[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 45 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1150-S1153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                VERMONT STATE OF THE UNION ESSAY CONTEST

 Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, since 2010, I have sponsored a 
State of the Union essay contest for Vermont high school students. This 
contest gives students in my State the opportunity to articulate what 
issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United 
States.
  This is the contest's 12th year, and I would like to congratulate the 
409 students who participated. It is truly heartening to see so many 
young people engaged in finding solutions for the problems that face 
our country. To my mind, this is what democracy is all about.
  I am very proud to enter into the Congressional Record the essays 
submitted by these Vermont high school students.
  The material follows:

      Winner, Sasha Lann, Brattleboro Union High School, Sophomore

       Citizens' rights to vote may be the most fundamental aspect 
     of our democracy, but there is a growing effort to limit it. 
     Increasing voter suppression and restrictive voting laws is 
     an issue that must be addressed, as it has grown from a 
     gradual build to a rush of constant new legislation that 
     could do permanent damage if ignored. Voter suppression is 
     one of the United States' biggest threats to democracy, and 
     the way to address it may be to enact legislation that 
     ensures all Americans have equal access to voting and have 
     their votes counted.
       Recently, the United States has seen a massive uptick in 
     legislation restricting voting in large sections of the 
     country. In 2021 alone, 99 bills were introduced in 31 states 
     to restrict voting. 34 were passed into law. The laws 
     strengthen ID requirements, limit drop boxes and mail voting, 
     increase opportunities for voter purges, and introduce 
     criminal penalties for election officers who help voters 
     return mail ballots. These laws excessively target BIPOC 
     communities. Young voters are also made vulnerable by this 
     legislation. This attack on our voting system, though 
     disproportionately affecting communities of color, will harm 
     the entire country and make us vulnerable to authoritarianism 
     and the collapse of our democracy altogether.
       Enacting effective voting rights legislation can be a 
     lengthy and difficult process. There are already bills in 
     progress that have passed the House, but are being blocked by 
     Republicans via the filibuster. As soon as the filibuster can 
     be changed, we can continue to make progress. In the 
     meantime, the best solution may be to do what we can to 
     prevent lawmakers from signing more restrictive legislation 
     into law. Part of this solution relies on companies ending 
     support and campaign contributions for lawmakers responsible 
     for this legislation. Companies and businesses could play an 
     essential role in standing up to these efforts. However, 
     community and business support will not be enough to prevent 
     suppressive legislation for long.
       There are several solutions that could stop the onslaught 
     of voter restriction laws long term, starting with federal 
     legislation to protect voting rights and remove obstacles for 
     those facing difficulty casting votes. There should be laws 
     to enforce automatic registration, restore voter rights for 
     former prisoners, and increase resources for election boards 
     to ensure security. Election Day could also be made a holiday 
     so citizens have free time to vote, and each state should set 
     up independent redistricting commissions to avoid 
     gerrymandering. If used together, these methods will greatly 
     improve access to voting. Voter suppression and restrictive 
     voting laws are threatening the integrity of our democracy, 
     and we can counteract them by passing legislation that 
     protects citizens' say in the course of the country through 
     their votes. If nothing is done, we may see the fall of our 
     democracy as we know it. These are the steps needed to be 
     taken to preserve this cornerstone of our country.

 Second Place, Eva Frazier, Champlain Valley Union High School, Senior

       In the past few months, millions of people have lost rights 
     over their bodies, their health, and their futures. As 
     countless states across the country move to almost totally 
     limit abortion, I fear for all people who may become pregnant 
     in these affected areas. I fear for those without money to 
     travel to obtain a safe abortion, for those expectant mothers 
     experiencing a medical condition forced to choose between 
     their life or their child's, and for the youth without proper 
     education, suddenly finding themselves with no choice over 
     their lives.
       Two things happen when politicians ban or block abortions: 
     unsafe abortions or children being born to people who can't 
     take care of them. Many will die, and it is almost always 
     poor, BIPOC, and marginalized people. The state of 
     reproductive rights in this country is an aggressive 
     violation of human rights.
       To combat the alarming issues affecting reproductive rights 
     locally, nationally, and internationally, I would propose a 
     three-tiered approach to provide reproductive services to all 
     who need them. First, at the state level, Vermont needs to 
     amend our state Constitution, and protect the right to 
     abortion, without barrier, forever. If Vermont state 
     legislators succeed in passing this amendment, currently 
     known as Prop 5, Vermont will become the first state to 
     protect the right to reproductive health care access. In 
     addition to legally protecting the right to abortion, Vermont 
     state legislators must increase the budget for health care 
     centers that perform abortions.
       Nationally, Congress must pass two pieces of legislation. 
     First, Congress must repeal the Hyde Amendment. As the ACLU 
     states, ``Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment 
     excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services 
     provided to low-income people by the Federal Government 
     through Medicaid.'' Low-income people are the least likely to 
     have transportation and funds to obtain an abortion, and the 
     Hyde amendment keeps low income people from having equal 
     access to determine their futures.
       Reproductive rights are not only at stake nationally, but 
     internationally. Currently, the U.S. will not fund any 
     international health care centers that provide abortions, 
     which often then prohibits them from providing lifesaving 
     treatments for malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other medical care. 
     This draconian policy, known as the Global Gag Rule, was 
     first introduced by President Reagan, and recently reinstated 
     by President Trump. U.S. congressional representatives have a 
     duty to pass legislation, known as the Global HER Act, that 
     would overturn the Global Gag Rule, and cement the U.S. as a 
     country that provides necessary foreign aid, instead of 
     risking millions of lives.
       As people turn to illegal abortions, it is crucial that 
     lawmakers work to protect their citizens by passing federal 
     law and upholding the International Human Rights declaration, 
     giving humans freedom over their bodies and health care 
     choices.

    Third Place, Samuel Leggett, Woodstock Union High School, Junior

       Throughout history, America has been plagued with the 
     complex issue of food insecurity. Moreover, the children of 
     our nation--the ambassadors to our future--seem to experience 
     it more severely. According to Feeding America, one in every 
     eight adults

[[Page S1151]]

     currently faces hunger, and the same can be said for one in 
     six children. Furthermore, hunger in our youth has only 
     festered with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Compared 
     to 10 million previously, the number of food-insecure 
     children in America has increased to approximately 12 
     million. Notwithstanding our nation's immense prosperity and 
     value for education, our students experience inaccessibility 
     to affordable, nutritious food, and are seldom provided with 
     the assistance they need.
       Though the discussion of universal free meals has long 
     existed, the pandemic proved to be the catalyst for its 
     execution. Through action on behalf of the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture, our government will provide free breakfast and 
     lunch to schools nationwide throughout the 2021-2022 school 
     year. Students now have the opportunity to be created equal 
     in their education and wellbeing. Recent studies from the 
     Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have concluded that the 
     initiative has even improved both student behavior and 
     performance. Though abundant are the benefits of this Covid-
     mitigation strategy, the implementation of universal school 
     meals is still seen as a temporary measure. Even long after 
     these challenging times, however, the pandemic's 
     repercussions will persist, if not worsen, if not addressed. 
     Though they may initially seem like a significant financial 
     hurdle, universal school meals are a progressive, bipartisan, 
     and necessary first effort in resolving the issue of food 
     insecurity.
       One significant advantage to implementing universal free 
     meals is that it would permanently eliminate the nation's 
     preexisting free and reduced lunch system--an inequitable, 
     stigma-inducing program designed to assist students facing 
     hunger. With strict eligibility requirements, free and 
     reduced meals were rarely provided to all those who needed 
     them, and the income-based aid system couldn't accurately 
     account for criteria-meeting households that were 
     nevertheless food insecure for other reasons. Additionally, 
     applications for the program were not required, which 
     excluded many more who potentially qualified, yet didn't 
     apply. The program offered no way to adequately gauge whether 
     or not one needed assistance.
       Nonetheless, there remains one primary barrier to the 
     support of universal free meals: their funding. Taxpayers 
     fear they would wholly assume the burden of a potentially 
     expensive feat. However, only 0.3 percent of the federal 
     budget is currently reserved for child nutrition programs, 
     and this cost is distributed nationwide among taxpayers. 
     Evidently, reapportionment of the budget to increase this 
     expenditure would neither reduce spending allocated to other 
     departments nor increase local tax rates greatly.
       We must allow ourselves to imagine an America where a free 
     meal, despite the traditional adage, is indeed possible; an 
     America that ensures our youth's prosperity, during and 
     following times of crisis. We must consider the future, and 
     pass sustainable, logical legislation; legislation providing 
     every student with the baseline liberty of a satisfied 
     stomach in their daily pursuit of knowledge.

                               Finalists


          jackson bennett, vergennes union high school, junior

       We have all seen the images; sea turtles with straws jammed 
     in their noses, fish entrapped within plastic six-pack yokes, 
     even whales with bellies full of plastic trash. There is no 
     doubt that our plastic pollution is not just a problem, it is 
     a calamity. According to USA Today, ``Different kinds of 
     plastic take anywhere between 400 and 1,000 years to degrade 
     in a landfill . . . So much plastic is thrown away every year 
     that it's enough to circle the Earth four times.'' That means 
     at least 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic waste is being 
     added by the day. Something must be done, but what? I believe 
     that there should be a national ban on plastic, or some other 
     government-controlled incentive to switch to plastic 
     alternatives.
       There are many existing plastic alternatives already 
     available, but extensive use of and investment in them has 
     not yet been seen. On Eartheasy, a site that lists plastic 
     alternatives, they note that, ``finding alternatives to 
     common items like plastic bottles and plastic packaging is 
     becoming increasingly easier--and not a moment too soon for 
     our plastic-choked planet.'' Examples of these plastic 
     alternatives include, but are not limited to, bamboo, 
     seaweed, wood, cloth for bags, and for multi-use but non-
     biodegradable substances, glass and stainless steel for 
     replacing one-use items. The possibilities are limitless on 
     what ways we can replace plastic, and our technology and 
     innovation provide us with new, sustainable options, but how 
     do we convince the world to use these alternatives?
       If we really want to make progress against our plastic 
     pandemonium, we cannot leave it up to individual people to 
     consider plastic alternatives. This is a collective issue we 
     need to address first as a nation, and then the world. Many 
     solutions to this problem have been given, including taxation 
     on plastic products, and even total bans, but no clear 
     decision has been reached. Taxes would mean a smoother 
     transition, and the money made off of plastic usage would go 
     towards discouraging that same occurrence, as well as 
     cleaning up plastic pollution. A ban would outright prevent 
     companies and individuals from consuming plastic, which may 
     negatively impact people's lives. I believe that a nationwide 
     ban is the best solution. Taxation would slow the problem, 
     and raise money for the government, but the problem would 
     still exist. Banning plastic, though tough, would force 
     ourselves to use alternatives, and without the incoming 
     waste, we could focus on cleaning the ocean.
       Though plastic bans would offer one solution, there is no 
     one right answer to this issue. As long as we continue the 
     conversation and look for ways to prevail and take action, we 
     still have the devotion to overcome this problem. With our 
     advances in science and technology, and the combined help of 
     our government and fellow citizens, we can conquer our 
     carelessness and restore this beautiful planet we inhabit to 
     its former glory.


          penelope derosset, burlington high school, freshman

       Some people in this country see no need for feminism. They 
     say: ``Men and women are equal. They have the same rights 
     under law.'' But that isn't true. The only right the 
     Constitution explicitly grants to both men and women is the 
     right to vote. And the few rights women have, the right to 
     abortion for one, are constantly called into question. The 
     solution? An amendment introduced in 1923. Ratifying the 
     Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which explicitly grants all 
     rights equally to all genders, would grant a layer of legal 
     protection to women's rights which are so often under threat.
       Laws protecting women's rights are constantly limited in 
     their ability to protect women at all. By mid-2021, a record 
     amount of anti-abortion legislation had already been enacted 
     by states. Limitations requiring parental consent or banning 
     abortion past a certain point in pregnancy make it impossible 
     for many women to get an abortion. This may endanger the 
     pregnant person's life. If a woman chooses to stay pregnant, 
     she may face challenges such as pay discrimination, employers 
     refusing to accommodate her temporary disability, or being 
     fired. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the only 
     federal law against workplace pregnancy discrimination, is 
     consistently interpreted too narrowly to be adequate 
     protection. A report by the Center for Employment Equity at 
     UMass Amherst says: ``Activists and politicians have argued 
     that by only providing a comparative, rather than absolute, 
     right to accommodation, current laws stop short of 
     guaranteeing protection for all pregnant workers.'' While 
     women may appear to be protected by law against workplace 
     pregnancy discrimination the truth is many are not. This 
     leaves large numbers of people vulnerable. We must work to 
     defend these rights or risk them disappearing.
       The ERA would solve this issue by explicitly stating a 
     constitutional position against gender discrimination. Some 
     states have already passed equal rights amendments or have 
     ERA-like language in their state constitutions, and using 
     these, Connecticut and New Mexico have found laws restricting 
     Medicaid coverage of abortion unconstitutional. With regards 
     to pregnancy discrimination, an article by Robin Bleuweiss 
     published by the Center for American Progress states: ``The 
     ERA could provide additional reasoning, grounded in 
     constitutional protections, to challenge policies that 
     effectively exclude individuals seeking pregnancy 
     accommodations from the protection of the law, as well as to 
     ensure equitable treatment and better conditions for pregnant 
     workers.'' With the added support of constitutional 
     protection, policies currently legal under the PDA could 
     change and finally grant pregnant women equality.
       There is no doubt adding the ERA to the Constitution would 
     have a big impact on the essential rights of women. 
     Implementing this solution would be simple. All the states 
     required to ratify this amendment have. The only obstacle is 
     the time limit. Congress has already exercised its power to 
     extend the time limit once before, so why couldn't it do so 
     again? To quote Alice Paul, revolutionary suffragist and the 
     first to propose the ERA, ``To me, there is nothing 
     complicated about ordinary equality.''


                jocelyn dunn, essex high school, junior

       On September 1, 2021, a law banning abortion from as early 
     as six weeks into pregnancy went into effect in Texas. The 
     Supreme Court's failure to stop Texas Senate Bill 8 has paved 
     the way for other states to mimic actions with similar bills 
     that directly challenge Roe v. Wade. In December, the state 
     of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to uphold its outlaw 
     on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy in the case of Dobbs v. 
     Jackson Women's Health Organization. The new reality of 
     abortion access is a terrifyingly imperative issue, and the 
     nation's highest court has never been so close to upholding a 
     ban that so blatantly ignores the precedent set by Roe v. 
     Wade. Political shifts that threaten to undermine Roe v. Wade 
     will harm many, and simply should be unacceptable to anyone 
     who cares about the health of women.
       Since 1973, Roe v. Wade has provided safe, accessible 
     abortion services to women throughout the country. The 
     precedent set by Roe v. Wade affirms that it is a woman's 
     right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment 
     without excessive government restriction. Since the case 
     decision, the Supreme Court has been continuously called upon 
     to decide whether specific abortion statutes violate a 
     woman's right to privacy. However, under the current process 
     of examination, many abortion restrictions have been upheld 
     and the lasting constraints

[[Page S1152]]

     of these harmful laws have opened the door to limits on the 
     ability of women to make the personal decision of ending a 
     pregnancy. The Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Dobbs v. 
     Jackson Women's Health Organization has left the future of 
     Roe v. Wade at risk. According to Planned Parenthood, if Roe 
     v. Wade is overturned, 26 states in the country could 
     immediately act on banning abortion through existing 
     policies. This means that 36 million women could soon live in 
     a state that criminalizes almost all abortion services.
       With the increasingly likely overturning of Roe v. Wade on 
     the horizon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that the 
     Senate will soon hold a vote on legislation that would ensure 
     a nationwide right to abortion. In September 2021, the House 
     of Representatives passed the Women's Health Protection Act 
     (WHPA). If the WHPA becomes a federal law, abortion access 
     would be protected from not only bans but also medically 
     unnecessary restrictions such as mandatory ultrasounds, 
     biased counseling, and waiting periods. The WHPA would create 
     a statutory right for health care providers to perform 
     abortion services, and a corresponding right for their 
     patients to receive those services, free from invasive 
     restrictions.
       The United States is on the brink of an unprecedented 
     crisis regarding women's health. Restrictions on Roe v. Wade 
     have plagued American women for decades and the right to make 
     private decisions free from barriers is more crucial than 
     ever to the personal dignity and autonomy of women. 
     Eliminating health care restrictions is imperative to 
     reproductive justice and passing the WHPA is an essential 
     step toward safeguarding access to abortion.


        samantha haselman, bellows free academy fairfax, senior

       The opioid crisis and incarceration for nonviolent 
     offenders isn't the solution for these addicts. It has an 
     emotional, physical, and economical struggle many are facing 
     and have been facing. People need to have compassion and 
     understand that addiction is a disease, not a choice. 
     Children, youth, and families are affected by opioid use. No 
     one chooses drugs over their own children, no one chooses to 
     steal from their loved ones, no one chooses to physically 
     harm themselves, no one chooses to have their children taken 
     from them.
       There are many issues and concerns that exist within this 
     topic. I can relate to this very well. In 2009 my mother 
     developed her relationship with heroin, what most call the 
     ``devil''. My mother was a kind, hardworking, funny, 
     determined, confident woman. But since this disease has taken 
     over her, she's not as present. Watching my mother struggling 
     on a daily basis from being sick to running out of the home 
     scrounging for the next ``fix''. It affected not only her, 
     but it affected her family who were a witness to this. Many 
     legal systems knew about her addiction but didn't support her 
     nor did they provide her with the necessary resources. They 
     focused more on removing things from her life and punishing 
     her for something that was controlling every part of her.
       There is a story that stands out to me called ``Hooked''. 
     It was about a vulnerable woman who was prescribed opioids, 
     she instantly became an addict. She was clean for a while, 
     but relapsed multiple times. She was incarcerated, denied 
     medical attention, and then died. Incarceration for these 
     addicts is not helping them. Incarceration does not prepare 
     them for sobriety when released. They need affordable 
     treatment and support from a substance abuse counselor, and 
     resources that will set them up for success.
       There needs to be more resources and affordable treatment 
     for individuals struggling to beat opioid addiction. I will 
     continue to speak on this until there's a significant change 
     our government takes far beyond what's been done. I know that 
     Senator Sanders introduced amendments to strengthen the 
     opioid crisis response in 2018. In addition to your 
     amendments to the opioid bill, I believe Congress should also 
     continue to provide additional funding like the Comprehensive 
     Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. The law focuses on 
     treating people rather than incarcerating people. Congress 
     passed the bill giving only $181 million in funds for opioid 
     programs. The federal government was expecting $920 million 
     to help expand their treatment capacity with each state 
     receiving money depending on the severity of the epidemic. 
     Having funding would strengthen and support prevention, 
     treatment, and medication access. We must continue to help 
     those who are like my mom and we must honor these families 
     who are waking up daily facing the nightmare of opioid 
     addiction. This disease does not discriminate, it can be the 
     lawyer, the doctor, the son, the daughter, the mother, and/or 
     the father. This is all the more reason to stay focused on 
     this and make a change.


                anna pringle, essex high school, junior

       Not only is America experiencing a Covid pandemic, but 
     America is also experiencing a loneliness epidemic. While 
     loneliness is not diagnoseable medically or psychologically, 
     it's associated with a variety of disorders and health issues 
     such as depression, anxiety, and concurrently, increased 
     suicide rates. As said in the Harvard Graduate School of 
     Education Report, 61 percent of young adults feel serious 
     loneliness after the pandemic.
       As Covid continues, people all over the U.S. are accepting 
     isolation. There are simple solutions to this loneliness 
     epidemic, for example, a simple phone call or Facetime to a 
     friend. There are also more complex solutions; an example 
     being in the grocery store. According to Vice, the 
     Netherlands is introducing chat registers; registers where 
     employees will be trained to create small talk with customers 
     who aren't in a rush. This is an effort sponsored by the 
     Netherland government in hopes to help battle loneliness. The 
     Netherland government also created a 24/7 loneliness hotline, 
     both the registers and hotline are a part of the ``one 
     against loneliness'' program. This is a great example of a 
     country doing more to help people in need.
       In America, mental health is not a top priority, but the 
     impacts of mental health are astronomical. American citizens 
     are suffering at an increasing rate because they are so 
     isolated due to Covid. Since being lonely can be chronic, the 
     U.S. needs to do more to help. It is not possible for one 
     solution to single-handedly end the epidemic of loneliness; 
     instead many solutions will have to come together. Some 
     examples of solutions are following what the Netherlands did, 
     creating a hotline or chat registers. Another solution is 
     bringing awareness to this topic of how quarantining from 
     Covid has impacted mental health. This could inspire people 
     to call a loved one; especially the ones that live alone. 
     Simple actions like calling a loved one could have a huge 
     impact, this could remind a lonely person that they have 
     people to talk to and therefore it can make someone feel less 
     secluded. Social media is a huge part of everyone's life, 
     putting information out there on the impact that loneliness 
     has on people could one hundred percent make a difference.
       Mental health issues are substantial in America today. 
     There are many ways that America can do more for the 
     loneliness crisis, creating a healthier, happier country.


       isabelle tupper, brattleboro union high school, sophomore

       As James Earl Jones reveals, ``One of the hardest things in 
     life is having words in your heart that you can't utter''. 
     Nowadays, black Americans (nationwide) are suffering from 
     declining mental health; one in every three black people seek 
     assistance when struggling, and roughly 1.4 million black 
     people are experiencing crises. As a result, suicide rates 
     are increasing and citizens are silently suffering. 
     Therefore, black mental health must become a priority.
       In predominantly black communities, mental health is 
     overlooked--despite its damaging impacts. Injustices are 
     amplified by unforeseen circumstances that deplete one's 
     quality of life. For instance, ``Anxiety and depression 
     symptoms have more than tripled since 2019, [ . . . ]'' and 
     pandemic-related homelessness and unemployment left ``[ . . . 
     ] black Americans shouldering the heaviest burden'' (Fowers 
     and Wan). Additionally, the murder of George Floyd resurfaced 
     trauma for countless black Americans and caused mental health 
     issues to spike five percent. Lastly, black people with 
     mental health issues struggle to gain relief due to stigma 
     and insufficient BIPOC medical professionals. Consequently, 
     this urgent matter generates despondency, leading black 
     individuals to isolate themselves.
       Provisionally, this country must fulfill black individuals' 
     needs whilst identifying propitious resources. Through 
     survey, the public shall expunge injurious practices and 
     distribute assets alongside governmental advisors. Parties 
     must consider privileges of non-black people and prioritize 
     equality. Schools must incorporate free courses--run by 
     qualified educators--to help young people identify mental 
     illness. Classes must be accessible and non-discriminatory, 
     and identity must not prevent admittance. School-based 
     clinicians will best ensure students' access to counseling; 
     psychiatrist David Henderson, reports ``about 25 percent of 
     African Americans seek mental health care, compared to 40 
     percent of whites'' because of impediments regarding 
     accessibility (McLean Harvard Medical School Affiliate). 
     Progressively, the government must accommodate affordable 
     healthcare. Mental health must be covered by insurance and 
     funds shall be supplied by the one percent of taxpayers. All 
     remaining funds must go towards mental health facilities in 
     need. Assuming that demands are met, progress will ensue.
       Over time, it will be crucial to break the stigma 
     surrounding black mental health. Once honest conversations 
     commence, politically-correct terminology must be applied and 
     blatant irreverence shall be condemned. Publicly, black 
     mental health advocates shall assemble and enlighten 
     uninformed individuals, and mental health care providers must 
     advertise openly. Simultaneously, the mental health field 
     must employ more people of color. BIPOC positions will be 
     filled when salaries are livable, staff is receptive, and job 
     openings have renowned availability. Hired professionals must 
     have ample training, prior to or upon their employment. 
     Finally, if employees of color exit, all businesses must hire 
     new BIPOC staff to diversify America's perspectives.
       Black mental health is a nationwide concern and all people 
     must fight to restore it. Due to Covid losses and natural 
     disasters, this country is facing a level of despair that 
     only multiplies when considering mental health. In black 
     communities, conditions are abysmal and there is dire need 
     for improvement. If circumstances do not ameliorate, tragedy 
     will only continue. Nevertheless, this country shall work 
     diligently together and utilize its power to create immense 
     change.

[[Page S1153]]

  



         luna wood, champlain valley union high school, senior

       The single most threatening issue our world must deal with 
     today is climate change. It is crucial that our government 
     doesn't ignore climate change and its impacts that will 
     affect everybody. Climate change is going to become much 
     worse in the upcoming years and we have already started to 
     face devastating effects. Extreme weather has destroyed 
     communities and will not stop any time soon. Tropical storms 
     and sea levels rising on the coasts will soon make towns and 
     cities uninhabitable. Health risks will become worse and 
     worse such as deaths from extreme weather storms, air 
     pollution, water and food supply impacts. The downfall of 
     countless communities will affect economic prosperity. 
     Extreme weather such as hurricanes and flooding will wipe out 
     entire communities, leaving them in poverty. Droughts have a 
     negative impact on harvests and will increase food 
     insecurity. As migration increases due to the adaptation of 
     sea levels rising, resources will become more and more 
     limited. As a nation, we cannot ignore climate change 
     anymore.
       Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' Green New Deal would give 
     our nation the step in the right direction of taking an 
     action that will sustain our planet for generations to come. 
     Our federal government has not allowed the passage of this 
     deal despite its immense benefits for our country. It is 
     stated to create 20 million jobs, which would improve our 
     country's unemployment issue greatly.
       The deal suggests using solutions such as only renewable 
     energy will catapult our progress. We need to stop sending 
     our nation's tax dollars to fossil fuel companies in the form 
     of subsidies. Instead, we can invest that money into clean 
     forms of energy such as solar. Fossil fuels are the reason 
     why our earth has been increasingly warming up. The carbon in 
     the air needs to be taken out of our atmosphere and put back 
     into the ground where it came from.
       We can help this process in our own state of Vermont by 
     stopping the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides 
     on our farmland. This use of chemicals is killing habitats in 
     our soils and causing pollution. If we adopt more organic 
     methods of farming and take care of our soil, the crops, 
     plants and organisms living in the soil can help sequester 
     carbon from the air. Another simple solution to drawing 
     carbon from the air is planting many, many trees. Other 
     countries have already implemented this solution and there is 
     no reason why we can't as well.
       Yes, applying these solutions will take time, money, and 
     resources. But the positive outcomes from this deal are 
     necessary and worth it. This should be the main focus of our 
     government right now because it is a global emergency and 
     soon it will be too late.

                          ____________________