Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Vermont's great jazz saxophonist, Big Joe Burrell, died on February 2 at the age of 80. He was born and spent his early years in Port Huron Michigan. The story of his start in music is legendary. Here is how Brent Hallenbeck recounted it in the Burlington Free Press:

As a shy 10-year-old, he approached his mother's boss and

asked to borrow $5 so he could buy a saxophone.

``Saxophone?'' the man asked. ``What are you going to do

with a saxophone?''

``I'm going to play it,'' little Joe Burrell told him. And

he did, mastering his instrument in the next few years. After

serving in the U.S. Army during World War Two, his musical

career took off. At an Akron dance he played the opening act

for a B.B. King performance, and King thereafter asked Big

Joe to play saxophone in his orchestra. He would go on to

tour with King for almost two years before meeting up with

another major figure in American music, Count Basie.

Basie invited Big Joe to play in his club in New York and

would become the major musical influence in Big Joe's life.

``Count Basie was the predominant influence on me until the

day he died, and still is today,'' Burrell said in 2002.

Ten years of playing in Canada eventually brought him to

Montreal, from where it was an easy journey to play a date in

Burlington, Vermont. There he discovered his nephew, Leon

Burrell, was a professor of education at the University of

Vermont. The meeting was doubly fortuitous: Leon invited Big

Joe to live with him, and he made Leon's home his own for

many years. And Vermont gained its most well-known, most-

well-beloved jazz musician.

Big Joe jammed with fellow musician Paul Asbell, and out of

their collaboration was formed an ensemble called The Unknown

Blues Band. The core of The Unknown Blues Band included

Asbell, Chuck Eller on keyboard, Tony Markellis on bass, and

Russ Lawson on drums, and of course, Big Joe. Not only did

they make music, but they shaped a whole new generation of

musicians. Big Joe, who played with BB King and Count

Basie, Etta James and Little Richard, was a formative

influence on Trey Anastasio, the guitarist for Phish. In

fact, Burrell played guest appearances with Anastasio's

band in recent years.

Last year, the Unknown Blues Band celebrated its twenty-

fifth anniversary. The band was a Burlington staple, playing

at gigs everywhere and most especially at a weekly

performance at Halvorson's Upstreet Cafe in Burlington. Even

as age seemed outwardly to slow him down, Big Joe kept

performing at his customary high level. Cafe owner Tim

Halvorson told the Free Press, ``He'd shuffle in with his

walker or a cane, but, boy, as soon as the music started and

he got a glass of Canadian Club and he grabbed his saxophone,

he was 30 years younger.'' As his nephew Dr. Leon Burrell

said, speaking of his last performance just a month ago, ``He

went out doing what he did best. It's like a cowboy dying

with his boots on.''

Big Joe was a big man--not only in physical stature, but

big in heart. He loved music, he loved people, and he loved

playing in Vermont. Vermont loved him back. He was an emblem

of the amazing power of jazz, our nation's preeminent form of

music. He showed all who lived in the Green Mountain State

how jazz can speak to each of us, directly, deeply; he showed

us that the music born in the South and in the big cities of

the Mid-west has flowed, like a mighty river, all through our

nation. He was an important tributary of that river, and all

of us in Vermont who love music will remember Big Joe for

that, and for the wonderful performances he gave us, time and

again.

Mr. Speaker, Vermont's great jazz saxophonist, Big Joe Burrell, died on February 2 at the age of 80. He was born and spent his early years in Port Huron Michigan. The story of his start in music is legendary. Here is how Brent Hallenbeck recounted it in the Burlington Free Press:

``As a shy 10-year-old, he approached his mother's boss and asked to borrow $5 so he could buy a saxophone.

`Saxophone?' the man asked. `What are you going to do with a saxophone?'

`I'm going to play it,' little Joe Burrell told him.'' And he did, mastering his instrument in the next few years. After serving in the U.S. Army during World War II, his musical career took off. At an Akron dance he played the opening act for a B.B. King performance, and King thereafter asked Big Joe to play saxophone in his orchestra. He would go on to tour with King for almost two years before meeting up with another major figure in American music, Count Basie.

Basie invited Big Joe to play in his club in New York, and would become the major musical influence in Big Joe's life. ``Count Basie was the predominant influence on me until the day he died, and still is today,'' Burrell said in 2002.

Ten years of playing in Canada eventually brought him to Montreal, from where it was an easy journey to play a date in Burlington, Vermont. There he discovered his nephew, Leon Burrell, was a professor of education at the University of Vermont. The meeting was doubly fortuitous: Leon invited Big Joe to live with him, and he made Leon's home his own for many years. And Vermont gained its most well-known, most well-beloved jazz musician.

Big Joe jammed with fellow musician Paul Asbell, and out of their collaboration was formed an ensemble called The Unknown Blues Band. The core of The Unknown Blues Band included Asbell, Chuck Eller on keyboard, Tony Markellis on bass, and Russ Lawson on drums. And of course, Big Joe. Not only did they make music, but they shaped a whole new generation of musicians. Big Joe, who played with B.B. King and Count Basie, Etta James and Little Richard, was a formative influence on Trey Anastasio, the guitarist for Phish. In fact, Burrell played guest appearances with Anastastio's band in recent years.

Last year, the Unknown Blues Band celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary. The band was a Burlington staple, playing at gigs everywhere, and most especially at a weekly performance at Halvorson's Upstreet Cafe in Burlington. Even as age seemed outwardly to slow him down, Big Joe kept performing at his customary high level. Cafe owner Tim Halvorson told the Free Press, ``He'd shuffle in with his walker or a cane, but, boy, as soon as the music started and he got a glass of Canadian Club and he grabbed his saxophone, he was 30 years younger.'' As his nephew Dr. Leon Burrell said, speaking of his last performance just a month ago, ``He went out doing what he did best. It's like a cowboy dying with his boots on.''

Big Joe was a big man--not only in physical stature, but big in heart. He loved music, he loved people, he loved playing in Vermont. And Vermont loved him back: He was an emblem of the amazing power of jazz, our nation's preeminent form of music. He showed all who lived in the Green Mountain State how jazz can speak to each of us, directly, deeply; he showed us that the music born in the South and in the big cities of the Mid-west has flowed, like a mighty river, all through our nation. He was an important tributary of that river, and all of us in Vermont who love music will remember Big Joe for that, and for the wonderful performances he gave us, time and again.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman help us define what inappropriate is? Does the gentlewoman think that the film ``Saving Private Ryan,'' which depicted the incredible sacrifice by American troops on D-Day, is inappropriate and should have been kept off of ABC?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, but this bill leads to self-censorship. Small stations who are fined a half a million dollars are going to be very cautious. ``Saving Private Ryan'' was kept off of dozens of ABC affiliates because they were afraid of a fine.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and opposition to the underlying legislation.

As someone who voted in favor of similar legislation last year, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today.

This censorship is being done by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media; but it is also significantly being done by the government, and that is what this bill is about today. What we are seeing is an increasing and insidious chill on free expression in the airwaves.

There are a lot of people in Congress on that side of the aisle, my conservative friends, who talk about freedom and freedom and freedom; but apparently they really do not believe that the American people should have the freedom to make the choices themselves about what programs they see on television or on the radio.

There are a lot of people in Congress, including Conservatives, who talk about the intrusive role of government regulators; but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that.

A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society. Mr. Speaker, I am not a Conservative. I am a proud Progressive. But on this issue, I agree with some important conservative thinkers. Let me tell my colleagues what Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, extremely conservative think tank, says, and he has it right: ``Those of us who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times, but that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children. Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me and every other American family. Censorship on an individual parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole Nation is permitted to see, hear, or think.''

That is and that should be the Conservative position. That should be the position of people who say get the government off our backs; we do not want government regulations.

Mr. Speaker, increasingly in this country we are seeing censorship on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org, and on and on it goes.

Let us vote ``no.'' Let us vote against this bill and support freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That goes without saying.

As someone who last year voted in favor of similar legislation, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is being conducted by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the government. This result is an insidious chill on free expression on our airwaves.

There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom, freedom and freedom but, apparently, they do not really believe that the American people should have the ``freedom'' to make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of ``government regulators,'' but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute--a very conservative think tank. And here is the very common sense, pro-freedom position that he brings forth:

Those of use who are parents understand that raising a

child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task

at times. But

that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in

to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of

the public without children.

Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in

mind, I take great offense at the notion that government

officials must do this job for me and every other American

family.

Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental

part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government

level is an entirely different matter because it means a

small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole

nation is permitted to see, hear or think.

I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so

many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal

and parental responsibility about most economic issues,

seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural

issues.

Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not necessarily liking what you have to say or agreeing with you, but it is your right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern's vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow?

Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship on the airwaves. In January 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in cheating the Federal deficit. Last November, 66 ABC affiliates refused to air the brilliant World War II movie ``Saving Private Ryan,'' starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This ironically was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their Church. The networks felt that it was ``too controversial'' to air. And just last month, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of Postcards with Buster, a children's show, because Education Secretary Spellings objected to the show's content, which included Buster, an 8-year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different aspect of the culture of censorship that is growing in America today. My fear is that the legislation we have before us today will only compound this problem and make a bad situation worse.

This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any relief from the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could drive some of them into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already doing it now. Imagine what will happen when a violation can bring a $500,000 fine. If this legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and Americans' First Amendment rights.

In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters in my own State of Vermont and I have heard from many of them. Without exception they are extremely concerned about the effect this legislation will have on programming decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television.

Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public

Television on H.R. 310

Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters,

does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local

community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility

to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there

must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public

airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in H.R. 310 are

extreme.

The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity,

indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on

broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public

Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint

easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying

these proposals into law will make the situation worse.

While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed

at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling

the effects every day. Public television's educational

programming for children has always provided a safe haven.

The same public television stations that take such care of

their young viewers also respect the intelligence and

discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing

choices for themselves.

Vermont Public Television has always operated

responsibility in our programming for adults. At times, our

programs included adult language and situations appropriate

to the informational or artistic purpose of a program. While

there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous

indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it

seems that context is no longer considered.

Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights,

we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single

violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small

station like VPT out of business.

Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told

broadcasters there was one word that would never be

appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations,

including Vermont Public Television, began to make content

choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions.

PBS programmers began making edits to national programs

being distributed to stations. An ``American Experience''

documentary on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might

possibly look like a bare breast and edited, just be to sure.

On ``Antiques Roadshow,'' a nude poster was edited. This

month, most PBS stations will air a drama from HBO called

``Dirty War.'' In the story, a woman showers to remove

radiation. When the program airs on PBS, that shower scene

will be edited.

Our programming director, and no doubt most local

programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts

telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or

situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing

programs with words and situations that might even come close

to content that could be subject to fines.

At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists

representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers

live on the air. There has never been a problem with

language, but the legislation's reference to using a ``time

delay blocking mechanism'' makes us worry. We don't use a

time delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a

caller uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane?

Our programming director says the FCC proposals have

already made us rule out airing independent films on our

``Reel Independent'' program. Films by Vermont filmmakers

that we would have aired in past years are not being accepted

for broadcast now.

We cannot support H.R. 310 as it is written.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is a dangerous bill. I get a little bit tired of people in Congress talking about freedom, freedom, freedom. But apparently they do not want to give the American people the freedom to make the decisions with regard to what radio and television programs they can watch or hear.

I am not a conservative, but let me quote from an honest conservative who does not want government regulating what the American people see and hear. This is a gentleman from the Cato Institute, Mr. Adam Thierer:

``Those of us who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times. But that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children.

``Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must this job for me and every other American family.

``Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole Nation is permitted to see, hear, or think.'' Cato Institute. Honest conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not my agreeing to what one says; it is my agreeing that they have the right to say it. That is what we fought for.

I am particularly outraged when I read in Reuters on December 13, ``Sixty-six ABC affiliates refused to air the uncut movie on Veterans Day last month'' of ``Saving Private Ryan,'' ``citing concerns they could face fines for profanity and graphic violence from the FCC.''

The men who fought in World War II against Hitler, who gave their lives on D-Day, we cannot see that film because ABC is afraid to show us, and that is under the old rules.

In addition to the self-censorship imposed by ABC on ``Saving Private Ryan,'' there is more. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement, paid political advertisement, during the Super Bowl by

MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in creating the Federal deficit. They could not pay to get an ad on because CBS was nervous. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome into their church. They were afraid to run that. And just last month many PBS stations refused to air an episode of ``Postcards with Buster'' because they showed a lesbian couple.

In other words, this legislation cannot be taken out of context with the overall move towards censorship which is taking place in this country. And I would hope that my conservative friends who get up here every day talking about government regulators, get those government regulators off the backs of the people, I hope they will remember their rhetoric today. Let us not have a handful of government bureaucrats telling radio and TV stations and the American people what they can see and hear.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan raises an important point about ABC, not a small company. They self-censored themselves. He is right. He is absolutely right. The FCC said that they would not fine them, and yet 66 affiliates said, We are still nervous. ABC, not a small station. In my State we have got small stations who are very nervous. The issue here, and the gentleman just really said it, is self-censorship.

Is he happy about the fact that affiliates are afraid of showing ``Saving Private Ryan''?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

But they did not, Mr. Speaker. ABC affiliates took it off the air. Is the gentleman happy? Does he think that is good?

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I salute the Essex High School Cheerleaders, from Essex Junction, Vermont, for winning third place in the National High School Cheerleading Championship on February 12 in Orlando, Florida.

The Hornet cheerleaders were competing for the first time. But they knew they had something going for them, despite their relative inexperience: They had already won the first place award at the New England Regional qualifier last fall. That victory, of course, put them on a collision course with the nation's very best cheerleading teams, all thirty-one of them. After a tough preliminary round, Essex was in fourth place, one spot out of the medals. But they bore down in the finals, and leaped into the medals with a third place, outpaced only by the three-time national champion, Sparkman High of Alabama, and a talented team from Archbishop Shaw High School in Louisiana.

These exceptional young athletes and their coaches at Essex High School have worked long and hard to achieve this national recognition. Combining grace with athleticism, they have shown the nation that with determination and the desire to excel, any door may be opened, even a door leading to a top place in national competition.

All of Essex High School, all of Essex and Essex Junction, all of Vermont, are proud of these young women and men. May this be the beginning of a proud new tradition.

Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today that along with 61 cosponsors, 45 Democrats and 16 Republicans, I am introducing legislation that will repeal Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, with China.

Anyone who takes an objective look at our trade policy with China must conclude that it is an absolute failure and needs to be fundamentally overhauled. There really can be no other conclusion.

Today, as part of our overall record-breaking $600 billion trade deficit, we have an estimated $160 billion trade deficit with China. Incredibly, this trade deficit with China has increased by 29 percent over the last year alone and almost 50 percent since the passage of PNTR in 2000.

Very few experts in this area doubt that the trade deficit with China will continue to escalate in the years ahead. In industry after industry, corporate America is shifting our manufacturing plants, our good-paying jobs to China where desperate people are forced to work for wages as low as 20 cents an hour. Anyone who went Christmas shopping this year knows that more and more products on the shelves are made in China: toys, bicycles, computers, televisions, shoes and sneakers, all kind of clothing and hats, telephone, furniture, auto parts and even artificial Christmas decorations. Ironically, the little American flags that Members of Congress wave around are often made in China.

In the last 4 years, the United States has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, over 16 percent, of our entire manufacturing sector. In my own small State of Vermont, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs during that period. PNTR with China and our disastrous trade policies in general are one of the key reasons for that, but we should be very aware that PNTR with China is not only leading to the destruction of traditional manufacturing and blue collar jobs. It is leading to the loss of millions of high-tech, information technology jobs as well. These are the jobs that we were told would be there for our kids and would secure them with a place in the middle class.

The question that the American people have to ask is why it is that corporate America, with the active support of the President of the United States and the congressional leadership, is selling out the American people and making China the economic superpower of the 21st century. Not only is China rapidly becoming the manufacturing center of the world; it is quickly becoming the information technology hub as well.

Andy Grove, the founder of Intel, predicted last year that the United States will lose the bulk of its information technology jobs to China and India over the next decade. John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, was typical of many high-tech leaders when he said, ``China will become the IT center of the world. What we're,'' at Cisco, ``trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company.''

At a time when poverty in America is increasing, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider and most of the new jobs projected for the future are low wage with minimal benefits, the great economic struggle of our time is whether the middle class of America can be saved. Will we be a country in which ordinary workers have bright futures with good-paying jobs and decent benefits, or will we continue to move in an oligarchic direction in which the rich get richer and most everyone else gets poorer? To a significant degree, the answer to that question will depend on whether Congress has the courage to make fundamental changes in our trade policy, including PNTR with China.

The word has got to go out loud and clear to companies like Wal-Mart, GE, GM, IBM and dozens more, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that they cannot keep sending America's future to China. Trade is a good thing, but must be based on principles that are fair to American workers. The U.S. Congress can no longer allow corporate America to sell out the middle class and move our economy abroad.

It is not acceptable that Jeff Immelt of General Electric, the CEO, says, ``When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China.''

It is not acceptable that Thomas Donahue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ``urges'' American companies to send jobs overseas.

It is not acceptable that Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in America, tells us that Communist authoritarian China has created ``a brand new form of capitalism, and as a consumer it's the best thing that ever happened.''

We need to repeal PNTR to China.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share with you a summary of H.R. 417, legislation I recently introduced that would change the paradigm for financing medical R&D and pricing prescription drugs in the United States.

Rather than rely on high drug prices as the incentive for R&D, the bill would directly reward developers of medicines, on the basis of a drug's incremental therapeutic benefit to consumers, through a new Medical Innovation Prize Fund. Prices for prescription drugs to consumers would be at low generic prices immediately upon entry to the market.

By breaking the link between drug prices and R&D, we can provide more equitable access to medicine, end rationing and restrictive formularies, and manage overall R&D incentives through a separate mechanism that can be increased or decreased, depending on society's willingness to pay for medical R&D. The bill, by rewarding only truly innovative products that provide new therapeutic benefits to consumers, would also dramatically reduce wasteful expenditures such as those on research, development and marketing of ``me-too'' medicines.

Summary of the Medical Innovation Prize Fund

The current system for financing research and development of new medicines is broken. High prices are a barrier to access. Companies invest too much in non-innovative ``me-too'' products and too little on truly innovative medicines. Massive expenditures on marketing of products consume too many resources with very little if any net social benefits.

My legislation, H.R. 417, creating the Medical Innovation Prize Fund is an attempt to fundamentally restructure this system. It presents a new paradigm for R&D of new medicines. This is how it would work:

The legislation would separate the markets for products from the markets for innovation. Products would become generics immediately after FDA approval.

The innovators would be rewarded from a massive Medical Innovation Prize Fund, MIPF.

The MIPF would make awards to developers of medicines, based upon the incremental therapeutic benefits of new treatments.

The MIPF would also have minimum levels of funding for priority healthcare needs such as: (1) Global infectious diseases; (2) diseases that qualify under the U.S. Orphan Drug Act; (3) neglected diseases primarily affecting the poor in developing countries.

These pay-outs would take place over the first ten years of use of a medicine. The payments from the MIPF would always go to the developer of the new medicine, regardless of who actually sells the product to consumers.

The legislation proposes to set the MIPF pay-outs at .5 percent of the national income of the United States (as measured by GDP).

An independent Board of Trustees would manage the MIPF. Trustees would include key government officials, as well as persons from the private sector, representing industry, patient groups and medical researchers.

Inventors would be free to obtain patents, and to use patents normally, until the FDA approves a new medicine. At that point, the patent owner would be remunerated from the MIPF, rather than from royalties on high drug prices.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 31st, 2005, I held a town meeting at the Vermont Law School on the state of civil liberties in America. Joining me at the meeting

were Professor Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School; Professor Stephen Dycus of Vermont Law School; Trina Magi, Past President of the Vermont Library Association; and Ben Scotch, the Former Executive Director of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union. Well over 200 people participated in the meeting.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States today there is a great concern about terrorism. Our country suffered a horrendous tragedy on September 11th, 2001--and there is no doubt in my mind that there are people on this earth who would like to attack us again.

Is terrorism a serious problem? The answer is ``Yes, it is.'' Should the United States and the rest of the world do all that we can to protect innocent people from terrorist attacks? The answer, once again in my view, is ``Yes, we should.''

But the question that we are struggling with in Congress and throughout our country is: ``Do we have to sacrifice our basic liberties and constitutional rights in order to protect ourselves from the threat of global terrorism?'' And in my view, the answer to that question must be a resounding ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit an article that ran in the Rutland Herald on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, about this town meeting.

Panel Discusses Civil Liberties

Royalton.--Big Brother might not be watching just yet, but

many believe George Orwell's nightmare is becoming more

plausible by the day.

``We need to be aware that a cancer is threatening our

basic civil liberties, our constitutional rights and our

privacy rights,'' Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., said Monday

night to a crowd of more than 200 people at Vermont Law

School.

The audience filled the Jonathan B. Chase Community Center

for the panel discussion on civil liberties and national

security with Sanders, VLS professors Stephen Dycus and

Cheryl Hanna, former Vermont Library Association president

Trina Magi and former Vermont American Civil Liberties Union

president Ben Scotch.

Much of the discussion centered on the USA Patriot Act,

passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

Sanders said the issue alone was not just the Patriot Act,

which broadened the powers of law enforcement and the federal

government, but also how those who want to keep track of

people are gaining more ways of doing so.

Sanders said there was an effort in Congress last year to

require trackable computer chips in all drivers' licenses.

``Someone with the right kind of device could track your

every movement,'' he said. ``George Orwell, here we are. In a

few short years, unless we change it, every single thing we

do, every place we go, every person we meet could be recorded

in a database.''

Hanna said the provisions of the Patriot Act that civil

libertarians find most troublesome and unconstitutional have

been difficult to challenge in court because of the secrecy

with which the law allows the government to operate.

``In order to challenge something, you have to have a

case,'' she said. ``You need someone who has been harmed.

With the Patriot Act, so much of the harm has been

clandestine. You might not even know if you were the target

of an investigation.''

Scotch argued that the real dangers of the Patriot Act were

its vagaries and the ways in which it challenged established

legal language.

Scotch presented provisions of a bill he called ``The Free

Speech Enhancement Act of 2005,'' that would outlaw several

forms of speaking out against the government during wartime.

He then revealed that the law had been passed, under another

name in 1918 and had since been repealed.

``Bills that restrict freedom are more and more subtle and

more and more clever,'' he said. ``That's what we're seeing

in the USA Patriot Act. When the Sedition Act of 1918 says

we're going to ban disloyal speech, it comes out and says

it.''

Magi said she was worried that the provisions allowing

investigators to look at the records of any business,

including libraries, without a warrant would destroy the

effectiveness of libraries.

``As an academic librarian, it is my job to help students

really dig deeper,'' she said. ``In order to do that,

students must feel that the library is a safe place to seek

information.''

Dycus challenged the notion that ``normal Americans'' who

are not terrorists don't need to fear the Patriot Act.

``It would be a terrible mistake to believe none of this

concerns you,'' he said. ``You might be right to think that

you will never be taken away in the night and detained in a

military brig . . . but you shouldn't be so sure. Besides,

what our government does with our knowledge it also does in

our name.''

The floor was opened to questions from the audience, which

ranged from angry rants against the Bush administration to

questions about what can be done.

One student challenged the one-sidedness of the discussion.

``I was a little surprised the Vermont Law School would

have only one side presented,'' she said. ``I would think

they would want both sides presented so we, as law students,

could learn.''

Sanders said the make-up of the panel was his doing and not

the school's.

The student went on to challenge some of the assertions

about the Patriot Act, saying her understanding was the

``sneak and peek'' provisions merely expanded capabilities

that law enforcement already had.

Scotch replied that the earlier law on which those

provisions were based included a requirement similar to

probable cause, but the Patriot Act does not.

One man asked how to best strike a balance between

preserving civil liberties and vigilance against terrorist

threats. Magi said it was something people would have to

decide for themselves.

``I think it's really legitimate to be afraid of

terrorists,'' she said. ``We can also be afraid of an

overreaching government that stretches too far into our

lives. There are plenty of examples of lives that were ruined

by a government that was not restrained.''

Sanders said there was more to the issue than a simple

tradeoff and that reductions in privacy don't necessarily

lead to increases in security.

Sanders cited the deportation of people advocating trade

unions in the 1920s, the internment of Japanese citizens

during World War II, the McCarthyism of the 1950s and

government surveillance during the 1960s as examples of how

the government can be just as much of a threat to the people

as those from whom it is supposed to protect them.

``We have got to be vigilant,'' he said.

Sanders said people need to put as much effort into

defending their civil liberties as the Republican Party

leadership has put into promoting the policies of the Bush

Administration.

``Tom Delay works day and night, fighting for what he

believes in,'' he said. ``You have to begin to think about

changing the political culture. All of us are going to have

to roll up our sleeves and talk to our neighbors.''

The key, Sanders said, lies not in just organizing

liberals, but reaching out to conservatives.

``It is not moderate Republicans, it is conservative

Republicans, people who love their guns and don't want their

guns taken away, who are going to join you,'' he said. ``Do

you talk to them and or just think they're jerks who aren't

as bright as you? Well, that's what they think about you.''

Sanders said nobody on the left has the luxury of being

depressed or defeatist.

``On issues like this, I believe that once people hear the

issues, they understand we can deal with terrorism without

the provisions of the Patriot Act,'' he said.

Mr. Speaker, I want to announce today the reintroduction of the Oral Health Promotion Act, a bill I previously sponsored in the 107th Congress. I will reintroduce this bill tomorrow and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me as original cosponsors on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, oral health care in the United States is in a sad state of decay. Congress cannot neglect it any longer. While the number of Americans without private health insurance of any kind is staggering enough at over 45 million, the number of Americans without private or public dental insurance is more than two times that figure. One hundred and eight million Americans--at last count--had no dental insurance at all: no coverage for emergency services, no coverage for fillings, no coverage for braces, no coverage for check-ups. Amazingly, despite great advances in oral health sciences, the Surgeon General has reported that tooth decay has become the single most common chronic childhood disease--five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than hay fever.

What does our neglect of oral health cost us? Surveys have shown that dental problems cause children to miss more than 51 million hours of school and adults to miss more than 164 million hours of work each year. That's a lot of lost education, lost productivity and lost pay. And let's be clear--lack of access to dental care does not strike evenly across the socioeconomic spectrum. According to the U.S. Surgeon General:

Poor children suffer twice as many cavities as their more affluent peers, and their disease is more likely to be untreated.

Poor children suffer nearly 12 times more restricted-activity school days than children from higher-income families. (In my own state, which is doing a lot better than the national average on many oral healthcare indicators, a recent study found that 23 percent of children in grades 1-3 experienced 82 percent of all decay found.)

Medicaid has not been able to fill the gap in providing dental care to poor children: Fewer than one in five Medicaid-covered children received a single dental visit in a recent year-long study period.

For each child without medical insurance, there are at least 2.6 children without dental insurance.

For every adult 19 years or older with medical insurance, there are three without dental insurance.

Obviously, there are a lot of factors at play in this problem. But when it comes down to what we can do to increase access to dental care for the largest number of people, the solution, I think, already exists. While many other dental providers close the door to Medicaid and uninsured patients, often because they do not receive adequate reimbursement for the services they provide, Federally Qualified Community Health Centers provided dental services to millions and millions of them last year. Currently, over 1,000 community, migrant, and homeless health centers serve over 15 million people in 3,600 urban and rural communities in every State and territory.

It is clear that focusing on expansion of the dental care infrastructure through these and similar community-based providers will get us the biggest bang for our buck. Community health centers--which serve all patients in their communities regardless of their ability to pay--are on the front lines of getting dental care to those who are least likely to get it, namely those on Medicaid and those with no insurance at all. A lot of praise has been showered on this successful program for many years and from both sides of the aisle, including from President Bush, and rightly so. Now I think we really need to put our money where our mouths are and fund the creation of more dental care infrastructure based on the community health care model.

That is why I am introducing the ``Oral Health Promotion Act'' to address our national crisis in access to dental care. This bill will make a serious commitment to developing a dental health care infrastructure across our country and expand access to high-quality, affordable dental and health care for all Americans. It will:

(1) Create a $140 million fund for the workforce, capital and equipment needed to establish or expand oral health services at community health centers, school-based dental centers (and other community-based sites) across the country;

(2) Provide states with an enhanced federal match (FMAP) for agreeing to cover full adult dental benefits under the Medicaid program;

(3) Require that State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage include dental benefits for children;

(4) Authorize and provide additional funding for states to provide dental services under SCHIP as a supplement to other health coverage;

(5) Create incentives for states to pay market-based reimbursement for dental services under SCHIP and Medicaid and to cover the Medicaid level of dental benefits under SCHIP.

I urge my colleagues to join me as original cosponsors of this important legislation, which I will introduce tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

I agree with John Kerry. I think George W. Bush won Ohio. But I agree with millions of American citizens that no American should have to wait 4 hours to cast a vote. I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are very worried that when they cast a ballot on an electronic voting machine that there is no paper trail to record that vote in the event of a recount.

What today is about is to demand that the Federal Government begin to move forward, to guarantee that every voter in America feels secure and confident that all of the votes cast in this country are counted accurately and that all of our voters are treated with respect and dignity. That is what democracy is about and that is what we are fighting for.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in praise of the White River Junction Veterans Administration Medical Center, which has received the Robert W. Carey Trophy Award for Organizational Excellence. This award, named after a former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, was presented to recognize the truly excellent care that the White River VA Center provides to veterans in Vermont and the Connecticut River Valley. This award is the highest quality award the Department of Veterans Affairs can bestow.

In the two previous years, the White River VA Center was recognized for excellence for the quality of its care by winning back-to-back Carey Achievement Awards. This year it took the top award in the nation.

Under the leadership of Gary De Gasta, the staff at the center-- doctors, nurses, health professionals, administrative support--are committed to providing the very best in health care. They are attentive to veterans and their needs; they offer state-of-the art medical care; they honor the service of the brave men and women who answered, and answer, our nation's call decade after decade.

I am very proud of the excellent work done by those who work at the White River VA Center. They are deserving of this highest of commendations, and we in Vermont are very proud of them. We are equally proud that this high level of performance helps to deliver the very best in health care to our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago the Howard Center for Human Services was established. It is a remarkable organization, one which provides essential services to the citizens of four counties in northern Vermont. Although its origins are in the nineteenth century, its earliest forebearer was a ladies' aid and relief society in 1873. Its willingness to join together several different NGOs in 1994, overriding several smaller portfolios in the interest of providing a broad umbrella of services to the community, is testimony to its commitment to serving the needs of Vermont.

The focus of its staff and programs is on developmental disabilities, those with mental problems, and on children, youth and families who face difficulties of many sorts. It serves those in crisis and those with ongoing problems. Altogether, the Howard Center serves over 15,000 Vermont residents each year through Howard Community Services, the Baird Center, and Adult Behavioral Health Services. It does so efficiently, dedicating almost 90 percent of its budget directly to programs and outreach for those thousands of Vermonters in need of the services it provides.

The Howard Center provides accredited services in the areas of mental health, alcohol and other drug addictions programs, family services, and employment services. Its many programs range from crisis intervention and stabilization to outpatient treatment, case management services coordination, community housing, residential treatment, job development and supports, and criminal justice service case management. In addition to a dedicated staff and hundreds of contracted workers supporting individuals and families in their homes and in the community, 500 volunteers help the Howard Center meet the needs of our friends and neighbors in northern Vermont.

I could go on at length about the individual programs of the Howard Center, but in the interest of time I will mention just one, one that is representative of the remarkable commitment and innovation that the Howard Center brings to providing human services to northern Vermont. The Streetwork program provides daily assistance and support to people with psychiatric disabilities, and to those dealing with substance abuse, homelessness and other unmet social service needs; it provides those services on the main streets of downtown Burlington, by going out to people rather than waiting for them to come into offices or clinics.

In these difficult times, when the middle class is under siege and shrinking and low income families see the social safety net in shreds, when fringe benefits for many jobs axe disappearing and more people are medically uninsured, when low and moderate income housing is often unavailable, the Howard Center provides a bulwark and a refuge to those who are in need of social services. I congratulate them on the past ten years, and look forward to a new decade in which they continue to sustain tens of thousands of Vermonters.

Mr. Speaker, even though this is the richest and most productive nation in the history of the world, hunger is still a major problem in the United States. In my State of Vermont alone, 55,000 households are living in poverty. In Vermont, many of these people find that the existence of food shelves provides the final protection to keep them from sinking into malnutrition and even starvation. Of those who go to food shelves, almost one out of four is elderly and over half are families with children. Most of these are working families. It is a terrible fact that 21,000 children under the age of 12 either go hungry or are at risk of hunger in Vermont. The situation is so severe that nationwide, over 29 percent of households that received emergency food last year literally had to choose between paying for food or paying for medical care.

Clearly our Nation's governmental policies are entirely wrong, placing as they do tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate welfare as high priorities, and ignoring the need to feed the hungry, guarantee health care to all, support the construction of affordable housing, and make college available to those who wish to attend. We need to change our skewed priorities which, rather than to making life better and more secure for the vast majority of Americans, lead to the increasing gap between rich and poor, and to ever-increasing economic pressures faced by the middle class.

But while we struggle to change the United States, to make it into a more just and equitable society, we also need to make sure that no American goes hungry.

I want to commend, today, the Vermont Foodbank for its years of exemplary service to fighting hunger. The Vermont Foodbank serves food shelves, community kitchens, homeless shelters, domestic abuse programs and programs which provide services for the elderly and children. Well over 100,000 people are served through Foodbank's network of 295 agencies each year. From its building in Barre, the Foodbank supplies agencies and NGOs all over Vermont with food for those who are hungry. It is greatly assisted in its work by hundreds of volunteers, who contributed over 23,000 hours--over 11 years of work weeks--in just the past year alone.

The Vermont Foodbank helps assure that none among us go hungry, that every community group and agency that seeks to combat hunger has a resource upon which it can call. It, together with our many community food banks, the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger, the work of shelters, the Salvation Army, churches, and countless other groups, is doing essential, life-sustaining work in throughout our State.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention a remarkable company, located in my home state of Vermont, that can and should serve as a model for corporate responsibility in this era so unfortunately marked by greed of CEO's, who last year paid themselves 301 times as much as the average worker in their companies.

The company I speak of is Chroma Technology Corporation of Rockingham, Vermont. It is completely employee owned. The firm has a flat pay scale, where no employee makes less than $37,500 and no one more than $75,000. Thus no top-level specialist makes more than twice what anyone on the shop floor earns.

Yet Chroma competes in the global marketplace, taking the risks that other corporations do. It is a global, high-tech manufacturer of optical filters for microscopes used by the world's top biologists. It is the major supplier to three of the four major microscope manufacturers in the world (Zeiss and Leica from Germany and Nikon from Japan). Chroma is also the second source for Olympus of Japan and was recently chosen as primary supplier to Motic, an emerging Chinese microscope company. Chroma is today a premier manufacturer of high-tech products, and expects sales of $16 million in 2004.

While other companies practice outsourcing, Chroma remains locally rooted, with virtually all 68 employees living within a 50-mile radius of its facility in Rockingham.

So amazing is its story--and so important is its lesson to how American companies can not only survive but thrive in the international marketplace--that I want to tell that story to the American nation.

When it began, Chroma had a policy of paying everyone the same wage, a wage pegged to the local living wage. By the time the firm grew to 17 employees in the early 1990s, everyone was making an identical $30,000 per year. ``If we would have changed our wage structure at that point, we would have had a revolution,'' says Chroma's CEO, Paul Millman.

In 1996, Chroma instituted the policy that tenure would determine pay. ``The criterion is longevity, rather than job description,'' Mr. Millman explains. Today the maximum salary of $75,000 is the same for everyone, though new employees can start higher than the minimum of $37,500.

The disadvantage of this flat pay structure, according to Mr. Millman, is that some people with graduate degrees or business experience won't work there, because they'll be paid the same as someone in production. The advantage, he counters, is the cooperative atmosphere, the self-direction, and the lack of a managerial class.

Chroma practices not just worker ownership, but worker democracy. At one time the company made decisions through a Quaker meeting format where consensus ruled, though that's being revisited now that there are more employees. Still, there are no designated managers at Chroma, and employees occupy all seats on the board of directors. More than 95 percent of company decisions are made on the shop floor. ``We call it full exposure management,'' says Gabe Capy, a member of Chroma's shipping department who has been with the company eight years. ``It is peer pressure that then encourages people to perform.''

Nor does Chroma cut corners on environmental issues to cut costs. Chroma recently invested $130,000 to make its new 28,000-square-foot factory energy-efficient. The company will recover those costs in less than two years through savings in electricity and propane costs. ``They have gone far beyond the efficiency measures associated with standard building practices,'' says Gabe Arnold, technical coordinator for Efficiency Vermont, a statewide energy efficiency utility. While most companies focus on lowering costs, he says, Chroma showed an innovative willingness to invest heavily up-front in efficiency.

Because employee-owners intend to pass this company on to future generations, it is virtually impossible for Chroma to be sold. After the founders leave, no single employee will own more than 5 percent; a super-majority is needed to sell the company.

Employee ownership, worker democracy, environmental stewardship--and an all-American work force: instead of being liabilities, these practices help Chroma compete in its global, high-tech markets. The structures of employee ownership and involvement contribute significantly to the high quality products that are Chroma's trademark. ``Other companies can build these filters quicker and cheaper,'' Mr. Millman concedes, but because Chroma has educated the biologists who actually use the microscopes about its optics, it has developed strong customer loyalty. ``That adds to the romance of our product,'' he says. ``We now have three Ph.D. biologists on our staff, and that is no happy accident. No other optical filter company can say that.''

While competing internationally, Chroma defines itself by a different economics than that touted by most business schools. ``I prefer the term `sustainable economy,' or an economy that keeps us living. That's what Chroma is all about,'' says Mr. Millman, CEO of what has been the fastest growing technology company in Vermont for the past five years. He credits the business environment in Vermont for nurturing Chroma's value structure. ``Vermont is the prototypical state for the creative economy,'' he said. ``This was the first state to abolish slavery. Outcasts from the '60s and '70s came here and created communes. This is where Ben & Jerry's started.''

Vermont, I should mention with pride, along with Ohio, boasts the greatest concentration of employee-owned companies.

At Chroma Technology, where committed employees lead naturally to loyal customers, being local goes hand-in-hand with being global. Chroma Technology shows us all that it's possible to make a mark in the global economy and do it in a way that is sustainable and humane.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of this body, and the Nation, the wonderful work that has been done by the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA), and in particular the wonderful work its affiliate does in Vermont.

In a time when the family farm is under great destructive pressures, in a time when agribusiness blindly ignores the potential for damage that accompanies chemical pesticides and GMOs, in a time when corporate agriculture ignores the need to sustain and replenish the soil that sustains life, there are those who fight to maintain a good, healthy, ongoing source of food for all of us.

NOFA Vermont has been fighting, and continues to fight, for family farms, for responsible husbandry of the soil, for a secure and healthful food supply.

NOFA Vermont has been in existence for over 30 years, and is one of the oldest organic farming associations in the entire United States. The Vermont chapter, one of seven state chapters in the northeastern region of the United States, currently has over 1,000 members. It has been a sustaining force for the 333 certified organic growers and producers in our New England state. They sell their produce and products in 52 farmers markets in Vermont, to local groceries and food stores, to grocery chains operating in Vermont, and indeed to distributors nationwide. In an especially noteworthy development, they have forged new relations with local buyers, and new distribution networks, through the formation of 42 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms which provide food directly to consumers on an ongoing and regular basis.

NOFA Vermont's dual commitment is to local agriculture and to organic agriculture. It strives to be a steward of the soil, a preserver of the ongoing vitality of the environment, a proponent for healthy and nutritious foods. Through education, organic certification and technical assistance it strengthens the agricultural community in Vermont. Through its efforts to sustain community food security, and to promote both the marketing of organic products and the development of new markets, like the farmers markets and CSAs I mentioned a few minutes ago, it builds a stronger presence for healthful foods in Vermont.

It is important that we take time to recognize the individuals and organizations which not only nourish--in every way--our present, but look forward with vision to creating a strong and sustainable world for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. NOFA Vermont, and its hundreds of members, nourish us and show us the shape of a vital, vibrant and human-centered future.