Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record this statement 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 believe that the views of these young people will benefit my colleagues. Regarding School Violence (On behalf of Sarah Mayer, Jessica Normand and Colleen McCormick) Jessica Normand: Set aside the accusations, the anger and the 20-20 hindsight about the massacre of twelve students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20th. The fact remains that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's disturbed states of mind are the result of problems that our society has a responsibility to acknowledge and change. This event has broken the already damaged national spirit, but it has brought to our attention the moral decline in American society. The lack of spiritual guidance among the nation's youth that was once thought to be politically correct has only made it easier for young Americans to feel lost. Why did Eric Harris believe so strongly that life held no value, and why did Dylan Klebold feel so alone that he followed the demonic beliefs of his friend? These are the questions America must ask itself. Parents, teachers, administrators, friends, relatives, religious leaders, and especially our government need to take an active role in the lives of young Americans if future tragedies like the one at Columbine High are to be avoided. Sarah Mayer: Why is it that prayer is forbidden in public schools, yet at the memorial service for those who died in Littleton, the theme of every speech was that the only way to heal such a wound was through faith in God and prayers of the spiritual community? My fellow classmates and I at Rice Memorial High School are privileged to have prayer in our everyday lives. We feel that teaching kids about their spirituality gives them a stronger moral base to make better decisions throughout their lifetime. An anonymous student from a Catholic high school once said, ``We do not kill together because we pray together.'' Colleen McCormick: Kids need to be able to differentiate between fantasy and reality. But can they do this when video games like Doom, which teaches children how to kill people, are readily available? In order to curb the availability of those games, greater restrictions need to be placed on the Internet and sale of home games. Although the Internet has a lot faster communication and is an effective learning tool, it has also made unhealthy influences such as pornography and deadly games to be at the fingertips of the young. The media is another aspect of our society that needs to be more careful about what images they present to children in this country. While freedom of the press is a trademark right of Americans, perhaps that right needs to be restricted in terms of violence and sex. Our proposal is that legislation be passed to more strictly enforce the age limits at movie theaters, and all television channels be required to rate their shows according to a government rating system. Jessica Normand: Besides the media and schools, the most important influence every child has are their parents. As a society, we need to implore all parents to be involved in their children's lives, and to keep track of the outside influences, such as the Internet and the harmful media we mentioned earlier. Sarah Mayer: Kids need to understand that this isn't a video game, it's life, and there is no reset button. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, what is the status of this amendment?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I was not quite clear, was the gentleman talking about a total of 10 minutes, 10 minutes on each side? What was the gentleman talking about for the Andrews amendment, how much time?

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

Mr. SANDERS. A total?

Mr. SANDERS. Five and 5?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SANDERS. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, continuing under the reservation of objection, if the gentlewoman will yield, if I could ask the chairman how many speakers does he have left?

Mr. SANDERS. Thirty minutes each side tonight?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully object to that.

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 persons will benefit my colleagues. Religion in Public High Schools (On behalf of Nathan Loizeaux, Larry Grace and Melissa Tobin) Nathan Loizeaux: In opening, we would just like to thank Congressman Bernie Sanders and everybody else who is involved in this to give us a chance to voice our opinion. Thank you. We would like to address the subject of religion in the public high school. We believe that our laws need to be reformed or we need new ones, because the existing laws seem to be inadequate at this time. They seem to be very broad, and most high schools that we have attended seem to ignore most of these laws, based on the fact that we are teenagers. I would just like to say, in the court case Rosenberg v. Reactor and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the 115th Circuit Court, 25,010, 1995, the court concluded that free speech itself was threatened if religious speech was singled out for different treatment. We have found that, in the current high school, public high schools, that religious groups are treated in a different way, and by Vermont and federal government laws, they are required to give us equal rights. Larry Grace: At our school, the subject of religion is needed to be addressed, because it is a major issue that concerns us teenagers who have religious beliefs. Since time in our school has past, we have noticed that the public school system is not upholding the state and federal government laws for equal rights for religious groups inside the public school system. The laws are ignored, and the school system gets away with it, because we, as students, don't have the funds to fight back. And there should be new laws or for the current laws to be better enforced, to be instituted. The federal government and state laws require for the public school system to give religious groups inside schools equal rights. We feel they should be the same as nonreligious groups inside the school, allowing them to express their thoughts and beliefs in forms of materials and displays. The public school system is not adhering to these laws of equal rights in a way that we feel the religious groups within the public school are being discriminated against because of what they are. Melissa Tobin: If schools allow noncurricular student-led groups to use their facilities for meetings and displays, why couldn't they allow student-led prayer groups to use the facilities in the same way? If a religious group were to put up a display, it may be thought of as forcing a certain religion on fellow students. If another group were to put up a display on sexual preferences, no one would feel that it was forcing their beliefs or preferences. Is the Constitution being violated if schools allow religious symbols and forums within the school building?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, we currently have a $67 billion trade deficit with China which equates to the loss of 1 million jobs. It also is lowering real wages for American workers. Should the working people of this country be forced to compete against desperate people who are paid 20 or 30 cents an hour? Should we continue a policy where corporate America throws American workers out on the street and runs to China and hires those people? I think not. Let us support this sensible resolution. Let us end the policy which just does not work. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I am not anti-Chinese. I am not a xenophobe. I do not want another cold war with China, and I want to see our country do everything it can to establish warm and positive relations with China. I support this resolution because our current trade policy with China is a disaster. We currently have a $67 billion trade deficit with China, in a year in which we are experiencing a record breaking $224 billion overall trade deficit. Economists tell us that for every one billion dollars we have in a trade deficit we lose 17,000 jobs--many of them decent paying manufacturing jobs. That means that our trade deficit with China is costing us approximately 1,139,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that, over the last 20 years, many of the largest corporations in America have invested tens of billions of dollars in China in the search for very cheap labor. They are not investing in Vermont, New York or Mississippi. They are not hiring young American workers. They are not re-building our manufacturing base. Instead, they are hiring desperate workers in China at 20 or 30 cents an hour to produce products which are then sold in the United States and elsewhere--products not meant for the Chinese market but for the world market. The result of this whole trend is that corporate profits soar, the average American worker today is earning 12% less in inflation accounted for weekly earnings compared to 1973. In terms of hourly wages, in 1973 the average American worker earned $13.61. Today, in the midst of this so-called booming economy, that worker is earning $12.77 an hour--6% less than in 1973. I should also add that that American worker is now working 160 hours a year more than was the case 20 years ago in order to make up for the drop in his or her real wages. Mr. Speaker, we must stop the race to the bottom. I want to see the people in China and all developing countries improve their standard of living, but we must help that happen in a way that does not hurt American workers. We must not continue to play American workers off against Chinese workers. American workers should not have to compete against the workers in China who are paid extremely low wages, who cannot form unions, who cannot even elect their political leaders. In fairness to the working people of this country, we must not continue MFN with China.

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 persons will benefit my colleagues. Police Brutality (On behalf of Chris Callahan, Ingrid O'Reilly, Chris Lancaster, Reah Greico and Andy Weber) Ingrid O'Reilly: To serve, honor and protect. It's a phrase that is supposed to be a representation of police forces all over America. They serve the American people, but do they really honor and protect them? By definition, honor means to regard or to treat with respect. But it seems that the police officers that harassed Officer Aaron Campbell of Florida were not respecting him, never mind honoring him. Then there is the question of protect. Americans depend on officers in the time of danger, but for Amadou Diallo, he lost his life when four New York City officers emptied their entire rounds on him because he looked suspicious. Is our law enforcement system covered by a blue curtain and our officers put on a pedestal, or is the law enforcement just getting a bad reputation for a few mistakes? Chris Callahan: Aaron Campbell, a 26-year veteran of the Miami Dade Police Department, was pulled over and charged with a traffic violation. Campbell didn't believe that he was pulled over because of any traffic violation, but was a victim of racial profiling. Campbell resisted arrest, and later was accused of assaulting a police officer. Campbell was successful in convincing the jury that racial profiling is an everyday occurrence. He was later acquitted of all charges, except for resisting arrest. The fact that Campbell was a police officer helped his case significantly. Imagine the victims who are not professionally affiliated with the legal system, and the difficulty that they have proving their innocence. Reah Greico: On February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo, a 22-year- old African immigrant, was shot and killed by four white policemen. Officers pleaded not guilty to the murder, believing that Diallo looked like a sketch of a serial rapist, and that he was reaching for a gun. The four officers were indicted for second-degree murder. While the murder of Amadou Diallo is not believed to have been an intentional case of police brutality, it shows how susceptible minorities are to police prejudices and brutalities. Andy Weber: Since police enforcement began, there has always been some form of brutality or misuse of power. While there is no one solution to end brutality, many organizations and plans have been adopted to control this problem. Many precincts are waging heavier fines, longer suspensions, and even dismissals for officers convicted of brutality. However, these actions should not even be happening. Therefore, many ideas have brought forth on how to prevent the brutality. The most popular of these ideas is community policing. Recently, the Los Angeles Police Department instituted a community policing program, which a report explains by the following: The catalyst for moving the department away from the faceless militaristic organization, toward a 21st century model that is more compatible and interactive with local communities. Lastly, one of the most important ways to end police brutality is the destruction of the blue curtain. Though this is the easiest solution, it is also the hardest to actually carry out. Chris Lancaster: Both brutality and corruption among law enforcement agencies have always been problems. Fortunately, today, it has been acknowledged that these problems exist, and this is the first step towards any possible resolution. These are problems that cannot be solved by any one policy or program, and programs such as the Los Angeles Community Policing Program are simply the beginning. As for the blue curtain, it is time to realize that, while such a code may strengthen the bonds and camaraderie among police officers, it is no excuse to withhold the truth. Taking a definitive stance on eliminating the blue curtain will end a large percentage of corruption among police, and will lead to a more productive, constructive relationship between the police and the public. Congressman Sanders: Good job.

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 persons will benefit my colleagues. Minimum Wage in Vermont (On behalf of Brandi Russin, Tonya Boutin and Nicole King) Brandi Russin: We are here to talk about the minimum wage in Vermont. We feel that it is a little bit low for the price. The living expenses in Vermont are very high compared to the minimum wage. Tonya Boutin: I feel that with the life that we are living now, that the expenses are very high, and the minimum wage is not enough. We have got car payments to pay, we have gas, we have other things that we need to spend our money on, and with the minimum wage, it is not enough. If you think about all the stuff-- Brandi Russin: I don't know if you are interested. We brought some forms along for you to look at. Right here, I have pay stubs from a job when I was earning regular minimum wage, and this is the net amount. We just want to note the small amounts on these checks. And we have all noticed, at the jobs when we've been getting paid minimum wage, you get like a $60 to an $80 check per week, and you are like, Oh, you know, I can just spend this here, spend this here, and you tend not to save as much money. And as we grow up a little, we know we have a lot to save for. And this is also another job where it is more than minimum wage, and, on the bottom, you can see the amounts are much larger. And with amounts like this, you think, Wow, you know, maybe I should be setting some of this aside for something. We would like you just to see that. And we also made some forms up on some expenses that teenagers do have in their lifetime. And $5.25 is not adequate, we feel, along with most other teenagers. We also made up a little tiny fact sheet saying that, if you want to see a movie on minimum wage, the movie price is $7.50 to get into a movie. So if you want to go to see a movie, you have to work for an hour and a half at your job to see one movie. And a lot of teenagers like to wear Levi jeans, and those cost--we did an estimate of $45. If you want to go buy a pair of jeans for yourself, you have to work nine hours for a pair of jeans. Congressman Sanders: Anyone else that wanted to add anything? Nicole King: When I started working, I started my first job last June, once I got out of school. I was making $5.50 at that job, but I didn't feel I was making enough to make care payments, car insurance, and my other living expenses, so I started working a second job. And between the two of those, I was working between 50 and 65 hours a week. And I could only do that for about a month and a half, and I had to quit my first job because I was getting more hours at my second job. Congressman Sanders: Tonya, did you have anything to add to that? Tonya Boutin: I was working at a job that was paying minimum wage, and I found that, the more hours I got was better, but my paychecks weren't satisfying. You know, I just--I worked hard to get the money that I earned, and the paycheck that I was getting just didn't satisfy me. And to try to save up money is very hard, because you only get a certain amount, and, you know, you pay your bills and what you need to do, and you only like 20 bucks at the end, and it is not enough. Brandi Russin: As both of these, I was working two jobs also. I was working over 70 hours a week, and finally I said to myself, I can't keep doing this. And when you become a senior in high school, you realize all the college expenses coming up, and you say, Wow, where am I going to get the money from? So you start doing what we did, and panic, and you start working 50 to 70 hours a week, and you say, Where am I going to get all the money from? And you have to say no to yourself, you have to say, I need to stop and realize what I am doing to myself, and I am not getting enough sleep, and I am just going to keep working, keep working for this money.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment deals with one of the great moral challenges of our time. While the pharmaceutical industry, which makes wide campaign contributions, spends more money on lobbying and campaign contributions than any other industry in this country, while they are enjoying record-breaking profits, millions of people, poor people throughout the world, are dying of AIDS. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies are down in South Africa trying to do away with legislation in the courts, trying to do away with legislation passed by the South African government because the South African government is trying to get inexpensive drugs to deal with the epidemic of AIDS. What this legislation says very clearly is get the State Department off the backs of South Africa when South Africa is operating legally, legally under international law. If the pharmaceutical companies think they are operating illegally, if the U.S. State Department thinks they are operating illegally, go to the World Trade Organization. But the State Department does not want to go to the World Trade Organization. They want to put unilateral action against South Africa. The drug companies want to use their muscle against South Africa. What South Africa is doing is legal. The State Department does not want to challenge them in the World Trade Organization because they will lose. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the government of the United States of America is working with the multi-billion dollar drug companies to push around South Africa because that country is trying to do the right thing for its people with AIDS. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a former pharmacist.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would urge the Members to have the courage to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and support this amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). Let us win this fight.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, cosponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) deals with one of the great moral challenges of this century. Millions of people in Africa and Asia are suffering from the horrible AIDS epidemic decimating their countries. Because of poverty, they are unable to afford the very expensive prescription drugs needed to combat this killer disease. Sadly, the major pharmaceutical companies are using their enormous wealth and influence to fight legislation passed in South Africa, Israel, and Thailand which allows those countries to purchase and manufacture anti-AIDS drugs at far lower prices than those charged by the major drug companies. These laws are consistent with international trade and copyright law. Once again, these laws are consistent with international trade and copyright laws. Tragically, the U.S. State Department is currently working with the drug companies to punish South Africa because their government has committed the terrible crime of trying to get affordable drugs to treat their AIDS patients. What South Africa is doing is legal under international law. And it is morally right. Please support this amendment. Get the U.S. Government on the right side of this issue and help save millions of lives. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I insert for printing 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 persons will benefit my colleagues. Internet Censorship (On behalf of Amanda Cawthra, Angela Bellizzi, Renay Thompson, and Nick Stahle) Amanda Cawthra: The First Amendment clearly states that people have the freedom of speech. However, we have to speak to you about government infringement on this basic right, guaranteed in the Constitution. The issue we are talking about is Internet censorship, and whether the government has the right to mandate what can be accessed through the Net. Nick Stahle: Censorship on the Internet has become a major issue, especially now in the late 1990s. Several bills have been proposed to protect children from explicit material, such as the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act. However, we feel it is not the government's place to mandate what can and cannot be posted on the Internet. If parents do not want their children to be exposed to this material, there are several software programs available to block out these sites. Renay Thompson: Also, once the government steps in, who decides what is objectionable and what is not? If we are going to take the step of censoring sexually explicit material, then why not censor other potentially offensive material, such as those sites by racist groups, or even antiabortionists. Obviously, this would be a violation of these groups' First Amendment rights. Therefore the government should not censor what appears on the Internet, any more than it should censor the private, yet still potentially offensive publications of these groups, or pornographic magazines. Angela Bellizzi: Parents, librarians, teachers and others that provide Internet access to children need to take the responsibility of monitoring their access. Legitimate web sites should not be deprived of their First Amendment right. That is why, Congressman Sanders, that we conclude in asking you to vote against future legislation that restricts online freedom of speech.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would urge the Members to have the courage to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and support this amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). Let us win this fight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.