founded in order to provide training and ultimately advanced degrees to those who wanted to work and teach in a global context. It was an early and important resource for Peace Corps training--an unsurprising fact, given that Sergeant Shriver, the first Director of the Peace Corps, had in 1934 been a member of one of the earliest Experiment in International Living programs. The core of the SIT has remained the same for forty years: language training, field-based practice, and a commitment to internationalism.

The School for International Training is not only about technical training for international exchange and work. It has a central vision and a central mission: world peace. Its motto is, ``Building peace through understanding--one person at a time.'' It has lived up to this motto by educating individuals to work in a world where human need is more important than political borders, religious groupings, ethnic identities, or geographical boundaries. It tries to construct a new world in which human beings are united rather than divided by working together to shape a more equitable and peaceful society.

Too often our world today is rent by violence or plundered by corporations looking only to make a quick profit. Building peace and community takes time and steadfast effort. It also takes vision, and a deep sense of generosity. The School for International Training--its leaders, its teachers, its generation of students--have devoted time, effort, vision and generosity in extraordinary measure.

As it celebrates its first forty years, I, the people of Vermont, and the citizens of both the American Nation and the world, wish the School for International Training forty more years of success.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend the Craftsbury Chamber Players, who this year are celebrating a double anniversary. For 40 consecutive years they have performed chamber music in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, and for 25 consecutive years they have performed in Burlington, Vermont's largest city. Founded and still directed by pianist Mary Anthony Cox, the Craftsbury Chamber Players bring chamber music of the highest order to northern Vermont.

The Northeast Kingdom is the least populous area of Vermont, yet every summer the woods of Craftsbury, Hardwick and Greensboro reverberate with the sounds of Haydn, Schubert, Dvorak, and twentieth century music. The Craftsbury Players present concerts that are both innovative and broad. Their repertoire spans over 300 years of music, introducing audiences to little-known works of the past and present, as well as those great chamber pieces which have sustained generations of music lovers. Every concert explores music which should be heard, but often isn't: forgotten works by major composers, supposedly difficult compositions by twentieth century modernists, and seldom-preformed works from our very own day.

These world-class performers come to Vermont to play together, to make music because they love the great richness which comes from measured rhythms and ordered sound. It is fitting that this year their anniversary celebration will be capped by the world premiere of a quintet by Kenji Bunch, a long-time violist with the Craftsbury Players. Commissioned especially for this anniversary, it will be performed on July 20, 2005 in Burlington and July 21 in Hardwick.

The Craftsbury Chamber Players have shared their love of music with thousands of people in Vermont. On this, their 40th anniversary, the people of Vermont salute them for their dedication to music and for bringing the best in music to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because, on a bill of this magnitude, it is undemocratic and an outrage that amendments are not being allowed.

Mr. Speaker, this is actually one of the more absurd debates that I have ever heard in my life, and I think anybody who turns on the television and wonders what is going on here in Congress will then conclude that the reason that this institution is held in so low regard is because we have debates like this.

Let us look at what is going on in America today. The middle class is shrinking. Study after study shows that real wages for American workers are going down; and in the last 4 years, 4 million more Americans have entered the ranks of poverty. While the middle class shrinks, poverty increases. The richest people in America have never had it so good. CEOs of large corporations now make 500 times what their workers make. In America today we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the history of our country and of any major country on Earth.

So what are we discussing here today? Are we going to raise the minimum wage to a living wage? Are we really going to protect family farmers from low prices? Are we going to stop the hemorrhaging of decent-paying jobs going to China? Do not be silly. We do not talk about that because corporate America does not fund those concerns.

The richest people in America said several years ago, Hey, yes, we are worth billions of dollars. That is not enough. We are going to contribute money to our Republican friends, and do you know what they are going to do? They are going to lower our taxes even more.

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating an issue that has zero impact on 98 percent of the American people. Nobody in the middle class, nobody in the working class, no low-income person pays one penny in the estate tax. All of the estate tax is paid by the wealthiest 2 percent. If their proposal passes, half of the benefits go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent.

I want to ask my friends a question. This is a question. As my colleagues know, President Bush and the Republican leadership are supporting increased fees on our veterans. They are raising prescription drug fees for our veterans, and they want to charge a $250 co-pay for veterans of wars who enter the VA hospital. I would like to ask my Republican friends do they think it is a good idea to give tax breaks today to billionaires and to charge veterans significantly increased fees for health care. That is my question.

I am listening. I am listening. I do not hear an answer.

That is the answer. They are substantially increasing health care costs for veterans who have put their lives on the line defending this country. They are increasing our deficit, increasing our national debt, all on behalf of the richest people in this country. This bill is bought and paid for by millionaires and billionaires, and anyone who votes for it should be ashamed of themselves.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, I want to celebrate the remarkable work done by the young Vermonters who participate in the Child Labor Education and Action group at Brattleboro Union High School. CLEA is a student-run group dedicated to community education around issues of sweatshop labor in the developing world. It examines the dark and inhumane side of globalization, doing extensive research and traveling to amass the real story on what globalization means for low-income workers who toil in third-world sweatshops. The students then take what they learn and share it with their community in a variety of ways. They have also organized student groups throughout Vermont to address the problems with global sweatshops.

Four years ago, over 20 CLEA members traveled to Guatemala to build a school. Last year, 13 CLEA members went to Nicaragua to learn about the effect of international trace policies on labor conditions in that country. Let me cite a brief report from one of those travelers, Sarah Maceda-Maciel:

When our plane touched down in Managua, our bags might have

been stuffed with light cotton shirts and water bottles, but

our heads were filled with numbers like 90,000--the number of

Nicaraguan children who are not in school. Or 70 percent, the

amount of Nicaraguans who live on less than two dollars a

day. Or 6 billion dollars, the sum that Nicaragua has

accumulated in foreign debt.

We found the harsh realities of life in the third world.

There is something profoundly different between knowing that

children are hungry and learning that eight year old children

sniff glue to dull the knife of starvation. There is

something profoundly different between knowing that maternity

leave is not offered in sweatshops and learning that pregnant

women are forced to work so hard that they end up having

miscarriages in factory bathrooms.

The students returned from their trip determined to make a difference in how Americans view the harsh realities occasioned by free trade. In the words of Katherine Nopper, another CLEA member, ``Within our school we hope to engage and inform our classmates on the issues of child labor, free trade, fair trade, and what it means to be part of a sweat- free campaign. And we will continue to present our message to other area schools.''

This past year CLEA students have helped with the publication of a remarkable book, Challenging Child Labor: Education and Youth Action to Stop the Exploitation of Children. Several of the contributors are present and former CLEA members; other contributors include Senator Tom Harkin, Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee, Kailash Satyarthi of the Global March Against Child Labor, and Upala Devi Banerjee of the U.N. Development Fund for Women.

I admire the work CLEA does, and am continually impressed, year in and year out, by the dedication of these young people to making the world a better place. They see the whole world as their province; they also realize that speaking to their peers in school, speaking to the larger community in southern Vermont, is part of the struggle to create a world in which justice has a higher value than profit. These students represent what is best about American youth, just as their advisor, Tim Kipp, represents what is best about American teachers.

Combining learning with service, the international with the local, passion for justice with the willingness to work hard to achieve justice, the members of CLEA serve as a model, a

shining beacon, for what high school students can accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, like all of us who live in Vermont, and many millions across the nation, I was thrilled when the underdog Catamounts of the University of Vermont defeated Syracuse in the opening round of the 2005 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Syracuse was a national power; the nucleus of its team won the national championship two years earlier. Its players were accomplished, well- coached and a credit to college basketball.

But the University of Vermont team rose to the challenge, coming from behind in the final minutes of both regulation play and overtime. Led by the greatest basketball player to come out of Vermont, Taylor Coppenrath of West Barnet, Vermont the Catamounts showed how teamwork and a tenacious defense could elevate a team to national prominence. During the regular season Coppenrath was the second leading Division I scorer in the nation with 25.7 points per game, and for the third straight year he was the player of the year in the America East conference. He was joined on the team by T. J. Sorrentine, a sharp- shooting point guard (fifth in the nation with 3.6 three-point field goals per game) whose passion and precision shooting define the Catamounts. He too has been an America East player of the year and has three first-team selections to his credit. The international contingent made up of Germain Mopa Njila of Cameroon, whose career scoring high of 20 points on 9 of 10 shooting was the mainstay of the Catamount offense against Syracuse; Martin Klimes of the Czech Republic, whose smothering defense held All-American Hakim Warrick in check, and Canadian David Hehn, who selflessly threw himself into the Cats' tight defense and patient and exceptionally effective passing game.

It was talent and tenacity. All five Vermont starters played at least 40 minutes, and Klimes and Coppenrath never had a rest on the bench at all. The Catamounts stuck with a game plan devised by Coach Tom Brennan and Associate Head Coach Jesse Agel, which called for ball control, constant passing and careful work against Syracuse's famed 2-3 zone until a shot opened up.

No one should be surprised that they show poised intelligence on the hardwood. The UVM basketball team had a 3.09 grade point average (GPA) for the fall semester. The starting five has a cumulative GPA, including all the courses the players have taken in their time at UVM, above 3.0. This is an exceptionally high and rare statistic for basketball teams that play at the highest level, some of which graduate less than half their teams members. Martin Klimes, majoring in business, has a 3.82 GPA, one of the highest averages in his entire college. Geramin Mopa Njila, a computer science and information systems major, has a GPA of 3.21. Sociology major T.J. Sorrentine averages 2.75, while David Hehn has a stellar 3.57 GPA in business. Wooden Award finalist Taylor Coppenrath averaged 2.80 in secondary education and competed at the elite level in basketball, while student teaching in the math department at Colchester High School.

Their academic performance is exceptional for UVM athletes. The state university is as dedicated to graduating student athletes as it is to fielding fine teams (its men's hockey team recently played in the ECAC Final Four, and its ski team was second in the nation at the NCAA national championships). The overall GPA for student athletes is 3.08, which is higher than the GPA for the student body as a whole.

The Catamounts captured the attention and the heart of the entire nation. To the wonderful, inspired members of that team, and their dedicated coaches, the state of Vermont sends its salutations. Perhaps no one can say it better than their retiring coach, Tom Brennan, who said these words after losing to Michigan State in the second round, ``We can't thank everyone enough on what the support has meant to us. We gave more back than what we took and what we did this weekend was the thrill of a lifetime. It was the greatest ride that I could ever, ever have had. You know you're in a very special place when your realities outweigh your dreams. And that's where I am.'' For all of us in Vermont, for one special night, reality did outweigh dreams. Thanks, Catamounts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Virginia Cochran, known to generations of Vermont children as Ginny, who died last week at the age of 74.

In 1961 Ginny Cochran and husband, Mickey, created a ski slope in their backyard and opened it as Cochran's Ski Area. In its early years it was a training course for all four Cochran children, Marilyn, Bobby, Barbara Ann, and Lindy. As everyone in Vermont knows, all four proceeded to compete and win in the Olympics and on the World Cup, FIS, and U.S. national circuits.

While Mickey groomed, maintained and expanded the course, Ginny began an after-school skiing program, which taught generations of Vermont schoolchildren, and countless other families to ski. The 10,000 children who learned to ski at Cochran's all remember with deep fondness the kind, energetic, and passionate woman who taught them.

Ginny's method of teaching was revolutionary. She taught parents to teach their own children to ski. Of course, for every child who was frightened of going down the small instructional hill, for every child who needed help in learning to go up the Mighty Mite ski lift, Ginny was there with advice and support. She encouraged children to extend themselves, to compete not so much against others as with themselves, and to be more than they thought they could be. Every week of the ski season saw Lollipop races at Cochran's, where skiers as young as four and five years of age would compete against Olympic gold medalist Barbara Ann and her mother, Ginny, and World Cup winners Bobby and Marilyn and Lindy.

Today it is no surprise that skiers who learned to ski at Cochran's compete on the U.S. national team, including Ginny's grandson Jimmy, the U.S. National slalom and GS champion, and her granddaughter Jessica, with both silver and bronze in the National championships, have won collegiate championships, like grandson Roger Brown, slalom, and ski for major college ski teams such as Dartmouth, Middlebury and

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform this body that Eugene Jarecki, a filmmaker in Waitsfield, Vermont, has been awarded the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival. Mr. Jarecki won this prestigious award for his documentary, Why We Fight.

Mr. Jarecki provides a balanced view of what President Eisenhower warned was a danger to democracy: the ``military-industrial complex.'' He interviews, for instance, supporters of the current war in Iraq such as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board; he also interviews those who warn of dangers which may emerge from the prosecution of that war, talking with Senator John McCain, news anchor Dan Rather, and USAF Lt. Col. (Ret.) Karen Kwiatkowski.

Sundance describes his film succinctly and accurately: ``Why We Fight is an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine, examining how a force so potentially counter to the balance of a democratic society influences American life. Amid the upheaval of the Iraq War, the film follows the personal stories of a group of characters in America's military family.

``Why does America fight? Time and again, why does she seem inclined toward war against an ever changing array of enemies? What are the forces--economic, political, ideological--that shape and propel American militarism? Where do they meet? And what role does the individual play?''

Writing in the New York Times this week in honor of the recently deceased Arthur Miller, fellow playright (and Vermont resident) David Mamet wrote, ``Bad drama reinforces our prejudices. It informs us of what we knew when we came into the theater. Good drama survives because it appeals not to the fashion of the moment, but to the problems both universal and eternal, as they are insoluble.'' Eugene Jarecki makes good films.

The balance in his film, along with the craft and care with which it was made, propelled Jarecki's work to its Sundance Award. As Vermont filmmaker Jay Craven noted, Jarecki's ``film emerged as a top Sundance hit precisely because it articulates a view that goes far beyond the seasonal politics of elections to pose larger and enduring questions.''

In this era when too often political ``spin'' substitutes for reasoned analysis and the study of history, Eugene Jarecki has shown us that the media have a vital role to play in educating us about our political and economic past, and about our future. Vermont is as proud of him as the judges at Sundance were; and we are happy that he is once again en route to sharing his cinematic work with the entire nation.