[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S757-S761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VERMONT STATE OF THE UNION ESSAY CONTEST JUDGES
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. 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 16th year, and I would like to congratulate the
six volunteer judges who helped choose the contest winners and
finalists. The contest relies on its committed team of judges. The
judges take time to review each essay and evaluate the diversity in
writing that engages students and will benefit them for years to come.
The judges' willingness to participate in this project reflects their
dedication to both the students and our State, and for that, I
graciously thank them.
The judges include:
Andrew Chobanian of Oxbow High School, participant for 4
years
Jason Gorczyk of Milton High School, participant for 13
years
Krystal Melendez of North Country Union High School,
participant for 2 years
[[Page S758]]
Terri Vest of Twinfield Union School & Vermont Virtual
Learning Collaborative, participant for 16 years
Robert Walls-Thumma of North Country Union High School,
participant for 2 years
Caroline Zeilenga of Randolph Technical and Career Center,
participant for 2 years
I am very proud to enter the State of the Union Essay Contest judges
into the Congressional Record to recognize their contributions.
VERMONT STATE OF THE UNION ESSAY CONTEST FINALISTS
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the
Record some of the finalists' essays written by Vermont High School
students as part of the 16th annual State of the Union Essay contest
conducted by my office.
The material follows:
FINALISTS
Piper Buczkowski, Missisquoi Valley Union High School, Junior
In December of 2025, the Department of Homeland Security
announced that there are more than 2.5 million illegal aliens
being deported from the US. Allegedly, 1.9 million of those
were self deportations. A month after this announcement of
apparent success was made, a woman in Minneapolis named Renee
Good, who was an American citizen, was fatally shot by an ICE
officer. After this incident, ICE alleged that the officer
shot her in self defense, although the video footage tells a
different story. The fatality caused by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement is one of the most harmful challenges
America is facing today.
Since Donald Trump assumed presidency in 2025, there has
been a 120% increase of ICE agents. In the past year, there
have been many videos circulating online platforms exposing
the cruel ways ICE has been capturing individuals and even
children at school. ICE does not listen to reasoning nor
citizenship documents.
Rumeysa Ozturk, a PHD student at Tufts University, was
heading to meet up with her friends to break their fast for
Ramadan and was approached by ICE agents in plain clothing
and masks. They immediately took her phone from her hands,
told her they were the police, then brought her to the car to
be taken. The Department of Homeland Security claimed they
detained her because she was supporting Hamas and because her
student visa had expired. Everyone who knew her explained
that she had never mentioned Hamas before.
An undocumented 29 year old Guatemalan man named Juan
Mendez was in the car with his wife one day and got stopped
by ICE. The agents were focused on Juan calling him Antonio.
The couple assumed it was a case of mistaken identity and
called their attorney and were advised to stay in the car.
They refused to unlock the doors and explained to the agents
that they are waiting for their attorney to arrive. ICE then
proceeded to smash the back car window without waiting
another minute. They captured Juan Mendez and locked him up
in a detention center. Juan was in the process of becoming a
U.S. citizen when he was taken.
These are just three incidents that represent acts of
violence happening all over the country. It doesn't matter
what they say to ICE agents after they get pulled over, even
if you show them your identification and citizenship
documents, they will still detain you. My solution to this
issue is to properly train ICE agents and hold them
accountable for their actions. They should not have the power
to shoot people, break into cars, or be out of uniform. Every
ICE agent will have to show their identification and a
warrant. This bill will be called the Renee Good Bill to get
justice for her and every other human being that has had
their life ruined, threatened, or taken. We, the people,
cannot stay silent anymore. America must be reminded that
aggressiveness should be the very last option, not the first.
Alice Buhendwa, Winooski High School, Junior
Hunger is a big problem in the United States, especially
for single mothers and their children. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, single parent families are more
likely to not have enough food. Many single moms work very
hard, but still do not have enough money to buy food. Taking
care of kids alone while paying for rent, bills, and
groceries is very stressful. No family should have to worry
about not having enough food. Until the government protects
food help programs and gives more support to single mothers,
many families will keep struggling with hunger.
Food is a basic need, and the government should make sure
families can afford it. When help is not strong or steady,
single moms and their children suffer the most. There is
clear proof that hunger is a real problem for single mothers.
The U.S. The Department of Agriculture says that single
parent families are more likely to not have enough food than
two parent families, showing that single moms struggle more
with hunger. In addition, research from feeding Americans
(urban) shows that millions of children living in single
parent households do not always have enough food, and single
moms are often the ones trying to feed their kids with little
hello. Programs like SNAP help families buy groceries, but
these programs are sometimes put at risk. During government
shutdowns, SNAP benefits were in danger for millions of
people. Reports said that about 42 million Americans could
lose food help during a shutdown. When this happens, families
have to rely on food banks, which often do not have enough
food.
To fix this problem, the government must take clear steps.
First, food programs like SNAP and WIC should always be fully
funded and protected, even during political fights. Research
from the Urban institute shows that cuts to SNAP could cause
almost 3 million young adults to lose food help, which shows
how harmful these cuts can be. I propose a new law that would
mandate that SNAP and WIC remain open even if the government
shuts down.
Second, the government should make sure benefits are never
delayed, so families can buy food on time. When SNAP is
delayed or cut, families are forced to depend on food, which
often do not have enough food. Third, the government should
increase support for single mothers by raising benefits
amounts and making it easier to qualify for help. The Urban
institute found that higher SNAP benefits helped millions of
people stay out of poverty which proves that strong food
programs work. These actions would help make sure children do
not go hungry.
Hunger should not happen in a rich country like the United
States. If the government does its job and protects food help
programs, single moms and their children can live healthier
and safer lives. Making sure families have food is not a
choice, it is a responsibility.
Liam Dickerson, Green Mountain Valley School, Junior
Since its inception, Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has
become an integral part of our daily lives-over one billion
people on earth claim to use it each month. Examples of use
may range from creating images to asking questions about the
moon. It helps to exceed our basic use of Google search. It
can create music and solve some of the world's hardest
problems. But at what cost?
While there are so many possibilities with AI, there is one
major drawback-A.I. is having a much more negative impact on
Climate change than we ever could have imagined. In the past
year alone, A.I. has consumed six times more water than
Denmark, a country with more than 6 million people. This
intense use of water directly correlates to the usage of A.I.
In 2025, more than 50% of the global population uses A.I. As
a result, large data centers are being built to house the
computer systems required by AI. Because of this, A.I. needs
water to cool these computing centers.
Along with water consumption, A.I. also uses a vast amount
of electricity. One request made through ChatGPT uses as much
as ten times as much electricity as a Google search. The mass
consumption of electricity has been a recurring trend within
the last 3-5 years. According to MIT News, the power
requirements of data centers in North America more than
doubled within a year, from 2,668 megawatts consumed in 2022
to 5,341 megawatts in 2023. Even when looking into the
future, the outlook looks grim. The estimated electricity
consumption of data centers is forecasted to reach 1,050
terawatt hours by 2026. This puts the AI data centers fifth
in the world for energy consumption.
But whose responsibility is it to manage these unfolding
burdens? Are there other things we should be doing? Some
companies are implementing climate-aware methods to combat
the intense impact that A.I. has. Microsoft, for example,
aims to reduce its water consumption and carbon footprint. By
2050, Microsoft claims that it will remove its historical
emissions since its founding in 1975. It also aims to
replenish more water than it has consumed by 2030. Another
company that houses massive data centers is Amazon. Amazon
has invested two billion dollars into the Climate Pledge
Fund.
These initiatives may seem lofty, but it is encouraging
that these companies have these goals to begin with. No one
knows what the future holds for the impacts of A.I. on
climate change, but if we can find ways to maintain the A.I.
infrastructure, we might have a chance. Continuing to engage
with corporations such as Microsoft and Amazon in hopes that
it will lead to a sustainable future will be key in the
coming years. Each step that we can take towards
sustainability is a step in the right direction.
Quinten Drugach, Oxbow High School, Junior
In America, opportunity is often described as limitless,
although economic reality tells a different story. While
millions of Americans struggle to afford housing, groceries,
and healthcare, a small group of billionaires controls an
enormous share of the nation's wealth. This gap between the
uber wealthy and everyone else is not just an economic issue;
it is a threat to American democracy and justice. Instead of
taxing billionaires more, the solution is a national wealth
circulation requirement. This will mobilize money directly
into the real economy.
The share of the U.S. wealth pie owned by the top 0.1
percent grew 59.6 percent from 1989 to 2024, while the share
of the U.S. wealth pie owned by the bottom 50 percent of
households has declined 26.1 percent. The bottom half of
households in America, which is 66 million households, had
$4.1 trillion altogether at the end of 2024. The 905
billionaires in the United States hold a combined $7.8
trillion in wealth, according to Forbes data from September
29, 2025. The rapid growth of widening wealth disparities has
[[Page S759]]
given those at the top an unfair advantage in our society,
undermining our democracy.
Rather than letting extreme wealth sit idle in financial
markets, the federal government could implement a national
wealth circulation requirement for billionaires. Under this
policy, billionaires would be required to invest a small
percentage of their wealth into approved areas annually.
These areas include worker profit-sharing programs,
affordable housing, small business funds, and domestic
infrastructure projects. If billionaires chose not to make
these investments themselves, the required amount would
instead be collected by the government and used for public
programs. My solution does not punish success, but makes sure
that extraordinary wealth contributes to the economy that
made it possible. By implementing a national wealth
circulation requirement, wealth circulation would create and
strengthen local communities, jobs, and reduce inequality
while protecting American innovation and entrepreneurship.
Wealth inequality and the unprecedented power billionaires
hold in America are not accidental outcomes, but rather the
result of long-standing economic decisions. Real change will
not come from silence or complacency, but from Americans who
demand accountability and leaders who put people before
profit. This crisis calls for immediate action; If we rise to
meet it, we can rebuild a country where the American dream is
real, democracy is strong, and the future belongs to
everyone, not just the wealthy.
Sophie Hehir, South Burlington High School, Junior
The United States has become a hyperpolarized, divided
nation, largely driven by modern media. Social media and
unreliable online news sources are widespread and filled with
misinformation. Americans are spending more time online but
are struggling to interpret this information. Most Americans
have not been educated on the implications of misinformation
and partisanship within our media. Misinformation continues
to divide us and cause further polarization within our
political atmosphere.
A study by the BBC found that over 54% of Americans get
their news from social networks like YouTube, X, or Facebook.
Social media has overtaken both TV and traditional news
sites, which both sit at under 50%. Additionally, Media
Literacy Now, an organization dedicated to educating on
media, found 46% of Americans aged 19-81 did not learn any
media literacy skills in high school. A later survey found
that people who rely on social media for news are more likely
to believe in conspiracy theories. The same study discovered
people with high levels of science literacy and critical
thinking skills were less likely to believe conspiracy
theories.
As the amount of misinformation online increases, so do the
numbers of young Americans exposed to it. From 2019-2021, the
average screen time of Americans aged 8-18 rose by 17%.
However, due to a lack of media literacy education programs,
many young Americans are unable to spot false media to which
they are exposed. A Stanford study of 3,450 high school
students found over two-thirds were unable to distinguish
between most false claims. Yet, out of 50 states, only 19
have put in place policies to fund media literacy programs in
schools. Students who are exposed to misleading media are
more likely to become polarized in their views. As these
students become voters, they will be less likely to engage
with differing opinions, creating greater rifts in our
democracy.
In order to combat the epidemic of misinformation, we need
to educate ourselves. Millions of Americans need to learn the
skills necessary to understand our digital world and spot
misinformation and bias. I propose The Youth Media Literacy
Act as a solution. This program will provide U.S. public
schools with the resources needed to educate students about
the digital world. This education would start in our
elementary schools and continue through high school, covering
topics from reliable news sources to AI use. This educational
program has the potential to be a critical component in
stopping the spread of misinformation.
We need to give our youth the skills necessary to navigate
this new digital world. If more young Americans can
successfully identify bias and misinformation in our media,
we can bridge the rifts we have created in our society and
have a more unified conversation. Digital literacy tools are
crucial in order to protect our democracy and educate our
youth for a better-informed public and less polarized nation.
Hana Heidebrecht, Burr & Burton Academy, Sophomore
Each year, the State of the Union address is meant to unite
the nation around shared challenges and goals. Ironically,
one of the greatest threats currently facing our country is
our inability to work together. Political polarization is
destroying our democracy.
Disagreement has always existed in American politics, and
it is not a problem itself. Debate is essential to democracy.
The danger arises when Americans begin to see those they
disagree with as less than human. According to a Harvard
Youth poll, only about 35% of young Americans believe people
with opposing political views still want what's best for the
country. It is not uncommon for young people to avoid
political conversations altogether, out of fear for conflict
and judgment.
At the same time, government trust has plummeted, with a
historic low of only about 22% of U.S. adults saying they
trust the federal government to do what is right most of the
time, according to Pew Research Center. Solving major
national issues, like economic inequality and climate change,
becomes nearly impossible when citizens lose faith in
democratic institutions and elected leaders are unable to
collaborate across party lines.
The consequences of polarization are becoming more and more
apparent. Congress fails to pass legislation consistently,
even on issues with bipartisan agreement. Americans are
frustrated with leaders focused on partisan conflict instead
of cross-party solutions, and according to Pew Research
Center, more than 80% of Americans say Republicans and
Democrats are more focused on fighting each other than
solving problems. Arguably the most concerning by-product, is
that young people feel disconnected from a system that is
meant to represent them and their ideas.
As a young American, I believe it is essential that
polarization is treated as a threat to our democracy, that
requires multiple levels of change. First, we must invest in
a comprehensive civic education plan across all public
schools. This plan will teach students how the government
works, how to evaluate information critically, and why
democratic norms are so important. This is necessary to
prepare future voters to engage constructively with their
government. Second, we must implement ranked-choice voting.
This encourages candidates to appeal to a wider range of
constituents, instead of just extremists. Third, we must
establish a national civic dialogue program to bring together
people from different regions, backgrounds, and political
parties, and cultivate respectful discussion on shared
challenges. Finally, we must push for campaign finance
reforms that reduce extreme donors' influence to ensure that
everybody feels equally represented.
Unity does not mean uniformity. Americans will always
disagree. It is imperative that we reject the idea that
democracy cannot function unless one side wins, and encourage
respectful, constructive political conversation. By
encouraging empathy and prioritizing political education, our
democracy can become stronger than ever.
Amelia Hill, Woodstock Union High School, Junior
Over 25% of women globally experience period poverty in
their life, and poor menstrual hygiene can cause physical
health risks and has been connected to reproductive and
urinary tract infections. Giving access to private facilities
with water and safer low-cost menstrual materials could
reduce diseases. There is also not easy access to menstrual
products for women and girls, particularly during
emergencies. Fixing these problems should be a high priority
for the government because so many women and girls are
struggling with their periods and are offered no help.
Period poverty is no joke. It is a lack of access to
resources and facilities that women and young girls need. It
also subjects women to injustice and inequality due to
menstruation. A study in France said that women experiencing
period poverty had gained significant mental issues like
depression and anxiety. And also half of the women who had
experienced period poverty reported at least one
psychological symptom compared to women who had never
experienced it. According to the National Library of
Medicine, ``health challenges involve physical health and
mental health.
Women who have their menstrual cycle monthly need to have
good and safe hygiene products and health facilities to visit
if required. The lack of access to harmless and hygienic
products has caused women to use other unsafe products.'' The
government needs to make sure that access to hygienic and
sanitary facilities and free menstrual products is available
for all women and young girls.
The tampon tax is really hurting women around the world.
Menstrual products are taxed like luxury goods instead of
basic necessities. The Drexel University College of Medicine
said ``Having a menstrual product tax exacerbates period
poverty and impacts the quality of life of women by
decreasing the accessibility of menstrual products. Period
products are not a luxury good.'' It is a cost that only half
of the population has to worry about and not purchasing them
isn't an option. Women need to buy periods products at least
once a month and over the typical 35 to 40 years women get
periods that is over thousands of times they purchase
menstrual products.
The federal government should pass legislation mandating
the availability of menstrual products in public spaces.
Through different programs, such as Medicaid, they could fund
the issuance via grants, direct employers to supply them, and
remove taxes, handling them as essential health items.
This isn't just an issue in America, it is also a global
issue affecting almost every single country in the world.
Periods are also seen as dirty or shameful and there is a lot
of stigma around speaking about periods in public. It causes
a lack of education and harms young girls who are afraid to
speak up about getting their periods. I hope to see in the
future less disgust about periods and seeing the amount of
period poverty go down significantly. They are a necessity in
our lives and should be more easily accessible.
[[Page S760]]
Matthew Mallory, Essex High School, Junior
For many Americans the ability to get to work, pick up
medicine, or buy groceries is largely taken for granted.
However, a large subset of the population lacks access to
even these seemingly quotidian abilities. A lack of public
transportation infrastructure is reducing quality of life for
a large portion of the population and creating a massive cost
to America's economy. As interested corporations lobby
against legislation, citizens suffer. Citizens need to push
legislators to pass legislation supporting the development of
such infrastructure in order to reduce the income gap and
improve quality of life for Americans.
The issue of public transportation disproportionately
affects a poorer subset of the population. According to U.S.
News & World Report, in 2024, greater than 16% of Americans
living below the Federal Poverty Level (around $15,000 in
annual income) lacked reliable access to transportation,
compared to 2.9% of those making greater than four times that
level. This significant divide creates a vicious cycle--those
lacking transportation are able to capitalize on fewer job
opportunities and lack access to regular healthcare, pushing
them into lower socioeconomic positions.
With so many Americans affected by a lack of
transportation, one would expect rapid change to occur.
However, politicians have a vested interest in avoiding such
developments. In 2024, over $150 million was spent by big oil
lobbying to avoid eco-friendly policies, with a large chunk
of that money targeting public transportation. While the
American democratic process should elect politicians whose
views more closely match the population, campaign donations
provide opponents of public transportational development with
an undue advantage in elections. As the petroleum industry
approaches $10 trillion, it's easy to understand why their
influence is far greater than efforts from smaller pro-
transportation initiatives.
Additionally, as policymakers aren't affected by a lack of
transportation, fiscal change is much more difficult to
legislate. Americans making over $150,000 annually were over
three times more likely to vote in the 2016 presidential
election than those under the poverty level (Johnson). This
statistic displays a trend of unintentional
underrepresentation at the state and city level as well. This
creates yet another vicious cycle: Those that would push the
hardest for public transportational spending are those heard
the least.
In order to solve the transportation epidemic, a limitation
on campaign donations by PAC's is the most effective action.
This would remove some outside incentives placed on
policymakers to favor the interests of oil companies over
their constituents. I next propose a bill, called the United
States Public Transportation Act, which would further the
effects of the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act, giving
increased subsidies to cities working to improve their public
transportation. It would also broaden the scope of the 1964
act, providing funding for the improvement of high-speed rail
networks across the U.S., further benefiting both cost and
duration of intercity travel. This inequitable system won't
change unless Americans push legislators to open their eyes
and take action.
Jumana Nsour, South Burlington High School, Sophomore
For the fiscal year of 2027, the Trump administration
allocated $1.5 trillion to the Department of War.
Simultaneously, the government froze billions of dollars
related to childcare assistance, impacting over 1.4 million
children. This is a stark reminder of American militarism,
which is enormously prevalent today. Repeatedly, the US has
claimed its large military is necessary for national
security. They continue to ignore that: This imperialism
isn't protecting anyone. It is only killing innocent people,
and letting billionaires profit off of their slaughter.
According to Al Jazeera, the US has funded over $21 billion to Israel
since October 7th. 73,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children have
been deliberately murdered, making it crystal clear that the US is
funding a genocide. Meanwhile, the arms industry reached a record
breaking revenue of $679 billion in 2024, largely off of the murders of
these children.
Another way the US exerts its imperialism is through
unwarranted international interventions. This past year, the
US has attacked both Iran and Venezuela. These attacks have
been framed as operations to prevent issues in each
respective country, like nuclear war and drug trafficking.
However, the US used these attacks simply to further Israel's
Zionist agenda in the Middle East, and to profit off of
Venezuelan oil, notes the BBC. This pattern keeps repeating:
The US attacks, civilians die, billionaires profit. It is
time to *actually* put America first.
To begin, the military budget must be reduced to an
appropriate amount. This can happen by reducing the number of
US military bases overseas. Currently, the US has over 750
bases; this amount is doing little to improve national
security, according to the CATO Institute. Another way to
reduce military spending is to reverse the Citizens United v.
FEC case. This will make it harder for companies to disregard
their constituents and promote a war economy instead.
Secondly, the US, and all companies affiliated with war
crimes must respect the law and face the consequences of
their actions in federal and international court.
Thirdly, the United States must invest in a peace economy.
This can happen by refunding all domestic and international
welfare programs that have faced funding cuts under Trump,
and investing in industries with the potential to benefit
regular Americans and create jobs. The US should be investing
in renewable energy, biotechnology, education, sustainable
infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, and more. This can
be possible by raising taxes on the top 1%, who are often the
people who profit off of US warfare. Finally, the US must be
a positive international influence. To foster diplomacy, the
US must rejoin all 66 international organizations that it
withdrew from at the start of the 2nd Trump presidency, and
re-establish USAID. This diplomacy is essential to preventing
future conflicts, and will help communities in need around
the globe.
A world with peace and security is possible. If we put the
needs of Americans over the greed of arms companies and
imperialists, this can be achieved.
Kai Pincus, Pacem School, Freshman
There's no place like home. Unfortunately, home is now a
privilege that many cannot afford. In 2024, over 771 thousand
people spent a night in the United States without stable
housing, and 274,224 of those were without shelter of any
kind. In Vermont, which is fourth place in the nation by
number of unhoused people, 53 out of 10,000 people are
homeless. These numbers are alarming, especially in light of
the insensitivity of the current administration, which is
currently removing many programs intended to assist homeless
people. Instead, the government must support housing-first
and preventative programs, as opposed to treatment-first and
reactive solutions.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) now
states that the Biden administration's practice of renewing
90% of continuum of care projects (CoCs), the largest
homelessness program in the country, promoted
``entitlement.'' These are projects attempting to help some
of the least entitled people. However, under the new
administration, HUD will only renew 30% of CoCs
automatically. An executive order recently signed by
President Trump requires homeless people to be treated for
mental health and addiction issues before gaining access to
stable housing, which many experts say could only exacerbate
the issue. The executive order states that cities should ban
homeless camping, and defunds addiction harm reduction
programs such as syringe exchanges under the refuted claim
that they increase illegal drug use. These are all false
solutions that do nothing to improve the situation.
Instead of cutting funding for the organizations trying to
help, we must shift our approach towards housing-first and
preventative solutions. A study at UC Berkeley found that
providing unhoused people with permanent housing drastically
reduced mental health issues and improved long-term general
health. It is critical to evaluate the complex societal and
socioeconomic factors that cause people to lose housing in
the first place. Even if the entire unhoused population was
suddenly housed, homelessness will inevitably reoccur without
proper prevention. Many teenagers become homeless after
familial conflict over addiction or sexual and gender
orientation, and other frequent causes of homelessness
include substance abuse, mental health issues, lack of
affordable housing, underemployment, and discrimination. To
remedy this, we should implement government-funded incentive
programs for corporations that hire people at risk of losing
permanent housing, because having a stable paycheck is the
first step towards residential stability.
Instead of providing the American Dream, this country is a
failing reality for many. Nonetheless, it may still be
possible to prevent further homelessness. Substantial change
is required in our education, healthcare, housing,
employment, and the public perception of unhoused people.
Without drastic reforms, hundreds of thousands of people will
continue to live in poverty and without adequate housing. The
greater populace cannot remain indifferent, look the other
way as people suffer, or fail to recognize our common
humanity. We need to work together because we should no
longer have to face the world alone. We need to find our way
home.
Quinn Sheldon, Lamoille Union High School, Junior
On average women spend 25% more time in poor health than
men. This is due to a significant gap in health research for
women. Historically, women's bodies have been under-
researched and male bodies were the norm. Although policy
changes in the 1990s have helped, more needs to be done to
close the gap in women's health research.
Women's health is still under-researched despite more
frequent healthcare usage than men. A study done in 2022 by
researchers at Harvard Medical School found that despite
being 51% of the population, women only represented about 40%
of the participants in clinical trials for cancer,
cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders. This is
especially concerning because these are three of the diseases
that most affect women. Due to reproductive health, hormonal
influences,
[[Page S761]]
higher disease burden and longer lifespan women visit
healthcare professionals more often than men. The World
Economic Forum found that the average working woman in the US
spends 18% more on healthcare costs than men every year. Yet,
sex-specific research is still lacking.
Men and women have physiological differences that can
affect medical care. Biological sex influences physical,
physiological, hormonal, metabolic and cellular functions.
This means that men and women are likely to experience
different outcomes from medicine and medical devices. The
information we have about medicine today is mostly based on
research on male bodies. Without sex specific research women
will be more likely to receive improper health care.
Lack of women's healthcare research results in poorer
treatment outcomes for women. A 2020 study from UC Berkeley
and the University of Chicago have found that women
experience negative effects from medications twice as much as
men. The inadequate testing in clinical trials leads to more
misdiagnosing and ineffective treatment. This is why the
research gap for women's health needs to be addressed.
Clinical trials should be designed with both men and women
in mind. Creating targeted policy that can broaden the
inclusion of women in clinical trials, and designing more
trials with women in mind will greatly benefit in closing the
research gap. Then we can have more sex-specific data and be
able come up with more effective treatments for women.
Together we can close the women's health research gap and
create better healthier lives for half of our population.
Andrew Walsh, Essex High School, Junior
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been rising since
the industrial revolution, causing worse natural disasters
like floods, blizzards, and fires. Human activity is the
leading cause of climate change, and there are many actions
we can take to limit its effects. Many actions that reduce
carbon emissions, like purchasing sustainable food, clothing,
and transportation, come at higher costs than conventional
alternatives. For millions of Americans, this added cost is a
financial barrier, not just an inconvenience. Sustainable
living can't be only accessible to those who can afford it.
Until we make sustainability accessible to everyone, the
United States won't be able to slow down the effects of
climate change.
A 2025 MarketWatch Guides Financial Success Survey showed
that 57% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, meaning more
than half the country has little to no financial flexibility.
Necessities like food and housing already take up most of
these households' income, making sustainable options out of
reach. When people are struggling to afford everyday
survival, asking them to pay more for sustainable
alternatives is unrealistic.
Sustainable products cost more than their conventional
alternatives because of sourcing, certifications, and limited
demand. On average, sustainable food is 20-30% more expensive
than conventional options, electric cars are 15-20% more
expensive than gas cars, and fair-trade clothes can cost over
three times as much as fast-fashion alternatives. For
households already struggling financially, these price
differences make sustainable choices inaccessible.
Recent national policy decisions have further increased the
burden on low-income households. The 2025 One Big Beautiful
Bill Act reduced funding for healthcare and food assistance
while subsidizing fossil fuels and reducing clean energy
incentives. As a result, households already facing financial
and health challenges have even fewer resources to put
towards sustainable alternatives. This demonstrates how
climate policy that ignores economic inequality can
unintentionally exclude millions of Americans. Vermont's
Climate Action Plan shows addressing affordability and
sustainability together enables progress, but we need a
national solution.
I propose a federal bill that subsidizes sustainable goods
for households based on income. The program would cover a
percentage of the cost for sustainable food, electric
vehicles, and ethically sourced clothing, based on household
income with the greatest support going to households with the
least financial flexibility. Lowering the upfront cost of
sustainability would allow people living paycheck to paycheck
to participate in climate action without sacrificing their
basic needs. Making sustainable choices affordable is
essential if climate policy is to include the entire country.
Sustainability cannot be a luxury reserved for the
privileged. The United States can create a fairer system that
allows all Americans to contribute to fighting climate change
by removing financial barriers. Making sustainable living
accessible is the only way to limit the effects the United
States has on climate change. If we want real progress, we
must make sure no one is left behind.
____________________