[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20686-20687]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       ISSUES FACING YOUNG PEOPLE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 4, 1999

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have printed in the Record 
statements by high school students from my home State of Vermont, who 
were speaking at my recent town meeting on issues facing young people 
today. I am asking that you please insert these statements in the 
Congressional Record as I believe that the views of these young persons 
will benefit my colleagues.

                   Workers' Rights and Welfare Reform

             (On behalf of Daniel Peyser and Jenn Donohue)

       Daniel Peyser: I'm going to be covering workers' rights, 
     and specifically minimum wage, and maybe health care, and 
     Jenn is going to be doing welfare reform, which will tie into 
     it.
       A key issue regarding the basic rights of workers is a 
     livable wage. There was a minimum wage increase that was from 
     $4.25 to $5.15, but it is still not livable. It is nice to 
     have the wage increase, but it is not significantly helping 
     us out. I make minimum wage, and it's a pain when you are not 
     making enough money that you feel that you would deserve more 
     for the work that you put in. But, over the past two decades, 
     the minimum wage, with that one exception of that increase, 
     has largely, for most people, stagnated or declined, and 
     combined with inflation, the real value of the minimum wage 
     hasn't increased very much since around 1955 to 1970.
       It used to be, after World War II, that when productivity 
     went up in companies that the workers got cut into the action 
     and everyone prospered. But between 1983 and 1989, we have 
     seen that, as companies reach record profits, that workers 
     aren't getting cut in any more. And between 1983 and 1989, 99 
     percent of the new wealth that was accumulated went to the 
     top 20 percent of the income groups.
       America is now the most economically stratified country in 
     the industrialized world. So there's a lot of issues that 
     also tie in with livable wage. I mean, you have welfare, 
     which is one issue. And one of the incentives perhaps for a 
     lot of people who are on welfare would be a higher minimum 
     wage. I think the answer to the problem would be to require 
     companies to, first of all, raise the minimum wage to 
     something that is easily livable. Ideally, I would have said 
     $9 an hour or so. Cut back working hours, so require 
     companies, based on how much money they make, to hire a 
     certain number of workers, also based on their expenses, 
     which would help unemployment rates.
       Other issues that tie in are, a large part of having an 
     unbalanced budget can be attributed to having stagnated 
     wages. College education prices have gone up 80 percent over 
     the past two decades, I think, as far as the cost of real 
     value. And it is going to be harder and harder for people who 
     are making minimum wage now to send their kids to college or 
     to support their families.
       Congressman Sanders: Jenn?
       Jenn Donohue: As a senior in high school, the time is 
     coming where I have to go out and find a job and employment. 
     And, as Dan was saying, it bothers me in both respects, that 
     there are people out there who are making minimum wage, 
     trying to feed their kids, trying to buy necessities, basic 
     things that people need, and they are getting welfare; and 
     there are other people out there who don't work, who wait for 
     the check to come every month, and that's what they live on, 
     they have no initiative to get up, get out, and get a job.
       Welfare was established for people in need, to help them 
     get back up on their feet until the time came where they were 
     okay, and they were all set, and they didn't need it as much 
     as they did before. But now, I think, there is a problem 
     where people are using it as their basic income. They have no 
     desire to get up and get a job. And it is not the case with 
     all people who are on welfare. Some people need it intensely. 
     They are working two jobs, their spouse is working two jobs. 
     Their kids are going to school, they need food and products 
     all kids need.
       I just think that something has to be done to change the 
     way that welfare is going, because it is unfair to deprive 
     people who really need the welfare of the money, when it is 
     going to people who are just using it--I mean, there are 
     women who get pregnant so they will have more money coming in 
     the door. It is sick and it's twisted, and something needs to 
     be done to reform welfare, so that the people who need it are 
     getting it, and the people who need it and aren't doing 
     anything to get it do something about that.
       Congressman Sanders: Thanks for tackling a very, very 
     important issue.


     
                                  ____
                       Zero Tolerance for Alcohol

                     (On behalf of Laura Megivern)

       Laura Megivern: My name is Laura Megivern, and I'm from 
     South Burlington High School.
       In all 50 states, it is illegal for anyone under 21 to 
     purchase and possess alcoholic beverages. Following this 
     logic, it should therefore be illegal for anyone under the 
     age of 21 to have a blood alcohol concentration of anything 
     over .00. However, this is not the case. In Vermont, anything 
     under a .02 alcohol level is legal for someone under 21 years 
     old, who cannot legally purchase or possess any alcoholic 
     product.
       It is required that all states have a zero tolerance law 
     for people under the legal drinking age. A zero tolerance law 
     is defined as any law that states that persons under 21 are 
     not allowed to have a blood alcohol level of anything more 
     than .02, .01 or .00. In 1994, according to the National 
     Highway Safety Administration, motor vehicle traffic crashes 
     cost the United States more than $150 billion in economic 
     costs. Crashes involving 15- to 20-year-olds cost the United 
     States years more than $21 billion in 1994.
       Although they may be effective, there is a bit of a 
     discrepancy in the fact that, although youth are not 
     permitted to purchase or possess alcohol, it is all right for 
     them to have some alcohol in their blood. One reason why the 
     legal limit is set above zero is because of problems with the 
     calibration of instruments, and because of the margin of 
     error that may exist in the use of a Breathalyzer.
       Other reasons brought up while the law was being created 
     were that some foods may raise the alcohol level in breath, 
     and that wine consumed in church as part of communion may 
     raise the blood alcohol to an illegal level. The amount of 
     wine ingested during communion would most likely be 
     immeasurable, unless the Breathalyzer test was administered 
     just afterwards. Also, an average high school student taking 
     one dose of NyQuil would be under this limit, as the alcohol 
     level would barely be measurable--although, in my opinion, if 
     you feel bad enough to take NyQuil, a cough syrup advertised 
     as helping someone get to sleep, you probably shouldn't be 
     driving anyway. Some yeast products may also raise the 
     alcohol content, but not to a measurable level, according to 
     Dan Steinbar of the Day One Program, an outpatient 
     rehabilitation program. He also says that, a beginning 
     drinker without a high tolerance to alcohol, like a teenager, 
     would be showing signs of impairment, especially of slurred 
     speech and impairment of judgment, at a .02 blood alcohol 
     concentration.
       To get to a .02 blood alcohol concentration, you would need 
     to drink a can of beer, 12 ounces, or 6 ounces of wine. In 
     fact, for a 150-pound male, one can of beer, 5 ounces of 
     wine, or 1.5 ounces of hard liquor puts the blood alcohol 
     concentration above the legal limit even for someone over 21. 
     However, if the male waited two hours to drive, he would be 
     below it.

[[Page 20687]]

       The rationale for zero tolerance is clearly understandable. 
     According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, 21 percent of 15- to 20-year-old drivers 
     involved in fatal crashes had some alcohol in their blood in 
     1996. In the same year, an estimated 846 lives were saved by 
     the minimum-age drinking laws, and an estimated 16,513 lives 
     have been saved by these laws since 1975.
       Although there is a discrepancy in the legal limit and what 
     one would hope would be the legal limit, I see the reasoning 
     behind it, although I hope that, one day, equipment will be 
     in use in Vermont that has no margin of error, so that we can 
     have an actual zero tolerance law, rather than a .02 
     tolerance law, because zero should mean zero.

     

                          ____________________