Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is aware that when we talk about NAFTA or MFN with China that there is a massive lobbying effort going on by corporate America trying to influence the Members of this body. They will put ads in newspapers throughout this country telling everybody how good these trade policies are. Whether or not the two- party system can give birth to a candidate who is prepared to take on these moneyed interests I frankly have my doubts. But one of the things that does concern me is that what does go on here in this body is, instead of addressing the real issue of the fact that in many ways this Nation is becoming an oligarchy dominated by a relatively few large corporations and wealthy individuals, instead of recognizing that reality and trying to deal with it and develop policies which address that problem, what we see is a lot of scapegoating. What we see is black being played off against white, native versus immigrant, gay versus straight, everybody against everybody, rather than figuring out how we can come together as a people to try to address the difficult problems that the gentleman articulated about the global economy, can we create, with all of this new technology, every day we hear about the information highway, right, how important the computers are. Well, if all of that stuff is so valuable, as I expect that it is, why are we not seeing increased wealth going to the middle class and the working class? Why are we not seeing people working fewer hours rather than longer hours? Why are we not seeing more people covered by health insurance rather than fewer? Why do we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world? Why are we in the process right now, as some would have us, cutting Medicare by $115 billion, lowering the quality of health care for our senior citizens? So the issue becomes how do we come together as a people, black and white, immigrant and native born, woman and men, gay and straight, all of us come together and say how do we create decent jobs for our people rather than seeing jobs going to China where workers are being paid 20 cents an hour? How do we use technology to lower the workweek rather than to put American workers out of their jobs? We are not doing that. We are not addressing that. I think the reason is that we need to begin to come up with some of the answers to those questions by challenging big money interests and to a large degree, and my feeling is in this body it is almost an issue people feel uncomfortable talking about. We are just not allowed to talk about the power of the wealthy.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman's remarks, and I especially congratulate him for focusing his thoughts on what is happening to ordinary working people rather than just the very wealthy and the very powerful. One of the aspects of modern life which concerns me very much is that when we turn on the television or we read the newspapers, as you well know we hear about the booming economy; do we not? We hear about how some Wall Street folks tell us that the economy has literally never been better in our lifetimes, and they wonder just how long it will continue to be so good. And then I go back to the State of Vermont, and I talk to working people from one end of the State to the other, and I say to them tell me about the booming economy. And what they say is, Bernie, I am working two jobs or three jobs, and my wife is out working long hours just to pay the bills. So we do not have too much time to consider the booming economy. We are just working hard to keep our heads above water. And the reality is, according to the official statistics, that in the midst of all of this great boom, what is going on for the average working person? Well, I do not hear this too much. Yes, we know recently, we read recently, that the CEO's of major corporations are now earning over 200 times what their workers are making, so we can see for the CEO's, the chief executive officers of major corporations, things are booming. That is true. And we also read recently that compensation for the CEO's last year was 54 percent higher than the previous year. We concede that too. If you are a CEO of a major corporation, I guess the economy is booming. But when you read through the fine print, you find that for the average American worker last year, wages went up on average by about 3.8 percent. Inflation is about 3 percent. And we know that low-wage workers got a bit of a boost because we raised the minimum wage a little bit. We know that the higher income workers generally do better than the middle-class workers. So you add it all together, and what you discover is that in the midst of this great boom the standard of living of the average middle- class worker continues to decline, and if the standard of living of working-class people declines today in the midst of a boom, I wonder very much what will happen when our boom ends, as it is sure to end. I am also concerned that in the midst of all of this so-called boom, the United States continues to have, by far, not even close, the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world. We do not talk about that too much; we do not see this too much on the corporate media's television stations or in the newspapers, but the facts are pretty clear. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population now owns over 40 percent of the wealth of America, and the richest 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and we have the greatest gap between the rich and poor of any other country in the industrialized world. What kind of boom is that? We know that during the last 20 years, while we have seen a significant increase in millionaires and billionaires, 80 percent of all American families have seen either a decline in their net income or, at best, economic stagnation. In fact, adjusted for inflation, the average pay of four-fifths of American workers plummeted 16 percent in 20 years. Twenty years ago in the United States of America, as you well know, the United States led the world in terms of the wages and benefits we provided our workers. We were number one. And now in the midst of the great boom, we are down to 13th place. In Germany, for example, manufacturing workers there earn over 25 percent of what manufacturing workers in the United States earn. In 1973 the average American worker earned $445 a week. Twenty years later, with inflation adjusted dollars, that same worker was making $373 a week. People today are working far longer hours than they have to, than they were 20 years ago. So you are seeing people working two jobs, three jobs, over time, women who would prefer to be home with their kids being forced to work in order to pay the bills. Where is the boom for the middle class or the working class of this country? It is not there. And one of the reasons, as you so aptly pointed out in your remarks, is the disastrous and failing trade policy which this country is currently experiencing. And in my opinion it is not just NAFTA, it is GATT, it is Most Favored Nation status with China, it is the huge trade deficit that we have. And as I think you indicated, the issue is not too complicated. If an American company is forced to choose between paying an American worker a living wage of $10 or $15 an hour providing decent benefits, having to protect the environment, or run to Mexico where you can get a good worker there for 70 or 80 cents an hour, you do not have to worry about the environment, you do not have to worry about unions, what choice is that employer going to make? And the evidence is pretty clear, the choice that that employer made, which is why we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. So I would just say as we begin our discussion here, I know in my State of Vermont, and I suspect throughout the country, there may be a boom, but it certainly is not applying to the middle class or the working families of my State.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I believe we do not, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. SANDERS. No, I do not think it is, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McKinney amendment and congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] on his efforts. This is an important step forward.

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

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak very briefly about Ngawang Choephel. Mr. Choephel is a Tibetan man who studied ethnomusicology at Middlebury College at Middlebury, VT, on a Fulbright scholarship in 1993, and I should tell my colleagues that when he was at Middlebury College he made a whole lot of friends, and a lot of folks in Middlebury and throughout the State of Vermont are very concerned about his fate. In the summer of 1995 he returned to Tibet to make a nonpolitical documentary film about traditional Tibetan music and dance because he was concerned that his cultural heritage was being forgotten. In the fall of 1995 he was arrested and held incommunicado in a Chinese prison for 1 year until he was accused of espionage last October and sentenced last December. Mr. Chairman, Ngawang Choephel's only crime was to film dancers in Tibet, but the Chinese Government as part of its long-term campaign to stomp out all remnants of Tibetan cultural identity has accused Mr. Choephel of espionage and sentenced him to 18 years in prison for filming dance in Tibet, and followed by 7 years deprivation of political rights. This is the most severe sentence given a Tibetan in over 7 years. Mr. Chairman, the State Department agrees that there is no known evidence Mr. Choephel committed any crime. This is simply one more example of an outrageous human rights abuse in China. According to the State Department's human rights country report on China and Tibet, the repression there is so severe that there are currently no active dissidents in all of China; they are all in prison. Mr. Chairman, my amendment represents the response of the Congress to the situation. It is based on language which passed the Senate without dissent and which I introduced as House Concurrent Resolution 44 earlier this spring with the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. This resolution simply states that Ngawang Choephel and other prisoners of conscience in Tibet and China should be released immediately, but the United States should seek his release; that we should promote access to Tibet for international human rights groups; that the State Department should advise Americans that Tibet is not a safe destination for American travelers; and that we should continue to promote a resolution at future meetings of the UN Commission on Human Rights addressing human rights in China and Tibet until the situation improves substantially. This is a nonpartisan noncontroversial amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 34th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, the original legislation to address the wage disparity between men and women. I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that while the Equal Pay Act is a necessary piece of legislation, it has not yet lived up to its promise of ensuring equal pay for equal work. I recently attended a rally held in my district commemorating Pay Inequity Day, which fell on April 11, 1997. Pay Inequity Day marks the day when working women's 1996-97 paychecks will, on average, finally equal what men earned in 1996 alone. This day falls over 4 months into 1997. This is simply unacceptable. In my work as a Member of Congress, I often focus on the growing problem of income disparity and how the families of America are affected by this and the growing inequality of wealth in our country. In looking at the statistics we see that even 34 years after enacting the Equal Pay Act, the wage disparity between men and women still plagues this country. In 1995, women earned only 71 percent of wages earned by men. According to the National Academy of Sciences, between one-third and one-half of the wage difference between men and women cannot be explained by differences in experience, education, or other legitimate qualifications. Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates that women earn equal pay in only 2 out of 90 detailed occupations. What does this mean for the American family? The picture is not good. Vermont families and families across the country are becoming more and more dependent on women's wages. Today, 40 percent of all working women have children under the age of 18--children who depend upon them for care, shelter, food, clothing, et cetera. Although most American families today must rely heavily on women's wages, women with the same qualifications as men continue to make less than their male counterparts. If we look closely at the wage gap between men and women over the years, we notice that it narrowed slightly in the 1980's. Some may have looked at that as a gain for women. The truth is however, that the narrowing of the gap was largely due to a decline in men's wages. Now how does that fare for American families? As for my district, according to data supplied by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, Vermont ranks 3d in the Nation for wage equity. The Vermont female/male ratio is 75 percent while the U.S. average is 68 percent. Vermont shares its ranking with Alaska and sits below only Washington, DC. Some may try to indicate that since Vermont is ranked third, we do not have a problem and we can relax. I say that is just not acceptable. It is our job to respond that no pay inequity is acceptable--not 68 percent, not 75 percent, not 95 percent. Women should expect and receive 100 percent--equal pay as men for equal work.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by high school students from Gailer School in VT, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Ms. Leach: Congressman Sanders, the United States government wants to regulate the information available on the Internet via the U.S. Communications Decency Act and Exxon- Garten Communications Decency legislation. We as adult citizens in the United States believe that this legislation is violating our First Amendment rights to the freedom of expression. The First Amendment was created by American's founders to protect the individual's rights, two of these rights being freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The CDA is going to be limiting these rights and violating the First Amendment. Is this right? No. The CDA calls for a $100,000 fine and up to two years in jail for transmitting indecent material over the computer networks. What is indecent? What is indecent to some may not be some to others. To others it is self-expression which is protected by the First Amendment. Expressing yourself is an American right. It may come in the form of unconventional speech down to pornography, but it is all self-expression. Americans should be able to speak freely over the Internet about controversial issues such as abortion or sex without fear of prosecution. We are not a free people if we cannot speak freely and share our opinions. As for children, they are under their parents' responsibility for guidance on the Internet. Adult expression should not be prohibited for the protection of children. The government does not parent children, parents parent children. So I say to you, please protect our rights. The Internet is a wonderful way to express and share our opinion with the world. Don't make us have to be afraid of prosecution if we have unconventional, maybe indecent opinions which we wish to express. If the CDA is passed we will start losing our First Amendment rights. Keep us a free people, free to express ourselves. Mr. Herr. There are also important technological concerns. Forty percent of the websites on the Internet are located on the hard drives of computers that are physically located outside of any area in which the United States can be said to have jurisdiction and this number is growing. How would the Communications Decency Act prevent children within the United States from accessing information and pictures contained within these sites? In addition, it would be entirely possible for United States citizens to rent space on one of these foreign sites and post any information or pictures that he or she wanted to. The Communications Decency Act makes it illegal for an Internet service provider such as America Online or Togethernet to provide material that is patently offensive to minors. It is possible for these organizations not directly to provide such information to minors by not carrying it on the Internet service which they control. However, there are many public Internet servers that are available for use by anyone attached to the Internet who state it could not be regulated by the Communications Decency Act. Therefore, any Internet service provider whose users could access any of these servers would be open to prosecution under the Communications Decency Act. As you can see, Representative Sanders, it is clearly unfair to any Internet service provider and could in fact act to shut down the Internet within the United States whereby denying U.S. citizens access to a valuable tool. Lastly, because of the way Internet protocols are written there is no way of confirming the age of persons accessing a website or a new server. The fear of prosecution has caused many Internet sites to provide material solely for adult audiences because they have been technically unable to prevent minors from accessing their sites. The Electronic ID is the best quick fix for this problem as minors can get these IDs and there are so many competing standards that adults cannot access some sites. We do not object to your controlling what comes through the Internet to your own computer and what your child sees. There are softwares available for just for that purpose. It's low cost and schools can obtain that as well. Ms. Leach: Also monitoring what your children are seeing on the Internet is very important. Relating to what the kids are doing on the Internet is important so you know what they are looking at. It is the parents' responsibility just as it is with television to watch what your kid are looking at and whether you want them to see or not to see. It is illegal to do things like yell fire when it is inappropriate but that is a totally different subject, that is a different kind of expression. Mr. Herr: I would argue that it is their right to yell fire, but they have to face the consequences of their actions which would be prosecution for manslaughter in that case. It is a valid idea from that person's point of view and whoever did the acts that were portrayed on that Internet site would be liable to prosecution under the current laws.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few observations today about the European Security Act (H.R. 1758), which authorizes United States taxpayer dollars to prepare the Baltic States for NATO expansion. Let me begin with a quote by former United States Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, from the Bush administration, commenting on NATO expansion and the Baltic countries: If we ever think of bringing the Baltic countries into NATO we ought to have our heads examined. First place, it would be a real threat--threat maybe not but a real challenge--to the Russians. Think about the commitment to defend them--we couldn't do it even if we were the only superpower in the world, which we seem to be. First of all, Russia clearly perceives that the expansion of NATO into the Baltics would be an aggressive, wholly unjustifiable move by the United States. On May 22, 1997, President Boris Yeltsin's spokesman, Sergei Yastrzhembskii, stated that if NATO expands to include Former Soviet Republics, Russia will review all of its foreign policy priorities and its relations with the West. Since the cold war is over, why are we militarily provoking Russia? Second, how much more are we going to ask United States taxpayers to ante up to defend Europe in an expanded NATO with a still undefined mission? The total price tag is estimated at anywhere from $27 billion to $150 billion over the next 10 to 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of NATO expansion will be between $60.6-$124.7 billion over 15 years. Don't forget that we have already paid $60 million through the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act in order to assist Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia in bringing their Armed Forces up to NATO standards. Lastly, I am also concerned about reports that several of the prospective new NATO member states have been involved in arms sales to terrorist countries. For example, Poland has made five shipments to Iran of T-72 tanks, equipment and trainers, Slovenia sent M-60 tanks to Iran, and Bulgaria sent North Korea 15 tons of explosives. After four decades of the cold war and trillions of United States taxpayer dollars allocated to compete in the arms race, many of our constituents understand that it is not the time to continue wasting tens of billions of dollars helping to defend Europe, let alone assuming more than our share of any costs associated with expanding NATO eastward. Mr. Speaker, in the words of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, ``We [get] nothing for NATO expansion but a bill.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by high school students from Enosburg High School in Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Ms. Ludlum: Good afternoon, Congressman Sanders. It is generally acknowledge that an educated citizenry is a desired thing for the United States. It is needless to say that it is imperative in this age of globalization. Through it the skills, knowledge and value of our democratic capitalistic system are imparted to the next generation, thus enabling us to better compete globally. However, many American public schools are not adequately preparing their students. Too many graduates of American high schools are ill prepared to compete in the global marketplace. The question is how best to fix this? Ms. Stanley: There are many educational models, theories and philosophies to make public schools more effective. While educational theorists, politicians and practitioners are locked into a constant tug of war over the most effective practices to follow. Students needs and wants are not being met. Without a school choice most students are simply along for the ride. Those who wish to get a education which meets their needs and wants must wait until they graduate from high school. At that point they can, within the limits of their financial needs, attend the school of their choice. But why wait until then? why not extend school choice to all high school students or for that matter to all students? Mr. Whitehead: To an extent we in Vermont are afforded school choice. The current practice of some communities of paying tuition for their students to attend middle and high schools elsewhere is defacto school choice. Unfortunately, that is only available for students who do not have a middle or high school in their own communities. We know that for many of these communities it was originally a decision driven by economics. However, some of these communities have since grown, yet have chosen not to build their own middle and high schools. Why not? To do so would mean giving up school choice. So now the question is how could making school choice available to all students help public schools better accomplish their missions? What else would be needed to make it work? Ms. Repstead: Enosburg Junior and Senior High School benefits from this kind of school choice. Our high school is a small, rural middle and high school which serves 475 students from six nearby communities. Approximately one- fourth of the student body is in the middle school and the remainder of the student body is almost evenly split between resident and tuition students. We recently conducted a random study on the question of school choice. We asked 64 students in grade 6 through 12 to rank how they felt about school choice and in what grade or grades that should be an option and what form it should take. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of school choice by a margin of 95 percent to 5 percent. When we exclude the middle grades from the survey the approval rate was even higher, 98 percent to two percent. The few students who did not favor school choice were from the community of Enosburg. The most obvious explanation is loyalty. Tuitioned students unanimously supported school choice. When considering responses concerning the grade level in which school choice would be an option we noted that most students felt it should be available beginning the year they were in. Ms. Ludlum: We feel that a voucher program is the only choice to makes school possible, affordable and effective. We should extend to all Vermont the option of school choice. Families can make the types of educational choices they need and want. It would force public schools to be more competitive as well as stimulate the development of magnet and charter schools. Each of the latter two makes it possible through a variety of educational models to be tested in the marketplace. They would essentially function as working models that public schools could emulate. The people that are supporting it would have to say that the public schools would have to get better, individual public schools would have to get better because if they didn't nobody would attend the schools that weren't up to the higher standards. Some people say that if public money is going to private schools then the private schools would lose control and the government would be able to issue mandates on them. In support of school choice people say the competition will make public schools improve because if they do not improve they wouldn't get any money from those students who attend, but in opposition, some people say that private schools receiving governmental funds would not be a good thing because the government might then issue mandates and then would lose what makes them private schools. Mr. Whitehead. A student who chooses not to go to Enosburg whether they are from Enosburg or not, if they are from a different town from Enosburg their town would pay for it and they would pay as much or roughly as much as they would pay for a public education to Enosburg.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from Canaan Memorial High School in Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Mr. Houle: Congressman Sanders, imagine if you will a world where you have personal choice and freedom to express your inner thoughts and soul through forms of art and media. It would be a world where if someone was offended, they would make the choice not to listen, but they would not try to suppress your right to express it. In this world everyone respects an individual's right to free expression and speech. Recently K-Mart has said they refuse to sell CDS with offensive lyrics. This is blatant censorship. When someone tries to take away your right to hear something, it is censorship. There have been many incidents in the United States recently in which censorship has become a factor. For example, in Arizona Newt Gingrich calls for the closing of the Flag Art Exhibit. In Florida a Cuban scholar's visit was canceled after a citizens protest. In Utah a printing company refused to reproduce photos for a women's magazine. In Michigan a ``Where Do Queers Come From'' exhibit at a local college was closed. And finally in Kentucky, ``Blasphemous art'' caused an outcry at the University of Kentucky. In school libraries Ernest Hemingway's novels are banned as are several good pieces of literature. Around the world films are banned and are censored. Film festivals and exhibitions are censored as well. Our grounds for this censorship is broad and well-defined, but are speculative and opinionated. Unfortunately, opinions vary and freedom of speech is a right, but unfortunately rights are being ignored and opinions are preordained. As you can see, censorship is alive and well in America where our First Amendment right is supposed to be enforced. It has gotten so bad around the world that the life of Salman Rushdie was threatened for writing The Satanic Verses. It's gotten so bad that we've had to turn to a porno king, Larry Flynt as a savior of the First Amendment right. Basically what it comes down to is if it offends you, you can always turn the other cheek. Pornography even has its value. Some people just cannot live without their pornography, and if it was not for pornography they could be doing much worse things. If you deny someone's right to see something or say something that they want to say, that eventually they are just going to explode. I myself do not want a burned flag, but I think if someone wants to protest that way it should be allowed because I know myself I do not pledge allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the country. In conclusion, one can censor a work of art but not the idea. The idea will fester and come out in a much more explosive, sometimes more violent way. Thank you for your time, Congressman Sanders. We hope you help us fight for the cause in your position of leadership.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from Brattleboro High School in Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Ms. Mishra: Good morning, Congressman Sanders. I have come here today to speak about the issue of sweatshops. The dictionary defines a sweatshop as a factory where workers work long hours for low wages under unwholesome conditions. You know as well as I that this type of work exists today and it is being used by many rich and famous companies. I would like to focus on one particular company, Disney, and its factories in Haiti. Disney exploits thousands of people in Haiti every day. It hires the Haitian people to work in its sweatshops, paying them only 28 cents an hours, requiring them to strive toward fairly impossible quotas and keeping them from ever being able to change their conditions. How much responsibility does a company like Disney have for the wellbeing of its employees? According to the United States government the responsibility is large. Corporate codes of conduct guarantee the human rights of any person working for a U.S. company be it in the U.S. or abroad. Trade benefits are given to Disney by the U.S. and Haiti on the condition that there is respect for human rights, but while Disney enjoys the tax exemptions, it doesn't live up to its part of the bargain. 28 cents an hour is not a living wage. Disney knows this, its manufacturers know this. While it may indeed be the minimum wage in Haiti, we must ask ourselves is it enough for a person to survive? If you believe as does Disney that it is not an essential, that it is an essential part of everyday life to eat, that education isn't important and that diseases such as malaria and dysentery can be fought off without even medicines then 28 cents is more than enough. But if you would agree that living on sugar water, going to bed hungry and being in constant debt is unfair and not right, then you would side with the Haitian workers. The average Haitian Disney employee after paying off all her debts she possibly can comes home to her family with little more than $3 in her pocket. Keep in mind that the cost of living in Haiti is just about the same as it is in the U.S. Imagine having to survive on $3 a week, 44 cents a day. 44 cents cannot buy a can of Campbell's soup, it cannot buy the $2 used pair of shoes that one of your children is in desperate need of. The Haitian workers are not being extravagant in their requests, asking for a 30 cent pay raise from 28 to 58 cents an hour. Right now the workers are receiving less than one half of one percent in the total cost of the merchandise they make, earning 7 cents for every $11.99 pair of Pocohontas pajamas they sew. If granted their request they would be earning 9 cents out of every $11.97 pair of pajamas they sew; that is a two cent difference. This would still leave Disney, the contractors and Walmart with over 99 percent of the profit. Disney can afford to give a pay rise for its Haitian workers. It pays its CEO, Michael Eisner over $10,000 an hour; $10,000 compared to 28 cents. It would take a worker in Haiti sewing Disney clothes 14 and a half years to earn what Michael Eisner earns in one hour, and 29,000 years to earn what he earns in one year. Finally, raising the wages of the Haitian workers would not only be beneficial to the workers themselves but to U.S. residents as well. A person earning 28 cents an hour who cannot even afford to feed her own family cannot afford to buy products made in the U.S. I urge you, Congressman Sanders to look into the dealings of Disney in Haiti; I urge you to put pressure on companies such as Disney to stop the use of sweatshops; I urge you to get Disney to live up to its responsibilities as an employer. The Haitian people deserve better. In the case of Disney I know that in Grand Rapids there is a factory and Disney moved its company overseas and a lot of people in Grand Rapids lost their jobs. They had been working there for 20 years, as much as 20 years, and now they are without jobs, working at McDonald's or whatever they can find. The problem is so immense and when I was researching I found that our tax money is going towards helping executives and business people in Haiti continue these sweatshops and I think that needs to be stopped. And I think that even though we have laws, the corporate codes of conduct, et cetera, they are not being followed, so we need people to watch out over these companies because obviously these companies are not doing it themselves. Citizens, consumers can watch what they are buying if they see something made from Disney, look at where it is made, and if it is made in Haiti you know these people are working for so long and have such hard hours and they are not earning anything. They do not even have enough food to eat. You have to consider that. The clock is really nice, but do you really want to support a sweatshop in Haiti?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by high school students from Canaan High School in Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Ms. Inkel: Good morning, Congressman Sanders. We would like to bring your attention to the issue of child abuse. Child abuse is a serious problem in today's society. We need to focus on it and we need to fight it. One specific thing that we feel needs to be done is to start a child safety network. This is sort of like a criminal network. As of right now when there is a complaint of child abuse to Child Protective Services, a case is opened and an investigation is begun. If this family moves to another State the case is closed. The former State can warn the new State, but because of confidentiality, the case stays closed. This means that the abuse will most likely continue. We feel that all the States should work as one to unite to fight this problem. Across the United States why cannot we unite to fight this problem. Ms. Rice: In order to start this child safety network we need to come up with something for funding. We suggest that we increase alcohol, tobacco and other consumption-based taxes by about 0.5 percent. The money generated from these taxes would be used to start up a child safety network. If this program were started the lives of many innocent children would be saved. We understand that a few people will lose their incentive to buy, but there are still many other users willing to buy at any cost. Therefore, we believe that there will still be left money earned to go into a desperately needed program, one that protects the wellbeing of children. Child abuse is wrong and it is a disgrace that so many cases go undetected and unpunished. It is time that the government do something about this atrocious problem. Child abuse is a very serious problem. Last year there were 200,000 cases of child abuse reported. One female in every three or four is likely to be sexually victimized before she is 18 years old. Data for males is more scarce and less reliable, but it is 1 in 10 and 1 in 6, and 2 percent of Americans will be sexually victimized in childhood; child abuse is one of the most unreported of all crimes. It is a problem everywhere. There is child abuse in every State, and what we really want to--first of all, we need more money because there are some caseworkers that are getting 50 or 60 kids a week to have to take care of and that doesn't give them much time to actually sit down and work with these kids, so more money needs to be put to that. And we wanted money for this program of the child safety network because of these families who are just moving out of the State and the cases are just being closed because they cannot say anything because of confidentiality and these kids are just going to be moved everywhere and nothing is being done about what is going on. Ms. Inkel: I have no idea really why someone would ever imagine hitting a child. Some say it is because they were abused when they were younger, some blame it on alcohol and drugs,

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by high school students from Essex High School in Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Mr. Nesto: Good morning, Congressman Sanders. Social Security first began August 14, 1935 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Social Security was started because people began facing the uncertainty of debt in old age. After Social Security numbers were signed the first taxes were collected beginning in January 1937, and until 1940 Social Security paid benefits in the form of single lump sum payments. In January of 1940, Ida Mae Fuller became the first person to receive new monthly Social Security benefits. She received $22.54 payment per month for the rest of her life. In 1950, there was new legislation to increase the checks to offset the increase in the price of living and inflation. In the 1960s the age requirement for Social Security was lowered to 62. Also Medicare was added so that people age 65 years and older could receive health care. In the 70s it became clear that Social Security was having a problem. Programs were run by the state and local government. The programs became more complex and inconsistent with each other. They decided to convert over three million people from state control to federal control to solve the problem, but in the '80s more problems formed. Social Security ran into long-term financial problems which led to many cut-backs. Today many believe that Social Security--some people believe that Social Security is in trouble. People who have reached the age for benefits expect to be paid what they have put into the system all their lives. During the month of December, 1996, $28,147,981 was paid out nationally. In Vermont there was $6,280,000 paid out. There is currently 43,557,700 people who receive money nationally. This right here shows the breakdown of different people that receive payments. It is broken down into widowers and retired people, too. 98,316 people receive that in Vermont. Mr. Hershey: According to the Social Security Administration there is currently more money going in than there is being paid out. This is to create a surplus for baby boomers. The problem we foresee is the amount of money we receive. 7.65 percent of your paycheck goes to Social Security, and your employer pays out 7.65 percent. Out of that 15.3 percent, 10.5 percent goes to retirement, survivor's, dependents and trust fund insurance. the total reserve for that category for one year is $416 billion. 1.7 percent goes to disability insurance which has a reserve of $6 billion. 2.9 percent goes to Medicare and we reserve $127 million and currently we have a .02 percent that is unaccounted for. For retired workers per month average payout is $745. Disabled workers will have about $704 and nondisabled widows and widowers will have $707. Even the maximum of $725 a month is not enough for a person to live. This is our biggest concern. Many retired people have many problems because Social Security doesn't pay enough, plus added to the problem is the government needs more money; Social Security is an easy target. Our solutions are short and simple. The easiest thing is for Social Security to be set aside like a piggy bank making it a law for the Government not to take out of it. The other is that a person who works for about 50 years should have built up enough money to pay for themselves for at least a half of that time. We recommend that the taxes be put in a fund that gains interest over the time they work. A certain amount will go to a fund for disabled people who have had to stop work earlier. If the first taxes are left alone and allowed to make interest over 50 years we should be able to have every two or three working months to pay for one month of retirement. There is a chart here, it sort of maps out the government mandates savings which go to a direct fund and basically it will be there for you when you retire. We hope you will take our ideas into consideration and practice. Mr. Nesto: Right now the Social Security Administration is taking in more money than they are giving out right now and so they do not have any problems right now. But speculation in the upcoming years, people believe, and I do not necessarily believe that there is going to be a problem but it is speculation because as the baby boomers age, pretty soon as those people are going to be retiring and that's why we are taking in more money now so we can give them back their funds. So when that money is used for the baby boomers is there going to be enough money to pay for our retirement? Right now there is not really any education on this. A lot of people believe that the Social Security Administration is going bankrupt and stuff like that, but they do not really-- if they research the subject they wouldn't really--they'd find out it is not really a problem right now. Mr. Hersey. I have seen a lot of like news shows where people are living on Social Security where there is a company that is creating insurance funds so people pay for it and perhaps those companies are creating that impression so they can make more money in their fund.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from Harwood Union School in Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Ms. Sweet. The instances of young children, children under age of 6 living in poverty in the United States has risen dramatically over the last two decades. Child poverty is a problem that encompasses urban, suburban, and rural areas and affects children of all ethnic backgrounds. Between the years of 1975, 2 years after the lowest recorded child poverty level, 11.1 percent, the rate increased 39 percent, so that by 1994, one in four young children lived in poverty in the United States. Forty-five percent of all children under the age of 6 lived in poor or nearly poor families. Because poverty has proved to be more detrimental to young children than to any other age group, because poverty often means hunger, poor health care, poor education, and even because of the economic problems of a future ill-prepared work force the issue of child poverty is one that necessitates immediate action. Why the great rise in child poverty? Over the past two decades and especially since the beginning of the 1980's there has occurred an increasing gap between the rich and poor in this country. The average workers wages have declined since 1970 while the wealthiest fifth of the population has seen their incomes increased. This small distribution of wealth significantly affects the poverty of children when 62 percent of all poor children live with at least one working relative. Even more important than reforming the welfare system will be the reform of an economy that has created the largest gap between the rich and the poor in any industrialized nation. In the past 2 years because of the increased funding of the welfare system and other programs, poverty rates have made a moderate decline. With the new welfare reform bill passed in 1996, loss of funding may cause another increase in child poverty. The work requirement of the new welfare bill will not be affected until backed up with adequate child care and health care programs and a reform of the economy. Many welfare recipients also because they are unable to find work for a living wage and unable to care for their children while at work, single parents especially need to be provided with access to affordable and adequate child care and health services if they are to work outside of the home. Children are the future leaders, the future work force, the future citizens of the United States of which one in four even today is living in poverty or near poverty or without many of the opportunities needed to live successfully as citizens of the United States. Congressman Sanders, I thank you for your time and urge you to consider the children of the Nation as much as possible in the future. Poverty gives young children, especially young mothers, pregnant mothers, children can end up with low-birth weight and are more--after they are born--are more susceptible to disease and malnutrition and other health problems and are also more unable to get a good education as children of welfare. It generally impacts the future of a child who grows up poor who has considerably less access to a good education, is less motivated in school and doesn't really see a way out of poverty. Considering that welfare only takes up 2 percent of the Federal budget I think that more funding could be put into helping people who have children who are unable to make a decent wage, to help the children get a better education and get decent health care. Most people that are receiving welfare are unable to make a decent wage and even if they are unable to pay for education that would provide them with a better job. The percentage that I found was that only 2 percent of the population is receiving Federal aid and is entirely unemployed, so 62 percent of all families with four children are working, have at least one relative that is working, so I think that we need to provide people with better jobs, with better pay. With the new computer technology there are a lot of jobs predicted but I do not think most people who are poor are properly educated to go in those sorts of fields.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from Champlain Valley High School in Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Mr. Olson. Yes, hello. I am here today, Representative Sanders and classmates, to talk about an issue that is very pressing for most of us high school students, the increase in college financing and the troubles around it. If we look at the last ten years, since 1995 actually, at the money that has been put into the cost of college financing it has for the most part stayed the same. Government funding toward financial assistance has for the most part stayed the same. I know there was in a projected budget next year a $27 million increase, but that is not--for a national figure that is not a large increase whereas the costs of going to college since 1985 have been 2\1/2\ times that of inflation which is over 10 percent. If you look at the people who applied for financial aid in the 1985 and received the funds compared to what their tuition costs were and then did a cost comparison today, the comparison will be hard to make. We need to increase educational funding at the equal rate of the rising college expenses if we plan to send students who are talented and motivated, ambitious and want to go to college. And I think it is the duty of the Government to not necessarily directly fund but at least provide a means so that a student who is college bound in the sense, literal sense that he is able to go to college. I know that finance is certainly a contributing factor to a college decision, but in 1985 there were students who were deciding to go to one university or college over another because of financial reasons and there is nothing wrong with that competition, but now it has become not just a persuading factor, but I know there are a lot of students who apply to college and are forced to go to universities or colleges strictly because of unmet financial need, and I am curious about how we plan to remedy that situation. I think that any student who has the potential to be a college graduate and is unable to finance their way there should not be held back, and it needs to be allowed and the Federal Government is certainly involved in that as it is now, but needs to allow it to happen, whether it needs to come out of their budget or needs to come out of a program. There is a difference there because pleasure and--I do not want to say extra things, postsecondary school but a higher education right now is not a right, it is not, but I think it needs to be considered that we should not as a nation, not just the Government but as a nation discriminate against the less financially advantaged. My problem is that my kids are smarter than yours, they work harder than yours, and they are being born into a life that is less fortunate and it is a cycle that has been repeating in this Nation for a long period of time and needs to stop. I think that they should invest in me because I am an investment that is going to pay off and I am going to pay for their Social Security and I am going to undoubtedly--I mean, the students who are going to go to college have put in the hard work and are going to graduate are not just--I mean that money is not disappearing, it is being invested. In the last 10 or so years a lot of these programs, like corporate welfare, national defense, they have not stayed the same and there have been in the last--if you look at the last 10 years every year there has been slight increases, increases, increases, and I want to know why those same moneys didn't go to VSAC Program and TRIO? There has to be initiative taken because while these things were increasing, they were increasing with inflation so in order to have the military and the corporate welfare slowly increase year to year it is sort of like putting it on autopilot in some ways. They were going up every year and that was actually considered traditional, regular, accepted where it should have stayed the same, so someone had to have gone out of their way to make the initiative to make sure it didn't grow.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school student from Brattleboro High School in Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Mr. Crispe. Hello, Congressman Sanders. On February 6th the state Supreme Court ruled on the Brigham vs State of Vermont case claiming there is a statistically significant relationship between the wealth of a school district and its spending per student. They decided that there is a great disparity in the quality of education that a student in Vermont receives. It depends on where he or she resides; thus they ruled the current property tax for funding education is unconstitutional and it is up to the legislature to overhaul this unjust system. The House Ways and Means Committee set to work and on March 19th of this year the legislature passed the controversial House Bill, 527 for property tax reform. I am a concerned Vermonter and so I want to see this new bill equalize educational opportunity. The bill which the Senate is currently reviewing I believe to be better. I also understand that property tax reform is a tedious, confusing, and almost insurmountable task that legislatures have faced, and for me to try to understand how to make the bill better is even more difficult. However, I do believe there are some important additions that could be made. There is a large, non-residential tax rate for second homeowners and large businesses of $1.32 per $100 value of property. Under this progressive tax formula people will pay based on their ability. Places like ski areas and second homowners in Vermont will pay more while residential property taxes will be cut by two-thirds. I believe the higher income earners should pay more; however, in Vermont the highest income earners are already paying the highest rates in the country. The high non-residential tax could drive out businesses and hurt Vermont's largest industry, tourism. For a hypothetical example, Mt. Snow Ski Area has lots of money, but if it is taxed a lot more the ticket prices could go up and tourists refusing to pay the exorbitant amount will to Maine or New Hampshire to ski. All in all, it could create a cyclical domino effect that would end up hurting Vermont's economy and stunt its growth. Furthermore, second homeowners in Vermont will be hit hard under the non-residential tax. I feel they should pay more, but we should keep in mind that many of them are already paying for their own children's education in their respective states. We should not place a burden so high that they move away or our state is less attractive to stay in. It is important that income earners at all levels pay their fair share, but the non-residential range should not be so high as to end up damaging Vermont's economy by making it unreachable to outsiders. Also in the bill is the net residential tax of two acres of land. Basically any resident will pay the residential rate of 39 cents per $100 property value on up to two acres of land. After that two acres, they pay the large non-residential rate of $1.32 per hundred dollar value. This is unfair to Vermonters because two acres is a meager amount of land to only be able to afford. If people have to get rid of their land over two acres because they cannot afford the non- residential rate, we will not be using our land effectively and it is simply unfair. Another last thing to think about is the local income tax. This would be the third tax Vermonters pay: State, federal, local. We want to equalize education but we are doing it at the local level with the presumption that the towns are going to tax themselves to raise money above the state block grant. This may be a poor presumption because honestly people care about education but gag when they hear anything about more taxes. If this presumption fails and the towns do not tax themselves as planned, we could end up with the same educational disparities as the present system. House Bill 537 is generally good, but some of the aforementioned taxes could be eased by a couple of things: I propose to fix some of the problems of the bill by taxing heavily products totally unnecessary to Vermonters. We could put a larger tax on tobacco products, all lottery tickets and games, alcoholic beverages and even candy. I understand that in 537 there is going to be broad-based taxes on things like rooms, meals and gasoline, but a heavy tax on the mentioned products ought to generate a lot of additional revenue to ease the other taxes. Also for revenue a higher tax should be put on inheritances and trust funds, but not for inherited agricultural land. With the revenue from these taxes we could put forth the money to fixing some of the problems with the bill. We could allow a residential tax for maybe up to six acres of land and reduce the monetary need for the local income tax by pouring some of the revenue into the state pool for block grants. Other revenue could go to reducing the non-residential tax so businesses and non-residents won't move out or be discouraged from coming here. This can make our state attractive to prospective businesses which if they moved in could stimulate our economy. Lawmakers need to move slowly and do this reform correctly. We definitely do not want as equally a poor system that will just have to be overhauled again in another couple of years. We should run statistic tests and implement the reform gradually to see how it evolves and works--I know the revenue from alcohol, tobacco and other products fluctuates--to examine the amount of the income the proposed taxes do indeed generate. Lastly, politics should be left out of this bill. It is important to remember that the bill is for the kids and justice in funding education and remember that a good education makes for the best economic climate. I think that everyone has made this bill so complicated, I didn't touch on a lot of the nitty-gritty complications of it and I think they get lost in all those complications, so if you just think about it sensibly and make it simple. As I mentioned in my presentation that people who earn more should pay more. The progressive tax format I believe works for property but I think and I do like House 527, I just think there are things that might be made better partly because they made it so complicated. You can get into a whole other topic because sure, the federal government subsidizes or whatever education and you get into issues like how much--I mean if you look at the pie chart of what they spend each year, they spend five to ten percent on education and then you get into issues of how much they spend on defense and the military as opposed to education. The present system basically there was a lawsuit that stemmed out of this whole thing and it is actually been a problem for a number of years. Matter of fact, in 1987 Madaline Kunin said years ago that the quality of education that a child in Vermont receives depends on where he or she resides, she just said it straight out, and people all the way back to the 70's and before. The problem--but it is being forced that the legislature has to do something and something has to be done because of the Supreme Court decision stemming from a lawsuit or whatever, the case of Amanda Brigham, and they ruled last February that it was unconstitutional and that they should totally--that it is going to be totally overhauled and the legislature should do it as fast as they can. Some property-rich towns were spending twice as much, say between eight and $11,000 for people for education while other property-poor towns under the present and all funding systems were paying half that, 3,000, 4,000, $5,000 for people. Thank you for your time, Congressman Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by high school students from Montpelier High School in Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Mr. Blais: Congressman Sanders, in the early days of the Government, debt was considered to be a last resort. The only justification for debt of any kind was by war. In 1849, the Government had $70 million in the bank; after the Civil War we were down to about negative $3 billion. Ever since then it has gone down. Debt is not really serious compared to the total assets of the country. That is from Congressman Peter Starke. Mr. Bousquet: Good afternoon, Congressman Sanders. The remark by Congressman Starke is not true. $5,403,449,382,255.58 is a problem. This country knows it just as well as I do that this country is in trouble. Although the national debt has gone down in the 1990's, it is still very, very high. Some of the facts: There are 267,204,471 people roughly in America. The debt increases $722 million everyday. At this rate each citizen's contribution to the debt to make it go away is $222,000.15, and that means a baby, a child and a man, and infant, whatever. Mr. Blais: What we are asking is why is it our responsibility to pay for Government debts and what is Congress doing honestly to bring us out of debt and what is the future for our kids going to be like? From what I have gathered there has been a lot of--I do not how to explain it but there have been many attempts to bring the debt down, and yes, it has gone down some by cutting budgets and whatnot, but in the last roughly 55 years there hasn't been any major decrease in the debt that we have. Mr. Bousquet: It is obviously going down, and I see that. Why cannot we keep on going down and try to get it to a reasonable $50 million or a reasonable $25 million. The debt is still going up but it is not increasing as rapidly. The only possible solution that I can come up with is cutting back on something and it could be a number of things. The budget is divided up into sections, right? One of the highest is armed forces. We need defense, granted, but it is too high, I think, and that is my personal opinion. I do not know the background behind it. Mr. Blais: Well I have to say like Government funding for-- I mean, I cannot give you exactly but I know a lot of things that are Government-funded aren't going anywhere and haven't been going anywhere in the last I do not know how many years, and I would take a deep look at what everything is producing and how much money you are giving them and look at it from there.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by high school students from Montpelier High School in Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people: Mr. Douthat. I would like to thank you for coming to our school, Congressman Sanders, and we are going to be talking about some of the U.S. drug policies in South America. Clinton proposed to spend $16 billion this year on the War on Drugs. This figure is up from $10 billion spent during the 1980s over the entire decade. 70 percent of the money spent on drugs is spent on actual prevention and keeping it out of the country, whether that be through South American programs or Border Patrol and 30 percent is spent on drug rehabilitation. During the Bush Administration he proposed a five-year, $2.2 billion program for Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, and in 1993 he granted $716 million to the South American nations and Mexico as long as they committed themselves to reducing their product production and respect for human rights. The U.S. also helped to train local police forces in these countries, to dispute drug trafficking and the destroying of cocoa. Also we sponsored their rates in any of these countries. Although this policy has been in effect for a long time it really hasn't worked in curbing the influx of drugs into this country or the use of them once they are in here, and during this period of time spending has ballooned and the amount of drugs hasn't gone down. Basically, the only thing that this has affected now is there are 400,000 Americans in the jail on drug possession charges and trafficking charges. Our question is do you think this policy could be used more effectively in the zero tolerance policy or do you think there is a better philosophy in and attacks at curbing drug production and use in the United States if you think that is a significant problem? Mr. Belanger. Well we basically got together and when we were talking, actually it was a little bit ago, we were thinking of proposals in which in order to cut the spending that the government could possibly use, so we thought of--we think it might be actually in the process the government is considering this, but we are thinking like what happens, instead of spending like the $16 million--billion I mean, fighting like the so-called War on Drugs and like cutting off the supply from the drugs coming up, maybe the government controlled as in they would--how would you say? Mr. Douthat. They would sell--the government would be sort of the handler of drugs, sort like methadone clinics but modified more than that, not quite suppliers but something near to that. And we think that is a good idea because really the only thing that our drug policy has affected in the last ten years, it is really gotten a lot of South American drug dealers and drug producers and drug traffickers in this country quite wealthy. Mr. Belanger. What we were thinking is if the government was basically like the pharmacist, like if you had any addiction whatsoever, you would go to them and like the government could actually make--I do not know if they would make money off this, so that is one aspect, but they also would lower the street value so that the drug dealers couldn't make a business. Mr. Douthat. It wouldn't be quite like methadone clinics and it wouldn't be completely medical. If they did also supply drugs to non-addicts it would virtually--for one thing, it would take away the AIDS threat from IV drug users and also it would make it--drugs have been in cultures for as long as humanity has existed, so I really do not think it is realistic to completely curb recreational drug use and it has been shown through prohibition of alcohol and marijuana and other drugs that it just doesn't work. So I think that the government sponsoring it would make it clean, would make the drugs safer and it would make people who are occasional users, they wouldn't have to be criminals, they would be living much more normal lives. Mr. Belanger. Legalize drugs in the form where the government would be your supplier, so it is in a more controlled area, cleaner drugs. Mr. Douthat. And I think some drugs would have to be treated differently and I think cocaine and crack and heroine especially are the ones that are really addictive would have to be treated differently than the drugs like marijuana. Mr. Belanger. And maybe as a suggestion to you and the people you work with, treat like the U.K. and I think it is Denmark hashish bars, stuff like that and Holland has basically testers and like as examples like to see how things have gone over there, and if things have worked well.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman raises an interesting point, because there are strong similarities between the economy in England and the economy in the United States. And that is our unemployment. England's unemployment is lower than western Europe, but what they forgot to tell us was interesting. Do you know what the wages in England were compared to Western Europe? They were, according to the New York Times, 40 percent less, 40 percent lower. So what they sacrificed were decent wages, and they created a whole lot of low wage jobs, which is what we are doing in this country. In this country, 20 years ago the United States led the world, we were No. 1 in terms of the wages and benefits, highest wages in the world, we were No. 1. I know that we do not see it on CBS too often. Rupert Murdoch does not talk about it too often, but today we are 13th in the world. German manufacturing workers make 25 percent more than our workers. These people have 6 weeks paid vacation. They have a national health care system. Their kids can often go to college for free. We do not talk about that too much.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Connie Morella and I introduced legislation--House Concurrent Resolution 29--in February calling for a national summit of sports, government, business, and academic leaders along with nonprofit community organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and advocate on their behalf. Since then, support for such a ground-breaking summit has been growing steadily. I am pleased to report that since similar legislation was first introduced last summer that we have received endorsement letters from the following concerned organizations and individuals: American College of Nurse Midwives; American Psychological Association; AYUDA; Larry Brown, coach of the Philadelphia 76'ers; Catholics for Free Choice; Center for the Study of Sports and Society; Center for Women Policy Studies; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; Washington, DC Rape Crisis Center; Domestic Violence Advocacy Project; Joseph Glass of Team Sports; Britt King, Women's Basketball Coach at University of the District of Columbia; Lee McElroy, athletic director at American University; Older Women's League; National Association of Social Workers; National Coalition Against Sexual Assault; Jody Glass with New Waves of Rhode Island; Empowering Women and Confronting Abuse; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape; Tom Penders, head basketball coach at the University of Texas; Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Urban League; Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Justice Department; Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; Women's Research and Education Institute; YWCA of the USA; and the Violence Policy Center. It is a national disgrace that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and rapes by unknown assailants combined. Nearly 4,000 women die every year in our country as a result of domestic violence. In my own State of Vermont, every single murder during a recent year was linked to this criminal behavior. We simply must find new ways to get a loud and clear message through to all Americans to curb the violence in our midst, especially domestic violence and sexual assault against women and girls. To help carry that message, I believe that our national sport heroes, as role models of profound national influence, can play a crucial role in helping to stigmatize and deter violence against women all across America. Sadly hardly a day goes by that we don't read about the latest incidents of domestic violence and sexual assault in our local newspapers. Just a few days ago, a local television station in Washington, DC, for example reported on five different sexual assaults that had occurred allegedly involving athletes at Howard University and that had been covered up until now. But positive action can be taken. That is why Congresswoman Morella and I first wrote to all of the leaders of the major professional and amateur sports leagues in America in January 1996 urging them to join a national campaign and speak out against domestic violence and sexual assault. Since then we have had numerous meetings and entered into a dialogue with representatives of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the College Football Association. We are pleased that some important follow-steps have been taken. Last fall, several prominent athletes, coaches, and officials of the College Football Association, in conjunction with the Liz Claiborne Foundation, filmed a series of unprecedented antidomestic violence public service advertisements that were broadcast during nationally televised collegiate football games for the first time. Similarly, the National Football League and star players like Steve Atwater of the Denver Broncos joined forces to air public service announcements against domestic violence during ABC's Monday Night Football show and other televised games. Certainly I am not suggesting in any way that athletes are statistically any more prone to domestic violence and sexual assault than any other sector of our population. But there is no doubt that organized sports touch the lives of so many Americans and our families and that star athletes are idolized by many Americans of all ages. Hence, our identification with our sports stars provides a powerful means to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. There is much to be gained in our constant national campaign if we can enlist our sports leaders in spreading the word that rough and tumble, hard-nosed physical competition stops when athletes leave the playing arena and that there is absolutely no excuse for domestic violence or sexual assault in any walk of American life. Similarly we need to do more to teach our young people who are so interested in sports that domestic violence and sexual assault are serious crimes. In this regard, I intend to press for education against domestic violence and sexual assault to be included in the regular instruction that thousands of young Americans between 10 and 16 years of age receive through taxpayer-funded programs like the National Youth Sports Program which the National Collegiate Athletic Association has received tens of millions of tax dollars to administer every summer for more than 20 years.