Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call World Population Awareness Week 1998 to the attention of my Colleagues. October 24-31 marks the 13th annual celebration of World Population Awareness Week. More than 300 family planning, environmental, educational, community and service organizations in 61 countries are co-sponsoring the week in an effort to raise awareness of the need for universal voluntary family planning. I call the Governor of Vermont's, the Honorable Howard Dean, proclamation to the attention of my colleagues. World Population Awareness Week Proclamation--1998 Whereas world population stands today at more than 5.9 billion and increases by more than 80 million per year, with virtually all of this growth in the least developed countries; Whereas the consequences of rapid population growth are not limited to the developing world but extend to all nations and to all people, including every citizen of the State of Vermont concerned for human dignity, freedom and democracy, as well as for the impact on the global economy; Whereas 1.3 billion people--more than the combined population of Europe and North Africa--live in absolute poverty on the equivalent of one U.S. dollar or less a day; Whereas 1.5 billion people--nearly one-quarter of the world population--lack an adequate supply of clean drinking water or sanitation; Whereas more than 840 million people--one-fifth of the entire population of the developing world--are hungry or malnourished; Whereas demographic studies and surveys indicate that at least 120 million married women in the developing world--and a large but undefined number of unmarried women--want more control over their fertility but lack access to family planning; Whereas this unmet demand for family planning is projected to result in 1.2 billion unintended births; Whereas the 1994 international Conference on Population and Development determined that political commitment and appropriate programs aimed at providing universal access to voluntary family planning information, education and services can ensure world population stabilization at 8 billion or less rather than 12 billion or more. Now, therefore, I Howard Dean, Governor of the State of Vermont, do hereby proclaim the week of October 25-31, 1998 as World Population Awareness Week, and urge citizens of the State to take cognizance of this event and to participate appropriately in its observance.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to support S. 1722, the Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments. I am an original cosponsor of the House version, H.R. 4683, and I congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member, for their efforts. This is a good piece of legislation which authorizes or reauthorizes a number of important acts. I am especially pleased that the National Cancer Registries Act, which I introduced in 1992, is included for reauthorization in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we all understand that cancer is a terrible disease striking millions of Americans of all ages and from all walks of life. The National Cancer Registries Act, which is being reauthorized now, provides detailed information about who is coming down with cancer, where they live, where they work, and how effective the treatment is that they are receiving. For years, cancer researchers wanted information, for example, about the incidence of breast cancer in Vermont as opposed to the incidence of breast cancer in another region. What might be the factors which cause the difference in incidence rates? In other words, why is a particular type of cancer more prevalent in one area of the country than in another area? Why within a given community is cancer more prevalent in one part of that community than in another part of that community? In other words, why are there certain hot spots that have developed? All of that information is important because the more information that researchers have, the better able they will be to understand what might be causing different types of cancer, and also in developing prevention efforts to stop the spread of cancer as well as better treatments to treat cancer. Clearly, the more detailed information that we have about cancer, the better able we will be to understand the cause of this terrible disease which is killing more than a half million Americans every year and will account for one out of every four deaths in the United States this year. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that several years ago when Senator Leahy and I successfully introduced this legislation, we were given the means to do so by a number of breast cancer survivors in the State of Vermont, women who stood up and said, ``We are going to fight back.'' Among those were Joann Rathgeb, who passed away several years ago, and Pat Barr and Virginia Soffa, who are continuing their battle against cancer today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf War veterans. I continue the submission for the Record the latest ``Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity'' newsletter which lists the U.S. federal, state and local government authorities, U.S. federal and state courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have adopted policies, made statements, and/or published documents recognizing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorders for the benefit of my colleagues. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development In a letter from HUD Assistant Secretary Timothy Coyle to Senator Frank Lautenberg, confirming HUD recognition of ``MCS as a disability entitling those with chemical sensitivities to reasonable accommodation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973'' and also ``under Title VIII of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988'' [26 October 1990, 2 pages, R-13]. This was followed by a formal guidance memorandum from HUD Deputy General Counsel G.L. Weidenfeller to all regional counsel, detailing HUD's position that MCS and environmental illness ``can be handicaps'' within the meaning of section 802(h) of the Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations [1992, 20 pages, R-14]. Also recognized in a HUD Section 811 grant of $837,000 to develop an EI/MCS-accessible housing complex known as ``Ecology House'' in San Rafael, CA, consisting of eleven one-bedroom apartments in a two-story complex. This grant was pledged in 1991 and paid in 1993. [2 pages, R-15] (See also Recognition of MCS by Federal Courts, Fair Housing Act, below.) U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service In response to a disability rights complaint filed against the Baltimore County Parks and Recreation Department (BCPRD) by Marian Arminger on behalf of her three children, which the National Park Service (NPS) accepted for review pursuant to both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Acting Equal Opportunity Program Manager of the NPS ruled that ``the BCPRD must accept the determination of disability by the Baltimore County Public Schools [BCPS, see US Department of Education, above] regarding the children and their disability of MCSS [MCS Syndrome]. This will eliminate possible retaliation with a different conclusion by the same public entity.'' [Case #P4217(2652), 1996, 4 pages, R-102]. The NPS further ruled that ``With the determination that these children are individuals with a disability (MCSS), it is necessary to make reasonable modifications to program facilities. It appears that discontinuing, temporarily or permanently, the use of outside or inside pesticide application and toxic cleaning chemicals is the basic reasonable modification necessary in this case. . . . Therefore we believe that steps should be taken by the BCPRD to provide the necessary communication with other affected agencies such as the BCPS and develop, in consultation with the parents and others deemed appropriate, a plan for the reasonable modification of the program environment for these children.'' U.S. Department of Justice In its enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, under the terms of which MCS may be considered as a disability on a case-by-case basis, depending--as with most other medical conditions--on whether the impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. The Office of the Attorney General specifically cites ``environmental illness (also known as multiple chemical sensitivity)'' in its Final Rules on ``Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services'' (28CFR35) and ``Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities'' (28CFR36), as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 144, pages 35699 and 35549 respectively [26 July 1991, 2 pages, R-16]. ``Environmental illness,'' also is discussed in the ADA Handbook, EEOC-BK-19, 1991, p. III-21 [14 page excerpt, R-17], jointly published by the Department and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The ADA Handbook describes environmental illness as ``sensitivity to environmental elements'' and, although it ``declines to state categorically that these types of allergies or sensitivities are disabilities,'' it specifically asserts that they may be: ``Sometimes respiratory or neurological functioning is so severely affected that an individual will satisfy the requirements to be disabled under the regulations. Such an individual would be entitled to all the protections afforded by the Act.'' U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs In recognizing MCS as a medical diagnosis (although not as a ``disability'') in the case of at least one Persian Gulf War veteran [Gary Zuspann, October 1992, 3 pages, R-18]. It is impossible to know exactly how many other Persian Gulf veterans may have been diagnosed with MCS as the diagnostic data recorded in the VA's Persian Gulf Registry are based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9CM), which does not yet include a specific code for MCS. In June 1997, VA released its ``Environmental Hazards Research Centers' Annual Reports for 1996.'' These included preliminary data from the New Jersey EHRC showing that, of the 1161 veterans randomly selected from the VA's Persian Gulf Registry (living in NJ, NY, CT, MA, MD, DE, IL, VA, OH or NC) who completed the center's questionnaire, 12.5% ``endorsed symptoms compatible with a conservative definition of MCS'' [1997, 5 page excerpt, R-144]. When the NJ EHRC published its first report on this study, however, in an abstract entitled ``Preliminary prevalance data on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity,'' it said 26% of 104 veterans randomly selected from the VA Register ``were especially sensitive to certain chemicals, and 4% reported that this snsitivity produced at least 3 of 4 lifestyle changes . . . suggesting that something about serving in the Gulf substantially increased the risk of developing CFS and MCS'' [1996, Journal of CFS, 2(2/3): 136-137; R-177] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxins, Health Effects Division, Occupational and Residential Exposure Branch, Special Review and Registration Section In a peer-reviewed memorandum entitled ``Review of Chlorpyrifos Poisoning Data'' from EPA's Jerome Blondell, PhD, MPH, and Virginia Dobozy, VMD, MPH, to Linda Propst, Section Head, Reregistration Branch. The memo discusses data from several sources on acute and chronic health effects, including MCS, associated with exposure to Dursban and other chlorpyrifos-containing pesticides, and recommends many changes (subsequently agreed to by DowElanco, the manufacturer) in the use and marketing of these products, including the phase out of all indoor sprays and foggers, consumer concentrates, and all pet care products except flea collars. Most significantly, the memo documents that of 101 cases of unambiguous chlorpyrifos poisoning reportedly directly to EPA in 1995, 38 had chronic neurobehavioral effects (including 4 who also had peripheral neuropathy), while 50 ``reported symptoms consistent with multiple chemical sensitivity'' [1977, 70 pages, R-145]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Indoor Air Division In its August 1989 Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, entitled Assessment and Control of Indoor Air Pollution (EPA/400/1-89/001C), the Environmental Protection Agency's Indoor Air Division describes MCS as ``a subject of considerable intra professional disagreement and concern (Cullen, 1987). While no widely accepted test of physiologic function has been shown to correlate with the symptoms, the sheer mass of anecdotal data is cause of concern.'' [14 page excerpt from Vol. 2, R-19]. In 1991, the Indoor Air Division asked the National Research Council to sponsor a scientific workshop on ``Multiple Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome'' the proceedings of which are published in Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Addendum to Biologic Markers in Immunotoxicology [National Academy Press, 1992]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research & Development Descries ``chemical sensitivity'' as an ``ill-defined condition marked by progressively more debilitating severe reactions to various consumer products such as perfumes, soaps, tobacco smoke, plastics, etc.'' in The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study, Summary and Analysis: Volume 1, by L. Wallace, Project Officer, Environmental Monitoring Systems Division, EPA Office of Research and Development [1987, 2 page excerpt, R-20]. The Office of Research and Development (ORD) began conducting human subjects chamber research at its Health Effects Research Branch in Chapel Hill (NC) in 1992 to identify possible diagnostic markers of MCS. (See also joint entry under U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, above.) In the justification for its fiscal year 1998 budget, ORD devotes one paragraph to MCS in the section on Air Toxins, saying that it plans to release ``information comparing individuals who identify themselves as belonging to a particular subgroup (multiple chemical sensitivity) against established norms for a variety of health-related endpoints,'' and will make ``recommendations for follow up to evaluate the potential relationship between the signs/symptoms reported by these individuals and objective/quantitative health endpoints'' [1997, 3 page excerpt, R-160]. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission In the ADA Handbook EEOC-BK-19 [1991], 14 page excerpt, R- 17], jointly published by the EEOC and the Department of Justice (see above) and in a Determination Letter signed by Issie L. Jenkins, the director of the Baltimore District Office, recognizing MCS as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring workplace accommodation, consisting in this case of a private office with an air filter, Mary Helinski v. Bell Atlantic, No. 120 93 0152, 17 May 1994 [2 pages, R-22]. Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Subcommittee on Risk Assessment, Working Party on Neurotoxicology In its Final Report: Principles of Neurotoxicology Risk Assessment, published in the Federal Register by the US EPA's Office of Health Research [17 August 1994, 45 pages for entire report, R-161, or 3 page excerpt, R-162], which says in Section 2.5.1 on ``Susceptible Populations'' that: ``Although controversial [Waddell 1993], recent evidence suggests that there may be a subpopulation of people who have become sensitive to chemicals and experience adverse reactions to low-level exposures to environmental chemicals [Bell et al 1992].'' The report is ``the result of the combined efforts of 13 Federal agencies comprising the ad hoc Interagency Committee on Neurotoxicology,'' including ATSDR, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Center for Biologies Evaluation and Research, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Dept of Agriculture, Dept. of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Toxicological Research, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Toxicology Program. Federal Interagency Workgroup on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Formed in 1994 to review and coordinate the role of federal agencies involved in research on multiple chemical sensitivity [1 page agenda from 9/14/94 meeting, R-91]. The Work Group is so-chaired by Dr. Barry Johnson, Assistant Surgeon General and Assistant Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and Dr. Richard Jackson, Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other agencies represented include the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans' Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency and two other institutes within the Department of Health and Human Services: the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Draft report is expected to be released by ATSDR in September 1998 for a 60-day public comment period. National Council on Disability (an independent federal agency) In ADA Watch--Year One, its ``Report to the President and Congress on Progress in Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act,'' which recommends that Congress and the Administration ``should consider legialtion to address the needs of people with ``emerging disabilities,'' such as those . . . ``with environmental illness who are severely adversely affected by secondary smoke or other pollutants in public places'' [5 April 1993, 8 pages, R-23]. President's Committee on Employment of People With Disabilities In its report to the President, entitled Operation People First: Toward a National Disability Policy, which recommends that the federal government ``develop, refine and better communicate methods of `reasonable accommodation,' in particular, the accommodation needs of people with . . . chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity'' [1994, 5 pages, R-24] encouraging the Deputy Ministers of Housing, Health Community and Social Services ``to begin a consultative process and help to establish some guidelines'' spelling out exactly what services and benefits are available to provincial residents with MCS, including possible admission to treatment facilities in the United States [27 October 1989, 2 page letter and 2 pages of press coverage from the Globe & Mail, R-158]. Recognition of MCS by 28 U.S. State Authorities Arizona Technology Access Program, Institute for Human development, Northern Arizona University In a report written for the general public entitled Topics: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity with sections on What is MCS, Symptoms of MCS, People Diagnosed with MCS, What Can Cause MCS, Treatments, MCS and the Medical Community, MCS is Now Recognized as a Disability, Accommodating Individuals with MCS in the Workplace, MCS is Preventable, and a list organizations and government agencies to contract for Help and Information. Funding for this document was provided by the US Dept of Education National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), grant #H224A40002, but a disclaimer notes that the content does not necessarily reflect the views of the US government [October 1996, 11pages, R-129]. Arizona Department of Economic Security, Rehabilitation Services Administration, and Statewide Independent Living Council In RSA's Interim Fiscal Year 1995 State Plan for Independent Living, specifying that ``Services Related to Housing'' include ``modifications to accommodate people with EI/MCS'' [Attachment 12, 1 October 1994, 7 pages, R-31] and in an administrative review decisions issued 22 June 1992 in the case of a vocational rehabilitation client determined to be ``severely disabled'' by ``environmental illness, allergies.'' In addition, training on MCS was presented to both Vocational Rehabilitation and ILRS counselors at the 1994 state staff conference. Attorney General of California In the final report of the Attorney General's Commission on Disability, recognizing environmental illness as a disabling condition [1989, 8 page excerpt, R-33]. Attorneys General of New York Backed by 25 other Attorneys General from AL, AZ, CT, FL,

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring attention to a crisis in our nation. Our seniors are dying because they cannot afford the medication prescribed to them by their doctors. Either they don't take their medicine, or they stop eating in order to save money to fill their prescriptions. This is a travesty. I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, which will allow elderly Americans to purchase their prescriptions at a lower and fairer price. Currently, many large groups, such as HMOs, insurance companies, and hospitals, purchase drugs at a reduced price from the pharmaceutical companies. These are known as most favored customers. However, one group that makes up about one-third of the drug-buying market is left out of this discount--Medicare beneficiaries. The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act will give Medicare beneficiaries a drug benefit card that they can use to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices from participating pharmacies. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee estimates that seniors will be able to receive more than a 40-percent discount. This will be a much-needed, in fact, lifesaving, change for our nation's elderly citizens. The average income for all seniors was $17,000 in 1996. However, that number plummets to only $13,000 per year for elderly women, or just over $1,000 per month. Many seniors pay at least one-half that amount for prescription drugs. It is absurd to charge those individuals who can least afford it the highest prices for their needed medication. I've heard from seniors in my state that they not only are paying a huge amount of their monthly income for prescriptions, but that they don't know how they can deal with the prices that continue to rise. And our seniors are somewhat lucky in Vermont. There are two programs run by the state that give low-income seniors help with paying for their prescription drugs. One program, V-HAP, is for very low-income seniors who earn too much for Medicaid. This program allows seniors to pay just a few dollars a month for their drugs. The other program, VScript, has a higher income threshold and gives seniors with chronic illnesses a 50-percent discount on their prescriptions. And still, many seniors either do not know about these state programs, or they take advantage of them and still find it difficult to pay for their drugs, even with the 50-percent discount! In two recent cases in Vermont, my constituents went to have their prescriptions refilled and found that the price had more than doubled in less than 2 months with no notice to them. This is ridiculous! One of the pharmacists even had the audacity to ridicule one of my constituents when she became upset at the huge increase in price and wondered how to pay for it. Another of my constituents, Katherine Bentley, whose story is mentioned in my Vermont report on seniors' drug prices, was unable to pay her electric bill because she was paying almost $600 per month-- more than half her income--for her prescription drugs. This forced her out of her home and she still cannot afford all of her medication. Our seniors deserve to be treated much, much better than this. In recent years, many Members of Congress, including myself, have advocated having Medicare cover prescription drugs. I still believe that this is a fair, solid proposal. However, why should the Federal Government take up the cost of this plan when the pharmaceutical companies, with annual profits in the billions of dollars, which put them on the Forbes 50 list annually, could and should offer the same discount to Medicare beneficiaries as they offer to HMOs and insurance companies? Who do we side with here? The multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies or poor, sick, elderly Americans who need prescription drugs? It is only fair to allow Medicare beneficiaries with their considerable buying power, to get the same discount on their drugs as large corporations. In addition to allowing seniors to purchase drugs at this reduced rate, another solution to providing lower-cost drugs for all Americans, including the elderly, is to reinstate the reasonable pricing clause at NIH. This provision was repealed in 1995. It directed NIH to take into account the cost that a pharmaceutical company would charge future customers for a drug before agreeing to issue a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA). I have introduced bipartisan legislation, along with Representatives Rohrabacher, Campbell, and Patrick Kennedy, to reinstate this provision. The bill is H.R. 3758, the Health Care Research and Development and Taxpayer Protection Act. Let me detail how important the reasonable pricing clause is. Today, drug companies charge whatever they want for drugs. Taxpayers get hit twice--once when their tax dollars go to develop these drugs at NIH and again when they have to buy the medication. Here are some examples of how the taxpayers are gouged by the pharmaceutical companies: Taxol, a breast cancer treatment drug, costs its manufacturer, Bristol Myers Squibb, $500. Bristol Myers Squibb turns around and charges $10,000 for that drug. This drug makes the pharmaceutical company $1 million every day. In this decade, two million women will be diagnosed with breast cancer--\1/2\ million of them will die. They are dying because they do not have $10,000 for Taxol, which would save thousands of lives. Levamisole, which was sold by Johnson&Johnson as an anti-worm drug for sheep at six cents a pill, was found to treat colon cancer. With this discovery, Johnson&Johnson began charging $6 a pill, a 100-percent markup. Colorectal cancer killed over 50,000 Americans in 1995. Again, seniors are dying because they cannot afford these ridiculously expensive drugs to treat their cancer. I hope that we can pass both pieces of legislation quickly--both the seniors drug pricing legislation and the NIH reasonable pricing clause legislation--as many of my constituents have urged, so that no more seniors are forced out of their homes, or are forced to choose between food or medicine. This is disgraceful and we need to give seniors access to their medication at a fair price.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the war has been over for 7 years. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I and other people have attended numerous hearings. We have reached conclusions. Tens of thousands of veterans are ill from Gulf War illness, and they are ill as a result of exposure to a wide variety of toxins. They need to be treated. We should presume that if illness strikes them, the reason is that they suffered from exposure in the Gulf War and they should be compensated accordingly. This bill goes a little way and only a little way to addressing those problems.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, home health care agencies that do a terrific job in serving some of the most vulnerable and frail people in the State of Vermont have lost substantial funding because of an absurd formula that was put in place last year. This bill begins to address the inequities of that unfair formula and would increase funding for home care, home health care agencies in Vermont and throughout this country that are cost effective and efficient. Unfortunately, the funding approach for improving this formula is not adequate; and my hope is that, in conference committee, it can be changed. But, most importantly, this is a step forward to addressing a real crisis in home health care funding that exists in Vermont and other States where agencies have been cost effective and efficient. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it relates to both our civilian population and our Gulf war veterans. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or MCS is a chronic condition marked by heightened sensitivity to multiple different chemicals and other irritants at or below previously tolerated levels of exposure. Sensitivity to odors is often accompanied by food and drug intolerance, sensitivity to sunlight and other sensory abnormalities, such as hypersensitivity to touch, heat and-or cold, and loud noises. MCS is often accompanied by impaired balance, memory and concentration. As a member of the Human Resources Subcommittee, which has oversight jurisdiction for the Veterans' Affairs, I have been involved in the issue of Gulf war illness and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. I have been concerned for many years about the role that chemicals may be playing on human health, not only in Gulf war veterans and their families, but in civilian society as well. I have talked to many people who are suffering symptoms not dissimilar from the symptoms that our Persian Gulf veterans are experiencing because of chemicals in their homes or workplaces. As has been well-documented, the military theater in the Persian Gulf was a chemical cesspool. Our troops were exposed to chemical warfare agents, leaded petroleum, widespread use of pesticides, depleted uranium and burning oil wells. In addition, they were given a myriad of pharmaceuticals as vaccines. Further, and perhaps most importantly, as a result of a waiver from the FDA, hundreds of thousands of troops were given pyridostigmine bromide. Pyridostigmine bromide, which was being used as an anti-nerve agent, had never been used in this capacity before. In the midst of all this, our troops were living in a hot, unpleasant climate and were under very great stress. The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have downplayed the presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Gulf war veterans. In the very beginning, the Defense Department and Veterans' Affairs actually denied that there was any problem whatsoever with our veterans' health. Then, after finally acknowledging that there was a problem, they concluded that the problem was in the heads of our soldiers--of psychological origin. The DOD and the VA responded very poorly to our veterans' concerns. Tragically, our veterans were discounted. They were called malingerers. Ever so slowly, the truth about chemical exposure in the Persian Gulf has begun to surface. On July 24, 1997, the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency gave us their best estimate--that as many as 98,910 American troops could have been exposed to chemical warfare agents due to destruction of ``the Pit'' in Khamisiyah, an Iraqi munitions facility. Not waiting for the DOD and VA, many other Federal, State, and local government agencies have recognized the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. I want to submit for the Record the latest ``Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity'' newsletter which lists the U.S. Federal, State, and local government authorities, U.S. Federal and State courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have adopted policies, made statements, and-or published documents recognizing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorders. Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or MCS is a chronic condition marked by heightened sensitivity to multiple different chemicals and other irritants at or below previously tolerated levels of exposure. Sensitivity to odors is often accompanied by food and drug intolerances, photosensitivity to sunlight and other sensory abnormalities, such as hypersensitivity to touch, heat and/or cold, and loud noises and impaired balance, memory and concentration. MCS is more common in women and can start at any age, but usually begins in one's 20's to 40's. Onset may be sudden (from a brief high-level toxic exposures) or gradual (from chronic low- level exposures), as in ``sick buildings.'' The syndrome is defined by multiple symptoms occuring in multiple organ systems (most commonly the neurological, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and musculoskeletal) in response to multiple different exposures. Symptoms may include chronic fatigue, aching joints and muscles, irritable bowel, difficulty sleeping and concentrating, memory loss, migraines, and irritated eyes, nose, ears, throat and/or skin. Symptoms usually begin after a chronic or acute exposure to one or more toxic chemical(s), after when they ``spread'' to other exposures involving unrelated chemicals and other irritants from a great variety of sources (air pollutants, food additives, fuels, building materials, scented products, etc.). Consistent with basic principles of toxicology, MCS usually can be improved, although not completely cured, through the reduction and environmental control of such exposures. Many different terms have been proposed in medical literature since 1869 to describe MCS syndrome and possibly related disorders whose symptoms also wax and wane in response to chemical exposures. Alternate Names Proposed for MCS Acquired Intolerance to Solvents, Allergic Toxemia, Cerebral Allergy, Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome, Chemical-Induced Immune Dysfunction, Ecological Illness, Environmental Illness or ``EI,'' Environmental Irritant Syndrome, Environmentally Induced Illness, Environmental Hypersensitivity Disorder, Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances or ``IEI,'' Immune System Dysregulation, Multiple Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome, Multiple Chemical Reactivity, Total Allergy Syndrome, Toxic Carpet Syndrome, Toxin Induced Loss of Tolerance of ``TILT,'' Toxic Response Syndrome, 20th Century Disease. Disorders Associated With Single or Multi-Organ Chemical Sensitivity Akureyri Disease (coded as EN), Asthma, Cacosmia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Disorders of Porphyrin Metabolism, [Benign Myalgic] Encephalomyelitis, Epidemic Neuromyastenia (EN), Fibromyalgia Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome, Icelandic Disease (coded as EN), Mastocytosis, Migraine, Neurasthenia, Royal Free [Hospital] Disease, Sick Building Syndrome, Silicone Adjutant Disease, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Toxic Encephalopathy. Listed alphabetically below are the U.S. Federal, State, and local government authorities, U.S. Federal and State courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent organizations that have adopted policies, made statement, and/or published documents recognizing MCS disorders under one name or another as a ligitimate medical condition and/or disability. An introductory section summarizes recognition or MCS in peer-reviewed medical literature, and the last section lists upcoming MCS conferences as well as past conferences sponsored by Federal Government agencies. The exact meaning of ``recognition'' varies with the context as each listing makes clear. Recognition by a court of law, for example, usually refers to a verdict or appeal in favor of an MCS plaintiff, while recognition by government agencies varies tremendously--from acknowledgement of the condition in publications and policies to research funding and legal protection of disability rights. Recognition of MCS by 25 Federal Authorities U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry in a unanimously adopted recommendation of the ATSDR's Board of Scientific Counselors, which calls on the ATSDR to ``take a leadership role in the investigation of MCS'' [1992, 24 pages, R-1]. To coordinate interagency research into MCS, the ATSDR co-chairs the Federal Work Group on Chemical Sensitivity, which it convened for the first time in 1994 (see below). The ATSDR has helped organize and pay for three national medical conferences on MCS: sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics in 1991, and the ATSDR in 1994. The combined proceedings of these three conferences are reprinted in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, A Scientific Overview, ed. Frank Mitchell, Princeton NJ: Princeton Scientific Publishing, 1995 (609- 683-4750 to order). ATSDR also contributed funding to a study conducted by the California Department of Health Services to develop a protocol for detecting MCS outbreaks in toxic-exposed communities via questionnaires and diagnostic tests (see entry below on California Department of Health Services). Officially, however, ATSDR has not ``established a formal position regarding this syndrome'' [1995, 1 page, R-2]. U.S. Army, Medical Evaluation Board on US Army Form 3947 (from the U.S. Army Surgeon General), Army Medical Evaluation Board certified a diagnosis of ``Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Syndrome'' for a Persian Gulf veteran on 14 April 1993 [1 page, R-3]. MCS is defined on this form as ``manifested by headache, shortness of breath, congestion, rhinorrhea, transient rash, and incoordination associated with exposure to a variety of chemicals.'' The Board's report further recognizes that this patient's particular MCS condition began approximately in April 1991 (while the patient was serving in the Gulf and entitled to base pay), that the condition did not exist prior to service, and that it has been permanently aggravated by service. At least five other active duty Persian Gulf veterans have been diagnosed by the Army with MCS, as reported by the Persian Gulf Veterans coordinating Board in ``Summary of the Issues Impacting Upon the Health of Persian Gulf Veterans,'' [3 March 1994, 4 page excerpt, R-4]. The Army Medical Department also has requested funding for a research facility to study MCS (reported in an Army information paper on ``Post Persian Gulf War Health Issues,'' 16 November 1993). U.S. Congress in a VA/HUD Appropriations Bill for FY1993 signed by President Bush in 1992 appropriating ``$250,000 from Superfund funds for chemical sensitivity workshops.'' These funds were used by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (see above) to co-sponsor scientific meetings on MCS with various other organizations [1992, 3 page excerpt, R-5] and support an MCS study (see California State Department of Health Services below). For FY 1998, Vermont Congressman Bernard Sanders proposed and Congress appropriated $800,000 to start a new 5-year civilian agency research program into MCS among Gulf War veterans. Congress also requested that the administration report back by January 1998 on how it planned to spend the funds (text of appropriations is quoted in report; see below: U.S. Department of Health Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Lung Association, and American Medical Association (jointly) in a jointly published booklet entitled Indoor Air Pollution An Introduction for Health Professional [US GPO 1994-523-217/ 81322] under the heading ``What is `multiple chemical sensitivity' or `total allergy'?, these organizations state that ``The current consensus is that in cases of claimed or suspected MCS, complaints should not be dismissed as psychogenic, and a thorough workup is essential.'' The booklet is prefaced by the claim that ``Information provided in this booklet is based upon current scientific and technical understanding of the issues presented . . .`` [1994, 3 page excerpt, R-6] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service in its Final Environmental Impact Statement on ``Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach'', people with MCS are mentioned as a ``potential high risk group'' who should be given advance notification of insecticide treatment projects via ``organizations, groups and agencies that consist of or work with people who are chemically sensitive or immunocompromised.'' MCS also is discussed in an appendix on Human Health Risk Assessment (Appendix F, Volume III of V) under both ``Harzard Identification'' and ``Groups at Special Risk'' [1995, 11 page excerpt and 1 page cover letter from John Hazel, the USDA's EIS Team Leader, to Dr. Grace Ziem of MCS Referral & Resources, R-130]. U.S. Department of Education in the enforcement by its Office of Civil Rights of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires accommodation of persons with ``MCS Syndrome'' via modification of their educational environment, as evidenced by several ``agency letters of finding'' (including San Diego (Calif) Unified School District, 1 National Disability Law Reporter, para. 61, p. 311, 24 May 1990; Montville (Conn.) Board of Education, 1 National Disability Law Reporter, para. 123, p. 515, 6 July 1990; and four letters (along with an individualized environment management program) in the case of the Arminger children of Baltimore County, MD [in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994; 20 pages total, R-7]. These accommodations also are required under the terms of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (CFR34 Part 300). The Department of Education as a whole, however, has no formal policy or position statement on the accommodation of students with MCS. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in being the lead sponsor of the 11th Annual Life Sciences Symposium on ``Indoor Air and Human Health Revisited.'' This 1994 conference was co-sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Martin Marietta Energy Systems' Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Program. The proceedings are published in Indoor Air and Human Health (Gammage RB and Berven BA, editors, Boca Raton FL: CRC Lewis Publishers, 1996) and contain several peer-reviewed papers of critical relevance to MCS by DoE, EPA and other federally funded researchers. (4 page excerpt with table of contents, R-175) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research in a ``Report to Congress on Research on Multiple Chemical Exposures and Veterans with Gulf War Illnesses'' by agency administrator Dr. John Eisenberg (who is also the acting Assistant Secretary for Health). Dr. Eisenberg proposes spending $300,000 in 1998 for a ``consensus building'' and research planning conference, $400,000 for research into the health effects of chemical mixtures, and $100,000 for an Interagency Coordinator in the Office of Public Health and Science [January 1998, 7 pages including MCS R&R press release, R-168]. Congress requested the report in 1998, as part of an $800,000 appropriation for a new civilian research into MCS (see U.S. Congress, above). U.S. Dept. of HHS, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders in the funding of MCS-related olfactory research by its Chemical Senses Branch since NIDCD's creation in 1988; including $29,583,000 in fiscal year 1998. The Chemical Senses Branch supports both basic and applied research, with most of its funds going to just five ``chemosensory research centers'': the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (860-679-2459), Monell Chemical Senses Center (215-898-6666), Rocky Mountain Taste and Smell Center (303-315-5650), State University of New York Clinical Olfactory Research Center (315-464-5588), and University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center (215-662- 6580). Free information is available from NIDCD Information Clearinghouse, 800-241-1044. U.S. Dept. of HHS, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in ``Issues and Challenges in Environmental Health,'' a publication about the work of NIEHS, research priorities are proposed for ``hypersensitivity diseases resulting from allergic reactions to environmental substances'' [NIH 87-861, 1987, 45 pages, R--8]. It is not clear from the context if this statement was meant to include or exclude MCS, since the condition was still thought by some at the time to be an allergic-type reaction. In 1992, the director Dr. Bernadine Healy responded in detail to an inquiry from Congressman Pete Stark about the scope of NIEHS research into MCS: ``It is hoped that research conducted at NIEHS will lead to methods to identify individuals who may be predisposed to chemical hypersensitivities. . . . NIH research is directed toward the understanding of the effect of chemical sensitivities on multiple parts of the body, including the immune system.'' [1992, 3 pages, R-9]. In 1996, director Dr. Kenneth Olden wrote US Senator Bob Graham that ``NIEHS has provided research support to study MCS. . . . NIEHS has also supported a number of workshops and meetings on the subject.'' [15 April 1996, 2 pages, R-101]. Dr. Olden also states that ``Pesticides and solvents are the two major classes of chemicals most frequently reported by patients reporting low level sensitivities as having initiated their problems.'' U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Library of Medicine . . . in the 1995 Medical Subject Headings (MESH) codes used to catalog all medical references, which started using Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (and its variations) as a subject heading for all publications indexed after October 1994 [3 pages excerpt, R-10]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . . . in the final report by the Regional Director (of Region VI) regarding OCR's investigation of an ADA-related discrimination complaint filed by a patient with MCS against the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for failing to accommodate her disability and thereby forcing her to go elsewhere for surgery. Prior to completion of the investigation and the issuance of any formal ``findings,'' the OCR accepted a proposal from the Univ. of Texas to resolve this complaint by creating a joint subcommittee of the cancer center's Safety and Risk Management committees. This subcommittee's three tasks (as approved by the OCR) are to ``identify a rapid response mechanism which could be triggered by any patient registering a complaint or presenting a special need which is environment related; develop a `protocol' outlining steps to be taken to resolve environmental complaints by patients . . . ; and inform the medical staff through its newsletter of the mechanism and the protocol so that they will better understand how to address such questions or concerns.'' The OCR has placed the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center ``in monitoring'' pending completion and documentation of these changes, but it may initiate further investigation if M.D. Anderson fails to complete this process within the 13 months allowed. [27 March 1996, 11 pages, R-99] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration . . . in enforcement of the Social Security Disability Act (see Recognition of MCS by Federal Courts, below), and in the SSA's Program Operations Manual System (POMS), which includes a section on the ``Medical Evaluation of Specific Issues--Environmental Illness'' stating that ``evaluation should be made on an individual case by case basis to determine if the impairment prevents substantial gainful activity'' [SSA publication 68-0424500, Part 04, Chapter 245, Section 24515.065, transmittal #12, 1998, 1 page excerpt, R-11]. In 1997, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts required Acting SSA Commissioner John Callahan to spell out the agency's position on MCS in a formal memo to the court (31 October 1997, 2 pages, R-164; see Creamer v. Callahan below, under Recognition of MCS by US Federal Court Decisions). With this memo, SSA now officially recognizes MCS ``as a medically determinable impairment'' on an agency wide basis. MCS is also recognized in several ``fully favorable'' decisions of the SSA's Office of Hearing and Appeals: in case #538-48-7517, in which the administrative law judge, David J. Delaittre, ruled that ``the claimant has an anxiety disorder and multiple chemical sensitivity,'' with the latter based in part on the fact that ``objective [qEEG] evidence showed abnormal brain function when exposed to chemicals'' [1995, 7 pages, R-12]; in case #264-65-5308, in which the administrative law judge, Martha Lanphear, ruled that the claimant suffered severe reactive airways disease secondary to chemical sensitivity and that this impairment prevented her from performing more than a limited range of light work [1996, 8 pages, R-120]; in case #239-54-6581, in which the administrative law judge, D. Kevin Dugan, ruled that the claimant suffered severe impairments as a result of pesticide poisoning, including ``marked sensitivity to airborne chemicals,'' which prevent her from ``performing any substantial gainful activity on a sustained basis [1996, 4 pages, R-135]; in case #024-40-2499, in which the administrative law judge, Lynette Diehl Lang, recognized that the claimant suffered from severe MCS and could not tolerate chemical fumes at work (as a result of overexposure to formaldehyde in a state office building), as a result of which he was awarded both disability benefits and supplemental security income [1995, 8 pages, R-140]; in case #184-34-4849, in which administrative law judge Robert Sears ruled that the claimant suffered from ``extreme environmental sensitivities,'' and particularly ``severe intolerance to any amount of exposure to pulmonary irritants'' [11 June 1996, 7 pages, R-156]; and in case #256-98-4768, in which the administrative law judge, Frank Armstrong, classified the claimant's ``dysautonomia triggered by multiple chemical sensitivities'' as severe and said it ``prevents the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity on a sustained basis'' [18 March 1997, 8 pages, R-157].

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. In order to clearly demonstrate the need for this bill, let me lay out a frightening scenario that could happen to any of us. Imagine getting a bill from a credit card company for thousands of dollars that you didn't charge. Then, the next day, getting several more bills from other credit card companies, and getting overdue phone bills for an address you never lived at, and getting an invoice for a car you never bought. This sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone, but this nightmare is real. Someone, perhaps someone living in a country on the other side of the globe, has stolen your name, your financial history, your identity, and used it to run up huge debts-- debts creditors want you to pay. Once your identity has been ``stolen,'' you must now spend many hours on the phone with credit card companies trying to clear up these misunderstandings. You may spend many months or even years with the three major credit bureaus trying to clear up your credit record, and you may find yourself having trouble getting a loan or a mortgage. If someone with a prior criminal record assumes an individual's identity and is using that person's name, the victim can be denied jobs without knowing why. And, if the victim's credit is in disarray due to identity theft, an innocent consumer can be turned down for a car loan or mortgage. You may spend the rest of your life worrying if this nightmare will happen again. But the worst part is that even if you or the law enforcement community knows who has committed this act against you, there is currently no law to punish the offender or to provide you with any compensation for all you've been through. Current federal law only prohibits the misuse of false identification documents. But with the growth of information that can be found on the Internet, identity thieves don't need an actual document. They can go on-line and find or purchase your Social Security number, unlisted address and phone number, and date of birth, which are often the key pieces of information to unlocking the door to your personal financial history. According to law enforcement authorities, identity theft is one of the nation's fastest growing crimes, and it's a crime federal authorities need help to combat. A recent GAO study reports that at one of the nation's 3 largest credit bureaus, victim inquiries rose from 35,000 in 1992 to 522,000 in 1997. That's a 15-fold increase. The Social Security Administration reported that complaints about stolen Social Security numbers, one of the most commonly stolen identifiers, doubled from 1996 to 1997. The U.S. Secret Service, which has jurisdiction over financial crimes, estimates that actual losses due to identity theft were $745 million last year. We need to discourage this intrusion of privacy by making it a federal crime to take over someone's identity. In order to protect Americans from this financially and emotionally devastating crime, Reps. Shadegg, DeLauro, Clement, and I introduced H.R. 4151, the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. This needed legislation will make it a federal crime to assume someone else's identity. It also establishes a clearinghouse at the Federal Trade Commission for identity theft victims to get assistance in clearing their credit records. The bill allows victims of identity theft to receive restitution from the criminals who steal their identity. Previously, they were not entitled to restitution because identity theft was not a crime. American consumers deserve to have their privacy protected. Identity theft can affect anyone at any time. We need to pass the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act to not only throw these identity thieves in jail, but also to give victims help with cleaning up their own credit records.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this legislation because it provides important benefits for dairy farmers in Vermont and farmers throughout the country. Specifically for our region, it expands the Northeast Dairy Compact for another year, which is terribly important for farmers in my State who are fighting to keep their heads above water. This legislation provides some disaster relief for farmers all over this country, including New England, which is vitally needed. It also gives us more time to address the Federal Milk Marketing Order formula, a very, very important issue, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his leadership role in that fight. Having said that, we still have a long way to go. Family farmers are what this country is supposed to be about. We believe in decentralized agriculture. We need to significantly improve Federal policy for dairy farmers, family farmers, or else we are going to continue to lose them, and that will be a tragedy not only for New England but for every State in this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying I voted against the absurd balanced budget agreement last year because it cut Medicare by $115 billion. That is how it was paid for. We are suffering from it right now. More importantly, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican plan, which takes money from the social security trust fund in order to provide tax breaks, 6 weeks before an election. Let us be clear, the so-called surplus this year that the Republicans are taking from is made up completely from the social security surplus. Without that $100 billion social security surplus, the government this year is in deficit, not to mention a $5 trillion national debt. It seems to me to be the essence of hypocrisy for some Republicans to go running around the country saying that we have to privatize the social security system because it is going broke, and the next day to be taking money from the very same social security system. Mr. Speaker, if we want targeted tax breaks for the middle class, fair enough, take it from corporate welfare and the huge loopholes that exist for billionaires.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to giving the President fast track negotiating authority. Mr. Speaker, we have had 4 years to analyze the results of NAFTA, a trade deal negotiated under fast track, 4 years to watch our trade deficit skyrocket, workers' wages decline, and jobs leave the United States by the hundreds of thousands. From 1993 to 1997, under NAFTA, a $1.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico has been turned into a $14.5 billion trade deficit. We went from a surplus to a deficit. During the debate over NAFTA, the multinational corporations who told us how great this policy would be predicted that NAFTA would create 200,000 jobs by 1995. Instead, we lost 400,000 jobs by 1997. Further, NAFTA is being used as a corporate tool to threaten workers and to lower wages. According to a study done at Cornell University, 62 percent of corporations in America have used NAFTA or similar agreements to drive down wages and benefits. This Cornell study also found that U.S. companies used the threat of moving their companies to Mexico more frequently now than before NAFTA was enacted. These are some of the great results of NAFTA. Mr. Speaker, last year I went to Mexico, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to see what was going on there in the wake of the NAFTA agreement. I saw with my own eyes the horrendous pollution caused by the maquiladora companies in the area, pollution which is hurting the Mexicans as well as Americans along the border. Let us vote this agreement down. Let us kill it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act and in support of safe workplaces across our nation. This important legislation extends the ability of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to regulate the U.S. Postal Service as it would for any private business. This is welcome legislation for the over 2,000 postal employees in the State of Vermont, and the hundreds of thousands in the country. This bill is supported by the American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Lettercarriers, the Mailhanders (Laborers International), and the Rural Lettercarriers Association--every union that represents our postal employees. We should listen to our postal workers who desire the full protection of OSHA. Mr. Speaker, OHSA is a vital piece of our social contract. It was passed in response to unsafe working conditions that were found throughout the United States, and it has prevented countless injuries and fatalities on the job. Now, 27 years after the passage of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we should continue our commitment that every worker in America has the right to a safe workplace. What we have before us today is legislation that says to many of the federal government's most valued employees--those who process and deliver the mail and keep our country on the move: We honor your work and we will protect you from workplace hazards. Mr. Speaker, every American deserves the full benefits of an OSHA compliant workplace. I urge strong support for our nation's hard working postal employees. Pass this legislation for them, for the people who love them, and for the country that employs them.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from my home state of Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. I am asking that you please insert this statement in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of this young person will benefit my colleagues. Statement by Abigail Nessen Regarding Gun Control Ms. NESSEN. I believe that our forefathers had the right idea. Their wish was to create a safe and free nation for all of us to live in, and they wrote this to prove it: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' These are beautiful words. But more than beautiful, they can be used and enforced to create a more perfect union. But our country is at a time in its history when the words ``domestic tranquility'' and ``general welfare'' seem to signify things of the past. I am here today to talk to you about guns. The widespread availability of these weapons is frightening and wrong. Thousand are killed every year in our country by guns bought legally, guns made not to hunt animals but to hunt humans. Many have killed or have been killed by the time they reach my age, if they ever do. I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the preamble and the Second Amendment, meaning I believe that our forefathers wrote just what they meant. They meant for the Constitution to create domestic tranquility and general welfare and, especially, common defense. I believe--I know-- that the guns that are available today do none of these things. I believe and I know that our forefathers would agree, because I refuse to think that the intentions of the ones who wrote the Constitution was to put lethal weapons in the hands of every person who wanted one. That is not ``a well regulated militia.'' No, their intention was to ensure the safety and freedom of us, their posterity. I proposed that we follow the words of the preamble and of our constitution. I proposed that we take a step to make our nation safe again, for me and for the children I want to have some day. I propose we remove the guns from our streets, our homes and our hands. Congressman Sanders. Thank you very much.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record these statements by high school students from my home State of Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. Statement by Abigail Nesson Regarding Gun Control Abigail Nesson: I believe that our forefathers had the right idea. Their wish was to create a safe and free nation for all of us to live in, and they wrote this to prove it: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' These are beautiful words. But more than beautiful, they can be used and enforced to create a more perfect union. But our country is at a time in its history when the words ``domestic tranquility'' and ``general welfare'' seem to signify things of the past. I am here today to talk to you about guns. The widespread availability of these weapons is frightening and wrong. Thousand are killed every year in our country by guns bought legally, guns made not to hunt animals but to hunt humans. Many have killed or have been killed by the time they reach my age, if they ever do. I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the preamble and the Second Amendment, meaning I believe that our forefathers wrote just what they meant. They meant for the Constitution to create domestic tranquility and general welfare and, especially, common defense. I believe--I know-- that the guns that are available today do none of these things. I believe and I know that our forefathers would agree, because I refuse to think that the intentions of the ones who wrote the Constitution was to put lethal weapons in the hands of every person who wanted one. That is not ``a well regulated militia.'' No, their intention was to ensure the safety and freedom of us, their posterity. I propose that we follow the words of the preamble and of our constitution. I propose that we take a step to make our nation safe again, for me and for the children I want to have some day. I propose we remove the guns from our streets, our homes and our hands. Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from my home state of Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. Rachel Salyer. My name is Rachel Salyer. I am a senior the Bellows Free Academy in St. Albans. I think there are so many issues surrounding the youth of today, things like success--we care pressured to succeed in life, whether that is monetarily, or just self. And the adults in the community don't seem to be helping very much. When adults, parents and other adults alike throughout Vermont and the nation characterize teenagers as all being troublemakers or all being people who drink or party, then they are sending a message to the youth of the community that they don't care about our future, because it is our future, and they are not going to be around for it, and it is our own fault, basically. These stereotypes are wrong. Not all youth in Vermont are people who like to drink, people who like to do drugs, people who go to parties every weekend. That's why organizations such as Green Mountain Prevention Project are such an important part of Vermont youth, because they sponsor programs like the Green Mountain Teens, which is a group of teens who have gotten together, who try to make other teens aware that there are all these issues surrounding them, that parents and adults have this image of us, and we want to try and change it. Basically, what the Green Mountain Teens do is, we are a peer-awareness and prevention group. We provide healthy alternatives to doing drugs or drinking and things like that. We have coffee houses, we have haunted houses, winter balls, dances, anything you can imagine, any other kind of healthy lifestyle habit, we promote that, in order to tell teens that there is something else out there. We are setting examples for teens by being teens, and telling them that there are other choices. And we are trying to show the adults in the community that we need their support also, that we recognize there is a problem, and that it needs to be changed. Congressman Sanders. Thank you very much. Statement by Josh Lemieux, Mark Boyle, Carl Halbach and Richard Gonzales regarding Skateboard Community Building Carl Halbach. First off, thank you for inviting us here. The point we are trying to prove today is, we have changed our community outlook and image from a negative to a positive outlook. Mark Boyle. A lot of groups here are talking about things they would like to do and things that they think need to be done, or processes they need to do. We would like to prove that it works. We did a lot of community service and got help from a lot of the community members in order to enhance what we enjoy. And this is one of those things that a lot of these groups out there need to think about doing, and this is how they need to do it, just like get a lot of help from the community and be able to follow the guidelines that the adult world uses, and not dwell on the fact they need to let us do what we want to do, because we are going to do it anyways. Richard Gonzales. Basically, I looked at the State of Vermont, and I seen that they don't recognize extreme sports as one of the big issues, as like physical activities, and, you know, we just took it upon ourselves to build our own park and raise money, and do stuff like that, try to help our city out. Josh Lemieux. Right now, we are building a new skate park. We just got done. It ran for like five years, and was getting too small. Right now, we are moving and expanding to a bigger skate park, and doing this by ourselves. And we have a grant from a couple of companies, and we are just raising money right now. We have the communities behind us, just trying to. Carl, did you want to add something? Carl Halbach. Yes. We basically went around asking for donations, seeing who would like to help us. A lot of the times, we worked for the money, instead of having it handed to us. There is a sliding hill near our town. And we decided to go clean it up and put up all new fences and paint the buildings and take them down and rebuild them again, so they are in a much better condition, and made the sliding hill much more safe. Congressman Sanders. Are we talking about St. Albans? Carl Halbach. Yes. Congressman Sanders. Mark, did you want to add anything. We have done this all by ourselves. We have guidance or some outstanding citizens in our community, Miss Gridmore and Doctor Chip. I mean, they don't do work for us, but they help organize stuff, because not all community members are going to be totally accepting of a bunch of rag-tag kids coming and saying, can we do some work for money so we can do this, or can we have community support, and she helped us work through the right channels and we are really appreciate it. Congressman Sanders. This is an excellent presentation. Statement by Erica Hepp, Michelle Patterson, Amanda Bruchs, Ryan Bagley, Kyle Lynch and Paul Berry regarding Costs of Higher Education Kyle Lynch. We are students at Milton High School, and we will be speaking about the cost of higher education. We think the cost of higher education is too high. The students in the middle income bracket are in a tough position. There is not enough Merit aid available and not enough incentive for students to do well. Amanda Bruchs. College costs are rising, making it nearly impossible for students to afford a higher education. The average total of tuition, room and board nationally for a private college is $17,636, and $11,444 for a public school. This year my tuition, room and board costs for St. Lawrence University, a private institution, are approximately $31,000. This amount stands to increase every year. $31,000 is over half of my parent's income. The Federal Government needs to do something to curb college costs now, before higher education becomes a luxury that only a privileged few can afford. Michelle Patterson. These high costs make it difficult for those of us in the middle income bracket to finance our college education. In many cases, our parents make too much money to qualify for scholarships. The scholarships are need- based. Therefore, even the most talented students receive limited funds. We are left with an abundance of costs for which we must find money to pay. Our parents do not make enough money to help us. We are forced to take out loans we will be paying back for years after we graduate. Ryan Bagley. Increasingly, more and more, colleges are straying from giving out Merit money to basing their need on financial need. This year, at our school, we had two National Merit scholars, neither of which received any merit-based money. Colleges are giving out more scholarships money to athletes than to students. Out of the 69 scholarships in this VISAC scholarships pamphlet, only 21 of them are not based on financial need. Of those 21, only 17 are open to high school students, most of which are for such a small amount of money, they don't even put a dent in the cost of college. Erica Hepp. With the cost of college becoming more expensive, there is also not as much motivation for students to do well in school. We have always been told that hard work would get us a college education, but that is not the case anymore. I am the valedictorian of my class, and the rest of the students with me are all in the top ten percent, yet none of us have been rewarded financially for our efforts. I will be paying $30,000 a year to go to my first choice school. Other students at Milton have had to settle for safety schools because of financial reasons. There needs to be more financial incentive for students to achieve high standards in school. Right now, school achievement just doesn't make a difference. Paul Berry. In light of all these points, what we want is federal legislation that will lower the cost of higher education and the ability to get more financial and Merit aid. Congressman Sanders: Excellent. Statement by Jess Walters, and Linh Nguyen, and Ryna Lafebvre, and Gary Bailey regarding Burlington's Old North End. Ryan Lefebvre. Hello. My name is Ryan. I am here to represent Burlington's Old North End. We decided that one of the most important issues to us is how teens in the Old North End spend their out-of-school hours. Each day, teens in the Old North End decide how they will spend at least five of their waking hours when not in school. For many of these, the hours harbor both risk and opportunity. For many that are home alone, the out-of-school hours present serious risks for substance abuse, crime, violence and sexual activity, leading to unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Time spent alone is not the crucial contributor to higher risk; rather, it is what young people do during that time, where they do it, and with whom, that leads to positive or negative consequences. According to a 1990 survey, my community contains 29 percent of the Burlington's population, and has the highest percentage of people of color in the city. Over half of the households are female-headed, and over 60 percent of these families live below the poverty line. Poverty is especially pronounced for the Old North End's children, 42 percent of whom lived in poverty in 1990. That percentage is higher today. The Old North End has 32.1 percent of its residents living below the poverty level, compared with 19.3 percent for the city as a whole. Recently, a number of focus groups were held, where youth, senior citizens, and business people spoke out about concerns they have about the Old North End. The following issues and concerns were continually mentioned: Public drinking, drug dealing, continuing poverty, racial tensions, and potential gang violence. We proposed a teen center that would directly address many of our community concerns, as well as issues many of you will be presenting later today. Jessica is now going to tell you why there is a need for our teen center in Burlington. Jessica Walters. Hello. My name is Jessica Walters. Yes, there are other teen centers in Burlington, but there are many reasons why they do not meet our needs. First, they all have limited teen hours. For instance, I have nowhere to go after school until 5:30, and most youth centers close at 9:00 at night. My friends usually hang out on the street until teen hours start or until they have to go home. Due to things mentioned by Ryan, North Street isn't really a safe place for teens to hang out. Most of the teens that live in the Old North End go to Burlington High School, where there is no computer and Internet access available to us after school. Currently, there is nowhere to go to do research or study after school hours. The other youth centers don't have a place for us to do this. The final issue is the adults' role. Other youth centers have too much supervision and not enough opportunity for independence and creativity. There are also a lot of little kids around. Now Gary is going to tell you about what our teen center will be like. Gary Bailey. Hello. My name is Gary, and I would like to tell you about our teen center. Our teen center will be run by youth, it will be for ages 13 through 19, and it will be free of charge. We feel that it should be open for longer hours, like she said before, because other teen programs like the one we want to open will have to be open for younger children also, so we only have a section of the day that we can go there, so we are still out in the streets. We feel that it should have a resource room run by adults, with a minilibrary, mentoring and tutoring facilities, a career college center, and information on social services. Also, a job board for a list for people to get jobs easily, and maybe once a week somebody in there helping them out, somebody like Becky Trudeau or something, where they won't have to go five different places to look for a job, they can just go there and have one place to look. We feel that it should have a computer room, with Internet access. A lot of people work right after school, and they have to be there around 3:30, including us. And we don't have the time to go after school and work on the computers to get an essay done, so we feel that it should have computers where it will be available for us after work. We think there should be recreational rooms, including a gym, a game room. Also special events, such as, once a month, a dance or some sort like that. We also think there should be a lounge so that we can relax and watch TV. Congressman Sanders. Good. Linh, do you want to begin? Linh Nguyen. My name is Linh Nguyen. We would like to ask for continued support in finding out how we should embark on this teen center and after school program. We strongly believe this would make the Old North End a better place for teens, and not only the teens, but the community as a whole. We would, as well, be a model to replicate in the rest of Vermont. Congressman Sanders. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. No, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I really would like to, but we have too many people who have waited a long time. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which brings progressives and conservatives together and a lot of people in between, and let me briefly state what this amendment is not about. This amendment does not deal with our absurd trade policy which is currently running up a $200 billion deficit, it is costing us millions of jobs and is lowering the standard of American workers. This amendment does not deal with that. But what this amendment does deal with, which is equally important, is the issue of democracy and national sovereignty and the right of the American people through their local and State elected bodies to make legislation which is in their own best interests. The Members of Congress who are cosponsoring this legislation, progressives and conservatives, disagree on a lot of things, but what we do not disagree about is that the American people in their cities and their towns and their States have the right to make decisions which affect their own best interests and have the right not to be overridden by a secretive trade organization in Geneva, the World Trade Organization. Mr. Chairman, for many of us trade is important. We agree trade is important. But it is not more important than human rights or social justice, and it is not more important than the freedom of the American people to exercise their constitutional right to speak out for justice or to protect the environment or to protect the food that we eat or the quality of agriculture in our areas. Let me give my colleagues a few examples of why this amendment is important: Recently in Annapolis, Maryland, the legislature in Maryland was discussing a serious way to deal with the military dictatorship in Nigeria, and they had a guest at their hearings, and that guest was from the State Department who told them that he thought it would not be in their best interests or even legal for them to go forward under GATT law to protest and develop legislation in opposition to the military dictatorship in Nigeria. What is terribly important to understand is that in the 1960s and in the 1970s communities from all over this country came together to speak out against apartheid, and let me quote from what Martin Luther King, Jr., said in 1965 about what was going on in South Africa and how we could oppose it. This is what he said, and I quote: We are in an era in which the issue of human rights is the essential question confronting all nations. With respect to South Africa our protest is so muted and peripheral while our trade and investments substantially stimulate their economy to greater heights. We pat South Africa on the wrist, we give them massive support through American investment in motor and rubber industries. Now is the chance for millions of people to personally give expression to their abhorrence of the world's worst racism. We therefore ask all men of goodwill to take action against apartheid in the following manner. Listen up. Urge your government to support economic sanctions. Don't trade or invest in South Africa until an effective international quarantine of apartheid is established. The fact of the matter is, if apartheid existed in a country today, or if another Hitler came to power, it would be impossible for the State of Vermont or the State of California to develop economic sanctions to say that companies that invest in those countries could not do business with the State government of Vermont or California or Massachusetts. That seems to me absolutely absurd. Let me quote from a dear colleague that was sent out by my good friends, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) and they say in opposition to this amendment, quote: ``Multinational companies are being forced to make costly choices between giving up lucrative contracts with government agencies or foregoing business in some of the world's most promising markets.'' Yes, that is exactly what we want. If colleagues want to do business with apartheid, if they want to do business with a military dictatorship, then the people of Vermont and the people of California and cities and towns all over this country do have a right to say to those companies: ``You have to make a choice because we believe that human rights is more important.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that Members have been waiting here for many hours. This is an issue of enormous consequence. There are a lot of speakers who would like to speak. So I do appreciate, I think we appreciate, the gentleman's wanting to move this long, but a lot of people have waited a long time to give their thoughts on this issue.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record statements by high school students from my home state of Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. Statement by Karl Cloney, Jessica Martin and Jonah Monfette regarding Healthy Alternatives KARL CLONEY: Karl Cloney, from North County Union High School. Our topic is healthy alternatives. The Newport area recently has suffered the loss of four teenagers killed in a drunk driving accident on the way back from partying in Canada. Recently, there was a town forum held to respond to this tragedy. The community came together to discuss the issues and some ways to create healthy alternatives. JESSICA MARTIN: Our group came together to propose a project to start an area teen center. The center will be a safe place for teenagers to socialize in a healthy manner. We further propose that we buy a space as a long-term investment in area youth and the community as a whole. We are looking at a size that would be large enough for a cafe for snacks to be served, a dance floor, and a space for a pool and ping-pong tables, some arcade games and video games. We also want an outside area for volleyball, skate-boarding, and roller blading. We would solicit funds as well as acquire grants and utilize state and federal funds set aside for alcohol-free events and activities and teenagers. We would like AmericaCorps and Vista personnel to staff the center full time. This would make our personnel more cost-effective and would include local, state and federal resources. We would create a board of directors made up of parents, teens, business people and community leaders to oversee the center. Students would work in the center. This would give the teens responsibility, job skills, and the ability to work with adults to create their own place. The center would be a healthy alternative to hanging out on the streets to see our friends. Our yellow ribbons symbolize the death of our young people, and also symbolize our hope and commitment to find healthy alternatives within our own community. JONAH MONFETTE: The teen center could be put where the Department of Employment and Training is now. It is moving to the new building being built in Newport. It is an industrial building with space outside, and we want to buy the space so that it would be permanent. Newport has high unemployment. The teen center would provide job skills for students helping with full-time staff. The COURT: Thank you very, very much. Statement By Brian Hodgson and Jessica Riley Regarding Child Labor BRIAN HODGSON: In our world today, there are 250 million people toiling in sweatshops around the globe, 250,000 working right here in the United States. These workers endure long hours in filthy, unsafe factories and plants for subsistence wages paying them barely enough to keep them alive. A typical sweatshop contains unsafe numbers of people packed into poorly lit, dusty, disease-ridden workplaces, with no sufficient ventilation or running water. Supervisors yell, scream, threaten and curse at the workers and put constant pressure on them to work faster. For all their suffering, workers are rewarded with paychecks reflecting hourly wages of 20, 37, as low as six cents, often with unexplained fees and tolls removed from the take-home amount. Any workers who dare to speak up, to complain about their working conditions or pay, are fired. If the workers try to defend themselves, to meet, to learn their rights, or organize a union, their employment is almost always illegally terminated. The most fundamental human and employment rights of these workers are being violated on a daily basis. One million of these workers are children, sold or rented out by their parents, in countries such as India or Pakistan, into a life of hard, bonded labor at the hands of clothing and rug producers. Children who should be in school are working long hours in unsafe, abusive conditions. To these children, education is a fantastic privilege, and life a daily struggle. The move to Third World countries, where the minimum wages are steadily dropping and where environmental and worker regulations are nonexistent, has become an all too common trend in big business. Some of the most heinous abusers of this form of labor produce staples in our everyday lives. At a Disney sweatshop in Haiti, a worker who handles 375 Pocahontas shirts an hour is paid the minimum wage of 28 cents an hour, or $10.77 a week, while the Disney shirts sell at Wal-Mart for $10.97 each. A pair of Nike sneakers that sell in the U.S. for $140 cost the corporation $3.50 in offshore labor expenses. That is about a 97 percent profit. These exploitative companies could easily afford to pay their workers a living wage, but greedily choose not to. JESSICA RILEY: At the Student Progressive Coalition in Brattleboro Union High School in Brattleboro, Vermont, we have taken positive action against these practices. Devoting our time to these issues, we have gathered hundreds of signatures on a petition to the National Labor Committee calling for President Clinton to end sweatshop practices. We took part in the promotion of and attendance at the National Day of Conscience that took place here, in Burlington, on October 4th. We have educated our community through a candle- lit vigil, as well as taken our knowledge into an elementary school to inform students there. Our letters have also stimulated the local paper to editorialize on the issue. It is almost impossible to walk down the halls of the community center without viewing an informative poster or hearing an issue being discussed amongst the crowds. By making the community more aware of this one virtually unknown issue, we help to create a more conscientious consumer. But awareness is only one part of the action needed. We also need the power of your law to help with the issue. Mr. Congressman, the approval of your bonded labor bill is a huge and welcome step in the fight to keep foreign items made by use of child labor being kept out of the country. He must not let the issue die with that. We need the U.S. to put money into the United Nations for inspections of shops around the world, as well as more money into the U.S. Department of Labor to increase inspections and sanctions right here at home. We also need laws that include prevention of any sweatshop products from being imported into the country. BRIAN HODGSON: Although none of us on this earth actively choose to support these institutions by buying products without thinking of the effects, we do support them. If we keep buying these tainted goods, if a company involved with sweatshop labor continues to make a profit, then they will not give a thought to what they are doing, and these violations of justice will go on. We must take the time to research safe labor organizations. We must take the time to look at clothing labels. We must make sacrifices in order that these violations do not continue. By being educated, we can help workers in other countries and in our own get the rights they need and deserve.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. This amendment is cosponsored by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). It increases funding for the Women's Demonstration Projects, currently known as the Women's Business Centers, from $4 million to $6 million for fiscal year 1999. The Women's Business Centers currently have more than 60 centers in over two-thirds of the States. The centers offer financial management, marketing and technical assistance to current and potential women business owners. Each center tailors its style and offerings to the particular needs of its community. The SBA with the support of the Congress and the Administration plans to expand the program adding 30 new centers so that there will be a center in every State, including the State of Vermont. Fostering the growth of small, women-owned businesses is a smart investment. Women are starting new firms at twice the rate of all other businesses and own more than one-third of all firms in the United States. They contribute $2.3 trillion to the economy. The 8 million women-owned firms employ 18.5 million people, or one in every five U.S. worker, and 35 percent more people in the United States than the Fortune 500 companies employ worldwide. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for their very hard work on this important legislation. As a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and an original cosponsor of this bill, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1151, legislation which will nullify a recent Supreme Court decision by ensuring that Federal credit unions can serve multiple groups and that no current credit union members will be forced out of their accounts. Large corporate banks have been trying for years to shut out their credit union competition. In recent years they have filed 19 separate lawsuits in 12 States, and now five Supreme Court Justices say the law is on their side. Very simply, we must change the law and ensure that Americans have choices in banking, and today we will do just that. At a time of increasing bank fees, ATM surcharges, high credit card fees, increasing minimum balance requirements and the loss of many locally-owned banks to large, multi-billion dollar corporate institutions, credit unions today are more important than they have ever been. I have been a long-time supporter of credit unions because they are managed by their members and not by a high-priced board of directors. Credit unions, therefore, are more concerned about the financial needs of their own membership and not the profits of the owners of the institution. Credit union profits do not go to pay high executive salaries; they are directed back to customers in the form of lower fees and higher rates of return. In Vermont, where 170,000 people are members of credit unions and where the membership has played a very, very active role in determining that this legislation will be passed, credit unions provide important benefits such as lower loan rates, lower minimum balances, free ATM use and free credit cards. Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon Congress to pass this important legislation, and I urge all of our Members to support it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record statements by high school students from my home state of Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today. I am asking that you please insert these statements in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of these young people will benefit my colleagues. Statement by Erica Lewis and Dan Johnson Regarding Drunk Driving Erica Lewis: We would like to express a concern that is becoming a big issue with teen Vermonters today. Our concern is probably the same as many others: Teen driving under the influence of alcohol. Young adults are usually both inexperienced drivers as well as inexperienced drinkers. These two combined is a fatality waiting to happen. Alcohol, when consumed, decreases alertness, causes depression, nausea, unconsciousness, hangovers, and possible overdose, which could lead to death. We, as teenagers, should be aware of the serious risks that are involved when wrong choices are made and lives are at stake. Driving should be considered a privilege, not a right, for we all have the right to be safe while driving, and when alcohol is involved, no one can predict the outcome. Anyone of us here today could be driving down the road next week and, because of a drunk driver, never make it to where we were headed. Because of this increasing problem, there needs to be more awareness of alcohol and its effects. It is up to us, the younger generation, to make an impression on our peers and those that follow, and most of all to prove to our elders that we have what it takes to make the right decisions and follow through. There is no overall solution to this problem, but we, as mature young adults, should make a strong effort to plan ahead before it gets to a point where it might be too late, whether that be make arrangements for a designated driver or staying until you are capable of driving. Dan Johnson: A suggestion that we have and strongly agree with is a paper called a contract for life. It is an agreement between teenagers and their parents stating, if at any given time that either they feel incapable of driving, there will be transportation provided, and safe transportation, for them. This contract was given to us from our drivers ed teachers at the Essex Technical Center. Other suggestions that we agree with is larger penalties for adults in furnishing alcohol for minors at stores to sell this. Teen drinking and driving will always be a problem, but, hopefully, with our help, we can reduce it. Thank you for our time. Congressman Sanders: A very important contribution to this discussion. Thanks very much.