The paragraphs which follow set forth my answers to questions asked me by THE SIERRA CLUB in May of 2000.

I. Stabilizing World Population

QUESTION: The global population reached 6 billion sometime in 1999, and is increasing by one billion people every 11 or 12 years. The magnitude of human activity is poisoning and diminishing fresh water supplies, contributing directly to global climate change, eradicating species, and eroding the health and quality of life on earth. Actions we take today will make a difference in whether the population doubles or triples before stabilizing.

At the 1994 Cairo conference, Vice President Al Gore pledged the U.S. would do its fair share of support for international family planning, approximately $800-$900 million per year. Since then., however, funding for the program was cut to less than half of our Cairo pledge and it has remained level ever since, going from, in 1995, $550 million plus $25 million for UNFPA, to just $385 million today. Do you support an increase in international family planning to the level pledged by Al Gore to 180 countries in 1994? Why or why not?

ANSWER: Yes, and we can do more. Our projected U.S. discretionary budget for 2000 totals $618 billion. This represents spending for all our national priorities (those areas for which Congress appropriates actual dollars in the fiscal year). Currently, our national priorities are as follows. Of each dollar, we spend 47 cents (approx. $280 billion) on the Pentagon, 6 cents (approx. $37 billion) on education, 6 cents (approx $35 billion) on health and 3 cents (approx. $14 billion) on EVERYTHING we do internationally to establish good relations with other countries, help with international development, provide humanitarian assistance, and generally support international institutions to help others employ democratic principles to resolve disputes without resorting to armed violence, all of which so we build good relations and do not have to commit our Pentagon troops.

I support fundamental changes to these current national priorities. Specifically, I support restructuring our military in ways such as those recommended by the Military Advisory Panel of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. This could free up from $45 - $50 BILLION dollars EACH YEAR which I would reallocate to increase educational achievement, provide comprehensive health care for all Americans, protect our environment, and assist other nations internationally so as to improve our relations and thus reduce the likelihood of threats to our national security. This later category includes an increase in international family planning to AT LEAST the level pledged by Al Gore to 180 countries in 1994. In fact I believe it is in our national interest to devote even more resources to this effort.

II. Water Quality and Large Farming Operations

QUESTION:  Large, industrial livestock production operations have polluted our air and water, contaminated drinking water, degraded the quality of rural life, and forced family farms out of business. Would you support stronger standards for waste management, joint environmental liability for animal owners and contract growers, water quality monitoring requirements, phasing out waste storage lagoons, and requiring large livestock operations to obtain individual permits under the Clean Water Act to protect the water bodies of the United States?

ANSWER: Yes to all of the above, although I would need to research further whether requiring large livestock operations to obtain individual permits under the Clean Water Act is the best way to accomplish the goal of protecting the water bodies of the United States? I do support the goal of protecting the water bodies of the United States and finding the best way to require large livestock operations to manage their activities so as to accomplish this goal.

III. Wilderness

QUESTION: Would you consider co-sponsoring legislation in 2001 to designate portions of the Green Mountain National Forest as federal Wilderness, National Recreation Area, and/or National Conservation Area?

ANSWER: In the last 45 years or so we have seen a doubling of world population. This additional 3 billion people is by far the greatest, in actual numbers, ever in history. Even though the RATE of population growth is decreasing, I believe it prudent to expect and plan on at least another 3 billion in the next 45 years. This will put its share of increased pressure on our finite natural resources here in the United States, even though our actual growth in the next 45 years may be somewhat less than our proportionate share of world growth would be. For this reason, it is especially important to identify and move to protect substantial additional portions of these finite resources now to preserve them for future generations. The longer we wait, the more difficult, if even possible, the task becomes.

As Senator, my overall responsibility is to make these designations of scarce resources serve the best interests of ALL American citizens. Of course, as a native Vermonter aware of the probability of significant population increase here in Vermont, and as an avid outdoor enthusiast and successful hiker of both the Appalachian Trail and Long Trail, I'm interested in designating portions of our State, as federal Wilderness, National Recreation Area, and/or National Conservation Area. However, I would need to consider the needs of both Vermonters and all American citizens in deciding what the final mix of these protected areas should be at any given time.

IV. Energy and Global Warming

QUESTION: What is your vision for a national energy policy?

ANSWER: Two main developments underlie the importance, timing and nature of a national energy policy. First is the importance of both world and national population growth, as previously discussed above, and the effect which the timing and amount of these huge increases in growth have on our natural resources, development patterns, energy use and environment. Second is the impact of the global warming and related environmental effects. While research is perhaps not yet truly definitive, as Senator, I must weigh the importance of making educated best judgments now and acting on them based upon current likely probabilities versus waiting for more definitive information and the danger this can pose to our country from not taking action sooner. I believe the smart judgment is not to wait, and to take action immediately, even at the risk that some of the steps taken may turn out to be less than 100% effective and properly targeted.

I believe that a national energy policy should be truly broad and comprehensive and should give us incentive to reduce our overall use of natural resources and energy, whether for personal or business consumption. In developing it, I would look at the possibilities for federal legislation, model state legislation, tax policy, U.S. government purchasing power and other economic incentives as well as the power of the "bully pulpit" to educate, encourage and collaborate with citizens, businesses and other organizations to conserve.

QUESTION: Would you support legislation that raised the fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUV's, and light trucks?

ANSWER: Absolutely! And by way of illustration that also ties to the section on Campaign Finance Reform below: The automobile, iron and steel industries gave $5.7 million dollars in political contributions from 1991 through June 1997, including more than $1.7 million in soft money donations to the political parties. With what results? For the past five years Congress has failed to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, thereby sparing these industries the burden of increasing fuel efficiency. Supporters of high CAFE standards claim it is possible to produce safe, fuel efficient cars that can save consumers an estimated $59 BILLION annually at the gas pump, and this figure was calculated before the recent run-up in oil and gas prices.

QUESTION: Would you support legislation that increases the tax on fossil fuel use?

ANSWER: Yes. And by way of illustration that also ties to the section on Campaign Finance Reform below: #1. Polluting industries, including oil and chemical interests, gained a victory in the 1997 budget and tax deal which fails to re-impose Superfund taxes and saves them more than $1.7 billion annually. Two coalitions opposing the tax, the Superfund Action Alliance and Superfund Reform ’95, gave almost $25 million in soft money from 1991 through the first six months of 1997.

#2. Member companies of the Global Climate Coalition gave more than $63 million in political contributions to parties and federal candidates from 1989 through June 1999. The GCC is composed of industries – oil, chemical, transportation, and electric companies – actively lobbying against the implementation of global-warming legislation and greenhouse gas emission-reduction policies. Current Members of Congress received, on average, more than $50,000 each in PAC contributions from GCC’s members during the 10-year period.

#3. Archer Daniels Midland, America’s self proclaimed “supermarket to the world,” continues to benefit from government ethanol subsidies. From 1987 through 1997, the company and its then-chairman and chief executive Dwayne Andreas and his family gave more than $4.5 million in political contributions. Despite its long history of receiving lucrative tax subsidies, ethanol’s benefits are negligible, according to the General Accounting Office. In 1997, the GAO reported that ethanol subsidies had cost the government more than $7 billion since 1979 – more than $600 million in 1995 alone – but has returned little in the way of environmental benefits or reduced reliance on foreign oil.

V. Transportation

QUESTION: Would you support targeting a greater percentage of the federal transportation budget for mass transit and other non-automobile-based modes of transportation?

ANSWER: Yes. However, I'm aware that this will be more feasible in other more densely populated areas. In Vermont with it's scattered population and multiple points of origin and multiple destinations there is a great deal of movement for which there may not be enough volume for mass transit on many transportation routes. I am continually interested in any ways to improve on this. Moreover, I personally, while walking Vermont to advocate for campaign finance reform, am aware of the need for seamlessly interconnected pedestrian and bicycle routes that are the paths of least resistance for certain trips.

VI. Campaign Finance Reform

QUESTION: The Sierra Club is convinced that the recent explosion of soft money contributions constitutes a major threat to the quality of our environment, and that campaign finance reform is one of the most urgent issues facing our country. The McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan bills proposed a ban on unlimited soft money contributions by corporations, unions, PACs and wealthy individuals to national, state, and local parties for federal elections. Would you support these or similar bills as a step in reforming campaign financing? Would you support a voluntary program to provide candidates with subsidies for media, mail, and other campaign activities paid for from tax payer funds if they agree to voluntary spending limits?

ANSWER: Campaign Finance Reform and reform of our democratic process is MY NUMBER ONE issue since they influence so heavily the way ALL other issues are handled within our political system. I believe most Americans don't want a candidate making decisions on our national priorities based on which interest groups will offer huge amounts of money to help with the next election.

Our democracy is founded upon the right of individual citizens to vote. Once elected, our Representatives and Senators should be enacting legislation which serves the common interests of American citizens. Corporations and organizations are not allowed to vote in our democratic system - only individuals have this right.

Currently, according to Federal Election Commission data, overall campaign spending for President, Senator and Representative averages about 1 billion dollars annually. (For a link to this data in more detail, click here). This money currently comes from 3 sources: #1. Individual contributions directly to candidates of up to $1000 (most of these come from wealthy corporate executives and individuals who are in the top fifth of all Americans in earned income, many of whom give to support access for specific special interests). #2. Political Action Committee contributions from specific special interests directly to candidates. [THESE TWO CATEGORIES CONSTITUTE "HARD MONEY" which would remain, even if soft money is banned.] #3. Increasingly, campaign contributions are made indirectly to candidates from very large contributions of "soft money" from corporations, organizations and wealthy individuals with special interests in amounts much greater than the $1000 maximum that individuals can legally contribute. This soft money in unlimited amounts can legally be given to political parties and political committees. In turn, portions of these soft money contributions may then be either passed to, or used to benefit candidates for federal office.

This money (whether from #1, #2 or #3)often results in legislative action, or inaction, slanted toward narrow special interests rather than toward our common interests as citizens and it is costing citizens hundreds of billions of dollars.

The few examples cited above in answer to your fourth question are but three of 22 industry examples cited by Common Cause on their website at http://www.commoncause.org/pressroom/profiles.html. Yet they alone show costs to citizens totaling about $69 billion (69 times MORE than the annual average of 1 billion in contributions for all candidates for federal office.)

And this is only a small part of the several hundred billion cost to citizens shown from ALL the examples.

Although I support a ban on soft money contributions, I do not believe that a ban on soft money will solve the problem outlined above. To find a solution that is fair to all candidates and beneficial to all American citizens, our political leaders will need to address at least the following three areas: prohibiting soft money in federal elections, providing public financing from the federal treasury, and granting licenses to use the public airways conditioned upon allowing free broadcast time for candidates in federal elections.

Assume for a moment that a ban on soft money passes, as with the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan legislation. Now ask whether, without public financing, the remaining campaign contributions from special interests in areas #1 and #2 are sufficiently important to candidates and members of Congress so as to continue to produce legislative action or inaction slanted toward narrow special interests rather than toward our common interests as citizens. Consider the following example: Companies belonging to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the trade group for brand-name drug makers, gave more than $18.6 million in political contributions, including $8.4 million in soft money donations to the political parties from 1991 through June of 1997. With what results? Brand name drug companies have convinced Congress to let them hold on to their drug patents longer. Loss of access to generic drugs costs consumers as much as $550 million a year. Of the total $27 million given, if the $8.4 million of soft money were eliminated through a legal ban, would the $18.6 million in remaining "hard money" political contributions that remain have produced essentially the same result? I believe most thoughtful people will conclude YES.

Thus the positions of both Senator John McCain and Senator Jim Jeffords on campaign finance reform will not really solve the problem. Neither one supports the investment from our federal budget of 1 billion dollars of public financing from ALL citizens in order to eliminate current incentives which are costing individual citizens HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, either in higher taxes, or personally out of their wallets at places like the gas pump or at the drug store counter.