Right, okay, sorry about that, so I've been working at a company that designs processors for 13 years now and something that I'm more and more amazed at, the longer I work there, is this simple fact that processors are incredibly reliable. I mean, they're not completely reliable, right? I mean, they do occasionally fail, you know, we hear about bugs in processors, but it's such a rare thing that if you and I were to make a list of all the processor bugs we've ever heard of, we would probably have like nine out of ten things in our list would be the same. In fact, we probably wouldn't even get to ten, to be honest. So I'm going to be talking about how it is that processors are actually amazingly close to being, you know, completely correct. How do we actually achieve that? So if you want a more technical version of this, of the information in this talk, I've put links on the slides, I put my slides on my website afterwards, you can grab the links from there. Matty Sue's talk yesterday is also related to this and I wonder if anybody was in Johnny Austin's workshop yesterday where we had a bunch of humans pretending to be different parts of a computer modeling a five-stage pipeline that was also kind of quite similar and good fun. So processors always work and this is because there's a sort of tension going on. So is there an echo in this? So there's a tension going on in creating a processor. On the one hand, you want it to be correct and on the other, you want it to be fast and these things are completely in opposition to each other. It's really hard to make something correct and fast. And so this is a talk with a villain and a hero. And the villain in this, sorry, this is a maker festival, so bad news, the villain is in fact the designer. He's trying to make things faster and unfortunately as he tries to do that, he inevitably introduces bugs. Can you turn down the sound a wee bit? I'm getting a lot of echo, it's a bit distracting. Okay, well that could work too. So the designer is busy introducing bugs and making it go faster too. Meanwhile, the hero is the person trying to find those bugs and help fix them. So the verifier is pushing back against the designer. And in our commercial processor, the verifier usually wins because a fast processor is nice but a correct processor is critical. You don't have a, you know, no one's interested if it mostly works. So the verifier will usually win the battle over. Is this too complex a feature to add? And the verifier is helped by some useful tools which I'll be describing in this talk at a fairly high level. They're called sat solvers and bounded model checkers. Not very sexy names, but there you go. Okay, so what I'm going to do in this talk is I'm going to kind of look at this switch back and forth between correct and fast. And I'm going to start with a very simple processor. And so what I've done here is I've taken an early MIPS processor and I've simplified it down just by kind of pasting over some of the complicated features in it. So it's probably still more or less correct with my butchery applied to it. Let me just quickly go through the main bits of the processor. So working from left to right, before you can execute an instruction, you need to know what instruction you're going to execute. So you take your program counter from the green box, you hand it to the memory and it gives you back an instruction. You then have to figure out what the instruction means. So you decode it. That's traditionally, that block is shown in white in diagrams like this. And so I followed that tradition of the decode logic is shown in white so that you can't actually see it. It's the most complicated part of the processor. We always leave it out of the pictures. So once you've decoded the instruction, that gives you all the control signals to control all the rest of the circuit. So the next bit is from the green bit in the middle, the register file, you read some inputs and then you hand that to the ALU which can do arithmetic, addition, subtraction, comparison in the values. And you can also pass the values to the memory if you want to read or write memory. And then when you're all done, the results go in this big backward path back over to the register file where you can update any registers you've got. Okay, so that's very quickly what processor's like. Oh, I should also mention that there's these little gray boxes. I don't know if you can quite see them. They're labeled MUX or multiplexer. They're a switch which selects different inputs. And those are absolutely critical when you're worrying about a processor being correct because if something's already always connected to the same thing, there's a good chance you'll spot when you get it wrong if you've got the wrong information there. If you keep switching from one thing to another, it's very easy to switch to the wrong thing or to sometimes have the wrong information on an input and not really realize it because you're not selected. So the MUXs, again, little busy boxes don't look very significant. That's where a lot of bugs will occur is in those little boxes. But anyway, we've got a processor. I've simplified it down so it's really just one pipeline stage, one time set taken to go from wanting to fetch an instruction all the way around till you've executed the instruction and written back the results of the register file. So it's about as simple as you can make a processor. Now, having done that, remember the hero is the verifier and we're wondering, well, does it work? So how do we check if something works? Well, we test it. So what kind of tests do we run? I'm guessing most of you are more software people than hardware people, but it's the same either way.  And then once you've got that, you then decide, well, how many tests I want for each case? And if it doesn't matter much, whether it works or not, then maybe one test for every 10 cases is good enough, right? That's what I do in my hobby projects. If you're a bit more serious, maybe you want one test per case, 50, 1,000, do you need a million? How much is it going to cost if it goes wrong? How hard will it be to replace it?  So that's the traditional way of checking the processors, right? But before we get on to the less traditional, the modern way, let's think about we've got our tests, now we need to think about running them. So we've got a processor, and we can run some programs on them, but how will we know if the program did the right thing? Well, what we're going to want is a reference that we can compare against. So this might be a simulator, or it might be your friend is also implementing the same processor, and so he's got another implementation, and he's smarter than you. So maybe he's put less bugs in it, or maybe because he's smarter than you, he got too clever, and he put more bugs into it. But either way, you're hoping he's got different bugs, right? So you've got a reference to compare against, and then you can just take all the individual parts of the state of the processor and compare them. And so we can run tests through that, and we're quite happy. But instead of just running tests, there's another way using formal verification tools, which we can use. So there are tools which will take two circuits and compare them to tell you whether they're exactly equivalent to each other. Okay, so in the industry, those are called logical equivalence checkers. You'll also hear people talking about SAT solvers, which are a slightly more flexible version of the same thing. And what these do is they say, well, let's take every possible state we could start in, all possible instructions we could think of executing, all possible contents of memory, and then just check that these two circuits are going to do exactly the same thing, no matter what. So the beautiful thing about this is you don't have to think about testing, right? Because it just tries everything. It doesn't brute force it, that would be too hard. It uses various mathematical tricks to try to reduce the number of things it has to check. But it's doing something equivalent to checking for all possible inputs that these circuits are equivalent to each other. So you don't need to think of any tests, which is great, because I hate thinking about tests. It's just not fun, right? So this will make up the tests for you and think of all the other things you should have been thinking of testing that you forgot, but really nice tools when you can use them. Okay, so that's us at the start of this cycle. So we're on the end of we've got something that's correct but possibly slow. So now I'm going to look at a simple optimization, which people always do to this kind of processor, which will make it a bit faster. So the processor kind of did the work in two stages. Remember, it started off by fetching an instruction and decoding it. And then in the second phase of execution, it's kind of adding results, it's writing them to registers and so on. And whilst it's fetching, you don't know what the right hand side, the memory should be doing, so it's idle. And once you've fetched and decoded something, you can't do anything because, you know, you've got to wait until execute unit finishes. And so designers hate this kind of thing, hardware sitting idle, they hate that. So standard technique is instruction pipelining. And with instruction pipelining, what we're going to do is we're going to double the clock frequency. And then while we're executing the first instruction, doing the arithmetic or memory access, we're going to be at the same time fetching the second instruction. While we're executing that second instruction, we'll be fetching the third while we're executing the third will be fetching the fourth and so on. You get about double performance. So this is a technique IBM came up with in the six days, it hit mic processors in the mid eighties, a very common technique. And so here's the processor with a little bit more of it, a little bit of it restored. There's this green bar down the middle.  It's remembering the first instruction it fetched while it's executing that. And that leaves the left hand side is now free to start fetching the second instruction. So instruction pipelining is a pretty common thing. And what we want to do now is check to see if we've introduced any bugs in doing this. So how are we going to do that? Well, let's start with the reference circuit. So we've got a reference circuit and the processor is going to be executing two instructions at a time. So I'm actually going to want to check both instructions. And so I'll put in two copies of the reference circuit and I'll just connect the output, the final state of the first circuit into the starting state of the next circuit. So that's just going to execute two instructions and sequence. And then I'm going to do the same thing with the processor that I want to check. So I'm going to make two copies of that. And again, I'm going to add in some data pass so that the final state of the first processor gets copied over into the final and intermediate state of the first processor gets copied into the next processor. So I'm going to forward that data over and then I'll add the checkers. So this probably feels like it might be a little complicated to do. Fortunately, there are tools which I'll mention a bit later on. But what I have now is something where I can feed two instructions into this processor and check that they're both going to execute correctly. And again, these formal verification tools will just check for all possible pairs of instructions, all possible initial states. So I don't have to come up with tests. But as I say, I can also use testing. I can just run one processor against one reference and check for bugs the usual way. Whichever one I do, it's probably not going to be very long before I run into a bug that looks a little bit like this. A branch instruction followed by, well, pretty much anything. Because that style of processor that I just showed you is prone to a bug that occurs after branch instructions. So what goes wrong in branch instructions? Well, let's think about how the pipeline is going to be executing this. So at the same time as it's executing the previous instruction, I was fetching the branch. Then next clock cycle, I move on and I start to execute the branch instruction to figure out where I should branch to, PC plus 100. And at the same time, I'm fetching the add instruction. Then in the next cycle, everything moves forward and I go to execute the add instruction. But why am I executing the add instruction? Because that branch, sorry, I shouldn't point at my screen. I shouldn't point there, perhaps. The branch instruction is telling me not to execute the next instruction. It's telling me to go off somewhere else and execute that and said. But what's happening is I will always execute the instruction immediately after a branch. So there's several ways of thinking about what's happened here. One is to say that this is a bug. That's a pretty common opinion these days, that you're after a branch, you always execute the instruction immediately after. At the time that people started pipelining mic processors, there was another opinion which was to say it's not a bug, it's a feature. And they gave that feature a special name so that you would know it was a feature, definitely not a bug. So it's called a branch delay slot. They were very popular at the time in the early risk processors. They kind of fell out of favor later. Because if you try to claim that every single bug you put in your processor is actually a feature, then it's very hard to make the second processor have exactly the same set of bugs. And of course, it's going to add some new bugs of its own. So then your third processor becomes really hard. You've got to get all the old bugs and then persuade people that the new bugs are features as well. So nowadays, people tend not to put this kind of thing in a processor architecture. They admit it's a bug and they fix it. And the usual way of fixing it is that when you see you're about to execute a branch instruction, you say, well, let's just hold off and fetching the next instruction until I know for sure whether I need it. That's one solution. So that's called stalling the pipeline. And another one is to go, you know what? I'm just going to go ahead and fetch it anyway. You know what? I might even start executing it a little bit. But I'll only go so far in executing it and hope nobody notices if I end up having to cancel it. So you guess that you might want to execute the instruction and then if you didn't need it, you cancel it quickly before anyone notices. And that's called speculation, which has been in the news a lot recently, well, this year because it turns out that some people can spot speculation and turn it into security holes. So we're less sure how to get around that one. Okay. So we added an optimization, various ways of testing and verifying it, and we've got a bug. And let's imagine I've put in a fix for it. Now having fixed that, I want to check if there's one did I fix it and two, are there any more bugs I should worry about? So what am I going to test? Well, I've got all my original tests that I started off with. Does it add, really add? Can it add big numbers and small numbers and so on? Obviously I'm going to add a whole load of tests for branches because I now know to be worried about that. But is there anything else I should be worried about in that processor? I'm not sure. My confidence is a bit shaken now. So I'm going to try and think of what makes pairs of instruction interesting. And then I'm going to test all of those. And this is black magic experience asking your friend what he tests. It's hard to know. You've actually tested everything you need to. And that, just to kind of emphasize it, that's where the formal verification techniques are really helpful because you don't have to come up with lists of pairs of instructions. It will just test a lot. Okay. So I've gone one round through this cycle, take a correct processor, make it faster, but broken, find some bugs and fix it. And I did that by going from a one-stage pipeline to a two-stage pipeline. Well, what would be better than a two-stage pipeline? For most people, the answer is a five-stage pipeline. So with five stages, we take that original diagram I had and it had about five major steps in it and we make each of those be one major step in execution. And what I'm going to do then is have my five pipelines, each row in this diagram is busy doing one of those five steps. And the idea is that once it gets up to speed, I'm executing five instructions at once. I'm working from the bottom upwards. I'm writing back the results of the first instruction while I'm doing the memory access for the second instruction. I'm doing the arithmetic for the third. I'm decoding the fourth and I'm fetching the fifth. So I'm keeping all the bits of the hardware busy. And this makes the designer really, really happy. And it tends to make the verifier a bit less happy. So let's just, here's the original circuit as I downloaded it off of Wikipedia with all the pipeline stages shown. So the pipeline stages are these big vertical green bars that just capture the bit that was just calculated and make it available in the next time step to the next part of the circuit. And what can I do to verify this? Well, I've got the same option as before, one copy of the reference circuit, one copy of the processor, and then add some comparison logic to just compare them. And then I can run all the tests I want in this. I can, yeah, I can run lots of tests on it. So I'm perfectly happy with that. But if I want to do the formal verification, then I'm going to do something similar to what I did previously when I had two copies of the reference, two copies of the processor. But I'm going to have, this time, it's a five-stage pipeline. So I'm going to have five copies of the reference and five copies of the processor, so I can model five instructions at once. Except this may not be quite enough, because if you remember the fix for that branch-related bug was that sometimes instructions could get stalled. And if I'm stalling instructions, they may not take five cycles to get all the way down to the end of the pipeline. They may sometimes take six cycles, so I'd better add another stage. And well, maybe I could have two instructions get stalled or one get stalled twice or something. Maybe I should add another stage. So I play around with that and try to get the right number of steps I'm checking. So on this side, I've labeled this with its official name. This is called bounded model checking. I'm not going to try to explain what model checking means, but the bounded bit is simply this number of how many copies I make. So I start off with a bound of five. I've increased it to a bound of seven. And as I say, there are tools that will do this little transformation of making the multiple copies and forwarding data between stages. They'll do it for you. There's tools like YOSIS, which if anybody is into doing open FPGA work, you'll probably know about the YOSIS tools. There's talks about using bounded model checking that you can get hold of. There's a paper that I mentioned right at the start that I wrote that you can get hold of. There's blogs. So there's a bunch of links there that you can follow. Okay, so we run some tests. We do some, oh, and let me just emphasize just once more that what this is going to do is it's going to test any sequence of instructions. In this case, any sequence of up to seven instructions are going to get checked and for all possible inputs. So it's going to run through the first check, then the second and the third and so on. And if it manages to get all the way to the end, then you're going to know that any seven cycle sequence, anywhere in execution, is going to behave correctly.  So either through testing or through this bounded model checking, you will find another bug. And this is another well-known bug in the style of processor. It was actually fixed in the next generation of processor. The picture I'm showing is of the MIPS 1, the MIPS 2 fix this. So the bug involves a load followed by a store. So let's just think about what's going on when you have a load followed by a store. So I was kind of zoomed forward to the point where the load is in the memory stage and the store is behind it in the execute stage. And so the load is busy. It's got an address. It hands that to the memory and it reads back a value from the memory. So now you've got a value from memory. At the same time that that's happening, the store has finished reading some values from the register file and it's sitting in the execute stage waiting ready to execute. So now let's go forward one cycle. At this point, the load writes back the value it got from memory back to the register file and the store starts to write something to the data memory. But what is it writing? If you look at the program, you might expect I loaded into register zero and then I stored from register zero. So you would hope it's storing the value you just loaded from memory. But that's not what happens because the store had already read some values from the register file before it got to that point. So it's going to store the previous value from register zero to memory. So I would tend to label this a bug and the next generation, the processor, chose not to do this. But again, the first generation, they called it a feature and they gave it a fancy name. They called it a load delay slot and they said if you do a load, then you must wait at least one instruction before you actually try to use the result of that load. So that's one way of fixing it is to say it's a software problem, it's not hardware that's wrong, it's programmers need to deal with this. They need to find something else to do between the load and the store or they can maybe get a compiler to do it for them. But either way, it's not a hardware problem, definitely not a bug. It's a feature. So now if you disagree with that and you actually want to fix the problem, you could do as we did with the branch and just stall the processor, just wait a bit until the value has made it back to the register file and then you're all good. But the more common one is not to stall and try to maintain a bit of performance. And the reason for that is if you think about it, at the point when I went to execute the store instruction, I had actually already successfully got a value from memory. The only problem was I'd already got a value from somewhere else. And there was no way that the value I had, which by this point was in the right back stage, that little gray mux in the furthest to the right hand side, that's where the value was. And if only I could get it from there into the memory, everything would be good. So let's just add a data path that will do that. Right? So we just add a data path with add another mux to select, which whether to use this forwarded value, this bypassed value, or to use the value we got from registers. So we do that. But there's two inputs to the memory. Well, maybe we should add another forwarding path so that it doesn't matter whether we're using the value we read as an address or as data, either way it's going to work. So that's good. That's fixed it. But unfortunately, there's another bug. It's any use of the value will break things. So if I have a load followed by an add, that will also not work. Same fix works. Just a different data path. So we add another path going a bit further back. It could affect either input of the addition. So add another path. It turns out there's yet another bug, which is an add immediately followed by an add will have the same problem. It takes ages, it takes two whole cycles for the result of an add to get all the way around back to the register file and be ready for an operation. So we can fix that by adding another forwarding path and another forwarding path. And then one more final bug that I could spot in this diagram, which is if we have a load and then we branch to the address that we just loaded, you might do that when you're returning from a function, then you've got another bug. So we add another path. And in each of these cases, if we decide it's too expensive adding an extra data path, then we have the option of stalling in this circumstance. So for each of these potential bugs, we've got a choice of stalling or adding a forwarding path. And then we've got to make a list of all the times we want to stall, all the times we want to use a forwarding path, adding all the control logic to select the right input at the right time or to stall the processor at the right time. And what we end up with is a lot of new corner cases, a lot of different things we need to test. Because there's so many different situations in which this forwarding logic is meant to trigger or not meant to trigger. So back to what tests should we be running? Well, all our single-stage tests, all our two instruction tests, loads followed by pretty much anything, because we're not scared of loads going wrong. And then, well, how long does an instruction sequence have to be before it's guaranteed not to have any new bugs you haven't seen in a shorter sequence? Can you get four instructions to fail? I think you can get five instructions to fail, you know, a chain of five where the last one is the one that goes wrong. So you come up with your guess of how long that sequence can be, and then you try to figure out what would make a sequence interesting and write tests for it. Or again, you rely on formal verification if that's powerful enough to cope with the complexity of the design you're working on. Okay, so that's me. I've now done two rounds around this cycle. So that was something right. That's correct. Break it, but make it really fast. Fix it, then make it even faster and even more broken. Fix that. And hopefully, you now have a working processor because you've got good ways of testing it, good ways of applying formal verification to it. So I'm not going to do any more iterations on processor optimizations. I'm going to think about what's happening with formal verification. So what's going on here? Well, you can think of formal verification as being we start from one point and then we try all possible instructions that could happen next. And then we take another step, and we think of all possible instructions that could follow on from that. And then all possible instructions that could follow on from that. And we kind of keep going like this, doing this sort of bread first exploration. But if any of you have played around with bread first exploration, you'll know that the state space here is just exploding. And eventually, you're going to hit some limit where you just can't explore any deeper, right?  It's going to take another week, another month, whatever to run. So you're kind of stuck at that point. So testing is a good technique as well. And I've been saying formal verification is great, but testing is really good because it has this nice property that you can take your starting point and then just run a big long program and a million cycles later you decide, okay, I've done enough of that. I'll try something else. I'll try something else. I'll just keep trying different things. And I'm not exploring very thoroughly, right? I'm not filling in the screen with solid blocks of color, but I am getting really deep. I'm getting into interesting complicated situations. At least I have my tests for any good. I hope I am. So I've got formal verification, which is bread first. I've got testing, which is depth first. Both really good for finding bugs. But more recently, what we've been doing is switching to our kind of mixed mode where we'll start off with the formal verification, doing that bread first exploration, seeing how deep we can get. But then once we reach whatever the limit is, we then switch to testing. But then we take some of the paths that we've found by testing, and we say, let's do a little formal verification around that. And we try to broaden out around each line. So we're kind of able to fill in more of that search space, get to these deep states, and then search around there. And so we keep doing that for a while. And we gain a lot more confidence, not just that we've searched short sequences really thoroughly, but that we've also seen a lot of depth as well. Okay, so I started off by saying that processors almost always work. And I hope I've given you a bit of a sense just in those simple optimizations I described of why this is actually an amazing thing. Because just going to a five-stage pipeline, things were getting, I think, kind of complicated. And the testing for them is getting complicated. So, and then I talked a lot about how we go back and forth between the designer and the verifier. And at the start, I said the verifier tends to win the fight over kind of how much complexity you're allowed in the processor because you want the thing to work. Using these formal verification techniques, we're able to check processors much more thoroughly. And this lets us shift the balance over so that the designer is able to push much harder towards what he wants to do, which is make the processor fast without making the verifier unhappy about what's going on. So let's see. So just in closing, I've been showing you processor designs from 1985. So just to bring it a bit more up-to-date, if any of you like playing with microcontrollers, this is one of ARM's more recent microcontrollers. It's Cortex-M7. So this is an eight-stage pipeline, so increasing from the five stages we saw earlier. And there's also five separate execution pipelines, instead just being able to do memory and arithmetic. And it can actually issue two instructions in parallel. So it can be two instructions can be executed in every step. And if you remember, from the five-stage pipeline added, what was it? Six, seven separate forwarding paths, so they would be nice and fast and wouldn't have to stall too often. Well, imagine for each pipeline, I'm going to add a number of forwarding paths, probably about maybe about four, six separate forwarding paths for each pipeline. And between pipelines, I'm going to add some forwarding paths as well. So let me just give you a quick glance at roughly what the forwarding paths in the Cortex-M7 looks like. So it's quite complicated. That joke is actually due to one of my colleagues, Will Keen, who came up with that joke. So this is not completely unrealistic. It really is incredibly complicated. I'm trying to make a process out of this complexity that's actually going to be reliable, this design for little embedded systems, or fairly big embedded systems actually. You want it to work. You don't want to have to go and replace it. So correctness really matters. So yeah, so I hope I've given you a bit of a sense of what designing and more importantly verifying cross is like. Thank you very much for your attention and yeah, if you've got any questions. Thank you very much for the talk. What methods do you use to decide when the verification is complete? What have you done your job? So there's a whole load of experience, right? So I think the first ARM process it was designed over 30 years ago. So there's 30 years of experience of just kind of like we did this much last time and we were happy with that or we were unhappy with it. So let's do more or the same. There's a whole load of people who think really hard about it, obviously. There's a classic thing of measure, you know, just the number of bugs and you look at the bug curve and as it starts to tail off, you think you're looking good. So there's a very long kind of soap testing period at the end. With the formal verification, you can also say you can try to come up with a property which when it's true will tell you that there's nothing more interesting to find that all the instructions have made it all the way down the pipeline, for example. And so you can kind of prove that that number is less than seven and then, you know, seven would be the right number to use. So there's a variety of techniques like that. I should actually say I'm actually in the research group. I help the people who were developing this. I did part of the work in developing this formal verification technique, but I'm kind of a fake. You know, the guys who actually do the verification of real processors, they're the heroes I was talking about, not me. Do you think that the recent speculative execution issues have put a greater focus on the formal verification stuff? Have you seen a shift in sort of day to day as a result? I think we'd already reached a point where the traditional testing was kind of at its limit, you know, and it's really important a processor works. If the processor in your phone has a problem, then, you know, we can't change all the software in the app store, right? And it's really expensive to recall phones. So they really have to work. So we're already kind of, you know, an old processor vendors are doing this, you know, pushing really hard for really high quality. It's maybe pushed it a little. I've got an idea of how to use formal verification techniques to look for particular kinds of security holes I'm thinking of applying. But yeah, it's maybe pushed us a little, but we were kind of already there. So how many cycles, subuse cycles, can you actually verify these days with bounded model checking techniques? It varies with which processor you're working on. So I was working on a little two and a half stage pipeline. And there we sometimes get like 80 cycles deep and then we'd kill it because it clearly was never going to find anything else. Others, when I was working in the project, we get stuck at about maybe 10 cycles, 12 cycles. It varies. And what does a cycle mean? Like this processor here is executing two instructions of a cycle. So if it gets, you know, if you can get 10 deep, that's you done 20 instructions. But then again, it's more likely to have problems because it's so complicated. So maybe you really do want to get 20 cycles deep. So in your experience, has a problem got out into the wild and having analyzed that problem when it's out in the real world?  Sort of what's the most embarrassing incident where this has actually happened? So I think we applied this to, we were doing it about three years ago that we were developing this kind of and then that was kind of tailing off over the next year or so. So it's maybe about two years ago that the earliest processors we did this to were finished as far as we were concerned, it then takes another year or so for something to make it in silicon, maybe another six to 12 months for it to actually kind of appear in a package that you can actually buy. So we're about to find out, I guess. Yeah, we do know it finds a lot more bugs. It finds them much earlier, which makes it cheaper to fix them because the cost of fixing a bug goes up exponentially, of course, with the length of time it sits in your code base. So we find them much earlier. We find bugs which we're not sure we would have caught by testing. So we're very happy with it as a technique. But yeah, I think we're still learning how to use it even now. I think that's all the questions. So thank you very much indeed. Else to read. Thank you.


Let me thank all of the students for participating in the essay contest. Thank the parents for driving them here today. This is the 12th year we have done a State of the Union essay contest. And this year I think we had more essays submitted than ever before. We had some 400 plus essays from 38 high schools around the state. That's a lot. And in the last couple of years we were unable to meet in person because of COVID. So I'm delighted that we're here today. And this is the first time we have done the discussions in the Senate chamber. This, as I think all of you know, Vermont has one of the most beautiful state houses in the country. I've seen many state houses. This really is beautiful. And this room is one of my favorite rooms in the whole world. It's really, really nice. I'm delighted that we're able to be here. And I want to thank the legislature for allowing us to use the room. So why do we do this contest? And the reason is that we live in a democratic society, which means, unlike an autocracy or dictatorship, it means that all people have a right to express their views and help shape the direction in which the country goes. And by all people, it doesn't mean that you've got to be 18 or older. It means all people, including young people as well. And sometimes it is especially important, as I think this moment calls for, for young people to be involved. Because so many of the important issues facing our country and the world are going to impact the younger generation even more than the older generation. So what we have tried to do over the years is to get young people thinking about the crises, the problems facing the country. And if they were to give the State of the Union address, as the President of the United States does every year, what would they say? If you got up there in front of the Congress as of the case and before tens of millions of Americans were watching on TV, what is the State of the Union? What are the problems that we face? Where should we be going? How do you bring people together? So that's kind of what we've asked young people and we've had some wonderful, wonderful essays. And we have asked an independent group of Vermont teachers. We at my office had nothing to do with determining who won or not. Just teachers who read all of the essays that came up with their determination. And that's where we are today. So today we have the 10 top winners, which does not mean to say there are some wonderful essayists who are not here. But the top ten, as judged by the teachers, are here, including the top three, who are with me right now. So what we're gonna do is this. I'm gonna ask each of the finalists, the top ten, to speak for two or three minutes, and I want them to speak not just on their essay. I want them to do that. But I also want them to go a little bit broader and to imagine themselves. If you're up there on the podium in the very beautiful House of Representatives in Washington, and you're speaking to the nation, what are the other issues that are going on? Right now this is a very unusual moment in American and world history. So many things are going on. But I want you to go into your hearts. Don't tell me what your teachers say or don't tell me what was on TV yesterday. But what you assess as young people to be the problems facing this country. So take up to two or three minutes. This is informal, we'll have a discussion. I want people to comment on what other people say. I'll ask you some hard questions. I'm gonna play devil's advocate, ask you to defend your positions. So that's it. So thank you very much. And we're just gonna go right down, my staff put this in order. So I'll give you the order here. And that is, we're gonna start with Sarah, a Sasha land. Then we're gonna go to Eva Frazier. Then we're gonna go to Sam Leggett, and they're up here with me. Then we'll go to Jackson Bennett. Then we're gonna go to Penelope Dorset. Then we're gonna go to Jocelyn Dunn. Then we're gonna go to Samantha Hieselman. Then we're gonna Anna Pringle. Then we're gonna Isabel Tupor. Then we're gonna Luna Wood, and that's it. So with that, let's start off with the young lady who got the top of what, and I should also mention to you guys that we're gonna be publishing all of your essays in the Congressional Record. And the Congressional Record is, in a sense, the official record of the United States government, I think going way back when, when the country was first formed. So you're gonna be part of American history, you'll be there in the record. I think we have a special little gift for you after the discussions are over. And also, if anyone wants to do a photograph afterwards, we'll do that as well. So with that, let's begin, Sasha, and why don't you take two or three minutes to talk about your essay, and generally speaking, what you perceive to be some of the issues facing the country, take it away. Hold the mic as close as you can. So I did my essay on voting rights and voter suppression, and I think it's an issue that has really been becoming apparent in the past few years, especially around and after the 2020 election. There's been waves of anti-voting legislation that makes it harder for people to vote that strengthens. ID requirements restricts mail-in voting, even when many citizens still struggle to get to polls. And most, like this proportionate amount of the negative effects from this legislation also falls on BIPOC communities, as well as young voters. And I think it's a very big issue, the fact that so many Americans are able to vote because of these restrictions that are put in place, supposedly to counteract voter fraud, even though it has been proven that it's not nearly as big as an issue that warrants such restrictive measures against voting and people's ability to vote. So I think that one needs to be done is that there needs to be legislation to ensure voting rights to protect people's ability to vote and make sure that voting is an accessible thing that people can do, even if they can't get to polling stations or if they're not registered, it should be a lot easier than it already is to vote because it's such an important process in our country and it dictates how the country is run, who runs the country. So I think that there needs to be legislation. I think that voting day should be a national holiday so that people can vote. I think that voting on Sundays should be allowed, especially since that's another thing that disproportionately affects BIPOC communities and restricts them from being able to vote. And then there's also the issue of incarcerated people or people who aren't able to vote because they have or previously were a felon or still aren't able to vote even after they've served their sentence. So I don't think that this should be that people who have already served their sentence in prison should be unable to vote, should be unable to have a say in their country. And I think that, especially now, being able to have a voice is so important and it's important for people to know that their vote counts as well. So I think that is one of the biggest issues that we're facing right now and probably will be continuing to face in some form as long as the country stands. Sasha, thank you very much. Good job. Eva Frazier at, I should mention, Sasha from Brattle Roy Union High School. Eva Frazier is from CVU, Champlain Valley Union High School. Rise of waves of anti-abortion laws across the country. I chose to write my essay on reproductive health care and the access to reproductive health care. There has been multiple drastic barbaric laws in many other states, and including the cutting of funding to services like Planned Parenthood that provide really crucial health care services outside of abortion services in the country. I may feel this is a really pressing issue because it impacts hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in America. And as the number of states that passed these laws rises fueled by seeing other states do so, we will see a drastic rise in number of women who die of unsafe abortions, who are not able to get the reproductive health care that they are entitled to as their own bodily human right, and an increase in number of people having unwanted pregnancies that often results in loss of educational opportunities, economic opportunities strained to our public support services, et cetera. In addition to reproductive health care, I think some of the other most pressing issues in this country right now are obviously racial justice. We are seeing lots of inequity in pretty much every level of society from education to incarceration, healthcare access. I think the COVID-19 pandemic has really amplified a lot of the issues currently facing the United States that were able to be masked prior with the higher death rates of BIPOC Americans highlighting the lack of equity in our healthcare and support services in the United States. Also, obviously we have foreign affairs, including the war on Ukraine and our relationships with other countries, and I think we need to be a strong defender of human rights across the world, but starting within our own country as we are currently failing hundreds of thousands of people as these abortion laws are passed. I would suggest that the United States repeals the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits government funding, including Medicaid and Medicare, to be used on healthcare services, including abortion, in addition to passing laws that would enshrine the right to abortion at the national Senate level. In the United States, in Vermont, we are making steps with Prop 5, which would guarantee the right to abortion in Vermont's constitution, which would make us the first state to do so, and that will be on the ballot this fall. More states should move towards through that, but we as a national government have a responsibility to our citizens to protect bodily autonomy. Okay, Eva, thank you very much. Good job. Sam Leggett is from Woodstock Union High School. I chose to write my essay on food and security and specifically how it is worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, and more specifically, the continued implementation of universal school meals on a federal level following the era of COVID. So similar to many other issues that our country faces, food insecurity was only worsened by the pandemic. Even in Vermont, it was worsened, and the USDA, as a temporary measure, implemented universal school meals nationwide, so every student has access to free breakfast and free lunch during their school day. And the problem is that right now that's still a temporary measure, and it won't persist after COVID, it will actually end this year unless legislation is passed soon. So I was inspired by Senate Bill 100, which is currently going through the Vermont State House. And Senate Bill 100 is basically legislation that will do exactly this. Starting next year, students will have access to free breakfast during the school day because of this bill. And I think starting in 2024 or 2025, they'll have access to free lunch as well. Yeah. Okay. Sam, thank you very much. Okay. Our next essayist is Penelope. And by the way, if people feel comfortable when they're talking, they can take their mask off. I think everybody, my husband tested, who's here. If not keeping on, that's okay. My next speaker is Penelope. The Rosent. I hope I got that right. Penelope, did I get it right? Wasn't even close. All right. You were close. All right. Someone once said to me, you know, anyone who's not a man does not explicitly have equal rights in the United States Constitution. And no, in fact, I did not know that. So recently I did some research and I found out that there was an amendment proposed in 1923 called the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have explicitly granted equal rights under the law to all genders. But alas, it was not ratified before the time limit. It has, I think, recently gained the number of states required to ratify it. And I think waving the time limit would be the best option. Because there really is a need for this amendment. Last year was a record year in anti-abortion legislation. And women's rights, laws protecting women's rights are consistently reduced, restricted, just eroded by legislators and judges. And I think that by providing an explicit constitutional stance against gender discrimination, that would solve a lot of the problems that women and just everyone who's not a man is facing in this country as a result of gender discrimination. Thank you very much, good job. Okay, our next speaker is Jocelyn Dunn from Essex High School, Jocelyn. I decided to write my essay on recent political shifts that have been threatening the future of Roe v. Wade. I think that everyone in this country deserves rights, reproductive rights and access to abortion. And recently the Supreme Court has been looking at cases that are directly targeting the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. And in my essay, I offered a solution of there should be, in the Senate right now, pending is a Women's Health Protection Act. And the Women's Health Protection Act would create a statutory right for healthcare providers to provide healthcare services and then kind of a continuous right for people to receive those services. I think that right now it's imperative that people have the right to bottle the autonomy for their mental health and yeah. And I think that passing the Women's Health Protection Act and will provide a solution to the issue. Okay, Jocelyn, thanks very much. Our next speaker is Samantha. Hope I'm pronouncing it right. Hazelman at Bells Free Academy, Fairfax. Samantha? So I wrote my essay on the opioid crisis and what inspired me to write my essay on this is because I have a very personal experience with this. Samantha, can you speak a little bit about it? Yeah, absolutely. So I have a very personal experience to this topic. My mom actually has had an addiction for 12 years now and because of her addiction, she, I watched her struggle on a daily basis but also the support and resources that were given to her, they weren't really helping her at all. And as I got older and I got more educated about this topic, because I was very passionate about it, I realized that there's a lot that could be done and there's a lot that could have really helped her. And just on like a whole wide of this topic, it affects children, it affects families and it causes an emotional and physical economic struggle for all of these individuals. And I think that we really need to focus on the resources and focus on the access and make sure they're strengthened because I mean, to be honest, the system is very, these systems for these individuals are fragile and they're not really built on a solid foundation and I feel like we need to be able to make sure the access is able to help them but also resources are being able to be accessed and it's affordable for these individuals because truly no one chooses to be an addict, like no one chooses to lose their children, no one chooses to be sick all the time. So I think that we need to be by these individual sides and be like, we're here for you and acknowledge and encourage and just recognize these individuals that have made it through their addiction and are in their recovery and make that known for them. Pardon me? Oh, did he, I'm sorry, Jackson. All right, thank you, it's an honor to be here. All right, my essay was on plastic pollution and it's clear that it's a major problem in our society today. Some not so fun facts to put this into context are 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste is being added to landfills daily and yearly the amount of plastics in landfills can circle the earth four times and that plastic doesn't just disappear. Plastic can take between 400 and 1,000 years to degrade. So what can we do about it? I believe that there should be some sort of government run incentive program to switch to plastic alternatives. These alternatives include bamboo, seaweed, wood, cloth and for non biodegradable multi-use substances we can always use stainless steel and glass. From one of my sources, Earth Easy, finding alternatives to common items like plastic bottles and plastic packaging is becoming increasingly easier. I have faith that at some point we will make the switch to plastic alternatives but individuals are unlikely to solve the problem on their own. To that end, I think the government should do something about it. A statewide or nationwide ban might be too harsh without economical cushioning and might negatively impact small businesses. So I propose taxing plastic and using the money gain to invest in plastic alternatives making the switch economically easier. This should eventually be followed up with a ban and I did not touch on this point in my essay but I would like to add that a great first step has been the plastic bag ban which the majority of Vermonter support. Jackson, thank you very much. Our next speaker is Anna Pringle at Essex High School. Yeah, so I wrote my essay on mental health. We were right about to do our mental health unit in AP Lane and I think that people don't prioritize their mental health enough and I wrote about loneliness from COVID. COVID has had such a huge impact on everyone's mental health of all ages and I think that we should focus more on it. It affects our daily lives, how we feel, how we act, how we sleep and in Netherlands they created this 24-7 loneliness hotline and they also made these chart registers where in grocery stores the workers will make small talk with the customers and make them feel like they have friends and I think that we should in America raise more awareness and bring more attention to the mental health topic. Because I think that's very important. Thank you very much. Isabel Topper is at Barber World Union High School. Isabel?  I chose to write about this topic because it's very current and suicide rates are increasing rapidly and in the last two years anxiety and depression symptoms have more than tripled and this number just keeps increasing so therefore we have to pay attention to it if we want that to slow down at all and I think a lot of people are unaware of how pressing an issue this really is and I'll admit that before writing this essay I too was very unaware of the suicide rates increasing and the tragedy that came along with black mental health care and the lack of BIPOC mental health professionals and so I really took this essay as an opportunity not only to educate myself but to inform other people of the attention that this issue really needs. Moving forward, I believe that black mental health care needs to become a priority by mental health being included in insurance, health insurance and it needs to be affordable and schools should also hire school-based clinicians specifically members of the BIPOC community who can sympathize and empathize with their BIPOC students' experiences so that those people have an outlet to go to and so that they don't feel the need to isolate themselves and lastly I think it's really important that everyone in our society has open honest conversation about this topic so that we can break this stigma and support black people in our lives and all people improve that mental health is important no matter your risk. Okay, thank you very much, Isabel. I think our last speaker is, Luna is not here, okay then. Okay, let me thank all of the speakers who are doing a great job and Sasha. No good deed goes unpunished. You're first, so I'm gonna ask you the first question. Are you ready? Yeah. All right, I wanna eliminate, I'm playing a devil's advocate here. I think all of us believe that elections should be done honestly. We want people who are entitled to vote to vote. What's the problem with voter ID? I think that the main problem with voter ID is that it's much too hard to be able to register for one and that many people are turned, I think, sorry, many people are turned down because they don't have a voter ID because of the obstacles that they have to face to get a voter ID. And I think that either it should be able to be easier to get one, to be able to register securely or to loosen the requirements altogether in a way that still ensures safety of elections but doesn't require people to jump through so many hoops just to be able to vote. All right, for everybody else, jump in on this discussion. Democracy, the attacks on democracy, is that a serious issue? What is the best recourse? What is the problem with voter ID? Pick up on what Sasha said. Anybody have any thoughts on that? Don't be shy. I will call on people if you don't raise your hand. I'm happy to go. Okay. Adding on to what Sasha said about voter ID, voter ID laws really specifically target low income and bypass communities who face the most voter disenfranchisement. And I fully agree with Sasha in that, well, voter ID may be a good idea when you think about it at first but due to like racial policies back to our country sounding, voter ID has really just been used as voter suppression. If we change how we do voter ID and make it much more accessible, Vermont I feel like has a pretty good job of doing voter registration and we don't require voter ID but many people in other states do not have the same opportunities. I think Vermont does a good job but we should move to do that nationally. All right. More discussion on the issue of democracy. I really liked what Sasha and Eva said and I also think that there's an issue with which Sasha touched on in their essay. There's an issue with the ableism of not allowing mail-in voting or like early voting and disabled people may not be able to get their voice heard and they're citizens too. It's important for their voices to be heard in this democracy. Okay. In terms of voter ID, I want you to stay on that one for a moment. So what is the problem? I got the Vermont license, driver's license in my pocket. I got ID. So what's your problem? What's your problem? I think that part of this issue arises in the trans community because many people have an ID before the transition that they might not feel identifies with their current identity or gender and oftentimes due to prices or just time they're unable to get an updated ID that they identify with more. And so if someone looks at that ID and doesn't immediately see the person in the picture as the person standing before them, it prevents them from being able to vote. Okay. All right, let's move. We've got other topics to go into Eva. Give me the other side of the story. You think women should have the right to control their own bodies, right? Yeah. I don't see laws passed to that degree, but there are many, many states in the country which are moving in the other direction. Be a spokesperson for the opposition point of view. I feel like a great deal of the opposition comes from religious beliefs and the imposition of religion into politics in government, state governments that are heavily dominated by specific religious ideologies and religious parties. Obviously our first amendment protects the right to religion, but not the right to force your religion on others. But I think that's where a large amount of anti-abortion sentiment comes from, from religious movements that have mobilized specifically around abortion, decreeing that as a sin and violating people's personal beliefs. All right, let me stay on that theme. You are a legislator from Texas, from Mississippi and you voted for very strict laws regarding abortion. Tell me what you're saying. Who wants to defend that point of view? Well, at least tell me what that point of view is. It's important that we know the other side of the story. Jocelyn, you wanted to learn? I'm not going to go to the bottom of any. But time restrictions on waiting periods to go to the top. Jocelyn, thanks. Okay, Sam, I am a taxpayer. Why do I have to worry about people who may be having some financial difficulties? I'm going to worry about my own family. What do I have to worry about other people? When it's in the case of Universal School Mule, this should be experiencing things that limit them from, or they're told from getting nutritious or having access to food. For those parents, the tax-paying burden shouldn't be on them because they already have enough of a burden on themselves. And the only way to achieve this equitably would be to spread the burden out among everyone so that everyone contributes a little bit and the people who need these resources the most aren't hit the hardest with a big tax hike. Let me expand on that question and I want others to jump in. Is eliminating hunger or childhood hunger in America? A social issue or is it a personal issue? Why don't people take care of themselves, feed their own families, who wants to jump in on that one? Thoughts? The social issue, the children of our country are the future of our country and their health is important to future decisions being made because if they're not here, they're not healthy, then there's no future of our country. Well, let me expand that question. If making sure the children don't go hungry, that's what you're saying, see that as a social issue, where does it end? Should we guarantee health care to all people next? Who wants to jump in on that one? Yes, we should guarantee health care to all people next. Okay, why? Because the health of the community of all American citizens is important to the country. Right now, with health care prices as they are, our lowest income communities are almost being abandoned by their country. And they should feel as though they are valued by the American government as much as the richer and upper class citizens. Okay, let me ask you a question, so if you know the answer, how many major industrialized countries in the world do not guarantee health care to all people? Anyone know the answer to that? Any of you know the answer to that?  What's the story in Canada? Do you think everybody has health care? They do. What about Germany? Do you think everybody has health care? Finland? Norway, Sweden, UK? Yeah. So the answer is you are living in the only country on earth, major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people. We spend far more of the person on health care than any other country. We've got over 85 million people who are either uninsured or underinsured. But all of that raises a very broad philosophical and political issue, which is at the heart of a lot of what goes on in Washington. People think, why are these guys always yelling at each other? But there is a very fundamental divide that has just to do with this. And that is, and I want you to discuss this. There are two points of view. One point of view, more conservative point of view says, okay, listen, I wish everybody well, but my main obligation is to take care of my own family. I'm working hard. Want to make sure my kids can go to college. I want to make sure my family eats well. That's my business. And I don't want to worry about your family. And there's another view that says, well, you know, maybe as a nation we are a big family and for a variety of reasons, all people are entitled to human rights, like the right not to go hungry, hungry, or the right to have health care, or the right to have a good education. Those are the divides. All right, I want, in this state, this is a more liberal state than most, but I want somebody to start off with a more conservative point of view. Defend the conservative point of view. Defend the position that says I work hard. I'm worried about my family. I wish everybody well, but I don't want to make sure the other kids, and I don't want to pay taxes for other kids to go to college. I got to worry about my own kid going to college. Give me an answer to that. Defend that, we'll give me an answer then. Anyone want to pick up on that point of view? Jackson, hold the mic close to your face. First of all, we live in a capitalist society where each person is in charge of their own needs. And when I think about it, that's kind of how democracy works. When you have people from all different walks of life, races, genders, all of that, it works by each individual person kind of putting forth this is what I need from society. And then we do what is best for everyone, or at least try to. Good. Okay, other thoughts on this? Let me rephrase the question, for example, in terms of healthcare. Why should we worry about healthcare for all rather than just worrying about healthcare for our families? What's the argument there? Samantha, you want to take a shot at them? Well, I think because we should be worried about that because we have all these different things in our society that is affecting, again, for the hunger. If children are going hungry, then it affects their health. And that can be your neighbor or that could be a family member. So I think it's really important that people, healthcare is easily access to everybody and it's fair to everybody because then, because no one, like no one asked to get a sickness. No one asked to be sick or any of that. So, yeah. Okay. Now, an issue that you guys have not gone into, really, in your essays is why not? Sam, you write about the need for children to be well fed and not go hungry. Yeah, so, why aren't we doing it? Now, we have done it, to some degree, in recent legislation, which I, among other people, play an active role in, but why isn't that permanent? Why is the nation, are we even talking about children going hungry? What's the reason for that? Is because the people, the children, the people like us who are most affected by it, how are we gonna have a say in it? We're not the ones with the choice to vote for this kind of legislation. We do have a great voice, which everyone can see here today, but we don't have the direct right, or the direct ability to vote for these kinds of things. Okay, what I wanna get at here, and I want you to think about it, and that's something you don't learn a lot about in school, I think, I'll see on TV too often. There are reasons why.  There are reasons why things happen and they don't happen. Why, for example, are we the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare for? Is it just something nobody has thought of? Oh gee, that's a good idea too, that I didn't think of it. Fine. It's very expensive to do so, and we are, people don't want to impose huge taxes on their constituents, which will cause them a loss in elections. I think members of Congress can be scared to pass a really big spending bill and have constituents upset about spending taxes on something that doesn't directly impact them. No. Thank you. Congratulations to our lobbying Congress who would not benefit from universal healthcare. Well, question of not benefiting, what would happen to them? What is the nature of the healthcare system right now? It's private. Mostly private, not at all. Who knows about the healthcare system, does Medicaid private or public? Yeah, it's public. It's public. Most people who have healthcare on their job have it through private insurance companies like Blue Cross, Blue Shield, United, or other major insurance companies. Anybody know how much money the insurance companies made last year? Many, many billions of dollars, actually, business is very, very good. What about the cost of prescription drugs? Anyone have any thoughts on that? He's increasing. What? He's increasing. Okay, do you think everybody can afford prescription drugs in America? I think it's rare that someone can afford prescription drugs in America. Well, about one out of four people get their prescription and can't afford to fill it. Why is that? Why do we have such high prices? They're private companies and they can raise them how they want. All right, see what I'm trying to get you guys to think about, which is not on TV very often, is to understand the forces in society which create what exists, all right? So if we pay, in some cases, 10 times more for insulin, which I don't know if anybody here is diabetic, but insulin is a very widely used drug in America, very expensive here, and I made a trip a couple of years ago to Canada with some folks from the Midwest that's where we bought the same exact insulin product for one-tenth the prices we paid in, in that case, Detroit. How does that happen? How does that happen where the only major country not to guarantee healthcare at all? Some of you guys, I suspect all of you are thinking about going to college, right? Probably some of you, depending on the finances of your family, are worried about the cost of college. So question is, if you were in Germany now or in Finland, or a number of other countries, how much does college cost? Sasha, do you know? It is. Now, I just talked to some doctors yesterday at UVM Medical Center, young people. They're residents, and some of them are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Now, some of you, I don't know the financial backgrounds of your families, but I suspect some of you, when you leave school, college or graduate school, be deeply in debt. Meanwhile, we've recently given huge tax breaks to billionaires and some of the very richest people in this country don't pay a nickel in federal taxes. Not a nickel. How does that happen? Give me some good explanations, yeah. Anna, how does that happen? Well, I think that the rich people who don't pay taxes. Could we speak a little bit louder, please? Sorry, the people who don't pay taxes are very wealthy and elite, and so they have a lot of power in society, and they have a lot of connections, and with those connections, they make it so that they don't have to pay taxes. Now, just to give you, I want to stay on that point, because it's a very important point which we don't discuss terribly much. I raised the issue of prescription drugs through something I've personally been working on for many, many years. In the last year alone, the drug companies spent $300 million on lobbying. You know what lobbying is? All right, that means they hire very sophisticated, former elected officials, leaders of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, to convince them not to do anything to lower the cost of prescription drugs. $300 million, but that is kind of chump change given the profits that they make, because they make tens of billions of dollars in profits, so it's like a nickel or a dime. All right, talk about that, and then take that issue to the broader issue of elections. How does money impact elections? Now, Sasha says that we should ease up, and we should make it easier for people to vote. And in Vermont, by the way, in recent years, we have come a long way. It wasn't always that easy, but Vermont has come a long way, and we have virtually no voter fraud. I'm not aware of any voter fraud, as a matter of fact, and yet we make it easier for people to vote. But what about elections? You guys want to run for president of the United States? You want to run for the U.S. Senate? Where do you get your money? And what impact does that have on everything that we're talking about, Eva? Do you want to say we're on that? Yeah, the act there, the ruling of Citizens United, which allowed super PACs to form and put so much money into politics, so hard to run a campaign without a lot of money from donors who are also able to really influence their lobbying, the issues that get addressed. Okay, good. More discussion on is it if we talk about democracy, and Sasha again wants everybody right to vote, so let's assume that happens, okay? We have very liberal voting laws. We encourage people to vote, make it easier for people to vote, but if I run against you, Sasha, and I have 20 times more money than you do, you think you're gonna beat me? No, I'm not. You're not, because I will have ads on television from morning to night and hire all kinds of people. So what do we do about that? So you're interested in democracy, right? All right, is this a part of the discussion about democracy? Definitely. All right, we'll tell me what we're gonna do about it. I think Eva had some good ideas. What do you got? The issue is money in politics. All right, who has some ideas? Samantha, you got ideas in it? Give me some solutions here. How do we prevent certain people from buying elections? The amount of money that corporations are allowed to donate? Well, corporations themselves are right now not allowed to donate, but they get around that by doing it, as Eva said, to a super PAC. And what a super PAC is about is basically a wide open secretive process that somebody can put $100 million into without getting his or her name known. And that money is supposed to be independent. It goes to a PAC, which is supposed to be independent of the candidate, but that really doesn't mean anything because they'll be running ads for the candidate or doing what they want. What is the antidote to that? All right, putting limits is one thing and there was some effort. That's what Citizens United basically overturned. Are you guys familiar with the Citizens United? Supreme Court decision, that's a very big deal. And it was a very destructive Supreme Court decision, in my opinion. But what are some states doing as an alternative trying to get around that in the right way? Any other way of thoughts? Well, some states trying to do is move toward public funding of elections. So in Maine, for example, and the very New York City, for example, you can, if you can receive a certain number, a large number of small grants to show the small contributions, to show that you have a certain level of support, then public funding kicks in. So your campaign, there'll be a limit on what you can spend, but you can run a strong campaign. In Maine, I think they do that fairly successfully. That's one of the antidotes to that. All right, if I were to do a poll in the state of Vermont today, and I would say to the people of Vermont, what are the major issues that you are concerned about? What do you think the answer would be? The war in Ukraine? It'll be an issue, not the major issue. I don't think it would be, certainly in the last month of Google, seeing that horrible war, it would be on people's minds, probably not the main issue. Let's see, Jocelyn, what do you think the major issue would be? American citizens are concerned with? People in Vermont, America. Taxes? Not precisely, no, I don't think so. But in general, what would the issue be? The taxes are part of it, but the border issue, what would it be? Do you have any thoughts? The economy is general. That's exactly right, why? People need to pay their bills, or pay their fee, and pay their water, get it after their car. That's right, okay, now we're talking. All right, is that an issue? Everybody in Vermont have all kinds of money, you don't have to worry about things like paying the water bill, the electric bill, or paying for their little phones. Everybody doing just great? What's the story? Jocelyn, everybody doing great? You do, okay. People agree with Jocelyn, everybody in Vermont doing just great? Sasha, everybody doing great? From what I know, I shouldn't say so, I think that there's a lot of people struggling. Now what happens if I told you, that nationally, and I don't know how different it is in Vermont, I don't know that it's radically different. Nationally, half of the people in this country live what we call paycheck to paycheck. And I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck. What does that mean? Isabel, what does living paycheck to paycheck mean? It means that you have to spare your money as much as possible, because you don't have the privilege of spending money whenever you want to. And if you don't have, say, you miss one paycheck, you lose your ability to pay all of your bills, to support your families, to support yourselves, et cetera. It means that if your kid gets sick and ends up in the hospital, you're probably gonna go into debt, have to borrow money at very high interest rates in order to pay the medical bill. That's what it means. That is half the people in America. Why don't we talk about that more often? Half the people are living paycheck to paycheck and what we have seen during the pandemic. What have we seen during the pandemic which kind of makes that issue even more clear? More of that. Sam? During the pandemic, the most rich people in our country have only gotten more wealthy. And I think that in a broader sense, what you're talking about is there's those people who are living paycheck to paycheck, although there's a great number of them because of that they aren't the people who have the most power in our country. What has the pandemic kind of made even clearer than what's previously seen? Eva? In equities. In what sense? That with unemployment due to the pandemic or loss of child care, people's hardest hit have been below the income. Why didn't it get? What is even more dramatic? What's taken place during the pandemic? Even more dramatically. The answer is that many, many, many, many thousands of people have died. Why did they die? Because they had to go to work in a grocery store or drive a bus or maybe be a nurse in a hospital and they contracted COVID. But if you can sit home in your computer, with your computer and do your work at home, the likelihood that you get COVID is less. So you can get it. Everybody gets, every group of people gets COVID. But by definition, when you're out with large numbers of people as many workers are, it is more likely that you'll get it. And in fact, tens of thousands of workers have died precisely because they have to go to work. They don't have that choice. So why don't we talk about that more often? Clam, why don't we talk about that issue more often? Why didn't anybody write an essay saying, my God, thousands of people died because they were forced to go to work because if they didn't go to work, they wouldn't be able to feed their families. Because everyone in the country really relies on those people. You know, it's not my question. Is that an issue?  Your family can go hungry. You go to work and you may get sick. How's that for a- It's really only one option, I think. Okay, many people have to do that. But what I'm getting at is there are issues that we are comfortable about talking about which is acceptable. Issues that we're not so comfortable about talking about. Why is that? Who knows about income and wealth inequality? Is that an issue? Anyone know anything about it? Sam, you know something about it? What am I talking about when I talk about income and wealth inequality? About the economic gap in the country? Yeah, tell me about it. About how... I'm sorry, I don't know the exact percentage, but the top 1% wealthiest people in our country control the majority of the world. Who else wants to jump in on that issue? Penelope, you know anything about it? Like the people who are most affected by this are the ones who you're least likely to hear from in politics, in the media, in whatever. So you really, you have to work harder to like see these inequalities, even if they're so evident in such a large percentage of the population. Jackson, thoughts on income and wealth inequality? I don't really know too much about that. So I'm gonna pass. Okay, fair enough. All right, well my concern is that a lot of people don't know, as Jackson just said. But if I were to tell you, now when you watch the television and you hear about the terrible war that's taking place in Ukraine, it is a horror, it is literally unspeakable. Very often we talk about Russian oligarchs. Have you heard that expression? What does that mean, Russian oligarchs? Who wants, anyone know anything about that? What does that mean? The top few wealthiest, most influential officials and people in Russia? Right, what it is, what it speaks to is that in Russia, you have, well without going into great discussion here, something like a kleptocracy, which is a nation which the people on top have simply stolen a lot of the natural resources of the people after the breakup of the Soviet Union. See a lot of crooked, it's like a mafia running the country. Putin is a part of that. And they're incredibly wealthy. Putin himself is thought to be maybe the wealthiest person in the world, but we don't know that. Is there an American oligarchy who has thoughts on that? What do you think, what do you think? Yes, I think there are some families and people in America who control so much of the money the heads of the pharmaceutical companies and other extremely wealthy, you're in that. If I were to tell you that two families in America own more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American people, it's about 130 million versus two, wouldn't that shock you? That's the reality. Is that an issue of importance? Why is it that we don't discuss it much? Jaisal? I think there's a stigma around it. It makes people uncomfortable to talk about. And kind of going back to what everyone was talking about with the wealthiest people having the most power in our country, it makes it harder for the people who are actually affected to have a say in things that are happening. Okay, you guys have done great. Do you have any questions you wanna ask me? Don't be shy. So Ashley, any questions for me? Okay, Jaisal? You know, in the Senate, is voting on the Women's Health Protection Act? I should know, I don't know, but it has been discussed. And what that will be about is simply the codification of Roe versus Wade and will lose. We'll have no Republican support and several Democrats will vote against it. But it's a vote that should be cast that's for all the reasons that we've heard today. It's a very important vote. Other questions for me? If you had to name your first topic of concern at the moment, what would that be? Well, you can't do one, of course, there are so many. For example, I know, as people who've written essays have written about climate change, and if we don't get a handle on that, I worry very much that the planet that will be in existence when you guys have kids will be increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable. God knows what the planet looks like a hundred years from now. So that's obviously a huge issue. The issue that we have discussed that Sasha wrote about, whether or not you're a Democratic society all over the world, there has been a movement toward authoritarianism. That's what Trump represents in this country. Where people have so much given up on government, government does not do a particularly good job in responding to the needs of people. When people say, well, I'm tired of seeing all these jerks on television, they don't do anything. Well, we need some strong guy who'll make things happen. And they decide usually what you do is divide people up and the strong guy goes after minorities and people of color or people who were born in another country and would support doing that. So that worries me. What worries me is the issue of power. In fact, that so many people are hurting, but they are powerless. No one listens to them, me, it doesn't report about them. Government doesn't respond to their needs. But if you try to tell the drug companies to lower their prices, they will spend many hundreds of millions of dollars in an effective way knowing how to fight back. If you say to the richest guy in the country to start paying his fair share of taxes, he knows how to fight back and prevent that from happening. So that ties into an economy that works very well for the people on top. Not so well for farmers in Vermont who are losing their farms, workers who are making 10, 15, 20 bucks an hour, it's hard to survive on that. So, and then obviously that was happening in Russia now, we worry about international stability and whether or not we can prevent a nuclear war or a third world war and leave you at the types of terrible suffering that's taking place, not only in Ukraine now, but in countries all over the world. So the question is, can you bring the world together to deal with things like the pandemic? Difficulty that you have now with issues like climate and the pandemic, these are global issues. The United States government did everything right tomorrow in terms of COVID, in terms of climate, couldn't solve the problem. It has to be done globally. It's gonna hard to be doing, do these things globally if you're in the middle of a cold war where there's not cooperation among the major countries. So I worry about that now. Have I gotten you sufficiently pessimistic? All right. Okay, other questions for me. So what is your plans and your hopes for combating the opioid crisis? And thank you for raising that issue, Samantha. It is a very big issue in Vermont. It's a very big issue in many states in the country. I have my thoughts, but I wanna throw it back to you and other people. This issue of addiction that you touched on, that you are honest enough and strong enough to talk about your own family. Addiction is a incredibly difficult problem. And I think you raised that issue. Nobody wants to be separated from their children. Nobody wants to be as desperate as people who are addicted aren't. It's certainly opioids, alcohols and addiction, cigarettes are an addiction. Some people are incredibly obese. They can't stop eating. That's an addiction. Let's talk. I'm gonna do my best to answer your question, but I wanna throw it open. What are some of the causes that you think of addiction? And this is deep stuff. And by the way, nobody has the answer. You don't have the answer. I don't have the answer. Nobody does. But even amazingly enough, even before COVID, which has lowered life expectancy in the country because so many people have died, we were seeing the decline in certain parts of the country of life expectancy because of opioids, overdoses, because of alcoholism, because of suicides. So I'm gonna do my best to answer Samantha's very good question, but I wanna throw it out to you, Anna. Why are we seeing so many people turning to drugs, getting hooked on drugs, hooked on alcohol, and into addictive, destructive behavior? We get to you, Sam, but Anna, then Sam. I think that mental health has a major impact in addiction. People can't get the help they need, and they turn to drugs and alcohol and food to make them feel better, and then it turns into an addiction because it does make them feel better in the moment, but in the long run. Good, very good. Okay, Sam. That's exactly what I was gonna say. I was gonna say that mental health is a big part of it, and a lot of the most addictive and the most dangerous drugs that exists are over-manufactured and over-prescribed. That's right, that's right. There are studies out there that in certain West Virginia has been hit very hard, and there are small, tiny little towns with zillions of pills were coming into the town, and the drug companies certainly knew what was going on, and addiction was good business for them, actually. And God knows how many hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result. I did a town hall meeting maybe two years ago in Burlington High School with the kids, and it gets to a point that Anna wrote about, which is not unrelated to this whole issue, and that is the issue of loneliness, isolation. How does that relate to, do you think, addiction? Do you think some young people might turn to drugs as a result? I do, I think that with COVID and quarantining and isolation, people don't have anyone to talk to, and so they don't really feel like themselves, and so they turn to drugs instead of like friends. I'm gonna get it back to Samantha who raised the issue, but Sasha, thoughts on this? I think that a lot of the issue with addiction can also be tied to low-income communities especially, and then that can also be connected to mental health, declining mental health, and also it affects bad talk communities especially, and I think that, I know that Samantha raised in her essay, there's a lack of resources for people who struggle with these so it makes it harder for people to get out of these addictions too. Okay, let me try to answer Samantha's question. Historically, what we have done in this country, I can't speak to what goes on in other countries, what we have said is if you break your leg, if you have cancer, you have a healthcare issue, and you're gonna be COVID, right? But if you're struggling emotionally, well that's something else, that's not quite an illness. What do you think about that? Should we be separating mental illness from physical illness? Eva? That we as a society must address mental health and mental illness just as we address physical illness in order to... So mental illness should be considered an illness like cancer? Yes, you don't have a control over that. Okay, good. Thoughts on people agree should mental illness be considered as a general illness to be dealt with like cancer or broken leg or something? Okay. So mental illness can have, just as a detrimental effect of any physical illness, and in fact, a lot of mental illnesses also have very physical effects, and mental illnesses can profoundly affect people's lives to the point where not only does it like hinder their ability to function, but it also, you know, like addiction, it makes them vulnerable to more dangers that can also lead to putting their lives in danger. All right, so Samantha, I'm gonna tell you what I think in general, and then I'm gonna throw it back to you and you help me out here. A, of course, I think that mental health issues should be considered as part of health issues. And I think that health care should be universal and in fact is in many other countries free. That health care is a right and that people should feel comfortable about getting the help they need and be able to get the help they need regardless of their income. All right, that exists in some countries. Certainly does not exist in this country.  And they say, well, it's a very high copayment or deductible and I couldn't afford it.  Terms of mental illness is a nation we don't buy any means now and I don't think this, and I should tell you that we are now putting billions and billions of dollars into mental health care. But right now, we are not prepared. We don't have enough counselors. We don't have enough psychiatrists. In this state, we lack child psychiatrists in a very bad way. Right now, to give you an example of how crazy the situation is. If you are in Burlington and you go to the largest hospital in the state, which is UEM Medical Center, my guess is that right now they probably have 10, 20 people in beds in that hospital who should not be there. They are mentally ill and that is not a psychiatric institute. That is the only place they can get any treatment at all. So, but they probably get his drugs to try to deal with some, calm them down. Because we don't even have in this state, I know in the Brattleboro, there's the Brattleboro retreat, which has been struggling for various reasons. So, bottom line is we don't have the resources and we do better, I should tell you, in Vermont than most states. But even in Vermont, we are not doing the kind of job and I think few would deny it, to provide the counseling and the services that people need. Now, Samantha, if you want, as I know this has been very personal to you, say a few words about addiction. Addiction is a very, very difficult issue and to get rid of. It's like, very hard. Why don't you say a few words, basically your personal experience. I think that addiction is something that needs to be really focused on and acknowledged. I think kind of going back to that first question of how does addiction develop, I think that it definitely comes from past trauma, how you were brought up. If you've had a line of people in your family, if you have parents that were addicts, I think that definitely has a big effect. If you live in a very poverty and in an area where there's maybe high crime or there's not a lot of resources, a lot of people do turn to addiction because it will heal what they're not able to seek. Yeah, it's having a personal experience this. It's been really hard, it's hard, but also that's why I'm so passionate about this topic because I'm able to, I want to help those who are struggling and I want to be able to really provide support to them and understand because I get it and it's hard. It seems to me that we're looking at a two-pronged approach. Number one is most importantly, trying to prevent people from becoming addicted. And it's not really good enough to say don't do drugs. Well, that's what I think, don't do drugs and I hope you don't. But there are reasons why people do it and we got to understand those reasons and I think it's people are in a lot of pain and I think it was Samantha or Anna made the point that you can get a quick high. So if you're in a lot of pain and suddenly you take something and you're really no longer in pain, you're kind of floating pretty good, right?  So the prevention is to try to create a conditions where people are not experiencing that pain. I think it's about the social conditions in America and it has a lot to do with economic conditions and poverty, that's very important but not unique. A lot of wealthy folks become addicted to alcohol or whatever they become addicted to well. So it kind of crosses class lines but there's kind of an emptiness that people have to fill with alcohol or drugs and something. So that's number one, why is that? How do we address that? Second of all, obviously, is that people are addicted. Throwing them in jail is not, I think you made that point in your essay, is not the answer. In fact, if I am not mistaken and I don't think I am, I'll probably jails in America are the major place where people are getting treatment right now which is obviously absurd. Jails are not meant to do that. So all right, anyone have any, we've been going quite a while here, anyone have any thoughts, last thoughts that you want to share, Penelope? Your connection to that. You said something about how Vermont is in better standing in regards to treating mental health than the rest of the country. I'd like to know, like how do you think Vermont is doing on the issues that have been discussed here in regards to the rest of the country and then in regards to the rest of the world, maybe? Well, in 30 seconds or less. This sounds like Meet the Press here, right? In terms of the rest of the world, there's the industrialized world and then there's the impoverished world. People in developing countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia, there are thousands of children who die every single day from hunger that does not take place in the United States. In terms of the developing, developed world, the United States is far behind, again, this is an issue you don't talk about for certain reasons, but in terms of the kinds of programs that we put, it's the long word programs, but in terms of what we provide to people. So if I would, I gave a speech a few years ago and I was talking about higher education and the cost of higher education, I said, in Finland, higher education is free and then some kid jumps up and he raises his hand and he says, a senator, you're wrong and I said, okay, what's the story? He says, not from Finland, they pay us to go to college. Okay, so other countries do it differently. So Scandinavia in general, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, generally speaking for working people have a higher standard of living than we do. So their healthcare is more or less free, varies, childcare is free, higher education is basically free, they don't leave with student debt. And generally speaking, although it's hard to ascertain, they do surveys around the world where they call happiness surveys. Now that's a hard thing to, how do we, are you happy? Well, your definition of happiness could be different than mine, but those countries end up doing quite well compared to the United States because a lot of our people are struggling economically. You're not really terribly happy if you're worried about being evicted tomorrow, right? Or you're worried that you can't take your kid to a doctor. So there are a number of countries that do, I think, in terms of providing security to their people, in terms of healthcare, education, those countries have relatively small amounts of poverty, for example, childhood poverty, et cetera. They do better than we do. Other countries that we do, we do better than some areas that we do pretty well. In terms of Vermont has, I think, a higher, we do better in terms of healthcare, more about people are insured. I know COVID has wreaked havoc on education, but in general, I think our schools are considered better than most. I think in terms of the economy, rural parts of Chittin and County does pretty well economically, not great. Better than much of the rest of the state, rural areas, Newport, Caledonia County, Williams County struggling. A lot of people are struggling economically in Vermont. That's the short answer. Okay, well, listen, let me conclude this by thanking you all and your parents for being here and thanking you very much for thinking about many of the serious problems. And I know we've gone over some of the very serious problems facing our country and the world, but there are solutions to these problems. I don't want you to leave here feeling that there are no solutions. There are. This country has gone through difficult times in the past. We went through a terrible civil war. We went through the Spanish flu pandemic in 1917. We went through World War I, World War II, went through a great depression. And this is just another tough time. But I think if we're smart and we don't start dividing our people up based on colors of skin and all that stuff, I think we can pull through this thing. But to do it, we're gonna need the help of your generation big time. So you're gonna have to be thinking about these issues. I don't want you to be thinking about people of different points of view than you do. Understand them. People who disagree with you are not necessarily evil people, you know. They have their points of view. They've learned their points of view. So let me thank you all. And what we'll do now is if anyone, what will we do? Ryan or, okay, we're gonna do it out in the lobby. All right, we'll do photographs out there as well. Okay. All right, what we have for you guys, what Beth is holding are framed congressional record statement, your congressional record statements. We'll put them in frames and we'll give them to you and then we'll do a photograph as well. Okay, thank you all very much for being here. Any parents want photographs?


Frankly, it'd be nice if we didn't all, you know, go to our separate corners politically if we found some ideas that Republicans or Democrats had offered that would provide the transparency and oversight to give the American people confidence. Why? Great. And who knows? But I really sincerely hope. But this is the world we're living in, post-citizens united where there's more dark money in politics. Dark money, dark money. Everybody said, where are they getting all this money from? With super PACs and dark money around you really don't know. It's a problem across the board. It's hard to say that that's not for suspicious or bad reason. Lobbyists. And lobbyists. Who knows what favors he did in exchange for all that cash. K Street and the lobbyists and the special interests. Establishment elites, special interests and K Street driven out of the swamp, preferably sooner rather than later. 200 years we've had gerrymandering. I think it begins with the gerrymandering. That's a conflict of interest. Prehensive, non-partisan, redistricting reform. Many Americans are still concerned about election security. The federal government should partner with the states to truly secure their system. It's absolutely critical that people have confidence in the election system. We want people to participate in the election. We want maximum participation. I like extensive participation. We want voter participation as high as humanly possible, of course we do. Free and fair elections are at the very foundation of American democracy.