Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. In other words, sir, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 is part of the legislation we are voting on; is that correct? Yes? No? Maybe?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. So it means, or it certainly could mean, the closing down of schools, nutrition programs, and health care in order to fund-- and I cannot for the life of me understand how a seven-member committee can spend $370 million, but this will be taking away perhaps basic needs from hungry kids in order to maintain what seems to me an extraordinary bureaucracy. With that, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. SANDERS. I am. Let me ask the Senator from New Jersey, a significant part of Puerto Rico's $70 billion debt has been acquired in recent years by vulture funds. These are folks who purchase bonds for as little as 29 cents on the dollar and who get interest rates of up to 34 percent. I believe something like one-third--I may be wrong on this, but I believe about one-third of the debt of Puerto Rico is now controlled by these vulture funds. People who buy, by definition, ``risky bonds'' but now want to get 100 percent on the dollar, despite the fact that they paid a fraction of what the bond is worth--from a moral perspective, should the U.S. Senate be supporting legislation which allows vulture capitalists, some of whom are billionaires, to make huge profits while at the same time nutrition programs and educational programs for low-income children in Puerto Rico are cut? Does that sound like the kind of morality that should be passed in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me add another point to that very discussion, which I have a hard time understanding and maybe my friend from New Jersey can educate me on this. As I understand, in this bill, there is a requirement that Puerto Rico, a territory that has been experiencing a 10-year depression, a territory in which over half of the children are living in poverty, a territory in which many schools have been shut down, where people have been laid off, where unemployment is sky high, that within this legislation, there is the imposition that the people of Puerto Rico are going to have to pay for this control board to the tune--and I don't understand this--of $370 million. You have a board of seven people. No. 1, how in God's Name do you run up an administrative cost of $370 million? Yes, you need staff and you need all that stuff, but $370 million to run a small bureaucracy sounds to be totally off the charts. Then, to tell the people of Puerto Rico, you are going to have to shut down schools, you are going to have to shut down health services, we may take away the pensions of your workers, and, oh, by the way, you are going to have to pay $370 million in order to fund this control board--am I missing anything here? I know this sounds so absurd that people may think I am misleading them, but am I missing anything here or is that the reality?

Mr. SANDERS. I have a question. It is a long question, but I certainly want my friend from New Jersey to respond to that question. I ask my colleague from New Jersey, is this legislation smacking of the worst form of colonialism, in the sense that it takes away all of the important democratic rights of the American citizens of Puerto Rico? Basically, four Republicans, who likely believe in strong austerity programs, will essentially be running that island for the indefinite future. Would my friend from New Jersey agree this is colonialism at its worst?

Mr. SANDERS. I ask my friend from New Jersey--there is a very strong difference of opinion in the Senate and in the House about economic issues. Many of our Republican friends think trickle-down economics-- giving tax breaks to the wealthy, cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting education--is the way they would like to see our country move forward. Does my friend from New Jersey have any doubt, if you have a financial control board dominated by four Republicans, that is exactly the type of philosophy that will be imposed on the people of Puerto Rico?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank Mr. Enzi and join him in commending Mr. Weiner for his many years of dedicated and outstanding service to CBO, the Congress, and the American people. Through his diligence and hard work, he has more than earned additional time for biking, training for the annual Washington Post hunt, and most importantly, for his family--his wife, Joan, and his sons, Kevin, Daniel, and Eric. We hope our colleagues will join us in thanking Mr. Weiner for his service.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, to commemorate Public Recognition Week, the Vermont Federal Executive Association, VTFEA, recognized the more than 4,000 Federal employees working across the State and the good work they do every day. I would like to offer special congratulations to the 2016 Excellence in Government award winners, who have been recognized by VTFEA for their exemplary government service. Excellence in Management and Program Support Award, Individual Award--Heather Festa, management program analyst, personnel security division, Office of Security and Integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, South Burlington--Heather demonstrated exceptional innovation and professionalism in response to the Office of Personnel Management's security breach of electronic systems containing background investigation records. When OPM instructed Federal agencies to mail all paper documents, many agencies simply halted their personnel security processes. However, Heather skillfully designed and implemented an action plan for the hard-copy paper forms to ensure there would be no interruption in processing security checks within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Excellence in Management and Program Support Award, Group Award-- northeast regional office position description workgroup, northeast regional office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, South Burlington, including Jeannine Longchamp, Maegan Cutler, Brian Johansson, and Laurie Juskiewicz--the northeast regional office human resources team led a working group to review supervisory position descriptions for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services's entire field operations directorate. Not only did the team ensure that all positions aligned with Office of Personal Management guidelines, it also created supervisory positions at new grade levels that opened up previously unobtainable career paths for some employees. Professional Award--Peter Banacos and Andrew Loconto, meteorologists, National Weather Service, Burlington International Airport, South Burlington--Peter and Andrew worked together to develop a snow squall identification and forecasting technique that has greatly improved winter weather forecast and warning systems for many National Weather Service offices. Historically, there has been an overall lack of forecaster awareness in identifying the weather conditions in which snow squalls can occur, as well as understanding their impact. Peter and Andrew's innovation, leadership, and persistent efforts over the past 3 years have enhanced the National Weather Service's ability to provide useful winter weather information to the public. Law Enforcement, Safety and Security Award--Amanda Cahill, special agent, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, satellite office, Rutland--Amanda exemplifies the highest traditions of government service: tireless dedication and devotion to her agency and the residents of her community. She has singlehandedly reestablished a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives presence in southern Vermont and has begun to fill a void in the law enforcement community's fight against armed drug traffickers. She has acted as an undercover agent, as well as a lead investigator, and recently, she has been recognized for her efforts by the U.S. attorney for Vermont. Managerial/Supervisory Award--Daniel Whitney, section chief, training, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, law enforcement support center, Williston--Dan Whitney exemplifies the continued pursuit of excellence and an unparalleled record of achievement. The law enforcement support center, LESC, is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's primary point of contact for law enforcement agencies throughout the country. Dan is responsible for ensuring that all LESC employees receive continuous training in multiple law enforcement databases, including ICE's new enterprise database that his team tested to ensure that LESC employees had the training and the tools to provide up to the minute information to law enforcement agencies. Dan is someone who leads by example and is always willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that LESC meets its mission. Tina Gurka Community Service Award--registered nurse Sharon Levenson and police officer Guy Gardner, VA medical center, White River Junction--in January 2016, Nurse Sharon Levenson and Officer Guy Gardner demonstrated their dedication to veterans in their local community. After one of her patients did not show up for an appointment, Sharon contacted the local police department and requested a welfare check. When the police department said the situation did not warrant a check, VA Officer Guy Gardner contacted a neighbor, and they discovered the veteran in serious distress. Thanks to Sharon and Guy's efforts, the patient recovered fully. Their commitment to veterans was recognized by VA Secretary McDonald during testimony before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Interagency Collaboration and Partnership Award--Brian Wood, Border Patrol agent, U.S. Border Patrol, Richford--Brian has demonstrated exemplary professionalism and work ethic in forming and maintaining valuable and productive partnerships with various Federal and State agencies in Vermont and across the country. Brian's efforts have resulted in the arrest of numerous alien smugglers, drug dealers, and human traffickers and the removal of countless illegal firearms, heroin, and cocaine from our communities. Brian uses his expertise in law enforcement and his ability to collaborate successfully to keep our communities and citizens safe. Heroic Act Award--John Marsh, Border Patrol agent, U.S. Border Patrol, Swanton sector, Beecher Falls Station--in April 2016, while returning from a call for assistance in New Hampshire, Agent Marsh approached two men on the ground, one pounding the chest of the other. Agent Marsh found the person on the ground was choking on food, was not breathing, and would not respond to verbal stimulation. After requesting emergency medical services, Agent Marsh administered the Heimlich maneuver and was able to dislodge the food from the victim. He remained with him until the paramedics arrived and took over care. Thanks to John's training and his ability to stay calm under pressure, the victim is alive and well today. Vermont Federal Team of the Year Award--the northwest vermont locality pay committee: Brandon Ackel, Transportation Security Administration, Robert Brugman, National Credit Union Administration, Brian Johansson, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kelly Larsen, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaska, Bruce McDonald, Transportation Security Administration, Sean McVey, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Mark Nielsen, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jeff Ostlund, Transportation Security Administration, Corey Price, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Texas, Lisa Rees, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Krista Scheele, Transportation Security Administration--in November 2012, VTFEA discussed what initiatives would benefit the most Federal employees, and it didn't take long to realize that securing locality pay for Vermont was the No. 1 priority. In early 2013, VTFEA created a locality pay committee, consisting of employees from six Federal agencies. Working tirelessly, the team prepared a locality pay proposal for northwest Vermont and, in December 2013, presented it to the Federal Salary Council in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the first proposal was denied, so the following year, they tried again. Again, the proposal was denied. Not to be discouraged, the team drafted a third proposal in November 2015, and committee members traveled to Washington at their own expense to support the package and their fellow Vermonters. At the hearing, the Council approved the package, which is waiting for approval by the President's pay agent and the President. The northwest Vermont locality pay committee's tenacity, collaborative spirit, and positivity is why Vermont is being considered for locality pay, and it is because of their efforts that VTFEA chose them as ``Federal Team of the Year.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I do not often recognize non- Vermonters on the floor of the Senate, but I rise today to applaud the numerous and significant achievements of Dr. Sheila Crowley. Dr. Crowley recently retired as president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, after decades of advocacy to make sure people with the lowest incomes in the United States have affordable and decent homes. It has truly been an honor to work closely with Sheila on issues related to affordable housing. I am particularly proud of our efforts to create the national housing trust fund, the only Federal program designed to build new affordable rental housing specifically for extremely low-income individuals. In the early 2000s, Sheila provided invaluable assistance to my office as we drafted the first House version of the trust fund and shepherded the legislation through its first votes in the House Financial Services Committee. For the next 15 years, Sheila built grassroots support across the country for the trust fund, to keep the pressure on Federal lawmakers. Despite numerous setbacks--and one serious housing market collapse--she tirelessly advocated for addressing the significant housing needs of people with limited economic resources. It is a fitting testament to her tenacity that just as she prepared to retire, the Federal Housing Finance Agency began capitalizing the trust fund for the first time. Later this year, States will receive the first new Federal affordable housing production funds in decades, and for that, Sheila Crowley deserves an enormous amount of credit. Not surprisingly, Sheila received the 2009 John W. Macy award from the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the Housing Leadership Award from the National Low Income Housing Coalition for her work on the National Housing Trust Fund campaign. But I am guessing the award Sheila will cherish most will be when, in the not-too-distant future, tenants move into the first trust fund financed affordable housing. I cannot overstate the importance of Sheila's work and her accomplishments. We are experiencing nothing less than an affordable housing crisis on the national level. In order to afford the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner must work 102 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Throughout her tenure at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Sheila was not just a resolute advocate; she was also a vital resource on housing policy to many members of Congress. She also worked closely with organizations focused on homeless services, family housing, AIDS housing, housing for people with disabilities, senior housing, and services for battered women and victims of rape. And while her focus was national, Sheila often travelled to States to support local housing efforts, including in my State of Vermont. She was a frequent keynote speaker at Vermont conferences and a valued partner in developing local responses to our housing challenges. I know a great many Vermonters who worked closely with Sheila and hold her in the highest esteem. I wish Dr. Sheila Crowley all the best in her well-deserved retirement, and I am confident her affordable housing efforts will continue to bear fruit for decades to come.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to extend my sincere thanks for the continued involvement of Vermont high school teachers and principals in my annual State of the Union essay contest. This year, 799 Vermont students from 39 high schools wrote essays detailing what they thought were the most important issues facing our country. We could not have achieved this level of participation without the help of engaged educators throughout the State. Each and every day, teachers encourage students to think critically and develop their own ideas. I appreciate that so many teachers have used the essay contest to challenge their students to share what they consider to be priorities for the United States. This year's submissions were some of the most thoughtful to date, and I have no doubt that is because of the encouragement of engaged teachers from across the State. The success of this essay contest also depends on a dedicated team of volunteer judges, all of whom are also high school teachers. This year, we asked our five judges--some of whom have served for many years--to read more essays in less time, and we greatly appreciate the serious consideration and commitment they brought to the task. I would like to take a moment to recognize this year's judges: Bradley Archer, Woodstock Union High School; Jason Gorczyk, Milton High School; Krista Huling, South Burlington High School; Roberta ``Cookie'' Steponaitis, Vergennes Union High School; and Terri Vest, Twinfield Union School. I would also like to enter into the Record the names of the 39 high schools that participated this year: Arlington Memorial High School, Bellows Falls Union High School, Bellows Free Academy--Fairfax, Blue Mountain High School, Burlington High School, Burlington Technical Center, Burr & Burton Academy, Canaan Memorial High School, Champlain Valley Union High School, Colchester High School, Enosburg Falls High School, Green Mountain Technology and Career Center, Hanover High School, Hartford High School, Harwood Union High School, Leland and Gray Union High School, Mill River Union High School, Milton High School, Missisquoi Valley Union High School, Mount Mansfield Union High School, Mt. Abraham Union High School, Mt. Anthony Union High School, North Country Union High School, Northfield High School, Peoples Academy, Rice Memorial High School, Rutland High School, South Burlington High School, South Royalton High School, Spaulding High School, St. Johnsbury Academy, Stafford Technical Center, Twinfield High School, Union High School, Vergennes Union High School, Vermont Commons School, Whitcomb High School, Winooski High School, Woodside Juvenile Rehab Center, and Woodstock Union High School. Additionally, I would like to thank the schools where an especially large number of students wrote essays. Vermont Commons School and Missisquoi Valley Union High School had more than 25 participants. Green Mountain Technology and Career Center and South Burlington High School both had more than 50 students write essays. Mount Abraham Union High School had more than 100 members of their freshmen class write essays. Rutland High School assigned the contest to their entire freshmen class, with more than 200 students participating. I would like to thank all of Vermont's teachers and principals for their tireless work educating students and for helping to make the sixth annual State of the Union essay contest a success.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record copies of some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the sixth annual ``What is the State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. These finalists were selected from nearly 800 entries. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the totalitarian state of North Korea is becoming more belligerent by the day. In January, the country detonated its fourth nuclear bomb since 2006--which the North Korean military claims was a small hydrogen bomb. Just last week, the country launched a rocket carrying a satellite into space, foreshadowing the possible development of a long-range ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear payload. According to National Intelligence Director James Clapper, North Korea recently expanded a uranium enrichment facility and restarted a plutonium reactor that could start recovering material for nuclear weapons within months or even weeks. I am deeply concerned by these actions. We must exhaust every diplomatic option we have to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program, halt its aggressive military posturing with South Korea, and adhere to the tenets of international human rights law. That is why I strongly support the bipartisan effort to strengthen sanctions on the rogue North Korean regime. These sanctions are an important tool in resolving the growing threat from Pyongyang. The legislation before the Senate would help prevent North Korea from obtaining goods or technology related to nuclear weapons, ban foreign assistance to any country that provides lethal military equipment to North Korea, and target the country's trade in key industrial commodities. These steps are absolutely essential if we are to achieve our longstanding mission to end the North's nuclear weapons program. Certainly, sanctions are far preferable to preemptive military force, which I strongly oppose. In addition to sanctions, the U.S. must work with the few nations that have diplomatic and economic relationships with North Korea-- namely China--to pressure Kim Jong Un to stop threatening the stability of the region and join the community of nations. While China may have been a steadfast ally of North Korea's in the past, China now has far more shared interests with the U.S. than with Pyongyang. It is time to make resolving the Korean peninsula conflict a top diplomatic goal in terms of our own relationship with China. I am pleased to see that the sanctions bill includes a waiver to allow humanitarian organizations to deliver much needed relief to ordinary North Korean citizens and authorizes $2 million for humanitarian assistance. Sanctions come at a cost, and we must do everything possible to make sure the North Korean people--who already suffer so much under Kim Jong Un--do not pay an even greater price. While I will be necessarily absent for the expected bipartisan passage of the bill, I strongly support the North Korea sanctions legislation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record copies of some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the sixth annual ``What is the State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. These finalists were selected from nearly 800 entries. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record copies of some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the sixth annual ``What is the State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. These finalists were selected from nearly 800 entries. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record copies of some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the sixth annual ``What is the State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. These finalists were selected from nearly 800 entries. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, since 2010 I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont students. The contest, now in its sixth year, is an opportunity for Vermont's high school students to articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States. A panel of Vermont teachers reviewed all of the essays submitted and selected the top 20. I am proud to say that nearly 800 students wrote essays for this year's State of the Union contest. I would like to congratulate each and every finalist and to specifically acknowledge Meredith Holbrook as this year's winner of the contest. I would also like to recognize Vivian Huang for placing second and Ryan Racicot for placing third. I ask to have printed in the Record copies of the winning essays. The material follows: Meredith Holbrook, Milton High School (Winner) My fellow Americans, today the United States has the strongest military in the world. Our nation has the number one economy. We have the longest running democratic government in history. If we want to be considered the greatest in the world, the home of the free, the land of opportunity, then we must face the challenges before us. In 2014, 48.1 million Americans lived in food insecure homes, of this, 15.3 million were children. This equates to 14 percent of households being food insecure. How can the wealthiest nation in the world be unable to feed its hungry? We have the full capability of providing for those in need. We should not allow politics to stop us from caring for our citizens in need. It is impossible to expect the people of this country to be functioning members of society without adequate nourishment. The solution to this problem is simple: feed America's hungry. I believe that if we were to create a cabinet level agency dedicated specifically to food- insecurity, we would be bettering the common good of America. Devoting ten billion dollars from the federal budget would make a tremendous improvement in the number of food-insecure homes. It may be a bold move to make, but our nation cannot move forward until our people are no longer hungry. Alongside hunger is homelessness. On one given night in America, about 560,000 citizens are homeless, and about 200,000 of those people are in families. It should be the basic right of our people to have shelter and security. The wound of homelessness cannot be solved with night time shelters. Homeless people must be provided with long-term shelters if they are ever to be productive members of society. In order to solve this issue, we must invest in job counseling. Many homeless citizens are homeless due to the inability to acquire a job. If people had the chance to have a clean interview outfit, as well as proper interview instruction, there would not be as many people sleeping on the streets. In order to make this happen, we must have more people trained in the expertise of job counseling, and more programs helping to aid homeless citizens. Again, this would mean funding such programs. A small cost to pay to get Americans off the streets. How a nation treats its elderly says a lot about its character. We will not be a nation that ignores the needs of its senior citizens. Today, many seniors cannot comfortably retire. They are often forced to choose between paying for food or, paying for medication. They will go without heat because they cannot afford to buy fuel. The source of this issue is Social Security. Although this retirement system has benefited many Americans, it needs to be changed. Social Security often does not change with inflation, or does not change enough to account for increased prices. While prices are rising, Social Security is not keeping up. This leaves seniors to make difficult choices regarding spending. Every year, Social Security should be assessed, and changed accordingly to inflation. To pay for this, we would need to raise the Social Security tax percentage to seven percent. This would allow America to adequately pay for the needs of our elderly. This nation is nowhere near perfect. We have many issues we must address, domestic and foreign. We cannot expect to properly address issues overseas, until we fix the home we live in. We must fix America from within. Once we do this, we will truly be able to call ourselves the greatest nation in the world. Vivian Huang, South Burlington High School (Second Place) The year of 2015 has been historic for the United States of America. We have signed a landmark agreement on climate change, enacted marriage equality, and become economically sound--marking greater economic growth rates than predicted and reaching a five percent unemployment rate. Still, we enter the year of 2016 with two pressing issues remaining on the global and the national scale: terrorism and healthcare. As we tackle these issues, we must remind ourselves that the United States of America is truly one nation, indivisible, with each citizen carrying responsibilities to support our nation's values, as well as one another. First, following recent acts of terror around the world, it is top-priority for the United States to defeat the threat of ISIS. Enough is enough. Rest assured that rather than sending our troops to combat zones in Iraq and Syria, we will take an active role in helping our European allies lead the battle. America must provide rigorous train-and-assist programs for Kurdish forces, exert a tight grip on ISIS-controlled territory, cut off supply lines, and implore the Gulf States to combat terrorism. Furthermore, previous experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed that merely destroying one source of terrorism will not suffice. To ultimately render counterterrorism and military action unnecessary in Iraq and Syria, we plan on developing political, economic, and educational reforms that will effectively respond to complex sectarian and ethnic divisions in the region. Let's make it clear that the United States is not declaring a war against religion, but rather against the violence of extremism. As human beings, it is our responsibility to help the innocent Syrian families fleeing ISIS and Assad's brutal regime. Now is not the time to turn our backs, but to provide humanitarian aid and shelter, even though it requires extreme vigilance. Additionally, every American must confront the problem of bigotry, which only becomes exploited by ISIS for its own recruitment. We all have the duty to stand up against discriminatory rhetoric and hostile actions. We all have the duty to uphold the country's values by supporting each other--our friends, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow community members--with tolerance and respect. Second, an important issue on the domestic front continues to be healthcare. Physical and mental wellness is a fundamental need for the American people. Over the past year, the Affordable Care Act has improved access to this basic human right for the uninsured. However, there is more to accomplish in 2016. Until completely comprehensive universal healthcare--namely, a single-payer system--is set into place, Medicaid must be expanded in 20 remaining states and community health clinics must be placed in underserved locations. The Department of Health and Human Services must address the chief drivers of healthcare costs; hospital expenditures, physician and clinical services, and skyrocketing drug prices escalate the national health spending. To target this broad problem, a single-payer healthcare system will minimize unnecessary spending by requiring hospitals to operate on government-approved standardized billing procedures. Hence, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies will not be able to overcharge patients and run extortionate monopolies on essential medications. Indeed, American citizens' rugged bravery, wise judgment, and drive for excellence have made this country great. But we can always progress forward, as long we stand united. Therefore, we will tackle the urgent issues of terrorism and healthcare not only with confidence, but also with the ambition to remain one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ryan Racicot, Milton High School (Third Place) The most pressing and immediate danger of today's society is the rapidly changing climate. The scientific community agrees virtually unanimously, that climate change is a very real and imminent concern. Continuation down the current path at this pace will eventually result in the ultimate demise of the human race. This issue is not the United States' to tackle alone. In order to fully reverse the effects of climate change, it will take a worldwide collaborative effort unlike anything the world has ever faced before. The United States' role going forward is to set an example for other first world countries. The United Nations' conference this year in Paris was a step in the right direction. But the United States needs to agree to a binding commitment to reduce emissions. Without a whole- hearted promise to abide to these reductions, the United States will not be taken seriously on this issue. The United States government cannot expect corporations to make eco-friendly movements unprovoked, it is simply not worth the financial burden. The federal government needs to incentivize eco-friendly waste management for businesses, by making eco-friendly business more profitable than environmentally irresponsible business. As it stands now, no company has motivation to protect the environment. Doing so only hurts production and makes them less competitive. To reverse this trend, the federal government needs to enforce pre-existing environmental laws and spend more on environmental saving measures. To convert all factories to updated standards for emissions, a large amount of money will be needed initially, but over time, a system in which clean energy is valued more than profit will result in a much more sustainable economy. Companies who destroy the environment and experience greater profit as a result will be forced to pay for their own pollution management systems. Greatly increasing taxes on environmentally irresponsible corporations will make clean energy more fiscally appealing than polluting means of energy. This is not stealing money from the American people or a redistribution of wealth. This is using money made by multi-billion dollar companies at the expense of the environment to help fix the problem they themselves helped to create. Also, by taking the charge on creating environmentally friendly products and machinery, the potential for the United States to make a profit is huge. By incentivizing other countries to go eco-friendly, and selling the materials and means to do so creates jobs and income, which boosts the U.S. economy, all without destroying the environment. Unlike many other issues troubling the state of Vermont, the nation, and the world, climate change affects every single person. Regardless of race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, religion, education or political affiliation, climate change affects all, especially the most disadvantaged. Because of this, it is everyone's personal responsibility to do their part in saving the planet. One cannot stand idle and expect other people do all of the dirty work. Helping to save the earth is not about how you can benefit, it is about how you can help the greater cause. We can no longer allow large corporations to prioritize making a profit over responsible waste management. The short-term profits for the rich are vastly outweighed by the long-term environmental consequences felt by all.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, one of the great moral issues of our time is the global crisis of climate change. Let me be very clear about climate change. Climate change is not a Democratic issue or a progressive issue. It is not a Republican issue or a conservative issue. What it is, is an issue that has everything to do with physics. It is an issue of physics. What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the debate is over, and that is that the vast majority of the scientists who have studied the issues are quite clear. What they tell us over and over again is that climate change is real, climate change is caused by human activity, and climate change is already causing devastating problems throughout our country and, in fact, throughout the world. What the scientists also tell us is that we have a relatively short window of opportunity to bring about the fundamental changes we need in our global energy system to transform our energy system from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We have a limited window of opportunity. What the scientists are telling us very clearly is if we do not seize that opportunity, if we do not lead the world-- working with China, Russia, India and other countries--in transforming the global energy system, the planet we leave to our children and our grandchildren will be significantly less habitable than the planet we enjoy. My nightmare is that 20, 30, 40 years from now our kids and our grandchildren will look Members of the Senate and the House in the eye, and they will say: The scientists told you what would happen and you did nothing. Why did you not react? How hard was it to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and transform our energy system away from coal and oil into energy efficiency and wind, solar, geothermal, and other sustainable energies? Pope Francis recently made what I thought to be a very profound statement. He said that our planet is on a suicidal direction--a suicidal direction--in terms of climate change. What a frightening and horrible thought. How irresponsible can we be to ignore what the entire scientific community is saying? I know there are many of my colleagues who refuse to acknowledge the reality. As perhaps the most progressive Member of the U.S. Senate let me simply say this: I have differences with my Republican colleagues on virtually every issue. That goes without saying, but there is something very different about this issue. I have been in hearings with my Republican colleagues where I heard doctors and scientists talk about cancer, about Alzheimer's, about diabetes, about all kinds of illnesses, and I may disagree with my Republican colleagues about how we go forward, how much we should fund NIH, but I have never heard my Republican colleagues attack doctors or researchers or scientists for their views on cancer research or Alzheimer's research. As I do, they respect that research. But somehow or another, when it comes to the issue of climate change, at best what we are seeing Republicans do-- many Republicans, most Republicans--is ignore the issue or claim they are not scientists or, at worst, attack those scientists who are doing the research. Why is that? Why is it that my Republican colleagues accept the research on cancer, on Alzheimer's, on all kinds of illnesses, and they respect scientists who are working in all kinds of areas. But somehow or another when it comes to the issue of climate change, my Republican friends are in denial? What I will say is that this has nothing to do with science, and it has sadly and tragically everything to do with our corrupt campaign finance laws, which allow large corporations and billionaires to contribute as much money as they want into the political process. In my view, the reality is that any Republican--and I happen to believe that many Republicans understand the truth about climate change. But I also believe that any Republican who stood up and said ``You know what, I just talked to some scientists'' or ``I just read some of the literature, and this climate change is real, it is dangerous, and we have to do something about it''--I believe that on that day when that Republican stands up, the money will stop flowing from the fossil fuel industry, from the Koch brothers, and there will be a strong likelihood that Republican would be primaried in the next election. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at the national level where companies have to report what they spend on lobbying and campaign contributions, the oil companies, coal companies, and electric utilities have spent a staggering $2.2 billion in Federal lobbying since 2009 and another $330 million in Federal campaign contributions. That is just at the Federal level--over $2.5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions in just 6 years. Even in Washington, DC, that is a lot of money, and that is just the money that we know about. That is not all of it. That is not the end of it. As a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money, we know that the Koch brothers, who make most of their money in the fossil fuel industry, and a handful of their friends will be spending some $900 million--$900 million--from one family and a few of their friends in the 2016 election cycle. Clearly, one of the reasons they are investing so much in this election cycle is that they intend to continue doing everything they can to make sure Congress does not go forward to protect our kids and our grandchildren against the ravages of climate change. According to an 8-month investigation by journalists at Inside Climate News, Exxon--now ExxonMobil--may have conducted extensive research on climate change as early as 1977, leading top Exxon scientists to conclude both that climate change is real and that it was caused, in part, by the carbon pollution resulting from the use of Exxon's petroleum-based products. In addition, the purported internal business memoranda accompanying the reporting asserted that Exxon's climate science program was launched in response to a perceived existential threat to its business model. In other words, the scientists at ExxonMobil, who are scientists, discovered the truth, and upon hearing the truth, ExxonMobil poured millions of dollars into organizations whose main function was to deny the reality of climate change. The efforts to transform our energy system are taking place not only here in Washington, the Nation's Capital, but at the State and local level as well. In States such as Arizona and Florida, roadblocks are being put up to stop people from gaining access to renewable energy sources such as wind and especially rooftop solar. In States such as Arizona and Florida and many of our Southern States with huge solar exposure, there is huge potential for solar. Yet we are now seeing politicians, at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, put up roadblock after roadblock to make it harder for people to move to solar or wind. I have heard a lot of the arguments from the fossil fuel industry as to why we should not transform our energy system, and many of those arguments are repeated here on the floor by some of my colleagues. But the truth is that it turns out that transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy will create a significant number of new and decent-paying jobs, and it will lower energy bills in communities all across this country. My own State of Vermont participates in a regional greenhouse gas initiative cap-and-trade program for the power sector. Since 2009, the program has created over 14,000 net jobs, and carbon pollution levels dropped by 15 percent at the same time consumers, businesses, and other energy users saw their electricity and heating bills go down by $459 million. The majority of those savings came from energy efficiency. All the while, jobs were created, not exported, and we relied on clean domestic energy instead of oil from the Middle East. Energy efficiency clearly makes an enormous amount of sense. It is clearly the low-hanging fruit as we transform our energy system. I have been in homes in Vermont that have been effectively weatherized, and they are seeing heating bills drop by 50 percent. People in those homes are living in more comfort, and jobs are being created by those people who install the insulation and other energy- efficient tools, not to mention all of the folks who are manufacturing the insulation, windows, and efficient roofing. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, energy efficiency provides a larger return on investment than any individual energy source because for every $1 invested in energy efficiency, we see $4 in total benefits for all consumers. For every $1 billion invested in efficiency upgrades, we see a creation of 19,000 direct and indirect jobs. These numbers are great and speak for themselves, but acting on climate change is also a moral obligation. While we will all suffer-- all over our country and all over the world--the impacts of climate change, the sad truth is that climate impacts fall especially hard upon the most vulnerable people in our society. Minority and low-income communities in the United States are disproportionately impacted by the causes of climate change. According to a 2012 study by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, the nearly 6 million people in the United States who live within 3 miles of a coal-burning powerplant have an average per capita annual income of just over $18,000 a year. Among the people who live within 3 miles of a coal powerplant, 39 percent are people of color, while people of color compromise only 36 percent of the total population of the United States. The bottom line is that when we talk about climate change and its impact upon our planet and all the people, we should bear in mind that this is happening not only in the United States but all over the world. The people who will suffer the most are low-income people and people living in poverty. I am introducing legislation called the American Clean Energy Investment Act of 2015. This legislation is built upon the fact that the prices for wind and solar power have plummeted over the last decade, cutting carbon pollution and creating tens of thousands of new jobs in the process. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry benefits from permanent subsidies worth tens of billions of dollars each year. Incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency are temporary and are too often allowed to elapse entirely. My legislation permanently extends and makes refundable some of our most important renewable energy tax credits for energy efficiency and sustainable energy, including sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Permanently extending these incentives will drive over $500 billion in clean energy investments between now and 2030 and are an integral part of putting us on a pathway to more than doubling the size of our clean energy workforce to 10 million American workers. The costs for these incentives are completely offset by repealing the special interest corporate welfare in the Tax Code for the fossil fuel industries. If we are going to be serious about dealing with the threat of climate change, we need to end the polluter welfare that subsidizes increased pollution from fossil fuels and instead invest those resources in clean energy solutions that reduce pollution. Doing this will save lives, protect our economy, and reduce the threats from climate change at the same time we are creating millions of good-paying jobs here in the United States. Our legislation is supported by the Solar Energy Industries Association, the American Wind Energy Association, 350.org, and cosponsored by Senators Merkley and Markey. We have a national responsibility to protect the livelihoods of the working families and communities who help power and build this country. We must act now to reenergize our manufacturing base, bolster our clean energy economy, and protect the livelihoods of energy workers and the communities they support. As a result of these concerns, this bill provides up to 3 years of unemployment insurance, health care, and pensions for workers who lose their jobs due to our transition to a clean energy economy. In other words, we understand--as was very much the case with our moving away from tobacco farming in this country--that the people who do the work in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels are not to blame for the fact that the product they produce is causing so many problems in our country. Our job is to protect and transition them to other decent-paying jobs, and the government has a responsibility to help with that transition. Based on what the scientists are telling us, we need to make very significant cuts in carbon pollution emissions and we need to do it as soon as possible. It is absolutely vital that we do what many economists tell us we must do, and that is to put a price on carbon. It is the simplest and most direct way to make the kinds of cuts in carbon pollution that we have to make if we are going to successfully transition from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. That is why within the Climate Protection and Justice Act that I am introducing, there will be a tax on carbon. Directly pricing carbon is a key part of the solution of transforming our energy system. Many experts support a fee on carbon pollution emissions, including liberal, moderates, and even prominent conservatives such as George Shultz, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker, Mitt Romney's former adviser Gregory Mankiw, former Reagan adviser Art Laffer, former Republican Bob Inglis, and many others. The idea of a price on carbon is not just a progressive concept, it is one that is being supported by economists throughout the political spectrum. The Nation's leading corporations, including the Nation's five biggest oil giants, are already planning their future budgets with the assumptions that there will be a cost applied to carbon emissions. In other words, some of the very companies that have strongly opposed action to address climate change are recognizing the reality in front of them, and that is that the United States is going to--hopefully sooner rather than later--address the crisis of climate change and that there will be a tax on carbon. This tax works by setting enforceable pollution-reduction targets for each decade, including a 40-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and a more than 80-percent reduction level by 2050. This legislation sets a price on carbon pollution for fossil fuel producers or importers. Proceeds from the carbon pollution fee are returned to the bottom 80 percent of households making less than $100,000 a year to offset them for any increase they might experience in increased energy costs as a result of this transition. For an average family of four, this will amount to a rebate of roughly $900 in 2017 and will grow to an annual rebate of $1,900 in 2030. It would only apply upstream, meaning at the oil refinery, coal mine, natural gas processing plant, or point of importation. It would apply to fewer than 3,000 of the largest fossil fuel polluters in this country. EPA's existing authority to regulate carbon pollution, sources from powerplants, vehicles, and other sources is reaffirmed, and if the United States is not on track to meet its emissions reduction targets, the EPA shall issue new regulations to ensure that it does. Importantly, based on lessons learned from the cap-and-trade law in California, a Federal interagency council will oversee the creation and distribution of a climate justice resiliency fund block grant program to States, territories, tribes, municipalities, counties, localities, and nonprofit community organizations. The council will provide $20 billion annually for these grants in communities that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change for important programs they are running. This legislation strengthens our manufacturing sector through a border tariff adjustment mechanism which shields energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries such as steel, aluminum, glass, pulp and paper, from unfair international trade policies. The monies raised by the green tariff are used to help improve industrial energy efficiency. Farmers receive dedicated funding through the USDA's Rural Energy for America Program to improve on farm energy efficiency and to adopt onsite renewable energy. The bill includes incentives for farmers to adopt no-till practices and creates an incentive program to encourage the adoption of sustainable fertilizer application practices. Finally, the bill includes Federal electricity market reforms that reduce pollution, increase efficiency, and reduce costs by ensuring equitable grid access for demand response programs. At the end of the day, the Congress of the United States is going to have to make some very important and fundamental decisions, and the most important is whether we believe in science. We can have many disagreements on many issues, but we should not have a disagreement about whether we base public policy on science rather than campaign contributions. That really is the issue we are dealing with right now. We are in a critical moment in world history. Our planet is becoming warmer, sea levels are rising, and communities all over the world that are on seacoasts are being threatened. The ocean is being acidified to an unprecedented level, which has huge impacts in so many areas, including the ability of people to fish and gain nutrients from the ocean. We are looking at unprecedented levels of heat waves in India, Pakistan, and Europe that have killed thousands of people. We are looking at forest fires on the west coast of that country that are unprecedented in terms of their duration and their ferocity. So we have to make a decision about whether we stand with our children and our grandchildren or whether we stand with campaign contributors from the fossil fuel industry. Climate change is real. Climate change is caused by human activity. Climate change is already causing devastating damage on this planet. Our job is now to stand with our children, to stand with our grandchildren, and to make certain that they have a planet that is healthy and that is habitable. That is what the legislation I am introducing will do.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, one of the great moral issues of our time is the global crisis of climate change. Let me be very clear about climate change. Climate change is not a Democratic issue or a progressive issue. It is not a Republican issue or a conservative issue. What it is, is an issue that has everything to do with physics. It is an issue of physics. What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the debate is over, and that is that the vast majority of the scientists who have studied the issues are quite clear. What they tell us over and over again is that climate change is real, climate change is caused by human activity, and climate change is already causing devastating problems throughout our country and, in fact, throughout the world. What the scientists also tell us is that we have a relatively short window of opportunity to bring about the fundamental changes we need in our global energy system to transform our energy system from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We have a limited window of opportunity. What the scientists are telling us very clearly is if we do not seize that opportunity, if we do not lead the world-- working with China, Russia, India and other countries--in transforming the global energy system, the planet we leave to our children and our grandchildren will be significantly less habitable than the planet we enjoy. My nightmare is that 20, 30, 40 years from now our kids and our grandchildren will look Members of the Senate and the House in the eye, and they will say: The scientists told you what would happen and you did nothing. Why did you not react? How hard was it to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and transform our energy system away from coal and oil into energy efficiency and wind, solar, geothermal, and other sustainable energies? Pope Francis recently made what I thought to be a very profound statement. He said that our planet is on a suicidal direction--a suicidal direction--in terms of climate change. What a frightening and horrible thought. How irresponsible can we be to ignore what the entire scientific community is saying? I know there are many of my colleagues who refuse to acknowledge the reality. As perhaps the most progressive Member of the U.S. Senate let me simply say this: I have differences with my Republican colleagues on virtually every issue. That goes without saying, but there is something very different about this issue. I have been in hearings with my Republican colleagues where I heard doctors and scientists talk about cancer, about Alzheimer's, about diabetes, about all kinds of illnesses, and I may disagree with my Republican colleagues about how we go forward, how much we should fund NIH, but I have never heard my Republican colleagues attack doctors or researchers or scientists for their views on cancer research or Alzheimer's research. As I do, they respect that research. But somehow or another, when it comes to the issue of climate change, at best what we are seeing Republicans do-- many Republicans, most Republicans--is ignore the issue or claim they are not scientists or, at worst, attack those scientists who are doing the research. Why is that? Why is it that my Republican colleagues accept the research on cancer, on Alzheimer's, on all kinds of illnesses, and they respect scientists who are working in all kinds of areas. But somehow or another when it comes to the issue of climate change, my Republican friends are in denial? What I will say is that this has nothing to do with science, and it has sadly and tragically everything to do with our corrupt campaign finance laws, which allow large corporations and billionaires to contribute as much money as they want into the political process. In my view, the reality is that any Republican--and I happen to believe that many Republicans understand the truth about climate change. But I also believe that any Republican who stood up and said ``You know what, I just talked to some scientists'' or ``I just read some of the literature, and this climate change is real, it is dangerous, and we have to do something about it''--I believe that on that day when that Republican stands up, the money will stop flowing from the fossil fuel industry, from the Koch brothers, and there will be a strong likelihood that Republican would be primaried in the next election. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at the national level where companies have to report what they spend on lobbying and campaign contributions, the oil companies, coal companies, and electric utilities have spent a staggering $2.2 billion in Federal lobbying since 2009 and another $330 million in Federal campaign contributions. That is just at the Federal level--over $2.5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions in just 6 years. Even in Washington, DC, that is a lot of money, and that is just the money that we know about. That is not all of it. That is not the end of it. As a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money, we know that the Koch brothers, who make most of their money in the fossil fuel industry, and a handful of their friends will be spending some $900 million--$900 million--from one family and a few of their friends in the 2016 election cycle. Clearly, one of the reasons they are investing so much in this election cycle is that they intend to continue doing everything they can to make sure Congress does not go forward to protect our kids and our grandchildren against the ravages of climate change. According to an 8-month investigation by journalists at Inside Climate News, Exxon--now ExxonMobil--may have conducted extensive research on climate change as early as 1977, leading top Exxon scientists to conclude both that climate change is real and that it was caused, in part, by the carbon pollution resulting from the use of Exxon's petroleum-based products. In addition, the purported internal business memoranda accompanying the reporting asserted that Exxon's climate science program was launched in response to a perceived existential threat to its business model. In other words, the scientists at ExxonMobil, who are scientists, discovered the truth, and upon hearing the truth, ExxonMobil poured millions of dollars into organizations whose main function was to deny the reality of climate change. The efforts to transform our energy system are taking place not only here in Washington, the Nation's Capital, but at the State and local level as well. In States such as Arizona and Florida, roadblocks are being put up to stop people from gaining access to renewable energy sources such as wind and especially rooftop solar. In States such as Arizona and Florida and many of our Southern States with huge solar exposure, there is huge potential for solar. Yet we are now seeing politicians, at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, put up roadblock after roadblock to make it harder for people to move to solar or wind. I have heard a lot of the arguments from the fossil fuel industry as to why we should not transform our energy system, and many of those arguments are repeated here on the floor by some of my colleagues. But the truth is that it turns out that transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy will create a significant number of new and decent-paying jobs, and it will lower energy bills in communities all across this country. My own State of Vermont participates in a regional greenhouse gas initiative cap-and-trade program for the power sector. Since 2009, the program has created over 14,000 net jobs, and carbon pollution levels dropped by 15 percent at the same time consumers, businesses, and other energy users saw their electricity and heating bills go down by $459 million. The majority of those savings came from energy efficiency. All the while, jobs were created, not exported, and we relied on clean domestic energy instead of oil from the Middle East. Energy efficiency clearly makes an enormous amount of sense. It is clearly the low-hanging fruit as we transform our energy system. I have been in homes in Vermont that have been effectively weatherized, and they are seeing heating bills drop by 50 percent. People in those homes are living in more comfort, and jobs are being created by those people who install the insulation and other energy- efficient tools, not to mention all of the folks who are manufacturing the insulation, windows, and efficient roofing. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, energy efficiency provides a larger return on investment than any individual energy source because for every $1 invested in energy efficiency, we see $4 in total benefits for all consumers. For every $1 billion invested in efficiency upgrades, we see a creation of 19,000 direct and indirect jobs. These numbers are great and speak for themselves, but acting on climate change is also a moral obligation. While we will all suffer-- all over our country and all over the world--the impacts of climate change, the sad truth is that climate impacts fall especially hard upon the most vulnerable people in our society. Minority and low-income communities in the United States are disproportionately impacted by the causes of climate change. According to a 2012 study by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, the nearly 6 million people in the United States who live within 3 miles of a coal-burning powerplant have an average per capita annual income of just over $18,000 a year. Among the people who live within 3 miles of a coal powerplant, 39 percent are people of color, while people of color compromise only 36 percent of the total population of the United States. The bottom line is that when we talk about climate change and its impact upon our planet and all the people, we should bear in mind that this is happening not only in the United States but all over the world. The people who will suffer the most are low-income people and people living in poverty. I am introducing legislation called the American Clean Energy Investment Act of 2015. This legislation is built upon the fact that the prices for wind and solar power have plummeted over the last decade, cutting carbon pollution and creating tens of thousands of new jobs in the process. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry benefits from permanent subsidies worth tens of billions of dollars each year. Incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency are temporary and are too often allowed to elapse entirely. My legislation permanently extends and makes refundable some of our most important renewable energy tax credits for energy efficiency and sustainable energy, including sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Permanently extending these incentives will drive over $500 billion in clean energy investments between now and 2030 and are an integral part of putting us on a pathway to more than doubling the size of our clean energy workforce to 10 million American workers. The costs for these incentives are completely offset by repealing the special interest corporate welfare in the Tax Code for the fossil fuel industries. If we are going to be serious about dealing with the threat of climate change, we need to end the polluter welfare that subsidizes increased pollution from fossil fuels and instead invest those resources in clean energy solutions that reduce pollution. Doing this will save lives, protect our economy, and reduce the threats from climate change at the same time we are creating millions of good-paying jobs here in the United States. Our legislation is supported by the Solar Energy Industries Association, the American Wind Energy Association, 350.org, and cosponsored by Senators Merkley and Markey. We have a national responsibility to protect the livelihoods of the working families and communities who help power and build this country. We must act now to reenergize our manufacturing base, bolster our clean energy economy, and protect the livelihoods of energy workers and the communities they support. As a result of these concerns, this bill provides up to 3 years of unemployment insurance, health care, and pensions for workers who lose their jobs due to our transition to a clean energy economy. In other words, we understand--as was very much the case with our moving away from tobacco farming in this country--that the people who do the work in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels are not to blame for the fact that the product they produce is causing so many problems in our country. Our job is to protect and transition them to other decent-paying jobs, and the government has a responsibility to help with that transition. Based on what the scientists are telling us, we need to make very significant cuts in carbon pollution emissions and we need to do it as soon as possible. It is absolutely vital that we do what many economists tell us we must do, and that is to put a price on carbon. It is the simplest and most direct way to make the kinds of cuts in carbon pollution that we have to make if we are going to successfully transition from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. That is why within the Climate Protection and Justice Act that I am introducing, there will be a tax on carbon. Directly pricing carbon is a key part of the solution of transforming our energy system. Many experts support a fee on carbon pollution emissions, including liberal, moderates, and even prominent conservatives such as George Shultz, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker, Mitt Romney's former adviser Gregory Mankiw, former Reagan adviser Art Laffer, former Republican Bob Inglis, and many others. The idea of a price on carbon is not just a progressive concept, it is one that is being supported by economists throughout the political spectrum. The Nation's leading corporations, including the Nation's five biggest oil giants, are already planning their future budgets with the assumptions that there will be a cost applied to carbon emissions. In other words, some of the very companies that have strongly opposed action to address climate change are recognizing the reality in front of them, and that is that the United States is going to--hopefully sooner rather than later--address the crisis of climate change and that there will be a tax on carbon. This tax works by setting enforceable pollution-reduction targets for each decade, including a 40-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and a more than 80-percent reduction level by 2050. This legislation sets a price on carbon pollution for fossil fuel producers or importers. Proceeds from the carbon pollution fee are returned to the bottom 80 percent of households making less than $100,000 a year to offset them for any increase they might experience in increased energy costs as a result of this transition. For an average family of four, this will amount to a rebate of roughly $900 in 2017 and will grow to an annual rebate of $1,900 in 2030. It would only apply upstream, meaning at the oil refinery, coal mine, natural gas processing plant, or point of importation. It would apply to fewer than 3,000 of the largest fossil fuel polluters in this country. EPA's existing authority to regulate carbon pollution, sources from powerplants, vehicles, and other sources is reaffirmed, and if the United States is not on track to meet its emissions reduction targets, the EPA shall issue new regulations to ensure that it does. Importantly, based on lessons learned from the cap-and-trade law in California, a Federal interagency council will oversee the creation and distribution of a climate justice resiliency fund block grant program to States, territories, tribes, municipalities, counties, localities, and nonprofit community organizations. The council will provide $20 billion annually for these grants in communities that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change for important programs they are running. This legislation strengthens our manufacturing sector through a border tariff adjustment mechanism which shields energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries such as steel, aluminum, glass, pulp and paper, from unfair international trade policies. The monies raised by the green tariff are used to help improve industrial energy efficiency. Farmers receive dedicated funding through the USDA's Rural Energy for America Program to improve on farm energy efficiency and to adopt onsite renewable energy. The bill includes incentives for farmers to adopt no-till practices and creates an incentive program to encourage the adoption of sustainable fertilizer application practices. Finally, the bill includes Federal electricity market reforms that reduce pollution, increase efficiency, and reduce costs by ensuring equitable grid access for demand response programs. At the end of the day, the Congress of the United States is going to have to make some very important and fundamental decisions, and the most important is whether we believe in science. We can have many disagreements on many issues, but we should not have a disagreement about whether we base public policy on science rather than campaign contributions. That really is the issue we are dealing with right now. We are in a critical moment in world history. Our planet is becoming warmer, sea levels are rising, and communities all over the world that are on seacoasts are being threatened. The ocean is being acidified to an unprecedented level, which has huge impacts in so many areas, including the ability of people to fish and gain nutrients from the ocean. We are looking at unprecedented levels of heat waves in India, Pakistan, and Europe that have killed thousands of people. We are looking at forest fires on the west coast of that country that are unprecedented in terms of their duration and their ferocity. So we have to make a decision about whether we stand with our children and our grandchildren or whether we stand with campaign contributors from the fossil fuel industry. Climate change is real. Climate change is caused by human activity. Climate change is already causing devastating damage on this planet. Our job is now to stand with our children, to stand with our grandchildren, and to make certain that they have a planet that is healthy and that is habitable. That is what the legislation I am introducing will do.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong opposition to the budget reconciliation bill we are debating today. In fact, this bill should tell every American just how far removed the Republican leadership here in Congress is from the realities of American life and the needs of the American people. At a time when the United States is the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee health care to all people; when 29 million Americans today have no health insurance and even more are underinsured, with high deductibles and high copayments; when we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and when one out of five Americans is unable to fill the prescriptions written by their doctors because drug prices are so high, what this legislation does is move us in exactly the wrong direction. It would throw more than 17 million Americans off of health insurance by gutting the Affordable Care Act. So we have a health care crisis, and this bill makes the crisis much worse. Every other major country on Earth guarantees health care for all of their people as a right, but this bill would add 17 million more Americans to the ranks of the uninsured, creating a situation in which we would have 46 million Americans without any health insurance at all. I think any sensible person would ask an obvious question: What happens to people who lose their health insurance? How many of those people will get much sicker than they otherwise would have because they are unable to go to a doctor when they need to go? How many of those people will not be able to get the prescription drugs they need? In fact, how many of those people will die? Let's be frank. When we throw 17 million people off of health insurance, people will die because they don't go to a doctor when they should and they don't go to the hospital when they should. We know that before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 45,000 Americans died each year because they lacked health insurance and didn't get to a doctor in time. I have talked to many doctors in Vermont and throughout this country who tell me that yes, of course, people walk into their door much sicker than they should have been. When the doctor asks, ``Why didn't you come 6 months ago when you were sick?'' patients say, ``I didn't have any health insurance and I couldn't come.'' By the time they walk in the door, too often it is too late. That is not what should be happening in America, but that is what will increasingly happen if this legislation were to pass. In the United States of America, when a person is sick, that person should be able to access health care and see a doctor. That is not a radical idea. And when a person goes to the hospital, that person should not end up in bankruptcy. Instead of throwing 17 million Americans off of health insurance, what we should be doing is expanding on the improvements of the Affordable Care Act to make health care a right of all people, not just a privilege. Further, let's be clear--and I think everybody here in the Senate understands this--the bill we are debating today is a complete waste of time. This is just another reason why the American people have so little respect for the Congress. There are major crises facing our country, and the Republican leadership is once again attempting to repeal ObamaCare. I kind of lost track of how many times this effort has been made. I think in the House it is over 50. I don't know how many it is here in the Senate. Let me break the news to my Republican colleagues, although I am sure they already got the news: President Obama is not going to sign a bill repealing ObamaCare. I think that is not likely to happen. And what we are doing today is just a waste of time. Let's also be clear--this bill doesn't just gut the Affordable Care Act, it also eliminates funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides health care services to nearly 3 million women each and every year. Last week three people were killed and nine were wounded at a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, CO. While we still don't have all of the details as to what motivated the shooter, what is clear is that Planned Parenthood has been the subject of vicious and unsubstantiated statements attacking an organization that provides critical care for millions of Americans and, in fact, provides very high quality care. I, for one, strongly support Planned Parenthood and the work it is doing. In my view, instead of trying to defund Planned Parenthood, we should be expanding funding so that every woman in this country gets the health care she needs. It is also my sincere hope that people throughout this country, including my colleagues here in the Senate and across the Capitol in the House, understand that bitter, vitriolic rhetoric can have serious, unintended consequences. Now is not the time to continue a witch hunt for an organization that provides critical health care services--from reproductive health care, to cancer screenings and preventive services--to millions of Americans. No one is forced to seek care at Planned Parenthood. It is a choice--a choice millions of women make freely and proudly. This legislation is not only bad legislation and it is not only a waste of time because if it passes, it will be vetoed, but what it also tells the American people is that the Republican leadership is not prepared to discuss or to address the major crises facing our country. Just today a report came out stating that the top 20 wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people--20 people on one side and 150 million people on the other. The level of wealth inequality in America is grotesque and unacceptable. Not one word in this bill addresses that issue. Today in America, millions of our people are working longer hours for lower wages. They are working two or three jobs just to survive. Yet 58 percent of all new income created is going to the top 1 percent. Is there anything in this legislation that would raise wages for millions of American workers who are struggling to keep their families solvent? This is a bad piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is not going to go anyplace because it is going to be vetoed, and it is a piece of legislation that I think speaks to why the American people are giving up in so many ways on the political process. People are struggling all over this country. They are hurting. They are working longer hours for lower wages. They can't afford to send their kids to college. They can't afford childcare. They are worried about high unemployment. This bill attempts to repeal ObamaCare. That is where we are. I hope very strongly that this bill is defeated. If it is not defeated, I hope and expect the President will veto it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator. If you could extend that up to 20 minutes, that would be great.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes discussing a major crisis in this country that must be addressed. Tragically, in the United States of America we now have 2.2 million people in jail. We have more people incarcerated than any other country on Earth, including China, which is a Communist authoritarian country four times our size. We have more people in jail than does China. Further, at a time of large deficits and a very large national debt, we are spending about $80 billion a year in Federal, State, and local taxpayer money to lock up people--$80 billion a year to incarcerate people. Our criminal justice system is broken, and we need major reforms in that system. I think there is no debate in this country that violent and dangerous people must be locked up and they must be kept in jail and away from society. I think nobody argues that. On the other hand, I hope there is also no debate that nonviolent people--people who have been convicted of relatively minor crimes--should not have their lives destroyed while they do time in prison and create an arrest record which will stay with them for their entire lives. The important point is, it is not just the year or 2 years somebody is in prison; this record will stay with them for their entire lives and do enormous damage to their lives. In 2014 there were 620,000 marijuana possession arrests. That is one arrest every minute. According to a report by the ACLU, there were more than 8 million marijuana arrests in the United States from 2001 to 2010--8 million marijuana arrests--and almost 9 in 10 were for possession. Arrests for marijuana possession rose last year nationwide even as Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia became the first States in the Nation to legalize personal use of marijuana. Let's be clear that there is a racial component to this situation. Although about the same proportion of Blacks and Whites use marijuana, a Black person is almost four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a White person. In other words, as we try to understand why our prison population today is disproportionately Black and Latino, one reason is because in overpoliced Black neighborhoods, African Americans are much more likely to be arrested for smoking or using marijuana than will Whites. Here is the simple truth: An upper middle class White kid in Scarsdale, NY, has a much lower chance of being arrested for using marijuana than a low-income Black kid in Chicago or Baltimore. Those are just the facts. Too many Americans in this country have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. That is wrong. That has to change. Let's be clear. A criminal record could mean not only jail time, but much more. If a person has a criminal record, it will be much harder for that person later in life to get a job. It is not so easy to come out of jail and get a job, and if you don't get a job, there is a strong likelihood you will go back into your same old environment and end up in jail again. If somebody has a criminal record, it may be impossible for them to obtain certain types of public benefits and in fact make it difficult for them to even live in public housing. A criminal record stays with a person for his or her entire life until the day he or she dies. A criminal record destroys lives. Right now, under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I drug, meaning it is considered to be a drug that is extremely dangerous. In fact, under the act, marijuana is considered to be as dangerous as heroin. I know there are conflicting opinions about the health impacts marijuana may have, but nobody I know seriously believes marijuana is as dangerous as heroin. This is absurd. Nobody believes that. In my view, the time is long overdue for us to take marijuana off of the Federal Government's list of outlawed drugs. In my view, at a time when Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia have already legalized the personal use of marijuana, every State in this country should have the right to regulate marijuana the same way that State and local laws now govern sales of alcohol and tobacco. Among other things, that means recognized businesses in States that have legalized marijuana should be fully able to use the banking system without fear of Federal prosecution. In response to the initiatives that Colorado and other States have taken, the Obama administration has essentially allowed these States to go forward and do what the people in those States have chosen to do. That is a good step forward, but it is not good enough because a new administration with a different point of view could simply go forward and prosecute those marijuana businesses and individuals in those States who use marijuana despite what the people in those States have decided to do legislatively. What I am saying is not that the Federal Government should legalize marijuana throughout the country. This is a decision for the States. I hope many of my colleagues, especially those who express support for States' rights and our Federalist system of government, those who often decry the power of the big bad Federal Government in undermining local initiatives, would support my very simple and straightforward legislation that will be introduced next week. All my legislation says is that if a State chooses to legalize marijuana, that State should be able to go forward without legal impediments from the Federal Government. Capital Punishment Mr. President, I want to talk about an issue of great importance in this country. I believe the time is now for the United States to end capital punishment. I know this is not necessarily a popular point of view, but in my view it is the right point of view. Virtually every Western industrialized country has chosen to end capital punishment. I would rather have our country stand side-by-side with European democracies than with countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others that maintain the death penalty. We are all shocked and disgusted by the horrific murders we see in this country, including massacres in schools and on college campuses that seem to take place every week. All of us are tired and disgusted with what we are seeing, but it seems to me that at a time of rampant violence and murder all over the world, where people are being blown up and their heads are being cut off, it is important that the state itself, the Federal Government in America, say loudly and clearly that we will not be part of that process. When people commit horrendous crimes--and we see too many of them--we should lock them up and throw away the key. I have no problem in saying that people who commit terrible murders should spend the rest of their lives in jail, but the state itself, in a democratic civilized society, should itself not be involved in the murder of other Americans. I know there are strong differences of opinion on this issue. In fact, I think I am in a minority position, but I think those of us who want to set an example, who want to say that we have to end the murders and the violence we are seeing in our country and all over the world, should in fact be on the side of those of us who believe we must end capital punishment in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.