Bernie Sanders

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 David Hay Regarding VA Health Care David Hay: For the record, my name is David Hay. Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much for coming. David Hay: I would like to talk about my dad. My dad is a Vietnam veteran who is permanently and totally disabled due to the war, and dying due to Agent Orange-related illnesses. He is on medication for seizure disorder, depression, physical pain, various forms of hepatitis and other diseases, including emphysema. Even with these medications, he is sometimes confined to the house with pain and sickness. He gets about two to three hours of sleep at night, and sometimes none at all. He spends the first part of the morning vomiting and then takes his medications, and endeavors not to vomit in order that the medications may be effective. My dad's average weight was 180 to 190 pounds. Now he is lucky to reach 130 pounds. He has to force-feed himself. No matter how much he eats, he still loses weight. He will gain ten pounds one week and loss 15 the next. When he wakes up from sleeping, he can hardly walk twenty feet from loss of breath. My dad is not old, he just turned 52. Part of the reason why he is so sick is because of the medication he receives from the Veterans Association Hospital in White River Junction. It is not rare at all for him to receive the wrong medication, or a synthetic medication that affects him badly, or a prescribed medication for him that counteracts with other medications. They are constantly changing his prescription. These medications affect with malice his breathing, appetite, sleeping pattern, thoughts and pain. Just three weeks ago, I was at home reading the warning label on one of his inhalers. It said not to take it with seizure medication. My dad has to take seizure medications every day, as with the inhalers. He has been using the inhaler for over a year, and both were given to him by the VA. And there are many other vets that this happens to. I was wondering what you or Congress could do to correct the carelessness of the Veterans Association Hospital, if there could be laws or regulations that the doctors must look into background of the patient and the current medication the patient might be on before prescribing more drugs that could harm or even kill the patient, and if there are such laws and regulations, what can we do to enforce them. Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much David.

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. 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 Trevor Gingras, Miranda Girvan, Jessica Bordeaux and April Hathaway Regarding Teen Smoking Trevor Gingras: We interviewed teenagers to see how many did and didn't smoke. Out of the ten, eight of the teens smoked. Teenage smoking rates go higher and higher each year. They start at a young age and get addicted to it. Some teenagers got started by getting pressured by their friends, some started smoking because they think it is cool, and some teenagers smoke because their parents smoke and they figure it is okay. Teens get their cigarettes by either their parents or someone who is old enough to buy them. No law or even raising the price of the cigarettes are going to stop the teens from smoking. Teens save their money for gas for their cars and to get cigarettes. There are many places where teens are allowed to smoke, so this doesn't help the issue any. We also did a survey on what types of cigarettes teens smoke. These were the results: Marlboros, Camels, Newports and Parliaments. Congressman Sanders: Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to alert Members about a very disturbing proposal recently offered by the chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. This proposal would charge senior citizens in this country an $8 co-payment for Medicare home health care visits. At present, as you know, these visits are now without cost for the patient. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, if this very terrible proposal were ever passed into law, and let us make sure that it is not, it would cause enormous pain and hardship for some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country, low income and sick elderly people. Why, in God's name, would we be making life more difficult for so many people who today are finding it difficult just to pay their bills? Mr. Speaker, as you know, nearly half of all senior citizens in our country have incomes of less than $15,000 a year, and about 12 percent of them live in poverty. Many of them today are finding it extremely difficult to pay their bills, to provide for their prescription drugs and to take care of their other basic necessities of life. These are not the people that we should be going after and making life more difficult for. The thought of forcing sick, fragile, low-income seniors to pick up a new cost which for someone requiring home health care visits 7 days a week could run as high as $2,500 a year is literally beyond comprehension. Does anyone really think that a sick, needy senior citizen with an income of $10,000 a year should be asked to pay an additional 6 percent of his or her entire income on health care costs? And what about some seniors whose incomes may be even lower than the national average. What an outrage to go after low-income senior citizens who are sick, who are fragile, who need home health care visits and tell those people that you have got to pay substantially more for your health care needs. Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly obscene about this proposal is that it comes one year after the so-called balanced budget agreement which cut Medicare by $115 billion and most of those savings went for tax breaks for the very wealthy. Three-quarters of the tax breaks went to people making $100,000 a year or more. So what Congress did last year is cut Medicare, give huge tax breaks for the rich, and then this year the chairman of the relevant subcommittee is saying, ``Gee, we don't have enough money for Medicare. I guess we're going to have to ask low-income sick seniors to pay more for home health care visits.'' This is the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We take from the poor and some of the most desperate people in this country and we give to some of the wealthiest. This is a proposal that I would hope would be dead on arrival. Mr. Speaker, 22,000 Vermonters receive home health care in my State. But with last year's Medicare cuts, many are in danger of losing services through the reduction of payments to efficient home health care agencies that exist in Vermont and a number of other States. In other words, what Vermont was penalized for is having an efficient, cost-effective home health care visitation program. What we should be doing is correcting that absurd formula, making sure that more money goes throughout this country to help agencies like the Visiting Nurses Association provide the quality health care and home visits that they have been doing. We should not be making a bad situation even worse. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if members of both parties alert the chairman that this horrendous proposal is unacceptable, it will never get off first base, and that is what we should be doing.

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. 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. Thank very much. Statement by Bill Doe, Nick Bullard, Mike Currier and Heather Doloff Regarding Teen Drinking and Drug Usage Survey BILL DOE: First of all, we would like to thank you for inviting us to this event today. And we would like to make a minor correction on the program guide. Our presentation is focused mainly on the alcohol abuse and not so much drug abuse. In preparation for this presentation, we conducted a survey amongst our junior and senior peers. The topic of the survey was underaged drinking. Some of our survey questions were as follows: MIKE CURRIER: It goes: How old are you? Do you drink? If so, how often? Do you ever drink and drive, or ride with somebody who has been drinking? Why do you drink? To be rebellious; tastes good; to get rid of problems; to get wasted; and, a social drinker. The last question was: What do you think about lowering the drinking age? HEATHER DOFOFF: And our results turned out to be most of the people who drank were age 18, 17, 16, and we had a few who were aged 19, and we did not take surveys from people under 16. On the average, people drink and they tend to drink once or two times monthly, and a few do drink more than that, and we did have just under 20 people who we surveyed, out of a hundred, who did not drink at all. And, overall, people don't drive when they have been drinking or don't ride with someone who has been drinking. Only about 30 people we surveyed said that they did, 10 said sometimes, and 60 said not at all, which is encouraging. And the most common cause for people to drink was that they are a social drinker, which leads me to believe that peer pressure is playing a large role in it. BILL DOE: We also found that many of the people that we interviewed or surveyed, actually, would have liked the drinking age to be lowered to 16. Now, I tend to think that was more of a case of not being mature, they want to go out and party and have a good time, and wouldn't be young enough to be able to do it legally. In many countries, you will find the drinking age is very young, perhaps, I think, 16. And it has proven to actually work in many countries, I think only because it has kind of been found as, you know, it is just a given, that is what their society accepts, and they have grown to a certain maturity level that they can live with that. If we were to, perhaps, lower the drinking age, I think we would have to do it gradually, perhaps like one year at a time, or lower it to like maybe 20 in five years, or 19 the next five years, gradually getting down to maybe 18, perhaps. And maybe then our society will be mature enough to handle it and perhaps be mature about it. NICK BULLARD: As you can see from our graphs, we have done extensive work with certain questions dealing with underage drinking. In this year alone, the drinking problem in this state has risen greatly, with numerous deaths resulting. This is why the State is cracking down on underage drinking, from the special task force known as START Team to DUI teams. These peoples' only job is to control drinking and driving in Vermont. START concentrates only on underage drinking. CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: Thanks very much. Statement by Elizabeth Cartier, Anne Mitiguy, Jason Magnani, Eric Moran, Danielle Pezzimenti and Ted Demulder Regarding Teen Drinking ELIZABETH CARTIER: Today we would like to express our concern about alcohol advertising and the effects it has on youth. Alcohol is the number one drug used among young people. Eight teenagers a day die due to alcohol-related accidents. About two-thirds of teenagers who drink say they can buy their own alcohol. It is said that one out of every 280 babies born today will die in an automobile accident that is alcohol related. Traffic accidents are the single greatest cause of death between the ages of 6 and 28. About 47 percent of these accidents are alcohol-related. 56 percent of students in grades 5 through 12 say that alcohol advertising encourages them to drink. TED DEMULDER: We have a poster to illustrate underage drinking. There are 10 million underage drinkers in the United States. Of those 10 million, 4.4 million are binge drinkers, which means they have 5 drinks or more, and 1.7 million teens drink heavily on a regular basis. JASON MAGNANI: Teenagers are known to be more susceptible to alcoholic advertising than adults. This is especially true when it comes to radio and television broadcasting. In June of 1996, the Seagrams America Company began running Crown Royal brand whiskey commercials in Corpus Christi, Texas. It featured a dog labeled Obedience School Graduate who was carrying a newspaper. Another dog labeled Valedictorian was carrying a bottle of Crown Royal. In this ad, Seagrams positioned liquor as an award for achievement. When liquor ads started to run on television, public health groups and government officials reacted in an alarming way. They said that, by running liquor ads on television, they would be seen by young people and that sometimes they were deliberately targeted at young people. In November of '96, after the liquor ads came out, 26 members of Congress wrote to the Federal Communications Corporation, urging them to further investigate the liquor ads on television. They said that they did not want children to get an image of academic and athletic success, gained through drinking alcohol beverages. ANNE MITIGUY: Consumer and public health groups scoff at alcohol ads that are aimed at teenagers. They say that beer is heavily advertised during televised sporting events. These are mostly watched by high school and college aged students. The Seagrams ads about the obedience dogs and the Budweiser frogs are designed to catch the eye of young viewers. The alcohol industry critics say that young people decide to sample alcohol because of peer pressure but that advertising reinforces their inner thoughts. The ads are mostly young, attractive and healthy-looking adults. Most of the time, you can't even really tell how old they are. They are drinking beer, and at the end of the commercial, one of them says ``It just can't get much better than this.'' These ads don't show both sides. As they say, it might not get any better, but it can get a whole lot worse. This is a side that should be shown more often, but isn't. TED DEMULDER: In flipping through two mainstream magazines for our collage, Newsweek and People, we came across various alcohol advertisements. The Barcardi ads shows an unrealistic view of what happens to people when they drink. The Absolut ads have become coffee book material for many teenagers that collect them. The slogan ``Forget the rules and enjoy the wine'' shows how irresponsible people are, and basically the companies are saying anyone can drink. ERIC MORIN: Because alcohol ads are very glorified and intensified, more today than ever were before, they can be very harmful to our generation and generations to come. These ads exert constant and powerful pressure on today's youth. With more and more kids exploring the Internet and the Worldwide web there is a growing trend of advertising and promotional material. Oftentimes the corporations use such techniques as up-to-the- minute sports scores, games and contests to promote their type of alcohol. With all the advertising that is going on, there is a growing influence upon youth today. What the corporations have in mind is that, if they gear their ads towards young adults, they will start to drink at a younger age. Once they start to drink, soon the corporation will have a lifelong customer. Our main concern about ads today is that they are giving us an unrealistic view about what alcoholic beverages are and what they can do to you. Congressman Sanders, after hearing this information, we leave it in your hands to make proposals to remedy this problem, such as placing more responsibility on the alcohol companies to direct their ads at older and more mature audiences, instituting stricter penalties to whose who procure alcohol for teens, as well as those teens who try to purchase it, and initiating a stronger community involvement with alternatives to alcohol, such as rec centers, sports leagues, and school-related affairs. CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: Excellent.

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 their statements in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Statement by Rachel Salyer Regarding Substance Abuse Rachel Salyer: My name is Rachel Salyer. I am a senior at the Bellows Free Academy in St. Albans. I think there are so many issues surrounding the youth of today, things like success--we are 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.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. Let me say a few words on process, and then a few words on substance. In terms of process, what is important for everyone to understand is that this compact bill has been passed overwhelmingly by the legislatures of Texas, Maine, and Vermont, and the legislation is strongly endorsed by the Governors of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. In fact, in Vermont the legislature approved this legislation by voice vote in the State Senate and by a 3 to 1 margin in the House. In Texas, the Texas State Senate approved this legislation 26 to 2, while the Texas House approved it by voice vote. In Maine, both the House and Senate approved the bill by wide margins. Under a statewide referendum held in Maine, the legislation passed by better than a 2 to 1 margin. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is supported by both Senators from Texas, both Senators from Maine, both Senators from Vermont. It is supported by the entire Maine delegation in the House, all two Members; the entire Vermont delegation, me; and as I understand it, two-thirds of the Texas House. So there is opposition from some Members of the Texas House here, but two-thirds support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this compact is not a new idea. Since 1985, nine interstate low-level radioactive waste compacts have been approved by Congress, encompassing 41 States. I think all we are saying, if this approach is valid for 41 States in nine compacts, it certainly should be valid for Texas, Maine, and Vermont. That is the process. Let me say a few words on substance. Here, my views may be a little different than some of the people who are supporting this compact. I am an opponent of nuclear power. I think the nuclear power industry did us a disservice many, many years ago when they said, let us build the plants, except they forgot to tell us how we were going to get rid of the waste; a slight little problem. Now, all over this country, serious people, environmentalists, are worried, how do you get rid of low-level radioactive waste, which we are dealing with here? How do you get rid of high-level waste? That is a very serious problem. If I had my druthers, I would close down every nuclear power plant in America as quickly as we safely can. But the issue today is something different. The reality is, we have nuclear power plants. We have universities and hospitals that are using nuclear power. The environmental question today, therefore, is how do we get rid of that low-level waste in the safest possible way? In my view, that is what this legislation is about. I think the evidence is pretty clear that Texas is in fact the best location to get rid of this waste. The last point that I would make is there is nowhere in this legislation that talks about a specific site. Nowhere will we find that. We are not voting on a site. That decision is left to the authorities and the people of the State of Texas.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment, but I must say that in many ways, this is an embarrassing and unfortunate debate. We should all be a little bit ashamed of ourselves. Veterans are not Vermonters, they are not Floridians, they are not New Yorkers, they are not Californians, they are Americans. The fact of the matter is that over recent years, this Congress has cut and cut veterans' programs. I do not have to remind the Members here that only a few months ago we took $10 billion from veterans' programs in order to increase funding for the highway program. I think the highway program is important, and a good idea. I supported it. But they did not need another $10 billion on top of $200 billion. Yet, we lost by 5 votes the effort to retrieve that $10 billion. Last year in the so-called balanced budget agreement we gave huge tax breaks to some of the wealthiest people in this country, and then we cut back, not only on Medicare, but on veterans' programs again. So I happen to agree with those people who say that when men and women put their lives on the line and sign the contract with the United States government, we have a moral obligation to fulfill that contract, and we have not done that. That is the most important issue. The Northeast should not be fighting with the South. Every veteran in this country deserves quality health care, but that is what has happened, because we have cut back when we should not have cut back. This is a wealthy Nation. This is a Nation that has given huge tax breaks to those people who do not need it, and then we say, gee, we do not have enough money for veterans' programs. In respect to the Hinchey amendment, I strongly support it, having said that. I think that the formulation in VERA is not fair to various regions of this country, and that we should support the Hinchey amendment and make what exists a little bit better. But the bottom line is we should support all of our veterans. We should increase funding for veterans' programs, and we have the resources to do that, if we get our priorities straight.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the minority whip for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, when I was home over the weekend, several Vermonters asked me to make certain that I express on their behalf their sorrow at the tragic deaths of Capitol Police Officers John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut. I know that I speak for all the people of the State of Vermont as well as my wife Jane when I do just that. Mr. Speaker, these two extraordinarily brave officers did the job that they were trained to do and that they pledged to do. When their moment of truth came on Friday, they did not shirk from their responsibilities, and they did what I think all of us hope that we have the courage and the strength to do when our moment of truth might come. They gave their lives protecting congressional staff, visitors and elected officials. It is appropriate that we honor these men and their families because they not only protected and saved the lives of many individuals, but they helped assure that the People's House remains open to all Americans. If democracy means anything, it means that the people have the right to visit with their elected officials, to go to the meetings that are of importance to them, to make their opinions known. That is what democracy is about. It is terribly important that no deranged individual, no terrorist stops that process and closes the door. Our hearts go out to these brave officers. They are true American heroes.

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 Angela Deblasio and Lynne Clough Regarding Foreign Aid Angela Deblasio. Foreign aid is an essential part of the United States' annual budget. This aid to less fortunate nations helps to alleviate famine and the effects of disasters. It promotes agricultural and industrial production. It also provides U.S. know-how for basic health, education and housing needs, while rewarding governments for embracing American ideals and interests. Foreign aid is not just money. The United States aid program consists of development, economic, military and food assistance. Development assistance provides training and advice in all areas. Economic support contributes to the political stability and economic strength. Military aid provides grants and credits for the purchase of weapons, along with training and advice for the forces. Food aid is free or reduced-price agricultural products. One of the great historical successes of American foreign aid was the Marshal Plan. Lynne Clough. World War II left many scars in Western Europe and the United States. Secretary of State George Marshal proposed a plan that would not only help Western Europe overcome poverty and resist temptations of communism, but help Americans keep their jobs and offer more opportunities. This plan became known as the Marshal Plan. We sent over tons of goods and money to Western Europe. Then, in turn, Western Europe bought our products, which gave Americans jobs. Giving U.S. aid prevented Western Europe from falling under the influence of communism and it gave us protection from the Soviet Union. Aid to foreign countries has expanded over the past few years. Angela Deblasio. For the past 37 years, Peace Corps volunteers have worked together with the people of Africa and other nations around the world. Today, Peace Corps volunteers contribute to grassroots development projects in education, business, the environment and health. They establish forest conservation plans and find alternatives to wood as a source of food. Volunteers work to involve people in protecting endangered wildlife species and recycling projects. Peace Corps volunteers help individuals in developing nations to learn the skills necessary to help themselves. The best example of how the United States gains from foreign aid is the country of Russia. The U.S. is currently giving aid to the Russians. The American taxpayers are definitely getting their money's worth. They are helping to bring banking experts, legal experts, business experts, and political scientists to the nation of Russia and create a free democratic society based on free enterprise. Also, American tax dollars are paying to help the nations of the former Soviet Union safely dismantle nuclear weapons once pointed at the United States. American aid is also helping to ensure that the nuclear materials do not fall into the hands of terrorists during these potentially dangerous times. Lynne Clough. ``Why spend our money on foreign aid?'' That is a question many of us ask. As you just heard, foreign aid helps America prosper. Foreign aid is only one percent of our annual budget and is a very good investment. It provides security by aiding our allies and sets up good trading partners. Giving aid is also a way to deal with problems when they are small, and perhaps prevent future conflict. Statement by Natalie Ross Regarding Student Drinking and Driving Natalie Ross. Good afternoon. I will have to be quite honest with you: Many of the issues that I was going to speak about today have already been brought up with the student drinking and driving. Congressman Sanders. That doesn't make them less important for you to bring them up. Natalie Ross. Recently, as you can tell by today, we had many people who brought up many concerns about how advertisers influence us, and many different things--we were reminded of the tragedy up in Newport, which, unfortunately, claimed two of my very close friends. I feel there is a message that we're sending to our youth that is not totally appropriate. It has been engraved in our brains for the longest time not to drink and drive, but I think that message is totally appropriate for adults who are of age, because they have the right to drink. But I think we are only fighting the battle halfway when we tell students not to drink and drive; I feel the message should be not to drink at all. Many times students say, it is okay, you know, somebody will bail me out. For example, we had a community forum in St. Albans, and we have many parents who said, Sure, on prom night, I will sit at City Hall and wait for all the teenagers who are drinking, that are too, in their minds, drunk to drive home, and I will go and get them. But I feel they are sending the wrong message, because that is just saying: We will come and get you if you mess up. And I feel that there are too many times that people get off the hook too easily. And I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but I just wanted to come today and express my concern about this. Statement by Nora Conlon, Megan Reardon, Blair Marvin, Shawn Beigen, Kate Henry and Phillip Moore Regarding the U.N. and the U.S. Nora Conlon. A great deal of how successful the United Nations is depends on the attitudes of its member states. Americans have usually supported full U.S. cooperation with the U.N., but the level of support declined markedly beginning in the early 1970s, and remained relatively low during the 1980s. The U.S.'s stance during that period toward the United Nations was that of a reluctant participant. The 1990s have witnessed a strong revival of American support for full U.S. cooperation with the United Nations Nations. This is because President Clinton's administration has expressed a great interest in the U.N., more so than its predecessors. The U.N. support that exists now from Americans is roughly equal to the strong support that existed in the 1960s. While American public support for the U.N. may be high, nevertheless the United States Government's opinion of the U.N.'s effectiveness is low. This chart illustrates U.S. cooperation with the United Nations. The question asked was whether or not poll respondents agreed with the statement: Should the United States cooperate fully with the United Nations? The red line represents the percentage of those who are in support of full cooperation, while the black line represents those who oppose full cooperation with the United Nations. You can see that American support for the United Nations has increased considerably, and yet the U.S. Government has taken a far different stance towards the U.N. Kate Heney. The tension is between the U.S. and the U.N. is financial. By a contradiction of terms, the U.S. is both the greatest contributor and debtor of the 185 member countries of the U.N. The United States is responsible for 25 percent of U.N. expenditures, but despite a $60 billion surplus in our own budget, we are $1.3 billion behind in our payments to the peacekeeping budget of the U.N. Legislative efforts have been made to pay up--and, actually, I have a question for you, Congressman, concerning this. On March 26th, the State Department authorization bill approved by voice vote an $819 million U.N. debt payment. This has been stalled since 1997, because the House of Representatives tried to include a provision holding that none of the money was to fund any family planning organization that performed abortions. President Clinton vows to veto any bill containing the abortion provision. I believe that they have lost sight of the humanitarian issues and that the payment of international peacekeeping dues should not be prevented by conflicts within our own government. I was wondering what your position was on this. Congressman Sanders. I will answer that question in a minute, Okay? I am happy to answer that, but let's let everybody make their statement. Blair Marvin. One of the reasons why the U.S. is withholding a payment of its debt is that our government has developed its own agenda for U.N. reform. The United States emphasis on reform is intended to stabilize the U.N. financially, making the organization more efficient. We wanted it to be more focused on key priorities and more accountable for its members. Progress has begun in areas of greater budget discipline. The two key requirements in this is the lowering of the U.S.'s assessed share of the U.N. budget from 25 percent to 20 percent over a three-year period, along with the creation of a contested arrears account for debts disputed by the U.S. One other area of reform is the U.S. commitment to the expansion the U.N. Security Council, which will strengthen its effectiveness and this will enhance representation throughout the world without detracting from its working efficiency. The U.S. wishes to grant permanent seats to Japan and accept three other seats from the developing nations from the regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Phillip Moore. The U.N. is a valuable asset for the U.S. foreign policy. On numerous occasions, the U.N. has given the United States a chance to gain international backing for issues important to American national interests--for instance, the Persian Gulf War. The U.N. Security Council provided for several measures which gave support for a multinational coalition force, which helped regain control of Kuwait from Iraq and also provided President Clinton with the authorization to form a multinational force to help reinstall the democratic government on Haiti. The peacekeeping missions of the U.N. are also vital to American interests. Often, peacekeeping missions keep regional conflicts from growing into a wider crisis which may involve U.S. military intervention. For instance, on the island of Cyprus. The two NATO nations of Greece and Turkey have a conflict over the island of Cyprus. However, U.N. forces have kept the issue from growing into open conflict. And since the two nations are members of NATO, that could be a serious problem for the alliance. Humanitarian aid of the U.N. also benefits America as well, because it is in no one's interest to allow members of other countries to go on suffering. By not paying our dues to the U.N., we are weakening our ability to play a larger role in the international community and ultimately hurt our own national interest and well-being. Megan Reardon. We would like to leave you with a few suggestions on the U.N., because it is a tough topic. We propose you support the U.N. agencies on human rights and economic and social development; and pay our dues, which is an important one; support expansion of the Security Council with Germany and Japan; and support and gain support for collective peacekeeping. Congressman Sanders. Thank you. Excellent.

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 insert this statement in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of this young person will benefit my colleagues: Statement by Erik Kenyon, Megan Willey, Kelly Cook and Justin Sturges Regarding Gay-Straight Alliance Erik Kenyon: Thank you. United Nations here from the Bellows Free Academy Gay- Straight Alliance. You have already heard about gay-straight alliances, so we are just going to tell you a bit today about the way our school works. Like most places in Vermont, St. Albans--over that way--is fairly isolated. For the first two years of high school, I just didn't date anyone. It was something I had no real urge to do. I never thought, well, maybe I'm gay, because the word never came up at all, until I went off to the Vermont Youth Orchestra--which is really cool--I have to get a plug in here; we have a concert tomorrow by the way--which is where I met my first gay person, and that United Nations. ``That makes sense. Why didn't I think of that?'' This is how isolated St. Albans really is. And St. Albans is actually a big progressive for the State of Vermont, if that tells you anything. And so, at the beginning of the year, some students got together, and we wanted to start something, and the gay- straight alliance is what we decided on, and here is Justin to tell you about that. Justin Sturges: When we began, it was a new thing, you know, no one had even thought about GSAs, and so we were met with a certain degree of resistance. There is a story that goes along with this. When we first went into our headmaster's office, there were three of us, Erik, myself and another guy, who couldn't be here. He asked us, Well, how many of you people are there? And that, right there, set the mood. He has gotten better, and I think that we are the reason, to an extent. It was this sense of newness, this sense of an unchartered area that no one had been to yet, and we broke that. And we have been met with certain degree of resistance from several people, from people in the school, from outside influences, from adults, from the teachers. Here is Kelly. Kelly is going to talk about an experience of her's. Kelly Cook: Hi. Yeah. I joined GSA about three weeks ago, I think. One time, I was walking up to a coffee house which we put on quite often. And a lot of people don't accept different people, like they call me a freak at my school. I'm like: Okay, whatever. I am just walking out with a whole bunch of people and suddenly these people come by with a truck and throw stones at me. That is the kind of stuff you have to get rid of. And a lot of people just don't accept gay, bi, or different people at all, and I will hand it over to Erik. Erik Kenyon: But we have been making success this year, and when we were starting out, there were some people all for us and supportive, and some people that were really against us. But most of the people were just sort of indifferent, and we won over most of them. And we have been working on the rest of them. And a lot of the time this sort of change--well, the bills and all the policies help a great deal, but a lot of the times, it is that little things. Like an experience I had just last week, just in the cafeteria, and just bringing my tray up and dumping my garbage and all that, and behind me I could hear a chant of, ``Queer, queer, queer,'' getting louder and louder. It started as a stage whisper, which is hard with microphones. But it was just--it is kind of commonplace. So I just did my thing, put all my stuff away, and then walked over to the table where it was coming from--it was quite obvious--and just stood there and stared at them. And they were just like: Hi. What? They got really uncomfortable, you know. So I didn't say a thing, just walked away out in the hall, did something or other. And I was really surprised, the boy at the table that was doing it, came that and apologized to me. He said, you know: ``I'm sorry, I didn't mean it,'' and all that. And I was like: Okay, thanks. And he said, ``No, really, I'm sorry. I was just trying to show off. It was stupid.'' And he shook my hand. That was just, like: Oh, wow. That was change, and this is how a lot of these changes happen. And a lot of other things have come up through the course of the day, about things that people would like to get put into place. And we can speak for some of those, like the harassment policy, which doesn't get exercised enough. It doesn't get exercised, because it is really difficult to exercise, but through our group, we had have had, I think three people so far who have gone through the process and done the paperwork to file the complaint, and the harassment has stopped. We also put on a number of coffee houses, just to read poetry and stuff. It is a nice, relaxed atmosphere. It was odd at the first one, we had 100 people, out of a student body of 1,000, so you get that kind of one in ten, ten percent, and that was kind of neat. We also have a Web page, put together for the GSA in the state, to try to help us network. It is a start, but we could use a lot more. And, Justin? Justin Sturges: What we see needs to happen--we are obviously here for a purpose--we see, for the advancement of such things as we have been doing, we find it necessary for teachers to be trained. That is the one thing that has been left out. You know, we have done what we can for the student population, and will continue to try to educate them, to get them to be more open to our organization and anyone who is different from what they may see. We find it necessary for the teachers to be trained, because they are the source, to an extent, because they are there in the classroom with all the students, because they come into contact with every student in that school. And, sometimes, they let things slip that, perhaps, they shouldn't. Outright Vermont, right here in Burlington, does do a program, and we have talked to them about it, but there were restrictions in our school because of the amount of assemblies we have had and the amount of inservice time that we have had, and we couldn't get anything off the ground. But support for that is the one thing we are rallying for currently, the one thing we see that needs to happen. Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much

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. Funding of the NEA and Censorship (By Daniel Luzer) There has been a great deal of controversy lately about the National Endowment for the Arts. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in July in the case of National Endowment for the Arts versus Finley to decide if the federal law requiring the head of the Endowment to consider general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and views of the American public when considering whether or not to award a grant. In Congress last month, Senator John Ashcroft, together with Senator Jesse Helms, attempted, in an appropriations bill, to kill the endowment program entirely. From the beginning, the National Endowment for the Arts has been a controversial program. Certainly the endowment is a valuable program. Before 1965, when the endowment was instituted, the arts were, to a great extent, still on the fringes of society and accessible only to the cultural elite. Since then, the arts have expanded greatly, and are now accessible to the masses and have thus begun to educate the majority, which was the point. In the words of Maryanne Peters, the President of the Board of Directors of the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression, ``In creating the NEA, Congress recognized that the arts are integral to fostering imaginative thinking in our culture.'' In the 33 years which the National Endowment for the Arts has existed, the role of art in our culture has greatly increased. One of the main contributions that the Endowment has made to our culture is to expand the American art world from a largely market-driven world to a system which allows artists to explore and to expose communities to new creative fields, without having to worry about how to purchase materials, or even purchase food. It is important to remember, though, that money from the National Endowment for the Arts is a prize, bestowed upon artists whose work is either exceptionally good or greatly needed in a given community. Artists who receive money from the Endowment are singled out for the content of the work. Organizations like National Campaign for Freedom of Expression would like us to believe that the law requiring the head of the Endowment to consider standards of decency when awarding grants amounts to a violation of the rights to free speech. This line of reasoning is flawed, however, in that The First Amendment to the Constitution states that ``Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech.'' The fact of the matter is that the above-mentioned law is not a law restricting freedom of speech. The National Endowment for the Arts is not an organization which punishes artists for poor quality work; it is an organization which awards prizes to artists of first quality. The law simply requires potential grant-givers to consider decency with respect to art. The law does not restrict the freedom to speak in any way, since no artist is restricted from anything; they will simply find it slightly more difficult to receive federal money for offensive work, which seems a logical and acceptable state for an artist to be in. So the law is not unconstitutional. That being said, the other issue that artists and artists' groups have brought up is the law's potentially harmful vagueness, which could lead to arbitrary and dangerous selection and rejection of an artist's work, which is absurd in a federal program, where standards are needed in order to determine an artistic piece's relevance in relation to the policies and purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts. This is certainly a legitimate concern, and one which needs to be addressed in order for the National Endowment for the Arts to continue to function in a manner that benefits society. What the National Endowment for the Arts needs to continue in a way that benefits America are clearer laws and a stricter codification of the grant system. In this way, artists can be granted money based on whether and where their work is needed. If a given community was seriously lacking in, say, quality theater, then playwrights could be sent, with NEA grants, to the said community. To a certain extent, the National Endowment for the Arts already works in this manner. However, greater clarity on this issue would lead to a better relationship between the art and political communities, which would decrease artists' frustration and improve the quality of the overall art program in the United States. This plan does, to a certain extent, lead to discrimination against certain forms of art. While that is unfortunate, there is no way that the United States government could ever equally support all forms of art. But that was never the purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts. Another objection that could be raised for this plan for greater codification of the endowments program is that placing restrictions would adversely affect the quality of art. While that is a legitimate concern, as the arts are an expression of emotion, it is important to realize that, in order for the arts to flourish, they do not need to be unrestricted. Some the greatest works of art were created under severe restrictions. The entire Renaissance, which for example, produced such masterpieces as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, Donatello's Madonna and Child, and Dante's Divine Comedy, was funded in large part by the Florentine banking families, not to mention the Vatican. An additional argument against the idea of greater codification for the National Endowment for the Arts might be that the organization would therefore not be supporting the artistic community at all, since the award of grants would be based on the need for certain artists, rather than absolute support for artistic expression. One needs to realize, however, that the purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts should not be to encourage artistic expression among the artistic community. That would exist whether the National Endowment for the Arts does or not. The purpose for the NEA ought to be to support the viewers of art, extending their horizon so as to foster the greater artistic understanding of the nation as a whole, not to support the ever-expanding imagination of the elite artistic community. Statement by Dan Welch Regarding Vermont Education Standards My name is Dan Welch, and two years ago--well, last year, second semester, I was given the opportunity to work with the Vermont Institute for Math, Science and Technology on developing a handbook for understanding the Vermont framework of standards that is in place in our education system right now. And I found, through visiting other schools and talking to college-level people, that the Vermont frameworks are not understood by anyone, and they are the basis for our entire education system for the next decade. I think that putting standards into education is asking a lot of students for a lot of things, especially the standards as high as these, and my concern is that, when students see standards for the first time, which won't be for a couple years, they are going to choke. I come from CVU, which is a school where you have to do a standard-based project to graduate, and when this project first started off--the number was 88 percent of kids, three years ago, failed to meet the standards on their first time around. Had there not been a second chance to meet that standard, had it been like an exam for their final in the course, 88 percent of those kids, of a class of 200, would have stayed back and joined the class behind them. Putting standards into schools is a good thing, to level the playing field and say, well, everyone's getting their education based around this one concept or these ideas. But putting it into such pass-fail stringencies and saying that they are a standard is going far beyond what should be done. And the setup for Vermont's framework of standards is based on a program that was started in Essex, I believe, and they want to work like a rubric for point systems, where it is not necessarily pass-fail. The Vermont framework for standards is an excellent idea, it is a little vague in the English area, but I would like to see programs like it going up nationwide, because it would really make a difference in the education system as soon as it is fully implemented. My biggest concern is that, once it is implemented, at what point do students find out about the standards that are expected to be met? I found out my junior year. I would have liked to have known my freshman year, and maybe earlier. This is one of the issues I brought up when I was working with VISMT on rewriting the handbook for understanding the standards, is that the students should know what is expected of them from day one, and the handbooks that I was given should be made available to everyone from, probably, 7th grade, or earlier, on. And parents should be kept informed of what the standards are from the time their child enters the school system until long after, because they should continue their role as an active member of the community to know what is being expected of their local students and how they can get involved to change that. Statement by Rhys Marsh Regarding Act 60/Federal Education Funding Act 60 is one of the most controversial and monumental bills to pass the Vermont legislature in recent years. It comes in response to a 1996 decision by the Vermont Supreme Court which declared Vermont's system of education funding illegal according to the Vermont constitution. The main purpose of Act 60 is therefore to equalize public school funding opportunities in the State of Vermont. Act 60 accomplishes this by introducing a statewide property tax of $1.10 per $100 of property value, which funds block grants of approximately $5,000 per student for each local school district. As all but 13 of Vermont's 252 towns are currently spending more than the $5,000 block grant per student, towns are given the option of raising additional money for their schools through a local property tax. Under Act 60, the distribution of moneys raised through local taxes has been equalized as well. A tax increase of one cent per $100 of property value in Vernon, which has a fair market property value of about $9 million would obviously not yield as much money as a one cent increase would in Stowe, which has a fair market property value of $769 million. Because of this discrepancy, so-called gold towns such as Stowe and Stratton must give some of their money raised through local taxes to the state. This has the effect of making a one cent tax increase in Stowe produce as much money for the school system as a one cent tax increase would produce in Vernon. Opponents of the bill say Act 60 has put an unfair tax burden on the more wealthy towns, as they must now share their property tax dollars with other, poorer towns. Some also complain that less affluent families who own property in gold towns will be hurt by the tax increase those towns are likely to face. However, Act 60 has, in reality, only given all Vermont students equal chance for education funding, regardless of geographical location. Before Act 60 was passed, property taxes varied immensely within the State of Vermont. For example, Stratton provided lavish funds to its schools with a tax rate of only 42 cents per $100. However, in Standard, a grueling tax rate of $4.39 per $100 was necessary to provide adequate school funding. This means that property valued at $100,000 in Stratton would be taxed only $420, while, in Standard, the same property would be taxed $4,390. Under Act 60, both properties will be taxed $1,100, unless their towns decide to spend more than the $5,000 per pupil block grants the state provides. This means that the property-rich towns will now get the same bang for the buck as property-poor towns. Even if the gold towns continue to fund their schools at the current high levels, the property taxes will not increase the levels any greater than the rates some towns currently pay to send moderate moneys to their schools. In addition, families with incomes of less than $75,000 have been protected from the possible tax increases associated with Act 60, by capping their property taxes at between 3 and 5 percent of the household income. Act 60 has provided an effective and equitable solution to the problems of Vermont's property taxes and education funding. However, the property tax is still a regressive tax, and there are still enough inequalities in the state and local taxes within the nation. While there is no stipulation in the Federal Constitution that requires equal education funding from state to state, increased equalized federal aid to states could help to ease the downfalls of the property tax and the funding inequities nationally. Therefore, I believe the Federal Government should write new legislation based on the ideas behind Act 60 and increase the contributions to public education. This would help to distribute the wealth of the United States more homogeneously and improve school quality, especially in the nation's poorer school districts. It also would move more of the tax burden on Americans from the regressive and volatile local property tax to the progressive income tax of the Federal Government. Act 60 has done wonders for Vermont. The United States of America could utilize the benefits of legislation similar to Act 60 on a national level, to reduce our reliance on regressive taxes and provide more equal funding for our nation's schools. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to most- favored-nation trade status with China, or whatever it may be called today. Yes, I know that all of corporate America wants us to pass MFN. I know that companies who contribute tens of millions of dollars to both political parties want us to pass MFN. I know that the corporate media wants us to pass MFN. But nonetheless, we should do the right thing, protect American workers, protect decent-paying jobs, and we should oppose MFN. Mr. Speaker, our current trade policy is a disaster. This year we will have a record-breaking trade deficit of some $200 billion. That means that we are importing $200 billion more in goods and services than we are exporting, with the loss of some 4 million jobs, many of them decent-paying jobs. Our trade deficit with China this year is exploding, and this year will reach some $60 billion. Mr. Speaker, American workers should not be asked to compete with the desperate people of China who are forced to work at wages of 15 cents an hour, 20 cents an hour, 30 cents an hour, and who are unable to form free trade unions, elect their own government or speak out for their rights. That is not fair competition or a level playing field. We should not continue through MFN to encourage our corporations to throw American workers out on the street while they invest tens of billions of dollars in China in search of cheap labor. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that over the last 20 years, while trade with China has increased and our deficits with them have soared that the standard of living of American workers has gone down and people are working longer hours for lower wages.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record statements by high school students from my home state of Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people today: Statement by Nat White-Joyal regarding Medicinal Marijuana Hi. My name is Nat White-Joyal. I want to talk about the legalization of marijuana for medical and homeopathic uses. I think that it is necessary, for people who suffer from certain diseases where marijuana can be helpful to them, that it be legal. For someone to always be knocking on your door and wondering what that smell is and needing to have that to be comfortable and to sort of have--I don't want to say survival, but to have a more comfortable life. I know that in several states, California and Arizona, that laws are either to be introduced or have been passed about legalizing medical marijuana. I am also aware of the pressure that these people who grow it and use it receive from the authorities. And I think that it is very important for these people not to have that pressure. I know from people that I know with certain diseases, hepatitis C and AIDS, that they need marijuana to improve their appetite so that they don't starve, so they can actually have some sort of energy. And I think that it needs to be passed, not only in certain states, but in the entire country. I think it's something that is very important, and if you were to look at actual numbers, it does actually help people more than it hurts people. It is documented that marijuana does kill brain cells, but so does alcohol and cigarettes, and they are both legal, and they really don't provide any use for any other purpose except for taste and addiction. Now, people would argue that marijuana is only used to--you know, people would only use marijuana to get stoned, but that is really not true. The people who I know who use it use it so that they can go on with their daily lives and, you know, hold down a job, not have to call in sick every other day. I feel it would be very important to have it legalized in Vermont as well, because, I mean, it is a very important crop for Vermont, whether it is legal or not. Statement by Ewing Fox and Damien Wyzga Regarding Youth Group Centers EWING FOX: This room looks a lot bigger from up here. Many students have already mentioned the need for a safe teen environment. We think that we have a healthy alternative to some of the ideas that people have come up with so far. I think people have some good ideas, but I know a lot of kids feel that there is a stigmatism around community youth centers, and they're boring. There are too many adults, all you can do is sit on a couch and, you know, watch TV or something, and I think that Burlington's youth needs more than that to stay occupied. We are modeling a center, a youth group center, that is called Main Street Park after a youth program that I visited in Massachusetts several years ago. It was completely run by students and volunteer parents. They had a snack bar, concessions and vending, which paid for a lot of the cost. It was housed in a public building. There were vending machines that were donated, there was pool playing, and the parents that would stay in an outer room that do the vending and admissions, there was a small admissions fee, and the majority of the center was run by the students. I think that a program similar to that could work in Burlington. I think we can also address the issue around skateboarders in Burlington. I know I was eating lunch in City Hall park, and I was appalled by watching these skateboarders like, you know, walk up, take a jump, and get off their skate board, tiptoe down the street and walk back. I think that is so ridiculous, that some people have to be reduced to breaking a law to do something that is as simple as riding a skateboard. I think also, for a center like this to work, we need to have a location. I know there is an empty building on lower Main Street where the old flea market was. It has been like that since I have been here, which isn't very long. And it is useless property right now, it's been sitting there and is pretty ugly, and nobody does anything with it. It is close enough to downtown where it would be, people who are downtown, hanging out, it is a safe option for people, yet it is not so far from the residential areas that it would be impossible to get to. Our facility would have a movie room, pool tables, a skate park, and vending machines to help pay for these things. The reason for the skate park that I think is a really good idea is we have a lot of skaters in Burlington, and there is no skate parks in Vermont. I have a friend, josh, who was supposed to be here, but could not. He traveled to Montreal, travels like two and a half hours and pays $15 to $20 to go skating to ride a skateboard. And I think that, the town could charge $5, which would help cover maintenance costs and things like that. And we can cut costs also by being indoors. You might think that indoors is more expensive, but with an outdoor facility you have to store all the ramps. You can't just leave them out. CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: Let me just jump in there. Damien, do you have something you wanted to add to that? DAMIEN WYZGA: No. CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: Okay. You are here for company. EWING FOX: I think this would allow kids to have a safe place to be after school, even in the winter, because it goes all the way through. We also have some safety requirements like helmets and safety gear, and legal waivers. It will be expensive though, it won't be cheap, and will require the town's support, and Damien has some ideas on how to finance it. DAMIEN WYZGA: To finance this endeavor, we are going to draw upon the city skate park fund. As far as I know, I think there is about $60,000 in it. Once the center is open, we are going to maintain it with revenue from vending machines, video games, dollar movies, and a small entrance fee. We will also promote local skate shops in Burton. Burton has excelled in community outreach, programs, including its CHILL program, which I was in. This is a program designed to give youth the chance to snowboard. We believe that, to begin this program, we will require about $100,000 to build the ramps, jumps and half pipes. This would also include the upkeep. We believe we will receive the support from the community at large, and companies like Burton, Original Sin. Cherry Bone, B Side, Snow School, Snow Board Attic, and the American Ski Corporation. Statement by Abby Krasner Regarding Student Activism ABBY KRASNER: I am presenting the need for government support for student activism and involvement in politics. This issue is of great importance, because we have the lowest voter turnout in any industrialized nation. Since the voting age is 18, the best time to start to engage people in our political system is in high school. Now, few 18-year-olds know enough about policy issues beyond the sex lives of their politicians. Our involvement ensures a reversal in the trend of low voter turnout. If this generation started to be involved, our voter registration rates would increase as we got older. Soon almost everyone would have a sense of responsibility for the political and social state of our nation. Also, perhaps our idealism can counteract the cynicism of the older people, to put a positive slant on politics. If we become involved, the word ``politics'' might not just mean a spectator sport in which people are expected only to care about the winning and losing sides; it might become a word that connotes caring about other people and the condition of our society. My experience shows that getting young people involved is much less difficult than is ordinarily supposed. I am the co- chair in Vermont for an organization called the International Student Activism Alliance, a nationwide group dedicated to helping students find a voice and express their concerns. In this role, I have discovered many students in the state and county who deeply care about the world around them. They simply lack the resources to connect with each other, and therefore often find it difficult to make a difference. Since the student activism groups that exist have limited funding, they are unable to reach the number of students they would like to. I propose that state and/or national governments support activism through several methods, including funding. This student/congressional town meeting is a good first step. If every state could have a comparable meeting or conference put together by their Congressperson or other elected official, students around the country would have a forum to exchange their ideas. The goal would be to involve as many students as possible. Local groups of students would meet more frequently to focus on what their involvement means to their community, state and country. The statewide coalition of groups created by the conference or meeting would communicate regularly. Delegates from the state group would come together in a national conference, where they would be able to share their opinions with people from around the country. Their lawmakers would be requested to meet with the group or with delegates privately, to advise them. This would provide a link to the political system, that would encourage the students to attempt to solve their problems through the system. Another way to connect students around the country is through electronic media. Funding from the state could allow for a central web site to be set up, an E-mail mailing list, or a national database that listed the names and issues of socially active youth around the country. In all these efforts, we need the advice and support of our lawmakers. We are fledgling activists, and are often so unsure we can change anything that we don't attempt to. If every politician were like Bernie and supported youth involvement through involvements like this, the country would be invigorated by young activists. We need financial support to extend the research of organizations; but we also need moral support to disprove the myth of teen apathy to the world.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman saying he wanted to go to the NEA and for how long a period?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California for his support and for his eloquent remarks. I would just mention, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of the offset that we are talking about, fossil energy programs have received over $15 billion in 1995 dollars in Federal funding since 1974. Maybe it is about time we pay attention to the counties and the small towns in California and Vermont.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his perceptive remarks. He is right on the money, and I would again reiterate that since 1974 the Federal Government has put in over $15 billion in fossil energy research while we are shortchanging rural America. According to the CBO, the beneficiaries of the Petroleum Research and Development program are some of the largest multinational corporations in the world, including Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, etc., shortchanging rural America, providing corporate welfare for large corporations that do not need it.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, some of us have amendments in title I. How does the gentleman's proposal affect those amendments getting heard today?

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

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. I am inserting their statements in the Congressional Record as I believe that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues. Statement By Isaac Evans-Frantz and Alina Lyon Regarding Gay-Straight Issues Isaac Evans-Frantz: Growing up gay, lesbian or bisexual can be very difficult in the society that we live in. Many gay teenagers are subjected to homophobia every day of their lives. 93 percent of Vermont educators reported that homophobic name-calling takes place with great frequency and intensity in their schools. We can assure you that these educators are absolutely correct. Gays are frequently harassed at school, and many drop out as a result. Those kids who hide their sexual orientations because of fear sometimes suffer just as much. It is not surprising that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay youth. An overwhelming percent of gay and lesbian youth experience severe social isolation. It is often difficult for these students to find the resources and support that they need within their schools. The silence about homosexuality not only affects gays, but affects our entire society. We are caught in a cycle of fear and hatred, which comes from ignorance. It is obvious that the bigoted remarks about gays that are so prevalent in our hallways are the result of an education we have not had. Aliana Lyon: Prism, Brattleboro's Gay-Straight Alliance, was started two years ago as the answer to an urgent need of support for gay, lesbian and bisexual youth. The Gay-Straight Alliance is open to all who wish to attend, and sexual orientation is not discussed unless initiated by the students. The Alliance plays two major roles--it acts as a support group and an activist group. Our group is composed of about twenty students and is supported by trusted faculties and community members. Prism is a comfortable atmosphere of caring people where issues of harassment, sexuality, homophobia and personal fears are freely discussed. When we are not sharing stories or concerns, we are planning our next project to make people aware of homophobia in our school or society. We started working within our school first. We led discussions on homophobia in the freshman health classes, trying to create an awareness of our group's existence and the social issue. To involve the community, we showed an educational video called `It's Elementary.'' It discusses homosexuality with elementary school children, asking them what they think the definition of gay, lesbian or bisexuality means. It is followed by a sharing of experiences, ideas and information. We have visited other gay straight alliances in Vermont and Massachusetts to inform each other of events happening, along with difficulties and successes of having an alliance in public schools. Statewide, Prism has visited the Vermont State House twice for Teen Day at the legislature. The second visit, we facilitated a workshop in how to start an alliance, and how to find the support needed to sustain an alliance. We are not funded by the school for any of these activities, and we have paid for our own expenses by grants and donations. Isaac Evans-Frantz. There are still many schools that provide little assistance for gay, lesbian and bisexual students. We feel that this support is important to their social and academic well-being. We would like to see our governments--local, state, and national--provide financial backing for schools to initiate gay-straight alliances. Massachusetts has done just that. In 1992, the Governor and Lt. Governor established a commission to research problems affecting gay and lesbian youth. As a result, the Massachusetts government offered monetary incentives for schools to start groups for gay and lesbian and straight students. Hopefully, the work of Massachusetts will serve as a model for Vermont and the country. Our state has made progress towards making schools safer for gay students. In March, our Governor and Commissioner of Education wrote a letter to Vermont school principals urging them to stop the harassment of gay and lesbian students. He reminded schools that Vermont law requires every school to maintain a policy prohibiting the harassment, including harassment of homosexuals. We hope that one day, gay and straight alliances will no longer be necessary. Until then, we ask that our schools, our state, and our nation take an active role in making our schools places where all students are safe, valued, and respected. Congressman Sanders: A very good job.