[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.
____________________