Bernie 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 Teresa Snow and Tyler Ryan, high school students at Peoples Academy in Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people: We're both Seniors at Peoples Academy High School in Morrisville, VT. We're going to talk about improving the education system, and education opportunities. We basically gathered these ideas from our own experiences and our own concerns, and we came up with these topics and ideas. We believe that all kids should go to pre-school, and at an early age they should start learning our language, and many of the words. . . . Being a high school senior, I can't watch the news and understand what they're talking about, because I don't believe I've had the right education and background. I believe that they should learn about the environment and recycling, what goes where; 'cause, we only got bins in our classrooms, and maybe when I was in middle school, and kids throw their trash in the recycling and throw recycling in trash cans, and they don't really care. You need to know when you're young where things go and how to take care of this world. I think that foreign language should be a requirement. Because we're in Vermont, we should learn French because we're close to the Canadian border. People in Arizona and New Mexico should learn Spanish, because they're near the Mexican border. We need to learn a foreign language. Tyler wants to work with architecture, and I guess a lot of the supplies come from Japan, and . . . he may need to learn Japanese, and without that readily accessible, then he's not going to be able to know--he's not going to have the right connections. For middle school and high school ideas . . . I went to England as an exchange student a year and a-half-ago, and . . . they have a different system. They have required classes up till you're like fifteen, and we could have our required classes and our credits from 7th through 10th grade. Then 11th and 12th grade you could do job-oriented in your profession, like singled-out. You can take very, much more focused classes, become more prepared for, if you don't go to college, then you have some background of what you want to do. We also feel that the teacher:student ratio is really ``off.'' Kids don't get the attention that they need, so we thought that excelling students, kids that are getting 95's in their classes, should have an opportunity of either becoming independent in that course, and possibly spending the class period in the library in the school, or using different resources in like the town libraries, or other schools' libraries or college libraries. Or they could become like teachers aides--complete their work and then go around and help the classroom, 'cause that would help out both ways: it would help the ratio, the greater student:teacher ratio. I also think another thing--if you have students that go to college to become teachers, they should get an opportunity to do apprenticeships, come to schools to help with the ratio as well. And, kids lately are lacking so much desire and interest in school; it's very, very sad. Like, I could have gone to college, but I really don't have any desire anymore, right now. It's something everybody needs; everybody needs a good education. Tyler: There definitely needs to be smaller classes; the classrooms are just way too crowded. The technology is not there; like, in our school we have one computer/classroom, and that's definitely not enough, because if you took a class period to work on a class project, or whatever, it would take you . . . it would take the class about a month to do a project over the computer. We think there should be available money for apprenticeships and trade schools, and better, more accessible to scholarships . . . for college, because it's just--the prices are outrageous. We also think that there should be an education tax, which would be put into high school kids' paychecks, that would take out a small percentage to pay for college; and if they decide not to use that money . . . to go to college, they could put it towards retirement, or put it into a savings plan, or something like that. Congressman Sanders: Both of you have raised some very interesting points. Let me ask you a couple of question, because you have raised some issues I hadn't thought about. The issue, I think, that Teresa and Tyler have talked about, is that when you go to school as students, in a sense you are consuming a product, and I was wondering how often students are consulted about the quality of that product. In other words, let me just ask you a question: Is it your understanding that students have access to School Board, in order to express their views about the quality of the education they're getting? Teresa: I know we do [have access] because I was on Student Council, and they've brought things to the School Board about having all-day Winter Carnivals; but . . . they don't listen a lot. I mean, the Student Council were very strong in their presentation, and they had a lot of good ideas, and things to back up what they wanted to do, so it was easily passed. But . . . Congressman Sanders: So it's not your impression that students are really consulted in terms of how they feel about the good or bad parts of their education. Tyler: I feel that the School Board doesn't even know what is going on in the school. I've never even seen a School Board member really in a school. They don't come and talk to us; they talk to . . . the teachers. And I don't even feel that the teachers in our school know what the students want or need. Congressman Sanders: Well, in terms of student involvement . . . do you think it might be of interest or importance for the students to say to the School Board, ``Listen, you're spending money on us. don't you want to have our opinion about how well you're doing? Tyler: Definitely. Teresa: I definitely think they should get our opinion, and a lot of times they go to such groups as Student Council or NHS, and those kids aren't giving the school a problem; it's not those kids that the teachers and the School Board want to talk to . . . it's not where the problem is, it's not where the issues lie. Congressman Sanders: Okay. Teresa, you raised an issue: you said that you perceive that some students are not really interested in learning, they're giving up. Why do you think that's so? Teresa: Well, when you're in kindergarten and you're with these teachers, that want you to play with blocks and you're having a good time, and you just--teachers don't try to get you as involved, I don't think, and you just lose interest. They don't try as hard. They just want to get on with their class, teach what they're supposed to teach . . . Tyler: . . . and then finish the class and be done with it. They don't really care about the students that much. Congressman Sanders: It sounds to me like the suggestion you may be making is we've got to figure out a way to involve the students in the State of Vermont in their own education, more than is the case. Is that right? Tyler: Yes.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by David Smith, a high school student from Brattleboro, VT, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people: A couple of days ago, I heard two men laughing about the term, ``representation of the people,'' claiming that the people are no longer really represented. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to agree with this, because I have a problem believing that a politician is going to think about me--the average voter--when the oil and gas industry gives Congress $17-18 million annually; when the health industry gives $68.8 million, when the banking industry gives $42.1 million; and that's just to name a few. Our government is overrun by the influences of special interest groups, industries, corporations, unions and other bit spenders. But you, the politicians, are also stuck, because the average House election is up way past $150,000; the average Senate election is up past $3.5 million. And that's average, which means that the backwater, small-time candidate has no chance of competing with the mainstream Republican or Democrat, because he or she has no corporate, big-spender backing. In short our campaign finance system is outdated, flawed, and full to the brim with loopholes. We need changes. What I'm proposing today is a publicly financed system. My proposal starts in September, 8 months before an election, with candidates collecting low-dollar contributions. This is the only private money in my whole system; and, since it's low-dollar, it doesn't have any influence over a candidate. This seen money lasts until the first primary in February. To qualify for public financing, candidates must receive 20% of the vote. Parties may also qualify for public financing by getting 20% of the vote between two candidates, and sending their most winning . . . candidate to run. Candidates who receive the required vote will receive an account of money to work with. In addition to monetary funds, the candidates will also receive radio and TV space. But instead of getting 45 second soundbites, candidates will receive 15 minute blocks, almost like ``informercials,'' and this will force them to really discuss in detail their platforms. And you can also get debates going, and really educate the public. Lastly, government will pay for one or two mass mailings per candidate. Winners of the national conventions will then be given money to campaign in the general election. Now, how are we going to pay for this? The Working Group on Electoral Democracy estimated that a plan similar to this one would cost between $5-600 million annually. And I've devised two ways to pay for this: the first is a $6 flat tax on every taxpaying American. Unfortunately, the taxpayers don't really want another tax. So, an alternative plan would be a one dollar check-off box on tax returns for Congressional funding, right next to the one for Presidential funding. Also, a one percent shift in funds from the military to campaign finances, and last, the first national lotto game. Vermont alone already receives around $23 million in funds from various lotto games, and I think that a national lottery game could bring in at least half of the money needed to fund this campaign system. What this system will do, is it will do 5 things: first, it will stop all public legislation from being influenced by the wealth of industries, corporations, all private money will be taken out of politics. Second, it creates a level playing field for all candidates, rich and poor candidates must have the same chance of being elected as everyone else, and voters must start to elect candidates on their merits, not on their money. Thirdly, it allows politicians to spend their time at politics, not at campaigning. I've heard that politicians spend between anywhere from 40-80% of their time campaigning. In this system, they would spend 5% of their time campaigning. [Fourth] it will allow politicians to get in touch with what voters want, not what the heavy contributors want. If they have to go to the grassroots to get their support, then there will be more talk about what the real voters want. Finally, it closes down all loopholes, so that no private money can influence the private system, and we will return to the ideal of ``representation of the people.'' Congressman Sanders. Thank you. (Applause) You've touched on a very important issue. David, let me ask you a couple of questions. First, give us some examples, if you might, of the role that big money plays in influencing politics, influencing legislation. Do you have any examples that you might be able to provide? Answer. Sure. A little while ago, the Legislature allocated money for the Pentagon to build new bombers. This was in spite of the Pentagon saying that, ``We don't want any new bombers, we don't want the money.'' The reason the money was allocated, was because of the influence of the corporations that make and help produce those bombers. They have such power, with their monetary funds that they can almost shape the way legislation works. Congressman Sanders: You're absolutely right, that is a very good example. Let me ask you the second question: recently the Speaker of the House went on a tour around the country, and he spoke at $10,000/plate fundraising dinners; $10,000/plate to have dinner with House Speaker Gingrich. Why would anybody pay $10,000--it was a very good dinner, no doubt--but other than the good quality food, and you think of another good reason why someone would want to go to dinner with the Speaker for $10,000/plate? Answer. Sure. It was influence. By paying $10,000 to a candidate, you get influence over that candidate so they will better represent what you want. An example: if I was a politician and I came back to the office one day and there were 14 messages for me; 13 were from people I never heard of, and the last was from someone who has paid me $10,000 at a local charity the week before, the first person I'm going to call back is that big payer. So, by paying lots of money, we get more influence.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by five Champlain Valley Union High School students, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people: John: We'd like to first have all the people out in the audience who are going to attend college to stand up right now. All right. Whoever can pay off college by themselves, without any assistance from the government, or the college, please keep standing. Anyone who requires any kind of financial aid, please sit down. Okay, I see one person out in the audience that can afford college. Okay, that's what's happening around the country right now, is that people of our generation cannot afford college. The cost of many colleges are approaching $30,000. People just can't afford that. I know in my personal experience, I'm going to a college that costs $28,000; my mom works full-time as a teacher, and she only makes $26,000. Without financial aid of any sort, going to my college of choice would be impossible. And the U.S. is unique in this fact, in that almost all of its young and brightest citizens end up being in debt, be it $30,000 or even $100,000. This really isn't right. Ben: And in today's society, having a college education is a must. Anyone that expects to succeed needs to have a college education. You've heard the facts already, that the males that go to college are 50% higher than high school graduates, and without the funding of student aid and good financial packages from colleges, it's impossible for our generation--for us, for any of us--to really make any contribution to our nation. And we're in strong support of raising student aid to normal people, not just the people that really need it, in the lower class, but in the middle class, where you won't qualify for the financial aid that you need. But yet, you cant' afford to pay it yourself. John's got a graph that talks about how income has risen, and the cost of college has risen also. (John got up with graph) As you can see, the bar on top is the Median* Household Income for families in U.S. (1980- 2000;) and at the bottom is the cost of 4-year colleges across the board. (*taken from U.S. Census Bureau) And the gap . . . ends up being about $10,000; and $10,000 is not enough for a family, the moderate American family, to live on. You also have to count taxes in that, and taxes slash the American family income by about \1/3\. This means that the families have little or no income after paying for college. Ben: And one of our resolutions is that as a student, you get a loan from the government, and in order to pay back the loan that the government gives, is by doing work for the government itself, in the field that they study. So, for instance, I want to study Journalism in college. Well, the government would give me a certain amount that would help pay for college that would lessen the burden on myself for paying it. A board would decide how long a person would have to work, say it would be 4 years for the government, or whatever, in that special range, working with public relations and communications, and so on and so forth. We believe that could work, and it very well can work. Also, we just read in the Globe about how President Clinton is (signal) working on doing . . . for every student in top 5% in the high school graduating gets a $1,000 merit scholarship. That's good, but it's not enough. Each student, by need, has to have the necessity to make this country better, and without a proper education, it's not going to get any better. John: One of the best things, in addition to loans, is federal financial aid, is to make all college costs deductible from your taxable income, so that--the family will have more disposable income, and can write-off more income, so they pay less taxes while sending their kids to school. Hopefully this will encourage more people to go to school. The government will get the money back in the long run, so it's not like it's hurting the budget that much. Congressman Sanders: Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Given the problems that you've articulated, what is your understanding as to what Congress is doing right now to address those problems? Answer: Well the Republican-controlled majority in Congress has not been very forgiving of . . . the cost of college; they believe that balancing the budget is more important than keeping our young people afloat, and going to college. They've been really selfish in that. Congressman Sanders: Let me ask you another question. We have heard from a number of the panelists today a great concern, and it was interesting to see so many people stand up, and say, ``Yes, we are going to need help from the government or from some other source in order to go to college.'' Given that reality, is it your judgment that the students themselves have been effective politically in fighting for more federal aid to education. Have they done as good job in making their concerns known to their elected officials? Answer: I think a lot of them are not really at an age to make an impact, because of their age, they're not old enough to vote, and really vote for the candidates that will help raise the financial aid. President Clinton is trying the best he can, but with the Congress being so closed-minded in some respects, we don't really have a say.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by several students from Champlain Valley Union High School in Vermont, who were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people: We chose the topic of Drug Education for middle school through some high school students, just because we feel that drugs are everywhere, and in every high school, and involve many people. I'm going to give you a couple of statistics. In 1992 [the] Drug Education budget was cut, and since then the per cent of 8th graders rose from 6.2% in '91 to 13% in '94. That is 110% increase. From 1992-94, pot use rose 62% among the 10th graders, and 40% among 12th graders. In '91-94, 8th graders who say [they] use pot in the previous years doubled to 13%. In '92-94, pot use among the 10th graders increased 66%, while 12th graders increased 40%. In '94, 95% of 10th graders and 31% of 12th graders said they used marijuana in the past year. Pot use has had the most dramatic turn-around in the 1990's. Other drugs on the rise, gradually: LSD, hallucinogens, stimulants, barbiturates, and cocaine and crack, in 1994. At every grade level from eight through twelve, one in five or six tried sniffing an inhalant (such as glue, aerosol, paint thinners), to just produce ``instant highs.'' Eighth graders are most likely to have used inhalants than any other drug except alcohol or tobacco. More than a third of the eighth graders surveyed last year, and nearly half of the twelfth graders said they used illicit drugs at least once. 20% of the 8th graders said they had used inhalants, the most widely-used drug in the age group. I'm going to go a little bit into some of the drug education programs that are out there. DARE, which is Drug Abuse Resistance Education; it's not proven to be effective as far as 7th and 8th graders go. They're more concerned about being distant from adults, and more concerned about being accepted among their peers. A police officer comes in, you know, this is great for 5th graders; they love the cops, and the whole idea of them coming. But as far as the police officer question and answer, it's not very effective. Kids as far as 7th and 8 graders ask questions that they shouldn't be asking. They should be asking questions on . . . the effects of this drug: what would it do in long-term of use. It's proven that 5th graders that have been introduced to the D.A.R.E. Program increased tobacco use from 7th to 9th grade from 13% to 37%, and I see that as being a high jump, considering it's supposed to be preventing drug abuse. There's another program called the All-Stars Program, which is involving 7th graders in Lexington, North Carolina. It doesn't have teachers teaching. It has the children doing skits--acting out plays--teaching themselves without realizing that they're actually teaching each other to not do drugs. I believe that's a pretty effective way of doing it. There's also a Life Skills Training, that involved 3,597 predominately white, middle class students in 56 public schools in New York, which were users of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. The whole program consists of: 15 classes in 7th grade; 10 booster sessions in 8th grade; and then it continues on to your freshman year in high school, where you're actually involved with older peers, as far as 12th graders that are more experienced into the drugs. Among these students that got the complete program vs. a control, 44% fewer were pot smokers (weekly), 23-33% fewer students got drunk once/month, and about 33% fewer were a pack a day smoker. So, the program seems to be pretty effective as far as teaching education on the effects of drugs and what it does to you, other than, you know, question & answer. That's pretty much it. Congressman SANDERS. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) Let me ask you a couple of questions. From your own personal observation, how serious is the drug and tobacco problem for young people in the State of Vermont? Answer. Very serious. I mean, it's everywhere. . . . To me, I feel like there's no way you can escape it. You walk into a bathroom at school, and there's nothing but filled with smoke. I mean, there are other bathrooms to use, but if that happens to be the closest one, there's no way of avoiding it. You know, you tell them to stop, you bring them to the office, it doesn't stop it; they're going to do what they want, just because, they're rebelling against the administration, or whatever it is. And, I just feel a lot of it needs to be dealt with as far as education. Congressman SANDERS. What you've suggested is that some of the government programs, at least in your judgment, might not be that effective--are not working. What would you suggest to the State of Vermont actually in order to get kids away from drugs and tobacco? Answer. I would suggest--I would start educating in 5th grade, but then continue through 7th and 8th grade; but not doing is as D.A.R.E., where an officer comes in. You have them acting out skits . . . one student being the supposedly drug dealer and another being peer-pressured into it, and . . . have another student in there saying, ``You know, don't do it.'' So, pretty much teaching each other to not do 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 Kelley Williams, Ryan Driscoll, and Patrick Webster, high school students from Vermont. They were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. Patrick: Our topic was on gun control, and as Ryan's going to tell you, we have four specific things we think need to be improved on gun control. Ryan: We think that Congress should increase regulations by: having a 6 month waiting period; no sales to persons under 25; there should be more safety features on guns; there should be required gun education programs. (Dialogue with alternating speakers): If nothing's done about this rising problem, the ownership will continue to increase from the current estimated 150 million to 175 million firearms. The ATF estimates that there are 52 million handguns circulating in the U.S., and 2 million more bought each year. About 2 million handguns were manufactured in the U.S. in 1989. It's estimated that 135,000 students each day now carry guns to school. One out of six pediatricians have treated a young gunshot victim. 80% of homicide victims knew their killers as a relative or friend? Of 12,000 men and women who have committed suicide, nearly 60% used handguns. We've got some statistics that we're going to put on the overhead. The first one shows the amount of gun distribution and how much it's gone up from 1988-91, and it's still rising. The second graph shows that guns are becoming more and more commonplace in today's society. This is from a school in Los Angeles, from students, showing: people carrying guns in the last 30 days, carrying guns to school in the past year, if they've shot a gun at someone, if they were shot in the past year, or if they know someone who has been killed or injured by gunfire. The most important fact to us Vermonters: over 41% of gun accidents in Vermont involved handguns.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by Sarah Snider and Stephanie Petrolito, high school students at the People's Academy in Vermont. They were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. (Alternated speaking): We represent the U.S. History class at People's Academy in Morrisville. As high school students, we worry every day about our post- secondary plans, such as college, a vocational or trade school, or perhaps even joining the workforce directly after graduation. As a class we've done some research on the subject, as a result we have lots of questions. We have more questions than answers, because many of us have not been through the financial aid process. Our questions begin with average students, from average families in average American towns. Most American students are average, who don't get straight A's, and who aren't necessarily gifted in athletics or the arts. This is especially true in other larger states, where student-teacher ratio's are higher, and less attention is given to the student as an individual, and their talents. Also, the majority of American families belong to the middle class, and are not particularly wealthy or incredibly poor. A major part of financial aid is based on students' academic and extracurricular achievements, as well as their families' income. Many of these students have incredible potential that is not expressed in their high school transcripts. Most of the students in the class that I represent fall into this category. I know that I do. We'd like to know what can be done to insure that we receive a college education. The idea of spending 20 years paying off a debt is very discouraging, and although we are told that it is worth the money, most students are hesitant. As average students in the middle class, what kind of scholarships or financial aids, if any, are available to us? Many students are left so discouraged at these prospects that they decide, instead of furthering their education, to join the workforce. Education is a right for every American student, not a privilege. Congressman Sanders: That is an incredible presentation. You've raised a lot of very important questions. I certainly don't know all the answers. But if basically what you're saying--let's say you have a middle class family making $20 or $30 or $40,000/year, and it costs $20-30,000 for one year to send one kid to college. That equation doesn't make sense, right? You can't do it. Answer. Right. Congressman Sanders: Further, I think you've made the point that if you don't have a college education, you won't make it into the middle class. So let me throw it back to you. If you were sitting in my seat in Congress, what would you do? Answer. I would probably be inclined to * * * have the government be more involved. Like, what the girl from Brattleboro said about other countries where the government is more involved in college, and it costs less. And I totally agree that's the way it should be in this country, and that the government should spend less money on the military. Congressman Sanders: Okay, as it happens I agree with you. But what is the other argument that is being made? What do you hear a whole lot of about the government lately? What do some people say about the government? Have you heard much? Answer. Not much. Congressman Sanders: Does everybody agree with your point of view? Answer. No, not everybody. A lot of people think * * * that there is enough financial aid out there, and that there are other things that we need to worry about also. * * * But I just think really that education is incredibly important, and everybody thinks that. Congressman Sanders: And a lot of people think, in fact, that the government should play less of a role. Answer. Right. Congressman Sanders: There's a whole line of thought out there, in which probably a majority of members of Congress now believe in exact contradiction to what you're saying. They're saying the government should get out of the issue. That Americorps--you mentioned Americorps--there's an effort to defund Americorps completely, not put one penny into Americorps. Answer. But these are the people who've already been through college, and are not worrying about it now. There are three children in my family, and there's no way unless we each get a job during college, and try to go to college and do extracurricular activities, that we're going to be able to go to college. Congressman Sanders: I agree with you. But when you hear the discussion going on in Congress about the role of government, what they have advocated, if I'm not mistaken, is that government should play a strong role in assuring that the middle class is able to send their kids to college, okay? Okay. So * * * they are defining a role of government. Right now in Congress there are many who strongly disagree with what they are asserting. I happen to agree. Thank you very much for your excellent presentation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by Bethany Carpenter, a high school student from Brattleboro, VT. She was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. My name is Bethany Carpenter, and first of all I just want to say thanks for letting us come today. ``The children of today are the leaders of tomorrow.'' How many times has that phrase been stated in one form or another, it seems to carry no meaning anymore. But what a true statement it is. Sadly, this statement soon will not be truthful. Many of the leaders of tomorrow are losing the opportunity to become leaders due to the lack of support for a post-secondary education. Over the past year, I have gone through the process of looking at colleges; choosing a select number to apply to; applying; waiting for responses; and most importantly, sending for financial aid. My top choice school is a small university in upstate New York specializing in theater arts and elementary education. Unfortunately, this school costs $24,000/year. Therefore, I am forced to choose between my top choice school, which will better prepare me for my future career, or a somewhat large college in Central Vermont, which will cost less but will not provide me with the specialized education that my top choice would. To me, this is the most disappointing part of my application procedures. The total post-secondary enrollment in this country has been rising rapidly in the past years, while the federal support for post-secondary students has been decreasing. High school students have been feeling more pressure to continue their education beyond their twelve years due to the lack of availability of high-paying jobs for high school graduates. In today's high-paced world, those who have completed more years of schooling typically experience less unemployment than other workers. In addition, workers' earnings are generally increased as their level of learning increases. In the latter half of the 1970's, the average male college graduate earned about 50% more than the average high school graduate. By 1994, the premium paid to males with college degrees had risen to 81%. Similarly, the average wage advantage of female college graduates over female high school graduates grew from about 41% to 77%. In 1994, the average earnings of male workers 18 years or older with a bachelor's degree was $46,278, compared to that of high school graduates was only $25,038. In the same year, the average earnings of female workers with a bachelor's degree was $26,482, while that of a high school graduate was only $14,995. The increase in salaries for college graduates over the past 15-20 years shows the need for a post-secondary education in today's society. Federal support in the form of student aid reached a high in 1980, with 83% of aid awarded in federal funds. That support has dropped to 75% in 1993. The enrollment of post-secondary students increased from 8.6 million in 1970 to 12.1 million in 1980, and rose to approximately 15 million in 1993. I have formatted a plan for tuition which will allow more students to attend college. The plan starts with the fact that the United States, in 1995, spent an estimated $269.6 billion for our national defense, while only spending an estimated $54.7 billion for education and training. This is less than one-fifth of the amount that is spent on the military, and this is a disgrace! In many countries, higher education is a right, not a privilege. For instance, a fundamental principle in Swedish higher education is that all students who need help to finance their studies should receive assistance from the central government. Can the United States say the same? If the United States government were to take $69.6 billion of the national defense budget and put the money towards the education and training of America's future, this would open up worlds of possibilities for students, who would otherwise have to forfeit their dream for college. If the government would make more money available to pay for the tuitions of students in need, more students would be able to afford the other expenses of college. My plan includes setting a basic fee for all students attending college, no matter what year they are in college or the college that they are attending. By doing this, the amount of money paid by any student or family would be lowered, their application process for colleges would also need to be reviewed, and many colleges would need to reevaluate their expenses and costs. The individual state governments would then need to institute loan and grant programs for the students who would still need assistance paying the basic fee or living expenses while in college. This plan would involve a major change in thinking and planning on the part of many people involved, but it is my hope that it will lead to a better, more fair educational system for future students. Therefore, it is with a mixture of hope and trepidation and a wish that you consider very carefully my original statement, that ``the children of today are the leaders of tomorrow,'' but only if given the chances to achieve their goals. (Applause) Congressman Sanders: Thank you. Bethany, that was an excellent and important statement. Let me ask you a question. You mentioned Sweden, and it's true, throughout Europe, and even in Canada, that the cost of higher education is much less because the government plays a much more active role. Why do you think that's so, that other countries in Europe and Scandinavia, do that--make college more affordable for young people--and we don't do that in the U.S.? Answer. Many of the other countries that I researched don't spend as much on their military, and these programs and other things like that, and they focus more on the fact that their youth (and even adults who want to continue their education) need to do that, and that that's more important than trying to set up a good army. So they institute a lot more loan, grant and financial aid programs. Congressman Sanders: So they have a very different set of priorities than we do, is what you're saying. Answer. A much different set of priorities.

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.J. Ferriter, a high school student from Thetford, VT, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. For the last few months, I've been investigating lobbying in Vermont, and found, much to my surprise, and delight, a healthy lobbying system. The Disclosure Act purged many of the ills affecting lobbying within Vermont, by virtually stopping all underhand deals, while, at the same time, not infringing upon our rights as Vermonters and U.S. citizens. Yet we should not be content; problems still plague our lobbying system. Fortunately, my investigations have brought me in contact with district Representatives and state Senators throughout Vermont, and without leading them on, each district Representative and state Senator I spoke with expressed one common concern: lobbying groups using tax dollars to support themselves. This is not a problem with profit-making organizations (which is businesses), because they support themselves. It is a problem among non-profit organizations . . . whose promoters are given the title, ``advocate,'' instead of ``lobbyist.'' I am concerned with two issues in the way advocates use tax dollars. The first is the use of financial support. Although many groups use their funds properly, many do not. Instead of using tax dollars to support their cause, the money is used to support themselves. In other words, this money is given to these organizations to support more administrative positions, and more lobbyists. This money was given to aid a public cause, not to support lobbyists. Tax dollars paying for lobbyists' salaries is an alarming issue. Even if the tax dollars are being used properly, ``is it right,'' in the words of one state Senator, ``to use our tax dollars against us?'' I do not believe it is. Take for instance, community mental health, a group whose objectives I support. Hypothetically, though, let's say I don't. If I don't, then I am not going to want my money supporting their programs; and if I speak out against them, they will just use the money I pay the state in taxes to further support lobbyists to speak out against me. So the more I speak out, the more money I am eventually giving to lobbyists I'm speaking out against. This is not encouraging. Now, I'm not saying I am completely adverse to advocates, and forcing them to have the same nominal status as lobbyists. If they did, they might not receive the necessary funds they need to stay alive and support the crucial issues that they promote. Yet, if these human service, non-profit groups were forced to have the same status as lobbyists who represent profit-making organizations, then our tax dollars would no longer be used to support their lobbyists. I say, use our money to support their policies, but find donations or something else to support your lobbyists. I cannot stop the government from spending my money on programs I'm not in favor of, but I should be able to stop the practice of giving my money to support lobbyists, whether I agree with their views or not. I believe a line must be drawn somewhere. Thank you. Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much, A.J. That's an interesting presentation, and it's an issue that's being dealt with in Congress, and in Montpelier as well. Let me ask you a question: if I represent the tobacco industry--we heard a presentation earlier about the problems of young people smoking--and I represent the large cigarette companies that have billions of dollars in resources, and I hire some of the most sophisticated lobbyists in the country to knock on the doors of members of Congress, or in the statehouses throughout this country. I have plenty of money to do that, okay? Answer. All right. Congressman Sanders: And I don't get any taxpayer dollars to do that--I do that privately, all with the company's own money. Then on the other hand, we have a group of young people, say, who are concerned about the problems of smoking; they also want to lobby. One has billions of dollars in resources, the other side has very little money. How would you deal with that issue, so that both sides have a short at having their voices heard? Answer. Would it be all right if you . . . rephrase your question? I kind of got lost in there. Congressman Sanders: Okay. Here's the problem that I want to throw at you: He represents (he doesn't really) but let's say hypothetically he's the head of a large tobacco company-- Philip Morris--and he has billions of dollars in resources. He wants the U.S. Congress to not do anything to limit the ability of the tobacco companies to make a lot of money. We have another group of young people, who are concerned about the impact of smoking on the health of their friends. They also want to get involved in the political process. They certainly don't have the resources--how do you deal with that issue? Answer. I mean, that's obviously a concern, that I feel is valid. But I feel like if the young students are going up [against] a tobacco giant here, they have to have some way of being able to gain support throughout their communities. I don't know if it would be sending letters out; I don't know if it's public speaking. I'm not sure what it would be, but it has to be something--obviously, they can't do it through money, and . . . you bring up a good argument to my case. But the thing is, the tobacco industries do have the money, and it's a basic right to be able to lobby for what you want; and so we cannot restrict that. For these students, though, like I said . . . one of the problems, I think, with lobbying is that a lot of it is not made public. With some of the public hearings we've got happening in Montpelier, there will be, let's say, an issue on tobacco. And what will happen is that there will be a lobbyist within the room so that he can tell his friends to garner support for the lobbyists, and show up at the public meeting. And the meeting is only 24 or 48 hours later, so that way people don't advocate tobacco don't have the time to just pick up their stuff and find an argument to oppose the tobacco arguments. Congressman Sanders: You make a good, an interesting point. A lot of members of Congress and the legislature feel resentful when publicly supported institutions then come and lobby them, and that's the point that you're making. The other side of the story is, that groups that do not need public support--like the tobacco industry, or the chemical companies--they have huge amounts of resources to lobby, and in many ways therefore have an unfair advantage in terms of people from the other point of view. So those are the two sides of that argument. Answer. Yeah, like I said . . . in the speech, we have to support their cause, but I don't feel like--if I don't agree with what these youngsters are saying, I don't want to have my money going to support their lobbyists. Fine, the cause--I can't control that, but control the lobbyists.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by Kyle Anderson, a high school student from Rutland, Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. My topic is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and its applicability to us as citizens of the United States and for our children in this country. The world that we live in today is one of waste, want and needless suffering. But in November of 1989, a dramatic step was taken to treat this. On November 20, 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that focuses on the protection, survival, development and well-being of children. Among the many rights which the Convention gives to children are the following: the right to health care services; the right to education; the right to protection against discrimination on the basis or race, sex, religion, etc.; the right to protection against abuse, neglect or injury; the right to a name and nationality; the right to express the child's views in matters affecting the child; the right to have the child's interests be a primary consideration in all proceedings concerning the child; the right to be protected from economic exploitation, or hazardous work; the right to be protected against torture, or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment; and the right to freedom of thought in conscience, religion and expression. As an international goal it is certainly important; and immediately after it was drafted, over 100 nations signed it, and then ratified it, obligating themselves to nurture the children of their respective territories. The U.S. wasn't among the original signers, but signed the document on the 16th of February, 1995. But without ratification, the Convention lies dormant. The United States didn't, and still hasn't, fully recognized the importance of the document, or its applicability to us. Let me show you what I mean. (set up overhead: Cents of the Absurd) Can everybody read that? . . . All right, it says the 1995 State of the World Children Report from UNICEF says that we need to kindle a sense of absurdity at the idea that the world cannot afford to meet the needs of all the world's children for adequate nutrition, basic health care, primary education and clean water. The following figures are offered as kindling: it shows that all we really need to provide basic care in nutrition, primary education, safe water and sanitation, and family planning, for all the children, would be $34 billion. Now, if you look at what is spent, they give a few statistics, like $85 billion/yr. is spent on wine, $160 billion on beer, $400 billion on cigarettes, $250 billion on advertising, and $800 billion on the military--that's worldwide. For the U.S., (next overhead: Winners & Losers--Federal Spending) here we see a drastic decrease in spending on housing, health care services, employment and training, mass transit, Farmer's Home Administration, child nutrition, especially, and education. All of these things have decreased, between 1980-1990, and military spending has increased 46%. The fortunate and unfortunate kids of our age have recognized the need for greater action in the sector of children's well-being. Some of the things that youth has been doing are as follows: Nov. 20, 1992, in Washington, D.C.--The National Committee on the Rights of the Child: Speaking Truth to Power; May 4, 1992, at the Statehouse in Montpelier, VT--Rights of the Child Day; Feb. 10-14, 1993, in New York City and Vermont--New York City and Vermont Student Homes Day; Nov. 22, 1993, in Clarendon, VT--Youth in Action Conference: Children First; June 13-19, 1993, in Vienna, Austria--Children's World Conference on Human Rights; and April 29, 1995, in Montpelier, VT--Empowering Youth to Action. In closing, I would like to reemphasize the importance of child development. This Convention is a great reminder of our obligation, and a helper in those situations where our priorities are trodden upon, in such areas as: the home, during war, or just all alone on the streets. The Convention will help, and will decrease the suffering. Thank you. Congressman Sanders: Michael, thank you very much. I have some familiarity with that issue, because I introduced the Resolution in the House, trying to win support of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Senator Leahy did the same in the Senate, so Vermont has a strong interest in this issue. In your judgment, why has the Congress not ratified the Treaty? Answer: Well, I really don't know. I thought . . . when Bill Clinton came in, I thought that . . . he's an advocate for this thing, and I was wondering why it hadn't gotten ratified yet, but he needs the help of the Congress . . . Congressman Sanders: Well, I think in fact, Clinton did sign it but the problem is, it doesn't go into effect until it is ratified, and the Senate has not ratified it. Are you familiar with some of the arguments that the opponents of the Treaty are making? Answer: No. Congressman Sanders: Okay. A lot of the arguments center around the fact that they think it would take away from the rights of American citizens, which is incorrect, and that the UN would have too much power over what goes on in the United States--those are some of the arguments that are being used. I think you've raised a very important issue, and I think that the chart, which shows the spending priorities, in our nation and in our world, is very important. And what you're suggesting, is that if we changed our priorities just a little bit, we could wipe our hunger among children, we could end the disgrace of having, in our own country, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the entire industrialized world. Okay, thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by Kara von Behren, Sara Reeve, Anna Laszewski, and Alison Gingras, students from Peoples Academy in Vermont. They were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. The environment needs a place in the modern high school curriculum. Without knowledge of the problems that fact us, we cannot reverse their ill effect. We're going to start off with a demonstration. Could you all stand up, please? Thanks. All right, we're going to start off with a couple of questions, and if your answer is ``no,'' could you please sit back down. Okay, our first question is: do you recycle at home? Our second question is: do you compost at home? Do you turn off the water when you brush your teeth? Do you reuse your lunch bags or bring a cloth one? Does your family buy recycled products? All right, congratulations to any of you who are still standing (one or two)--you actually have some part in preserving our environment, and helping us to make this world a better place. As an American Literature class, we compiled a survey, trying to find out how educated our high school was about the environment. We surveyed students in grades 9 through 12, as well as the faculty members. The questions ranged from, ``what does EPA stand for?'' to ``how long are your showers?'' to ``how do you feel about the future of our world?'' We discovered that many students didn't know much about environmental action programs--they didn't know the budget cuts would completely eliminate them. Students and teachers both felt that more time should be spent in the classroom discussing environmental issues, and that a definite part of the curriculum should be dedicated to it. It's not an issue only for science classes; it can be brought into every major course of study. For example, we took a normal letter-writing assignment and transformed it into an environmental letter-writing campaign. We wrote letters to our Congressional delegation in Washington about budget cuts and other environmental issues. This is only one of the ways in which we've incorporated environmental education into our classroom, without completely altering the basic curriculum. And we have these letters, and later on we'd like to give them to you, Congressman. Congressman Sander. That was a very creative and interesting testimony. I think the essence of what you're saying is that if people think in an environmentally conscious way, we can have a profound impact on the environment. In a broader sense, what would you describe as the major environmental crisis our planet faces? Answer. We've concentrated mostly on the budget cuts planned in the environmental action programs such as the EPA. The drastic cuts would completely eliminate clean water acts, safe drinking water, the state revolving funds that allow cities and counties to create protective water systems, such as sewer treatment plants. . . . Our second presentation will cover more of that.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by Acacia Fanto, a high school student from Brattleboro, VT, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. My name is Acacia Fanto, and my topic is property tax funding of public school education. Primary funding of public school education through property tax is inherently unfair. There are huge differences in property wealth from district to district. Based on this funding system . . . unequal from one area to another. The amount of money spent on education is a significant factor in determining the quality of education. Money is necessary to hire good teachers, buy the latest textbooks, get the latest classroom equipment, and attract good administrators. Despite this, cuts are prevalent everywhere. The biggest cuts are in arts, extracurricular activities and technology. If money is a significant factor of a good education, and money is the biggest variable from one public school to another, then education quality is not equal in this country. The differences from one district to another are astonishing. There are tremendous disparities based on where you live. The property tax funding system is making it difficult for many areas to meet even basic educational needs, at a time when more and more money is needed for special programs. We need these programs in schools to deal with the problems of today, such as violence, teen pregnancy and broken families. All these necessities take money away from academic programs. Property tax funding of public school education is not only unfair, but also a regressive funding system, one that often turns homeowners against schools because they don't want, or can't afford, to have their property taxes raised. The property tax funding system is unfair, unequal and ineffective, so alternatives need to be sought. The Robin Hood plan shifts money from wealthy districts to poorer ones, to try to equalize funding. This plan turns the ``haves'' against the ``have-nots,'' and injects race and class into the equity funding fight. A statewide property tax, or income tax, could turn the problem from a local funding issue to a state one. These solutions would decrease inequalities within a state, but not within the country. An alternative to the property tax funding system which would provide consistency, and would eliminate the unfairness, inequalities, and the opposition between the ``haves'' and the ``have-nots,'' would be a federal progressive income tax system. People would be taxed based on a percentage of their income, then the money raised would be distributed fairly among the districts by the federal government. In the search for a fair alternative, the first step that needs to be taken is to change America's attitude towards education. Education needs to be valued by this society in order to demonstrate its value to its youth. When money is spent on education, its value shines through, and creates a positive outcome in the future. We need to be able to put the funding issue behind us, so that the issue can become how to deliver best education possible. Instead of working to help the people, government is working against us, at a time when America is trying to create an educational system which responds to the future needs of America's youth. The government passed cuts in education, while at the same time approving bigger budgets for construction of prisons. Government needs to take a look at the long term effect of what it cuts and what it supports. If would support our youth, keep them in school and educate them, we may not have such growing need for prisons. Equal opportunity is the basis of this country's ideals, but by looking at our schools, you wouldn't know it. This unfair educational system is based on the unequal distribution of money in our schools caused by the property tax funding system. The U.S. has created a caste system of public education that is increasingly separate and unequal. We must work to make this a country of equal opportunity.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would like to have printed in the Record this statement by Matthew Dole, a high school student from St. Johnsbury, VT. He was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people. My name is Matthew Dole. I face censorship every day as I watch movies, try to read a book or even read the newspaper. All people have beliefs on what should be censored, but those should not infringe on others' choices. If you are to ban books, please do it [right], but don't force your opinions upon others. Proponents of censorship base their argument on the First Amendment. They interpret their Freedom of Speech as freedom to ban books. The opponents also use the First Amendment as a major right, not to be infringed upon. They have the freedom of choice, choice to read or watch whatever they want. They say that the proponents do not have the right to physically remove the books from our libraries and school shelves. People against censorship see it as large government once again challenging the individual, as was done in 1919 with Prohibition, later repealed. They ask for more local control, at the most local in fact--individual decision. In this, the era of political correctness, people challenge books on today's standards. They do not historicize texts, meaning they don't consider the time or circumstances under which it was written. I have with me today three books that have been banned. The first one is Mark Twain's, ``The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.'' To historicize this book, it was written in 1884, as Twain lived in Mississippi, and he had previously fought as a Confederate in the Civil War. It was banned for racism, and the reason for that was the circumstances under which it was written. The second book is ``Catcher in the Rye.'' This was banned for sexual scenes. I read this last year as a sophomore in high school as part of a Classic American Literature section. The third, and last, book is Margaret Mitchell's ``Gone With the Wind.'' This book was again banned for racism, and the reason [is that] if it hadn't had racism in it, it wouldn't have been historically correct. It is a book about the Confederate South, once again; and it was also banned for one word. As I've said, violence, racism and sex--three touchy, controversial subjects, are the most common reasons for book banning. Will banning the books make these issues disappear? I say, ``No.'' They may, however, help educate people on these issues. What we must do instead is educate our children early. We can teach them to have opinions, and teach them why they can't read that book, or why they shouldn't read that book. As time passes, they will be able to handle the issues, before being offended. Also, they will be able to personally ban books, TV with the V-chip and movies with the rating system. There's no ``cut and dried'' solution to this. If a case in book banning or any other censorship were to reach the Supreme Court, they can interpret the First Amendment. Or if two-thirds of each House vote in Congress, they could rewrite the First Amendment more specifically. And on a more local level, if two-thirds of all state legislatures wanted to, they could call an actual Convention and rewrite it themselves Thank you for inviting me, and I hope something can be done on this issue. Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much, Matthew. Matthew, let me ask you a question, because you have dealt with a very sensitive and controversial issue. So, here's my question: if at town meeting, or better yet a school board meeting, a parent gets up and says, ``I read this book. It is vulgar, it has filthy words in it, it has ideas that I don't want my daughter to see; I want that book out of the library.'' You're a member of the school board--how do you respond to that? Answer: Tell her that we can ban the book, in a sense, ban by putting it in, maybe, a section, like an adult section or a high school section. This happened at my old school, as a matter of fact, and they did not remove it from the library, and just put it in a separate section. What happened, was a 5th grader was basically in the high school section, reading this book. And I would ask them to educate . . . their kids, and I would ask the teachers also need to educate their kids on why they shouldn't read that book at that age. Congressman Sanders: In your judgment, what is the danger of somebody defining a book and saying, ``This book is terrible, I want it out.'' What are the long-term repercussions of that approach? Answer: With these books that I've brought--these are classics, these are used in teaching. If we lose these books, we lose a valuable tool in teaching our youth. Congressman Sanders: So what you're saying is that what may be vulgar for one person may be a work of art and a classic for somebody else. Answer: That's right.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the great crisis facing this country today is the decline in real wages for American workers and the proliferation of low-wage jobs. We have millions and millions of workers today who are trying to survive on $4.25 an hour, $5 an hour. They are not making it. Raising the minimum wage is long overdue, and we must do it today. The situation is so bad and the Federal Government has so much failed to stand up to its responsibility that 10 States in this country on their own, including the State of Vermont, have raised the minimum wage. Now, if the minimum wage is so bad, tell the Republican Governor of New Jersey, who supports their increase in the minimum wage, to roll it back. She will not do it because she knows, as every other Governor knows, that it is vital to raise the minimum wage today. Lastly, it is incomprehensible to me that I am hearing people talk about abolishing the minimum wage. They really want to see workers in America earning a dollar an hour, $2 an hour, competing against the workers in China who make 20 cents an hour. That is not the future of America.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding this time to me. From the first day that I took office here in the Congress in 1991 I have been fighting to raise the minimum wage, and I hope very much that my colleagues finally are going to do the right thing on behalf of tens of millions of workers and raise the minimum wage today. Mr. Speaker, when the minimum wage was first established in the 1930's, the opponents then said that the world was going to come to an end, the economy was going to collapse. And every single time that an effort has been made since then to raise the minimum wage, the same cries have come forward: The world is going to come to an end, we cannot raise the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that today, at $4.25 an hour, the minimum wage is a starvation wage. The minimum wage today, in terms of purchasing power, is 26 percent less than it was 20 years ago. In terms of purchasing power it is at its lowest point in the last 40 years. Mr. Speaker, there are tens of millions of Americans today who are working hard at $4.25 an hour, at $5 an hour, at $5.25 an hour, and they are unable to take care of the financial needs of their family. They are unable to put away money so that their kids can go to college. They cannot go on a vacation. Every single week, despite 40 or 50 hours of work, they are in as bad shape at the end of the week as they were before the week began. Mr. Speaker, one of the great economic problems facing our country today is that the richest people are becoming richer, the middle class is shrinking, and most of the new jobs are being created are low-wage jobs.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, the most important economic issue facing this country is that the people on top, the wealthiest people, are becoming richer, the middle class is shrinking, and more and more of the new jobs that we are creating in this country are low-wage jobs paying people $4.25 an hour, $4.50 an hour, $5 an hour. The minimum wage today in terms of purchasing power is at its lowest point in 40 years. Mr. Speaker, the American people want and the working people want to see a situation in which every working person in this country can work 40 hours a week and not live in poverty. It is incumbent upon this body to have an opportunity to vote for a clean up-or-down increase in the minimum wage. Our Republican friends say the Democrats should have raised the minimum wage 2 years ago. They are right; they should have, and I had a bill in the hopper to do just that. But 2 years later means more and more people are living in poverty. Two years later means that today finally we should increase the minimum wage.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I introduced an amendment which would reduce intelligence spending by 10 percent. It received, I believe, 115 votes. Just a few minutes ago the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] introduced an amendment that would freeze intelligence spending. It received 193 votes. My sincere hope is that we can receive another 20 votes to pass the Schroeder amendment. I will tell my colleagues why. Month after month and day after day, Members from both sides of the aisle come here on the floor of the House, and they talk about the $5 trillion national debt. They talk about the deficit, and they talk about how important it is and how necessary it is to cut program after program after program. My friend from Washington a moment ago talked about his fear that we would be ``disciplining this agency.'' Mr. Chairman, by overspending on intelligence, by spending more money than we need for the National Reconnaissance Office, an agency that has misplaced, that has lost $4 billion of taxpayers' money, what we are doing is disciplining hungry children in America. We are disciplining families who would like Federal funding in order to send their kids to college. We are disciplining senior citizens who get by on $7,000 or $8,000 a year Social Security but do not have the help from the Federal Government to purchase prescription drugs. We are disciplining tens of millions of people who would like some help from the Federal Government. But we are saying, not only can we not afford it, we are going to cut back on what we are currently providing because we think we need to spend this money on the intelligence agencies, despite the end of the cold war. Mr. Chairman, I know that many Members in this body are terribly sincere, both sides of the aisle, terribly sincere about deficit reduction. I know that they have been reluctant and with pain have made cuts that they know are going to hurt millions of middle-class working class, low-income families. I beseech those same Members who have made those cuts that impact negatively on people who are hurting today to have the courage to stand up and say that, when we have an agency that has misplaced $4 billion, the very least we can do to protect our credibility is to say to that agency that we are going to level fund you. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] did not say we are going to cut their funding in half. That is not what she said. She came forward with a very conservative amendment. Level fund an agency that has misplaced $4 billion. We need 20 votes more to finally say to the American people that we are serious about deficit reduction. Please support the Schroeder amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANDERS. How terrible it was; how could we continue to have covered, how would we continue to fund the HUD agencies when they are going mismanagement like that? Does the gentleman not a see a little bit of a discrepancy in judgment, in opinion, in terms of the gross mismanagement of billions of dollars through the National Reconnaissance Office and what we heard about HUD and the running of public housing?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts is on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services with me. He will remember a few weeks ago, there was a photograph and great discussions about mismanagement of public housing. Does the gentleman recall that?

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Washington will recall that last year, same time, same place, we had the same debate. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and myself and others said we think we are spending too much on the intelligence, and we had leaders from both political parties coming forward saying they need every single nickel. And what we are hearing today is, in fact, that there was an unaccounted-for slush fund of $4 billion that, in fact, was not needed. We were right on the debate last time, and in due respect to my friend from Washington, his position was wrong. So the question now comes before us this year. I am not here to pass blame on any Member of the Congress.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficulty of the gentleman's job as chairman of the committee, but let me ask the gentleman this: To put $4 billion into perspective that the National Reconnaissance Office, quote unquote, lost track of, I would mention to my friend I know he is from Texas and it is a little bit bigger State than Vermont; our entire annual budget for the State of Vermont for 1 year is $1.5 billion. In other words, they lost track of an amount of money equivalent to 3 years of the budget of the State of Vermont. Last year, I was on the floor of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] was on the floor of the House, other Members, and we opposed an increase in the intelligence budget. We were concerned about exactly what we are talking about today, and we were told, ``No problem. They need every dime.'' Somehow or other they lost $4 billion, and I would suggest that the problem that I have with my friend's argument is that I fear next year we are going to be in the same position again. When some agency is so irresponsible, I think we have got to say enough is enough.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me continue reading from the New York Times: John Nelson, appointed last year as the reconnaissance office top financial manager and given the task of cleaning up the problem, said in an interview published today in a special edition of Defense Week that the secret agency had undergone, quoting from Mr. Nelson, fundamental financial meltdown. The article continues: The financial incompetence of the reconnaissance office meant that one of the Nation's biggest intelligence agencies misinformed Congress, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Secretary of Defense about how much money it had. Continuing the New York Times: The agency's secrecy made congressional oversight next to impossible, intelligence officials said. Thus the congressional intelligence committees kept appropriating money for the secret agency unaware that it was building up a surplus of billions of dollars. End of quote from the New York Times. Mr. Chairman, how are we going to have credibility with the American people when we say to hungry kids, we have got to cut back on nutrition programs, when we say to homeless people, there is not enough money available for affordable housing, when we say to elderly people, the Congress cannot help you pay for the prescription drugs you desperately need, when we say there is not enough money for education and have got to cut back and then, after this horrendous financial irresponsibility on the part of an intelligence community, we say, hey, no problem, you need more money, we are there to help you out. This is wrong. This is not what deficit reduction is about. This is a horrendous sense of national priorities. For all of those Members who have been cutting, cutting, cutting, who have been coming up here every day talking about the national debt, I ask you to support my amendment, a 10-percent cut in the intelligence budget.