[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 71 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3137-H3143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LOW VOTER TURNOUT AMONG THE YOUTH OF AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is recognized for five minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, one of the untold and unspoken-about crises 
facing this country is that in many respects we are losing our 
democratic traditions. As you know, France recently had an election, 
and 80 percent of the people voted in that election. We are going to 
have an election in November, and the estimate is that 35, 36 percent 
of the American people are going to vote in our election. And, in fact, 
we end up having by far the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized 
and major nation on earth.
  What makes the situation even scarier is that as low as the voter 
turnout in general is, it is especially low among young people, people 
25 years of age or younger. And the estimates are that about 80 percent 
of those people do not vote. And what sociologists tell us that as 
these people get older, they are less likely to vote, which means the 
voter turnout will go down and down and down. And it is not just voter 
turnout, Mr. Speaker, it is that poll after poll shows that millions of 
Americans do not know how government functions, do not know anything 
about the major issues facing our country, and I think that this is a 
very scary situation.
  With these concerns in mind, Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 2002, I held a 
town meeting geared toward young people, high school students. I wanted 
these high school students to understand

[[Page H3138]]

that as citizens of the United States of America, they have the right 
to ask their Member of Congress questions and they have the right to 
voice their opinions about some of the most important issues facing our 
State and our country. And I am proud to tell you that we had about 14 
different schools and youth organizations participate in that process.
  I think the American people would have been extremely proud to have 
heard the intelligent comments and analysis and questions that these 
young people asked. I am very grateful that the University of Vermont 
allowed us to use their facilities. I am very grateful that we had many 
faculty members at high schools throughout the State helping us in this 
project.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do now is provide for the Record 
some of the very excellent testimony that we heard on that occasion.

                           Is NATO Necessary?

                      (On behalf of Hailey Davis)

       HAILEY DAVIS: America is a great nation. It is a great 
     nation with great abilities. Fighting distant wars just 
     happens to be one of them. When it comes to equipment and 
     technology needed to fight its wars, America has it all. The 
     United States has become so independent and self-sufficient 
     militarily and intellectually speaking, that it can put up a 
     great fight alone. So the question arises: Do we need NATO 
     anymore?
       The fact that the United States is so much more 
     technologically advanced than any of its NATO allies brings 
     about an answer of: No. Frankly, we don't. We have 
     increasingly lost every and any need for the NATO alliance, 
     due not only to our technology but to the unilateralism of 
     the Bush administration. He and his team tend to dislike 
     fighting with aid from allies who might get in the way or 
     limit America's room for military exercises.
       Will the NATO nations ever fight together again? I'm 
     quoting New York Times journalist Thomas L. Friedman here 
     when I say that ``to fight a modern war today you need four 
     key issues: Many large transport aircraft to deploy troops to 
     far-flung battlefields; precision-guided bombs and missiles 
     that can hit enemy targets with a high degree of certitude, 
     hence lowering number of civilian casualties; a large amount 
     of special teams that can operate at night with the proper 
     equipment; and secure and cryptic communications, so that 
     ground and air troops can be connected in a high-tech war 
     without the enemy listening in.''
       Now, America has all four of these Assets. No other nation 
     does. Although Britain comes close, with Germany, France and 
     Italy right behind it, the United States stands alone in its 
     military stature. The fact that the European defense 
     industries are not nearly as sophisticated as America's 
     today, constitutes primarily for their dependence on the NATO 
     alliance. Adding to this is the idea Europeans don't really 
     feel threatened by the U.S.'s enemies, such as Bush's Axis of 
     Evil, which includes Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and 
     therefore don't have much interest in spending a lot on 
     defense. So if the Europeans really want NATO to last, 
     perhaps they should invest more in military technology so 
     that they can potentially fight a war alone, much like the 
     U.S. can.
       If the NATO alliance deals with countries helping each 
     other fight wars, and America doesn't need this help, then I 
     ask you to consider the question: Is NATO really necessary 
     for the United States?
                                  ____


                  Change of Leadership in Middle East

                     (On behalf of Timothy Plante)

       TIMOTHY PLANTE: Okay. The current aggression in Israel and 
     its occupied territories represent a clash between two 
     people, the Palestinians and the Israelis, and the leadership 
     of these two states or people represent a clash of values, 
     and the leaders of the two people--that would be are Arafat 
     and Sharon--are both very radical in their views, and they 
     are opposing. In order to come to an agreement and to peace, 
     something has to change, and that is what I'm going to deal 
     with.
       Ariel Sharon epitomizes the political views of his Likud 
     party. This party's motto is: Don't give an inch. 
     Negotiations with the Palestinians will never happen as long 
     as Ariel Sharon is in power. He has no intention to negotiate 
     for peace. Sharon has actually used violence as a campaign to 
     get into his position.
       One thing that he did during the run for the election of 
     prime minister was that he went to the Temple Mount, and he 
     basically did it to provoke violence from the Palestinians, 
     to make Ehud Barak look like he didn't have control over the 
     situation in Israel. As soon as we went up there, he--
     although he didn't do anything, he just went up there and 
     looked around, he did that because he knew it would tick off 
     the Palestinians. And they started a campaign of violence in 
     retaliation, and this made Barak look bad, and therefore 
     Ariel Sharon came into power.
       In order for Arafat to continue his campaign against the 
     Palestinians, he has now started to be extremely aggressive 
     against the Palestinians. The Palestinians have many martyrs, 
     as they call them, which have been--they have been killed by 
     the Israeli army as collateral damage, and these are women 
     and children and men, and these people didn't intend any 
     violence to the Israelis, but they died because the Israelis 
     were being aggressors.
       And then the Palestinians take these martyrs, and they say: 
     Look what happens to us. We want to retaliate. So they 
     retaliate with suicide bombers, and then Ariel Sharon wants 
     to retaliate against the suicide bombers, and this creates a 
     cycle of violence and destruction.
       I believe the only way to end this cycle is through our 
     allies the Israelis. Not many people know the U.S. gives, as 
     Tim said earlier, the .1 percent--or whatever the number was, 
     one-third of that money goes directly to the Israelis. So 
     one-third of our foreign aid goes to the Israelis, and of 
     that figure, $2.04 billion is in military aid, and $720 
     million is in economic aid. This is obviously showing that we 
     are as belligerent as Sharon is, and as the Israeli Likud 
     party is.
       The only way to stop the aggression is by us altering the 
     funding that we give to the Israeli people. If we tell Sharon 
     that he needs to stop being violent and belligerent, he needs 
     to stop invading these territories and stop killing people, 
     and have his army stop doing all the negative things he is 
     doing, he might laugh. But if we say, We are funding your 
     country, and threaten to take away the funding, he won't have 
     an army anymore. He will have nothing to attack with. So if 
     we play hardball with Sharon, we will be able to influence 
     him into bringing along peace.
       Now, on the other side is Yasar Arafat. And this guy is a 
     waffle. He picks one side that is the most popular, to stay 
     in power. He has been in power for a very long time. He 
     started out as a terrorist or as a freedom fighter, he did 
     terrorist acts, and he gained popularity. And he has changed 
     his views on the position several times. But he does this to 
     stay in power.
       And the popular thing right now is to go against the 
     Israelis and the Americans. So what Yasar Arafat says to the 
     American press in English is not what he says to his own 
     people in his language. It is completely different. and he is 
     sending mixed messages to the world. He and his people are 
     using the international media as a way of showing their side 
     of the story, to gain sympathy in the international field, 
     and this is creating problems for Israel, making them look 
     bad, and this is creating problems for America, which has 
     been referred to as ``the big Satan.''
       To recap, if we force the Israelis to come to a peace 
     agreement with the Palestinians by either giving up the 
     occupied territories or coming to some sort of agreement, a 
     cease-fire, the Palestinian people will find peace, they 
     won't have as many martyrs. This will be a good thing. 
     Because Yasar Arafat goes on popular opinion, and as popular 
     opinion will turn towards peace instead of violence, that 
     will bring an end to the problem in Israel.
                                  ____


                          Bettering Education

                  (On behalf of Elizabeth Christolini)

       ELIZABETH CHRISTOLINI: Middle East conflict. Just as I wish 
     that someday there will be peace between the Israelis and 
     Arabs, I wish also that there were peace in the workings of 
     the education system within the United States. The question, 
     then, which I propose, perhaps foolishly, is how to go about 
     achieving this peace.
       By traveling 45 minutes twice a day, five days a week to a 
     parochial high school in Burlington. I am going to school not 
     so much for the religious faith but rather because my parents 
     and I felt that my local high school was not a place from 
     which I could create a solid future.
       Our assessment of both schools was done much in the same 
     way that one's college choices may be established, by 
     research concerning a wide variety of things, the most 
     important of which was teacher accountability or lack 
     thereof, the lack of accountability--by that, I mean the 
     disregard on behalf of a teacher for his or her student, or 
     where a student is passed through a grade despite the fact 
     that he or she has not truly completed work satisfactorily 
     enough to be granted admission to the next grade.
       While the school I currently attend is a far cry from 
     perfect, I feel that I have learned more than I would have 
     had I attended my local high school. As pleased as I am to 
     say that my education has done something to me and will 
     enable me to do more in the future, I, at the same time, find 
     myself thinking of the students who do attend my local high 
     school, who are, as I am, nearly finished with their high 
     school careers, and who may be wishing their own education 
     had been better or different.
       My belief is that, if education is to work as it ought to, 
     there should be no need for private and public schools. There 
     should, instead, be the same form of education available in 
     each and every institution. In saying this, I do not mean 
     for the creation of a flat-out equality where what is 
     right for one is right for all, but, rather, the kind of 
     education that I received in my high school should be 
     given to all of the students; and vice versa, those 
     classes and options which are not available today in my 
     school should be maintained.
       Such a sharing could be done through the creation of a new 
     institution where a public school is interconnected or 
     combined, whether a private or parochial school, while still

[[Page H3139]]

     retaining the government funds, as well as the right of 
     separation of church and state. In essence, such an 
     institution would provide students everywhere for a better 
     and cheaper education, thus enabling more families to have 
     the funds needed to pay for cost of college tuition.
       Within the shared schools, advanced placement, honors, 
     remedial and other classes which catered towards a person's 
     strengths and weaknesses would not only be available, but, as 
     well, each would hold to a strictly followed set of 
     prerequisites such as tests, shared recommendation for prior 
     classes, on which admission to such a class could be based, 
     allowing for the classes to be taught at a level specified to 
     students who truly meet this level.
       Payment of teachers would be increased, in conjunction with 
     the more demanding set of stipulations on which these 
     teachers would be hired. Rather than giving the position to a 
     person simply for the fact that he or she showed up for the 
     interview and had achieved a minimal degree, a teacher's 
     performance in achieving this degree, as well as to their 
     overall talent and work ethic, would be considered.
       With the hiring of these qualified as well as motivated 
     people--and I know there are some out there, as I have had 
     the privilege to work with a few of them--there would not be 
     the need for the constant testing as is proposed by President 
     Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, where each child from the 
     third to eight grade would be tested every year in areas of 
     math, science and English. If a teacher does his or her job 
     not just adeptly, but, as well, enthusiastically, it stands 
     to reason that, in combination with up-to-date facilities, 
     the testing of students each year to ensure the continued 
     progression of the student body would not be needed. It would 
     be an accurate assumption to say that both teaching and 
     learning are occurring at or above the standard level.
       This new institution should be formed through the right 
     kind of slow but effective change. The place at which to 
     start these changes is in our current schools, public and 
     parochial as well as private. Reform should be made to 
     encompass a strict non-toleration rule concerning drugs and 
     alcohol. This action should include suggestions toward 
     rehabilitation centers as well as the intervention programs. 
     The following of this rule will alleviate the various student 
     behavioral problems, and leave within each school only those 
     truly willing to learn.
       From this point, the reevaluation and decisions concerning 
     positions held and ability of each teacher should be tested 
     in a manner similar to the no-tolerance rule for students, 
     whereas those teachers who do not wish to, should not, and, 
     consequently, would not be teaching. Lastly, evaluation for 
     the remaining teachers as well as students should be made 
     concerning classes. A decision should be informed not only by 
     those classes which are had and not needed, but as well as by 
     those needed and not had.
       With these changes put into effect, it is my belief that 
     the creation of a quality high school education for each and 
     every student in each and every institution would be on its 
     way.
                                  ____


                          Multinational Impact

                   (On behalf of Rebecca Lee Marquis)

       REBECCA LEE MARQUIS: I would like to speak today on the 
     subject of fast food and how it is permeating our society, 
     promoting an unhealthy way of life, costing a tremendous 
     amount of money in healthcare, and the immoral way in which 
     it targets young children around the world in its 
     advertising. Ray Crock, the founder of McDonald's, said, ``A 
     child who loves our television commercials and brings her 
     grandparents to a McDonald's gives us two more customers.''
       We are a nation of instant gratification. We live in a time 
     when everyone moves at a fast pace. The act of eating, 
     whether it is breakfast, lunch or dinner, is no longer a 
     social time for families. Our society used to be much more 
     aware of what it was eating and where the food came from. As 
     we become more isolated from food production, we become 
     ignorant of how it is grown, processed and marketed.
       Many people today consider themselves too busy to take the 
     time to think about and prepare healthy meals. For breakfast, 
     lunch or dinner, we quickly pull into variously shaped but 
     strategically located buildings and emerge with breakfast 
     sandwiches, hamburgers, fish sandwiches, fried chicken, 
     tacos, pizza, fries, shakes, soda, and all the promotional 
     gadgets that accompany this food. Seesaws, slides, and 
     rainbow-colored balls are attractive, but when it gets down 
     to brass tacks, a brand new article on fast food notes, the 
     key to attracting kids is toys, toys, toys.
       But what do we get for this trade-off of time for 
     convenience? We get overly priced, highly processed, high-
     calorie, high-fat, low-nutritional food. We get food with 
     manufactured flavors that will taste exactly the same from 
     Boston to San Francisco to Tokyo. These types of eating 
     habits have led us to our national problem of obesity, 
     which translates into countless related health problems, 
     costing millions of dollars in healthcare.
       The original Ronald McDonald was a man by the name of 
     Willard Scott. He was later deemed too overweight; McDonald's 
     wanted someone thinner to sell it burgers, shakes and fries. 
     These facts are well-known, and, as adults, we have the 
     ability to make informed decisions. What is appalling is that 
     we allow these massive corporations to direct huge national 
     advertising campaigns at our youth.
       Three billion dollars a year is spent on just television 
     advertising. That number does not include the countless other 
     ways that advertisements are ingrained into our minds. These 
     corporations bribe our school systems with cash payments so 
     that they can market products to captive audiences. Instead 
     of schools being places of exploration and learning, they 
     risk becoming warehouses for corporations to sell products 
     and brainwash future consumers.
       We allow the same corporations to develop movies and 
     cartoons that are nothing more than continuous 
     advertisements. The corporation's goal is to hook its 
     customers at younger ages so that they can create consumers 
     for life. The chains often distribute numerous versions of a 
     toy, encouraging repeat visits by small children.
       What can we do to counter these less-than-admirable 
     situations? We can begin to slow down and take time to learn 
     where our food comes from and how it is processed. We can 
     become better educated about nutrition and try to buy only 
     foods that are grown, processed and marketed responsibly. We 
     can learn to grow small gardens, to become better acquainted 
     with our own health. We can lobby our government leaders to 
     outlaw the marketing in schools and the marketing to young 
     children. We need to stop being passive consumers or we risk 
     becoming captive consumers.
                                  ____


                   U.S. Aid to Third World Countries

                     (On behalf of Tim Fitzgerald)

       TIM FITZGERALD: Foreign aid, began by the United States 
     starting in 1941 and continued after the Second World War. 
     This plan for rebuilding war-torn nations became known as the 
     Marshall Plan. About $12 billion dollars was distributed 
     under this plan, and it was responsible for helping the 
     nations of Europe regain some financial stability.
       Longer-reaching reconstruction was funded by the World 
     Bank. Later, aid was given to strengthen countries' 
     militaries, and less humanitarian aid was provided. In the 
     late 1990s, less than one percent of the gross national 
     product of the United States of America was used for foreign 
     aid.
       A simple analogy can be used to understand this percentage. 
     Imagine a man who possesses 100 ears of corn, each with 100 
     kernels. Now, the man has many neighbors who are starving to 
     death on a yearly basis, but the man gives away only a total 
     of twelve kernels of corn in 1998. Not only is the percent 
     minuscule, but part of this amount never reaches these people 
     doe to the corruption in their governments.
       This may seem ridiculous, but it is what is happening with 
     U.S. foreign aid. Instead of giving military aid to nations, 
     it would be much more conducive to provide food and supplies 
     to developing nations. Especially those in sub-Saharan 
     Africa, with the AIDS epidemic continuing to plague this part 
     of the world, this minuscule amount of financial support 
     being given seems ludicious
       Even with President Bush' s provmise of $5 billion extra in 
     foreign aid, there are problems. Distribution of funds and 
     aid is a major problem. Giving aid directly to the unstable 
     regimes which govern the poorer states is not a good policy. 
     Work of this kind should be done directly with the 
     population. This would be more efficient for governments 
     that are unable to distribute aid and prevent corrupt ones 
     from stealing it.
       An important part of foreign aid is healthcare. Many 
     African nations are unable to take care of giving children 
     basic inoculations, let alone the staggering number of 
     individuals living with HIV AIDS. In some places, about 35 
     percent of the adult population has contracted the disease. 
     Education is also needed to help these developing nations.
       But the key to healthcare is efficiency. Private healthcare 
     organizations are leading the way with this. Vaccines often 
     go bad while on route to those who need them, so a new type 
     of indicator was developed to tell those containers that 
     still retain potency from those that are past their prime. 
     This development helps to waste as little as possible of 
     supplies that are often in short supply anyway.
       Education is an important part of foreign aid, which is 
     often ignored. This includes people from all sections of 
     society--men, women, children, and all ethnicities. An 
     example of this is the amount of children being born in sub-
     Saharan Africa. Traditionally, families in Africa has many 
     children, as a sign of prestige and help with work. If these 
     families were informed how having more children is both a 
     strain on family and country, they might have less children, 
     thus freeing more aid and bettering the chances for survival 
     of their child. With resources being strained less, there 
     might be a better chance for the development of a strong body 
     of workers who would in turn improve the economy, and 
     ultimately the government.
       Foreign aid is an important part of foreign policy and must 
     be utilized in order to truly secure the United States of 
     America. States in poverty are often unstable and this can 
     translate into a hatred of the United States. For example, 
     the average income of an individual in certain states could 
     be under $500. That is not to say it is the only factor 
     involved, in certain situations. Far from it. But perhaps, if 
     the standard of living was increased, there would be less of 
     a sense of unrest.

[[Page H3140]]

       Aid must, however, be reformed in two main ways. First, 
     more must be spend by the United States on foreign aid in 
     general. Secondly, distribution must be looked at. It is not 
     helpful to send aid to a foreign country which does not have 
     the means to distribute it or withholds it for some other 
     reason. A $5 billion increase will help, but so will 
     increasing efficiency so that money goes further.
       So, Congressman Sanders, I would ask you that, when and if 
     legislation on foreign aid reform comes up, you work for and 
     vote for foreign aid reform.
                                  ____


                          Arab-Israel Conflict

                     (On behalf of Pierson Booher)

       PIERSON BOOHER: The increasing violence in the Middle East 
     led many people to question our nation's policy in the 
     region. Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, 
     the United States has had fluctuating relations with Middle 
     Eastern countries.
       It took heavy convincing by President Jimmy Carter to 
     persuade Anwar Sadat to recognize Israel and form good 
     relations with the country and Prime Minister Menachem Begin. 
     The Camp David accords of 1979 stirred up the Arab world, 
     eventually resulting in the assassination of Sadat in 1981.
       The Middle East is not a liberal region, but rather a land 
     of Islamic extremists ready to defend their faith to block 
     the spread of westernization. Back in time before the Gulf 
     War, before Lebanon, before the Six Day War, and even before 
     the creation of Israel, the world has been saturated with the 
     Middle East, not because of their culture or the beauty of 
     the land, but rather because of a prosperous natural product 
     that floods the region: Oil.
       Our nation's dependency on oil has led us to base our 
     relations in the region solely on the influence of oil in 
     regards to a particular problem. President Bush has attempted 
     to find alternative sources of oil by improving regions with 
     Russian President Vladimir Putin, and pushing for drilling in 
     the Alaskan wildlife refuge.
       The increasing numbers of suicide bombings in Israel has 
     led many to question the definition of the word 
     ``terrorism.'' Terrorism can be defined as an act of violence 
     done to a group of persons. Although there are many 
     similarities between President Bush's terrorists and Ariel 
     Sharon's terrorists, Bush has shifted his stance.
       He recently sent envoy Anthony Zinney back to the region to 
     help ease tensions and push for peace. Bush also sent 
     Secretary of State Colin Powell to Israel last Thursday to 
     bid an end to the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel 
     Sharon recently declared war on Yasar Arafat and the PLO. 
     Unwilling to resume peace talks until Arafat helps put an end 
     to terrorism existing in Israel. In response Arab leaders 
     have said that ending occupation will lead to the end of 
     terrorism.
       President Bush's war on terrorism came as a result of the 
     September 11th tragedies, while Sharon's war on terrorism 
     stems from the suicide bombings that have taken place for a 
     few years, the bombings being a result of the 35-year 
     occupation of Palestinian territories. Diplomats have said 
     that the Arab world is looking to the United States to draw 
     red lines for Israel, for it to withdraw its forces from 
     Palestinian territories. In response, columnist Friedman has 
     said, if Arab leaders have only the moral courage to draw 
     lines around Israel's behavior, but no moral courage to decry 
     the utterly corrupt and inept Palestinian leadership for the 
     depravity of suicide bombers in the name of Islam, then we're 
     going nowhere.
       Sharon probably wishes he had dealt with Arafat in Beirut 
     when he had the chance. But he did not do anything more than 
     allow the PLO to regroup and regain momentum. In order for 
     the United States to have an impact on the current Arab-
     Israeli conflict, the country must begin working from the 
     bottom up. We have from the Iran Contra issue that there are 
     other anti-Israeli countries supplying Palestinian militant 
     groups with weapons.
       Unlike the Israel army, the U.S. must seek to cut off the 
     suppliers, such as Iran. In doing so, the U.S. will destroy 
     the lifelines of the militant groups in the region, most 
     notably Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Brigade and another 
     group. After the militant group's suicide bombings, all that 
     is left is the heart of the people. Yes, no one will be able 
     to destroy the foundation of the Palestinian struggle 
     (inaudible) nationalism. But the destruction of those who 
     facilitate the cause would be a decisive and crushing blow.
       At a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair over 
     the weekend, the President said that Iraq would be a better 
     place without Saddham Hussein. The same can be said about 
     Palestine and Israel with regards to Yasar Arafat. One could 
     also say the same about the world with regard to Osama bin 
     Laden. But what President Bush needs to understand is that 
     there could very well be an even more persuasive, powerful 
     Napoleonic man looming in the background waiting for his 
     moment to take over in a coupless revolution.
       If Hussein refuses to meet the demands of the U.N. weapons 
     inspectors, there could very well be a U.S. return to Iraq 
     and a more dangerous successor. The United States needs to 
     understand that our nation has become too reliant on the 
     Middle East oil. We live in a country that is enormously 
     dependent on a natural resource that is found in a hostile 
     region. The U.S. must reduce their dependence on the region's 
     oil and look elsewhere, something Bush has already begun to 
     do.
       Because of our new relations with Russia and the access of 
     oil that is in circulation, gas prices have fallen 7.1 cents 
     since last year, to an average of $1.32 per gallon. A 
     decrease in dependency on the Middle East oil reserves will 
     help give the country more confidence and less to lose.
       In the past we have based many of our diplomatic relations 
     and war strategies around the impact it would have on our 
     ability to obtain oil. Along with the exporting of oil, 
     Russia could serve as a possible coalition member down the 
     road. As a result of this retraction, the United States gives 
     itself more leeway in the Arab world and begins to lose the 
     title of taker.
       There may never be a conclusion to the conflict between 
     Israelis and Palestinians. The fighting has gone for so long, 
     there does not seem to be an end in sight. The second 
     Intifada has proven many wrong when they said that the 
     Palestinians had no chance against the might of the Israeli 
     defense forces.
       The disciplined Israeli army is scared to work in the 
     occupied territories, fearful that they will be killed by a 
     suicidal Palestinian. The Massad, Israel's renowned 
     intelligence bureau, and arguably the best in the world, has 
     failed in providing pivotal information.
       The United States' success in the Middle East begins with 
     the successful defense of the Israeli policy of withdrawal of 
     dependency on the region's oil. But our diplomacy in the 
     region has been suspect in the past. We cannot handle 
     relations in Iran. We give foreign aid to Turkey, who turns 
     around and uses the money to oppress the Kurds. And we have 
     angered many of the Muslims who live in the world.
       The United States needs to sit down and decide exactly what 
     stance it wants to take in the region, and deal with the 
     problems that result from their decision. The question now 
     is, Can the United States step up to the plate and prove that 
     we are the most powerful country in the world?
                                  ____


                       Alternate Energy Vehicles

              (On behalf of Jack Fleisher and Elden Kelly)

       JACK FLEISHER: We are going to be talking about alternative 
     energy vehicles today.
       Motor vehicle transportation is invaluable to people across 
     the globe. In Vermont alone, fossil fuel comprises 65 percent 
     of total petroleum energy use. In today's industrial society, 
     the lifestyles of most humans depend on automotive 
     transportation.
       Unfortunately, the operation of such vehicles requires the 
     combustion of fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases as 
     carbon dioxide. Acting essentially as a heat-trapping gas 
     when released into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide could 
     potentially contribute to a rise in the global temperature. 
     The global warming is a serious environmental concern that 
     will significantly impact the entire world's ecology. That is 
     why we must begin to act now by taking advantage of currently 
     available alternative energy vehicles in Vermont as a step 
     toward a mode of transportation that is at once 
     environmentally sound as well as readily accessible.
       ELDEN KELLY: I am going to discuss three types of 
     alternative energy vehicles, that being electric, hybrid, and 
     biodiesel.
       First, we will direct your attention to electric vehicles. 
     For a motor vehicle that runs on gasoline, approximately 85 
     cents of every dollar are consumed by smoke and heat alone, 
     which leaves only 15 cents out of every dollar to be used in 
     actual operation. But for the electric car, with the 
     efficiency of a batter, 55 cents are used at the actual 
     driving wheels.
       Batteries are only getting more efficient for electric 
     vehicles. Lithium batteries have increased the 
     mileage capacity from 120 miles from each charge to over 
     300 miles. an electric car can be 97 percent cleaner than 
     a car that runs on fossil fuels if the pollution of the 
     electric power plants are eliminated. Electric cars will 
     meet this efficiency standard as Vermont moved towards 
     utilizing more alternative energy sources, such as wind 
     and geothermal power, which Dean has mentioned as possible 
     litigation. Over 90 percent of the daily trips made in the 
     U.S. are under 50 miles. This is well within the range of 
     most electric vehicles, that are about 40 to 60 miles.
       JACK FLEISHER: A second type of alternative energy 
     transportation are hybrid vehicles, which is a combination of 
     electricity and gasoline. There are primarily two hydrocars 
     available in the U.S., the Honda Insight and Toyota Prias. 
     The power source of the Insight is called a parallel hybrid 
     system. The car possesses a fuel tank that supplies gasoline 
     to an engine, as well as batteries that supplies power to an 
     electrical energy motor. Both the engine and the motor can 
     activate the transmission at the same time, setting the 
     wheels in motion.
       As opposed to an electric vehicle, these two hybrid models 
     never have to recharge from an external electrical power 
     source. Instead, a set of batteries harnesses the energy 
     dispelled from the engine, as well as the energy released 
     from braking. The Insight, on the other hand is capable of 
     fuel efficiency at 70 miles per gallon. The Toyota Prias is 
     slightly different. It is comprised of a series hybrid 
     system. In this case, a gasoline engine is used to power a 
     generator that supplies energy to the battery's electric 
     motor.
       The Prias is equipped with a gear box that allows the 
     vehicle to run solely on the electric motor, the gas engine, 
     or both simultaneously. Both hybrid cars exceed the fuel 
     efficiency of all vehicles that run solely on

[[Page H3141]]

     gasoline, and cut greenhouse-gas emissions in half.
       ELDEN KELLY: Next, we'll discuss biodiesel.
       This ingenious concept springs from the fact that the oils 
     used in modern day petroleum come from the same plants that 
     are still around today, such as soy and palm oil. The 
     essential oils that, after much time, produce petroleum are 
     available immediately from nearly any vegetable substance. 
     The oils obtained can only be used as a fuel source for 
     diesel vehicles, due to a fundamental difference between the 
     operation of a diesel- and gasoline-powered engines.
       A diesel system uses high heat and pressure for combustion, 
     which a gasoline-powered engine cannot provide. Biodiesel 
     requires conditions of high heat and pressure in order to 
     burn effectively. Fortunately, in order to use biodiesel, no 
     modification is necessary for the working diesel engine.
       The production of biodiesel is incredibly simple compared 
     to the complex process of refining petroleum. Biodiesel is 
     composed of only a simple mixture of vegetable oil, lye and 
     methanol. The transglycerides present in the acids of the 
     vegetable oil are combined with sodium and potassium 
     hydroxide of the lye and methanol, which produces the 
     compound methyloxide. The triglycerides react with 
     methyloxides resulting in the formation of methyl esters, 
     which is burnable by biodiesel, and also a by-product, 
     glycerin.
       Using biodiesel in vehicles is probably the single most 
     inexpensive manner of operating a fuel-burning vehicle, in 
     that its sources, vegetable oils, can be reused. Used soybean 
     oil, for example, from a fast-food restaurant that is 
     throwing away millions of gallons daily can be recycled in 
     the engine of the care burning clear of greenhouse-gas 
     emissions.
       The little carbon dioxide that is released from the 
     combusion of biodiesel is reduced by the plants in 
     respiration. So the very sources of biodiesel plants have 
     what help to reduce these minor emissions. A plant by-product 
     in this way completes the natural role that plants already 
     play in a cycle of conservation. Unlike petroleum fuel, 
     biodiesel originates from the renewable sources that ensure a 
     supply of energy for vehicles in the future.
       Moreover, the oils used in biodiesel are available right 
     now for usage in vehicles. 3.5 billion gallons of vegetable 
     oil are used in the U.S. every day, and already, biodiesel 
     companies are receiving soybean oil free, because of the 
     current surplus of soybean oil. Excitingly, this wasted 
     resource can be utilized in the vehicles that are now 
     unreasonably inefficient.
       No longer will we have to worry about the dwindling supply 
     of petroleum resources, taking advantage of the more easily 
     produced and more readily available biodiesel.
       JACK FLEISHER: In conclusion, we must assert that 
     alternative energy vehicles are not merely a scientist's 
     gadget or a new gimmick. As responsible human beings, we must 
     look towards ways in which we can better our actions, in 
     order to make the world a better place for future 
     generations. One of the ways in which we can do that is by 
     reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which, when consumed, 
     result in various hazardous effects.
       In recent months, concern over reliance on Middle East oil 
     has spread because of the attacks of September 11th. Many 
     speculated that money generated from Middle Eastern oil sales 
     to the United States has financed terrorist operations such 
     as the attack on the World Trade Center. Unfortunately, many 
     politicians have responded to this concern which a renewed 
     fervor for drilling domestically, such as in Alaska.
       However, we wish to refocus this issue in terms of 
     alternative energy vehicles, which would rid our dependence 
     on oil altogether, ensuring that gas money doesn't end up in 
     Al Qaeda's pockets, and that the Earth is a cleaner, cooler 
     place for years to come.
       This takes us to our next area of concern, the rise in 
     global temperature on Earth. Throughout history, major shifts 
     in temperature----
       CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: I will ask you to try to tighten it 
     up.
       ELDEN KELLY: All right.
       Lastly, we will close with possible ways to institute 
     alternative energy vehicles in Vermont. To place emphasis on 
     improved efficiency of such vehicles, tax incentives to be 
     supplied for owners of biodiesel, electric and hybrid 
     vehicles.
       An active public campaign needs to be launched, with the 
     goal in mind and educate motorists of the environmental 
     impact of cars that run on fossil fuel, and to make them 
     aware of the attainability of these greatly affordable, 
     available and simple vehicles that do not impact the 
     environment negatively.
       Already, alternative energy vehicles are in promotion 
     across the U.S. The organization E-Vermont has been testing 
     the viability of the vehicles in colder climates, and finding 
     great success. There was concern that the vehicles would have 
     difficulty remaining heated, since there is no direct heat 
     source, but space heaters have been installed to solve the 
     problem. Right here in UVM, a bus runs on biodiesel. Isn't 
     that a testament already to the real practicality of 
     alternative energy?
       To continue our vision as concerned citizens, we wish that 
     the government of Vermont realizes the potential of 
     alternative-energy vehicles by making a conscious decision to 
     make energy efficiency a top priority in transportation, and 
     in doing so, to help the realization of alternative-energy 
     vehicles come to fruition.
                                  ____


                    Random Drug Testing of Students

                      (On behalf of Lindy Stetson)

       LINDY STETSON: I am here to discuss random drug testing 
     throughout high schools for students participating in 
     extracurricular activities. This is an action being taken 
     throughout the United States.
       Even though most students prefer that it wasn't an option 
     for school authorities, I believe this is a good idea, 
     because, as a varsity sports participant and a band member of 
     my high school, I think that overall performance is important 
     in athletics and in music. Everyone should be on top of their 
     game, so to speak, which can't happen if someone on the team 
     is using drugs throughout the game or during the season.
       But I think that, if random drug testing is going to be an 
     option, it is important about what happens once the athlete 
     or student who participates in extracurricular activities has 
     tested positive. I think that, at my school, we have a school 
     policy that addresses this issue, saying, if caught using 
     drugs or alcohol, the student is dismissed from the team for 
     14 calendar days, and must go through counseling.
       I think this is a good start, but there needs to be a 
     stronger form of punishment, because if a student uses drugs, 
     then there is obviously something wrong, and they need help, 
     which should be more than counseling. Not only has the 
     participant harmed himself or herself, they also could cause 
     damage to the rest of the team.
       For example, look at the recent events that have happened 
     in this winter sports season, especially at Middlebury High 
     School, where four varsity members were caught using alcohol 
     during the season. They were then forced to miss ten days of 
     the basketball season. This incident not only affected the 
     four athletes as individuals, but it forced the team to 
     forfeit four games, because these players were very important 
     players on the team. But what surprised me even more was that 
     these four athletes were still allowed to practice, but could 
     not participate in the games.
       Even though many complain random drug testing violates 
     civil rights, I believe that you have signed a contract 
     stating that you will not use alcohol or other drugs while 
     participating in a sport event. I mean, look at the Olympics. 
     Many medals have been stripped from athletes because of using 
     drugs to enhance their performance. They have volunteered to 
     participate in the Olympics and have been selected by their 
     country to represent them there. And it is the same in high 
     school athletics. You have been chosen to show your high 
     school your ability, and other high schools throughout the 
     state.
                                  ____


                              Civil Rights

            (On behalf of Vanessa Hinton and Thomas Lawson)

       VANESSA HINTON: In the events of September 11th, we, the 
     citizens of America, have helped expose an unsafety in 
     America. In order to prevent any event related to terrorism, 
     the American government has passed the Patriot's Act that 
     allows them to take anyone into custody without reliable 
     evidence to back up their reasons.
       This is dangerous for those who criticize the government, 
     giving the government officials the right to arrest anyone at 
     will. The U.S. is abusing domestic liberties by detaining 
     people suspected of terrorism and police surveillance of 
     those who oppose government policies. The military is also 
     holding private hearings of suspected persons without 
     releasing information. The government is violating human 
     rights by doing this, and are becoming terrorists themselves.
       No war has been declared. So why are going to such extreme 
     measures as this? There has been a significant increase of 
     law enforcement to monitor technology and the Internet. 
     Government files have been released to lower-ranking law 
     enforcement, but not the public. They have also been given 
     the right to tap phone lines without probable cause. How can 
     we trust a government who doesn't give us reasons or evidence 
     as to why they are going to such extreme measures?
       THOMAS LAWSON: For example, Sieem Al Aran (phonetic) a 
     Muslim professor at the University of South Florida, was 
     fired for reasons officials said was because of his speeches 
     presented to a class on Muslim views. The superintendent of 
     the school said that they felt at threat if Sieem stayed, and 
     wished they had fired him sooner. Does this not go against 
     the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech?
       Another example takes place on an American flight from 
     Baltimore to Dallas, Wendel Shattner (phonetic) was told to 
     leave the plane for more checks because of his dark skin and 
     the fact that he was a federal agent carrying a gun. He had 
     previously filled out the proper form stating that he was a 
     federal agent, and, indeed, had a weapon. Yet Shattner got 
     off the plane, and a flight attendant found a book labeled 
     The Crusade through Arab Eyes. This was enough evidence to 
     take him back to headquarters, where he was further 
     questioned.
       Maybe in order for our rights not to be violated, we 
     should, in turn, question our leaders. If we turn our heads, 
     we are just as guilty as the condemned.
       Thank you.

[[Page H3142]]

     
                                  ____
                         National Civil Unions

              (On behalf of Chastity Norris and Kim Lunna)

       CHASTITY NORRIS: We are here today to talk about civil 
     unions. We believe that there should be a national one. I 
     know that when Vermont passed civil unions, there were a lot 
     of people who put up signs saying ``Take Back Vermont.'' 
     People didn't feel it was right for homosexuals to have the 
     same tax benefits and marriage benefits. No matter what you 
     call it, marriage, holy union, commitment ceremony, it's 
     about the love between two people, no matter whether 
     heterosexual or homosexual.
       KIM LUNNA: Of course, civil union marriages have the same 
     consequences as a hetrosexual marriage. Parties to a civil 
     union shall be responsible for the support of one another to 
     the same degree and in the same manner as married people. The 
     law of domestic relations, including separation and divorce, 
     child custody, and support, and property division and 
     maintenance, the rights of parties to a civil union with 
     respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent 
     during the term of a civil union shall be the same as those 
     of a married couple.
       CHASTITY NORRIS: From the Internet, we got summaries of 
     talks about civil unions in other states. In November of 
     1998, the constitutional amendment added to Alaska's state 
     constitution, to be valid or recognized, a marriage must 
     exist between a man and a woman. In 1996, Arizona declared 
     that marriage between persons of the same sex is void or 
     prohibited, and that same-sex marriage from other states are 
     not valid.
       KIM LUNNA: According to the Declaration of Independence, we 
     hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men created 
     equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain 
     unalienable rights, that cannot be taken away, that among 
     these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can 
     someone pursue happiness if they are not allowed to live 
     their lives the same way as everyone else and show their 
     commitment forever through marriage? We don't think that 
     everyone is being treated equal.
       CHASTITY NORRIS: Ed Flanagan is the only openly gay state 
     auditor. His sexual orientation was not a problem five years 
     ago, but now it is. ``It is an issue in every race in 
     Vermont,'' said Flanagan, a Democrat. This is about quality 
     and fairness, and nothing more.
       When people think of civil unions, they often only think of 
     gays and lesbians. They don't think of the benefits that come 
     from marriage, benefits such as estate, medical insurance, 
     social security and retirement. The decision of the marriage 
     should be up to those in the relationship, not outside 
     people.
       A solution we had was to suggest a constitutional amendment 
     to force each state to vote on whether they believed in civil 
     unions or not.
       Thank you.
                                  ____


                          Affordable Childcare

               (On behalf of Amy Downs and Anissa Martin)

       AMY DOWNS: We are here to make a presentation on affordable 
     child care for everybody. We are just here to make sure that 
     both single moms and struggling couples, whether if they're 
     married or single, receive proper child care assistance, and 
     for it to be a safe and educational environment.
       As a person who doesn't have any kids, as opposed Anissa 
     here, I see that some families need assistance, including 
     those who are not on welfare and that have people working 
     making eight dollars an hour, and that's like $800 to $900 a 
     month they are just bringing in. That doesn't count the bills 
     they have to pay or the food to buy for their families, and 
     other necessities to support their kids.
       People are having kids at a younger age, and in order to 
     get proper assistance they would basically have to be on 
     welfare to be able to afford it. And if they're not on 
     welfare, they will have to wait just a pay off their day care 
     bills. It is not worth it to some, and they just end up 
     falling back on welfare, and basically the whole point of the 
     system is to get people off of welfare. That is why it is 
     only like a five-year agreement now.
       And you can't really do that if you have kids to look out 
     for all the time. Basically, in the long run, it isn't worth 
     dealing with the system. It doesn't help you out. It is just 
     a waste of time, and they don't have the time, when they have 
     kids, to worry about just it. They would rather just stay 
     home and collect welfare, and do nothing and get everything 
     paid for.
       ANISSA MARTIN: Before I go on, kids need to stop having 
     kids. Thank you.
       Child care cost about $468 a month in a licensed day care 
     with no assistance. Because people are having babies at a 
     younger age, they drop out of school and take care of them. 
     Now, when they decide to go back to school, they are going to 
     need help. Most get assistance, if they are single moms, to 
     help to meet their needs. Most get assistance if they are 
     single moms, but when you have one person that works and one 
     person that wants to go back to school, like me, you don't 
     get as much assistance as others would.
       The system says to you, it's too much. When you are only 
     making $8 an hour, that is not enough. We want to make sure 
     that there is more assistance available for those who want to 
     work and go back to school, as well as those single moms that 
     are out there, who are struggling to get off welfare.
       And it is real hard. Me and my fiance, I volunteered from 
     New York to move down here to better my life, and when I went 
     down to welfare, they did not help me. They said, well, it 
     was a voluntary move. And I had to struggle on my own to go 
     to school, finish my education and for my fiance to find a 
     good-paying job in order for us to survive. It is just me and 
     him; I don't have no family or no one. I expected for the 
     welfare to help me out, which they didn't. I had to do it on 
     my own. And I am only receiving food stamps up to this day. 
     But now we figured out, forget them, we are going to have to 
     do it on our own. It would be really helpful if they do help 
     me, which I am not receiving help.
                                  ____


                           Taxation of Minors

   (On behalf of Keith Blow, Jessica Oakes, Jessica Davis, Shirlaine 
                      Miller, and Ruhin Yuridulla)

       KEITH BLOW: We are here to raise the issue of tax 
     withdrawal from minors' paychecks. We feel it is unnecessary 
     to withdraw federal and state taxes from people under the age 
     of 18. We, as working teens, believe there is no need for our 
     money to be taken away from us before we are adults.
       JESSICA OAKES: In today's society of high-priced items, it 
     is difficult for us to balance schoolwork and personal 
     possessions such as a car, school, gas, insurance, et cetera. 
     We work hard for the little money we earn. The reality is 
     that we only get minimum wage, and then should be able to 
     keep the little amount of money that we do earn. We feel we 
     should be able to keep this money to save up for higher 
     education, motor transportation and our personal expenses.
       JESSICA DAVIS: My friend works as a cashier receiving only 
     5.50 per hour. This is not even minimum wage. Juggling 
     schoolwork and a social life, he is also trying to pay off a 
     truck. It is taking him longer to make payments because of 
     his small paycheck, not to mention the taxes being taken away 
     from it. If the government took out less or no taxes from his 
     paycheck until he was 18, he would be able to pay the truck 
     off more efficiently and have more time to concentrate on 
     other important issues, without worrying about not having 
     enough money to pay for the truck.
       SHIRLAINE MILLER: At this age, we are not old enough to 
     vote, fight in the military, drink, or sign a legal document 
     for ourselves. Therefore, the law still considers us 
     children. With the government taking money out of our 
     paychecks, they are taking money away from their children. If 
     we aren't even allowed to vote, and if we have no say in what 
     the government does, why should we pay taxes towards that?
       RUHIN YURIDULLA: Thank you, Congressman Sanders. I am not a 
     U.S. citizen, but as far as my experience is concerned, 
     living in the other countries far from the United States, 
     this thing of income taxes from a minor's check seems very 
     unfair to me. Because if they did not take taxes out of our 
     paychecks, it is likely they can get it from the food that we 
     eat, from the utilities that we use, and from all the things 
     we use in daily life.
       So those taxes can be taken out and they can go to the 
     government, but unlikely if they take that check, I mean, 
     money from out of the paychecks of minors. That is like 
     nothing, because minors have to save some money for their 
     future. I mean, they are going to go to college, or they have 
     to build their own lives. I think it should be, I mean, a low 
     should be passed on this, in order to regard it as not to be 
     taking money out of minors' paychecks.
       Thanks.
       KEITH BLOW: So in conclusion, we feel the government should 
     not take out any taxes from people's paychecks that are under 
     the age of 18. It is unfair how the government still 
     considers us children if we are not 18, but it is 
     hypocritical of them when they take the taxes away from us, 
     because we can't even vote, so why should they take taxes 
     away from us if we can't have a say in what they do with it.
       JESSICA DAVIS: Taxation without representation, pretty 
     much.
                                  ____


                         Investing in Children

            (On behalf of Megan Sullivan and Alex McKenzie)

       MEGAN SULLIVAN: Representative Sanders, Mr. Gutman, and 
     fellow students. Good afternoon.
       My name is Megan Sullivan. I come before you now as a 
     representative of a group of students at Harwood Union High 
     School, in a class called Other Voices. This is a course that 
     focuses on the suppressed and forgotten voices of past and 
     present. We read part of a book by Jonathan Kozol entitled 
     Savage Inequalities.
       In this book, Mr. Kozol addresses the issues of the lack of 
     responsibility that we as a society show for other peoples' 
     children. Children who are not even given a chance to fail, 
     let alone to succeed, but are put in the situation because of 
     their financial and, many times, racial backgrounds. As a 
     class, we explored the concept of other peoples' children, 
     and the social implications that such a concept holds.
       We are here today because we reject that concept. The 
     children of the nation are the responsibility of the nation. 
     We should, as citizens of these United States, provide the 
     same opportunities to succeed in education, regardless of 
     one's ability to pay.

[[Page H3143]]

       We live in a state that recognizes the right to equitable 
     education regardless of the ability to pay. Vermont's 
     solution to the problem of inequalities between schools in 
     the state was Act 60. Though this is a very controversial 
     issue among Vermonters, and a complicated act, the results 
     cannot be denied: Act 60 is making significant and steady 
     progress in reducing inequalities in student resources.
       Prior to Act 60, property-rich towns spent an average of 37 
     percent more per pupil compared to the poorest towns. In the 
     fiscal year of 2002, the spending gap was less than 13 
     percent. Bearing in mind how well this has worked in a 
     mere few years in Vermont, we reason that setting up a 
     system much like Act 60 on a national level could have 
     similar effect on a much grander scale.
       The right to an equitable education is not one that is 
     promised in the United States Constitution. However, the 
     federal government is putting mandates on schools, ranging 
     from funding of special education to national testing. It is 
     not ethical to make education reform without providing 
     adequate resources. The government does appropriate money 
     towards education, but it is not nearly enough.
       The House Minority Report, Education in Crisis, notes that, 
     nationwide, state education cuts already total $11.3 billion. 
     The educational reforms included aim high by expecting all 
     students to meet challenging standards and holding schools 
     accountable when they fail. But if the federal government is 
     going to hold states accountable for student performance, it 
     must also provide the resources needed to meet new federal 
     goals.
       Failing schools cannot be turned around with decreasing 
     funds. Federal funding is needed in schools where other 
     peoples' children have been left behind as second-class 
     citizens. Before we can expect them to succeed on national 
     standardized testing, we need to level the playing field.
       Mr. Sanders, as concerned students and current and future 
     voters, we call on you and the U.S. Congress to appropriate a 
     larger portion of the federal budget to education, and to use 
     this funding to bring all our schools up to a collective and 
     equitable higher standard.
       ALEX McKENZIE: Earlier in the day, students from Proctor 
     and Brattleboro high schools spoke of the exploitation of 
     children throughout the world as though these children are 
     partly our responsibility. We agree. Beyond our state, beyond 
     our nation, we seek to extend the principle that children of 
     the world are our responsibility. We call upon our Congress 
     to set an example for all wealthy nations of the world, to 
     address the inequity of the public spending on the children 
     of the world.
       The issue of where our nation draws the line on who we are 
     responsible for is one that is argued feverishly all over the 
     world. The Declaration of Independence closes with, ``We 
     mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and 
     our sacred honor.'' And today, we make another pledge. These 
     men felt that the people were being oppressed, so they did 
     what they knew they must and fought back. We have come a long 
     way since these people wrote this document, and the words 
     they closed with should have the same meaning, purpose and 
     dedication for everyone, but with a broader worldwide 
     perspective.
       In the past fifteen years, the world has grown 
     significantly closer. Communication and trade is but a click 
     of the mouse away. People are traveling more, cultures are 
     mixing, and countries growing. Globalization, like it or not, 
     is real and is here to stay. As our relationships with other 
     countries grow deeper, we're creating a new community, a 
     global community. The community is profiting a few of the 
     larger industrialized nations, but is failing very many 
     undeveloped countries.
       Nearly half of the people in the world live on less than 
     two dollars a day, and a few survive on one dollar or less. 
     Most of the people in Latin America, the Middle East and 
     central Asia are poorer than at the Cold War's close. 
     Africans live no longer and have no higher incomes than they 
     did 40 years ago.
       These facts are very disturbing and hard to understand. 
     Understanding is one-dimensional. It is the comprehension of 
     the intellect; it leads to knowledge, which we all hope we 
     have more of now. Realization, on the other hand, is three-
     dimensional. It is the simultaneous comprehension of the 
     whole body--the head, heart and physical instincts. It comes 
     only from experiences. Life requires more than knowledge, 
     though; life demand right action if knowledge is to come 
     alive.
       So in other words, we all know these injustices now, which 
     leads us to the question: What are we going to do about it? 
     If we leave it alone and continue to ignore the suffering, 
     what use is the knowledge I have shared with you? But there 
     are caring people in the world who are disturbed by these 
     facts, people who feel they are part of the global community 
     and feel it is their duty to help the people in the world by 
     pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
       What needs to be addressed is how we are going to relieve 
     these people from oppression and suffering. The answer seems 
     to point towards a global developing project for the poor 
     nations of the world. Right now, the World Bank wants rich 
     countries to double their foreign aid. They have linked 
     poverty to terrorism, as well, concluding that the security 
     of rich nations depends on a more just distribution of 
     wealth.
       Is it right to live in a community where so many people are 
     hungry and starving in a world with enough food for all? 
     Where so many seek a real education and only get trained in 
     anger and hatred? Where so many are in chains but aren't 
     given the freedom to demand it? These people live as part of 
     our global community, neglected to say the least.
       President Bush agrees that poverty and terrorism are 
     linked, but has taken a different approach to aid. While 
     asking for huge increases in the military budget, his 
     administration proposes devoting far smaller amounts to 
     combat poverty and AIDS. A World Health Organization study 
     concluded that, by spending $27 million more each year to 
     fight infectious diseases like AIDS, tuberculosis and 
     malaria, would save 8 million lives a year in the developing 
     world. Washington seems more interested in stamping out 
     terrorism, rather than solving the roots of terrorism. Smart 
     bombs have their place, but smart development assistance can 
     be much more effective.
       Many of these issues were brought up in a world leaders 
     meeting on March 17. Development of poor nations seems to be 
     the right way to bring the global community to a stronger, 
     more stable position. The main concern on a lot these richer 
     nations' minds was wealth. Essentially, it all does come down 
     to the issue of wealth. What is wealth if not a means to a 
     greater end? Aren't peoples' lives worth more than building 
     weapons? Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in the children of 
     the world to create a stronger, more stable future for the 
     new generations to come? I guess it all comes down to the 
     question: Would we rather pay now or pay later?
                                  ____


                         Impact of Tobacco Use

               (On Behalf of Heidi Neil and Martha Mack)

       HEIDI NEIL: We are going to start with a couple of facts 
     first.
       MARTHA MACK: Five hundred million people alive today will 
     eventually be killed by tobacco. Another four million people 
     died from tobacco-related illnesses in 2000. By the year 
     2030, ten million people will die each year of tobacco. 
     Smoking-related diseases are responsible for one in ten adult 
     deaths worldwide.
       Tobacco will soon become the leading cause of death 
     worldwide, causing more deaths than HIV mortality, automobile 
     accidents, homicide and suicide combined.
       HEIDI NEIL: Every day, approximately 80,000 to 100,000 
     young people around the world become addicted to tobacco. If 
     this trend continues, 250 million children alive today will 
     die from tobacco-related diseases.
       We are speaking today on the impact of tobacco on Vermont, 
     the United States, and, most importantly, teenagers. 
     Teenagers are the most important and integral part of big 
     tobacco's manipulation. The companies' advertising plan 
     markets cigarettes directly towards teenage consumers. 
     Millions and millions of dollars are spent annually by 
     tobacco companies to convince teens that smoking is glamorous 
     and hip and cool.
       Cigarettes are a very interesting product to market. It's 
     one of the few products which, if used correctly, is actually 
     designed to kill the consumer. As we said before, four 
     million people died in tobacco-related deaths in the year 
     2000. That is more than 10,000 dying each day. The tobacco 
     companies would go out of business if they didn't pursue 
     additional consumers to replace the customers who are dying 
     each day.
       In short, for each person who dies a tobacco-related death, 
     tobacco companies have to replace the person. Why replace 
     that person with another 40-year old who will die in a matter 
     of 40 years or less?
       MARTHA MACK: Tobacco companies are much smarter and more 
     cunning than that. They market teenagers. If you start 
     smoking as a teenager, become addicted and smoking for your 
     entire life, big tobacco makes a lot of money off of your 
     life and your health.
       There is, however, another very important reason that 
     younger and younger teens are the target group being marketed 
     by the tobacco corporations. Studies have also found that if 
     people do not start smoking cigarettes by the time they reach 
     the age of 20, it is very unlikely they will ever start.
       HEIDI NEIL: There are informed and concerned teens out 
     there like us who are desperately trying to bring down 
     tobacco companies, using knowledge as our weapon, to educate 
     the masses. Margaret Mead said, ``Never doubt a small group 
     of thoughtful citizens can change the world; indeed it is the 
     only thing that ever has.''
       We're trying to change the world and asking the help of 
     Vermont legislature. We're looking to the legislature to pass 
     the cigarette tax. While the 67-cent tax helps, we are sure 
     that we here in Vermont can do much better. We are sure that 
     we should do better. For the sake of the teens in Vermont and 
     for the long-term health costs associated with smoking, help 
     us change the world and Vermont.

                          ____________________