Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is no great secret that the American people understand how far removed the U.S. Congress and both political parties are from their needs. They do polls out there, depending on the month, and Congress gets a 10-percent approval rating, and, on a good day, maybe a 20-percent approval rating. People understand that, to a shameful degree, what Congress does is worry about the needs of wealthy campaign contributors--both political parties--and turns their backs on the needs of working people. A few months ago, in Burlington, VT, not far from where I live, they shut down the road so that people could line up in their cars to get emergency food distributed by the Vermont National Guard--hundreds and hundreds of people in Burlington and all over the State of Vermont. And, by the way, Vermont probably is in better shape than most States in this country. We have more hunger in America today than at any time in the modern history of this country. This pandemic has been a disaster not only from a public health perspective but from an economic perspective, and economists tell us that working families today are in worse shape right now than at any time since the Great Depression. And it is not just the children in America--the richest country on Earth--who are going hungry. You have millions and millions of families who are scared to death that they are going to be evicted from their homes and join the half a million people in America who are already homeless. We have half of our population working day to day, living paycheck to paycheck, trying to survive. This Congress must address the economic emergency facing the American people. We cannot go back to our families during the Christmas holidays while tens of millions of families are suffering. They are looking toward us and their government--their government--to provide the emergency assistance that they need. Yesterday, Senator Hawley and I introduced a very simple amendment-- not a radical idea. In fact, we are way, way behind what other countries around the world are doing to protect their workers. All that we want to do is to once again provide the same benefits that were provided in the CARES bill that unanimously--unanimously, Democrats, Republicans--President Trump signed it, supported it. We all came together in March to say that every working-class adult in this country would get $1,200 and their kids would get $500. So if you have a husband and wife and two kids, that is 3,400 bucks. Maybe they can use that money to pay a couple of months' rent, buy some food, go to the doctor. We are looking at a horrible pandemic now. You have 90 million people who are uninsured or underinsured. That is all we are asking--to do what we unanimously did in March, to make sure that our unemployed workers get the benefits they need to make sure that working families get that $1,200 check per person. Now, I have been here for a while. I am not one of the Members of the Senate who shuts down, does this and does that, and keeps people here for weeks. I don't do that. But this I want to say right now: I am prepared to withdraw my objection at this moment, but I will not be prepared to withdraw an objection next week. We will deal with the financial crisis facing tens of millions of Americans. And if I have anything to say about it--and I guess I do--we are not going to go home for the Christmas holidays unless we make sure that we provide for the millions of families in this country who are suffering. With that, I would yield to Senator Hawley

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this country faces an unprecedented crisis in terms of the pandemic and the economic meltdown. I understand that negotiations are currently going on in terms of coming up with an economic package dealing with COVID-19 relief, and I applaud the very hard work that each of the negotiators are doing, Democrats and Republicans. But the truth is that the results up to this point for those negotiations are totally unsatisfactory given the economic desperation facing tens of millions of working families all across this country. As I think everyone will remember, back in March of this year, at the beginning of the pandemic, the U.S. Congress acted unanimously-- unanimously, Democrats and Republicans--and worked with President Trump to come up with an economic package that went a long way toward preventing absolute misery and destitution for many of our people. Through no fault of their own, COVID-19 resulted in millions of our people losing their jobs and their income. That is what the pandemic did. Nobody is to blame. That is what happened. And in response, in March, Democrats and Republicans in this Congress came together, worked with the President of the United States, and in a very significant way responded to that crisis. That is what we did in March. What I don't understand is that at a time when, in many ways, the economic and public health crisis is worse today than it was in March, why we are not responding accordingly? In March, as you know, we passed the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, which included a $600 supplement to unemployed workers, and, my God, what relief that was to millions of workers who had lost their jobs. In addition, we provided a $1,200 direct payment to every working-class adult in this country, plus $500 for their kids. Once again--and let me repeat this--we did this unanimously, and we did it working with President Trump despite many of the enormous disagreements that a lot of us have with President Trump on so many issues. Now, what I don't understand is, if we could work together in March, if we could have succeeded 9 months ago, why can we not do exactly the same thing right now? That is why I will insist that any agreement in terms of a COVID-19 relief package must include not only strong unemployment benefits but a $1,200 direct payment for the working families of this country, similarly structured to what was included in the CARES package of March. I will be introducing an amendment to the 1-week continuing resolution to make sure that occurs, that every working-class adult in this country receives another $1,200 direct payment, plus $500 for their kids. If we could do it in March and it was the right thing then, now, at a time when the situation in many ways is even worse, we can and must do it today. Every Member of this body, I know, wants to get out of Washington to get home to their families for the holiday season, and put me at the very top of that list. But at a time when so many American families are suffering, when so many people don't know how they are going to feed their kids or prevent being evicted from their homes or how they are going to pay for a doctor's visit, we cannot leave Washington and return to our families unless we address the economic suffering that so many other families are facing. When a national emergency occurs, the U.S. Government must respond. And we are in a national emergency today. To get out of Washington, to turn our backs on the suffering of so many men, women, and children in Vermont and in every other State in this country, would be immoral, it would be unconscionable, and we cannot allow that to happen. Again, we must make certain that every working family in this country receives a $1,200 direct payment, plus $500 for their kids. That is the least we can do. Let me be as clear as I can be. Today, as a result of the horrific pandemic and economic meltdown, the American working class is hurting in a way that has not been experienced since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In terms of public health, yesterday alone, over 220,000 Americans were diagnosed with COVID-19--yesterday--and tragically, over 3,000 died from this horrific virus. We are experiencing now some of the worst days in terms of cases being diagnosed, in terms of hospitalization, in terms of death. That is where we are today. In other words, more Americans were killed by the coronavirus yesterday than were killed on 9/11. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic. They have lost their incomes. They have lost their health insurance. They have depleted their life savings. Let me tell you this: We deferred evictions. We prevented people from being evicted from their homes. But when at some point that deferment ends, all across the country, people are going to owe thousands and thousands of dollars to their landlords. They don't have the money to pay them. Tens of millions of people are in danger of being evicted. You may have noticed that there were reports out there that hunger-- this is the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world. We are looking at numbers that suggest that hunger is at the highest level we have seen in decades. Children in America are going hungry, and all across this country, tenants are worried that they are going to get a knock on the door from the sheriff evicting them from their homes or their apartments and throwing their belongings out on the street to join the other 500,000 Americans who are now homeless. In America today, over half of our workers are living paycheck-to- paycheck, while one out of every four workers in this country is either unemployed or earning an annual income of less than $20,000 a year. I don't know how anybody makes it on less than $20,000 a year. During the holiday season to come, over one-third of Americans expect to lose income and are already having a difficult time paying for their basic household expenses. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that, at a time when so many people in our economy are suffering, it has been far worse for the African-American and Latino communities. During this pandemic, nearly 60 percent of Latino families and 55 percent of African-American families have either experienced a job loss or a pay cut. That is just an unimaginable number. So the general population is suffering--even worse for the African-American and Latino communities. I should also add that, in the midst of this pandemic, not everybody is suffering. The people on top, some of the billionaires on top, are doing phenomenally well. Over the past 9 months of this pandemic, 650 billionaires--650, not a whole lot of people--have seen their wealth go up by over $1 trillion, during this pandemic, and now own over twice as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of American people. This is the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world. No person in this great country should be going hungry. No person should live in fear of going homeless. No person in America should lack the healthcare they need when they or their kids get sick, especially in the midst of the worst public health crisis in 100 years. Can you imagine? I mean, it really is unimaginable that we are looking at 220,000 people yesterday having been diagnosed with COVID- 19, with the virus, and there are 90 million people in America who are either uninsured or underinsured, and they can't even afford to go to a doctor. But that is exactly what is going on in America today. This is an unprecedented moment in American history, and the Senate needs to take unprecedented action to protect the working families of this country who are facing extreme economic desperation. If we could act effectively in March through the CARES Act, we can act effectively today as we enter this holiday season. Once again, I very much appreciate the hard work that has gone into the current $908 billion proposal being worked on by a number of Democratic and Republican Senators, but, simply stated, given the horrific extent of the current crisis and the desperation of so many of our people, this proposal does not go anywhere--anywhere--far enough. In truth, rather than the $3.4 trillion which we on the Democratic side called for in the Heroes Act and passed in the House--the U.S. House of Representatives a number of months ago passed a $3.4 trillion bill, but what is being discussed and negotiated right now with Democratic and Republican Senators only allocates $348 billion in new money. The remaining $560 billion are funds transferred from the CARES Act that have not yet been obligated. So what we are talking about now, as opposed to $3.4 trillion passed in the Heroes Act, is, roughly speaking, $348 billion in new money right now. We are talking about, roughly speaking, 10 percent of new money compared to what was passed in the House. That is absurd. That is unacceptable. I am prepared to negotiate, but I cannot negotiate in good faith when we are receiving 10 percent of new money compared to what was passed in the House in the Heroes bill. Unlike the CARES Act, which we passed unanimously in March, the proposal now being negotiated only provides a $300 supplement for unemployed workers rather than $600 a week. Further, unlike the $1,200 direct payment for every working-class individual and $500 for each child, this agreement being negotiated provides absolutely nothing-- zero. Moreover, this proposal does nothing to address the healthcare crisis impacting tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford medical care and has totally inadequate financial assistance for the most vulnerable. The American people need help, and they need help now. In fact, there has never been a time in the modern history of this country when the American people were in more economic desperation and a time when people needed help. If a government means anything, it means that we cannot turn our backs on tens of millions of families who today are suffering. So we have to make sure that every working individual in America receives at least $1,200 in direct payment. That is what we have to do. We cannot continue the status quo of simply coming in here to work and then going home and going back for our holiday. So I am going to do everything I can to insist that we make sure that every working person in this country gets a $1,200 direct payment, and we are not going to go home until that happens.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And let me just say this: In March, as Senator Hawley indicated, we came together, and I had the same experience in Vermont. People in desperation called the office: When can we get the check? We desperately need it. And I suspect it was the same thing in Texas and the same thing in every other State in this country. People are hurting. We cannot go home unless we address the needs of those people. And the amendment that Senator Hawley and I are introducing could not be simpler. It is $1,200 in direct payment for adults up to a certain limit--the same limit as was in the CARES Act--and $500 for their children. We have already voted and passed that exact same provision in March, and the situation today is not better. In some respects, it is worse. So I would hope that we would have bipartisan support for this legislation. Look, it is no great secret, whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, that people are losing faith in their government. They are hurting; their kids are hurting; their parents are hurting. They look to Washington and they say: Do you know that we exist or are you just worried about your rich friends and your campaign contributors? In this moment of economic crisis, we have got to do everything that we can to restore faith that this government works for ordinary people. So let us do the right thing. Let us pass this amendment in a bipartisan way. Let us show the working families of America that we understand what they are going through, and we are going to stand with them. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are currently in the midst of the worst moment of the pandemic up until now. We have recordbreaking numbers of deaths, of diagnoses of people with COVID-19, of hospitals unable to accommodate even more people. And in the midst of this pandemic, obviously, we are also in a severe economic meltdown, and there are economists who are telling us that the desperation of working families in this country today, right now, is worse than at any time since the Great Depression. In Vermont and all over this country, we have workers who have lost their jobs and their income; people who are, by the millions, behind in their rent and are afraid of being evicted, afraid of losing their homes; people who have lost their health insurance, unable to go to a doctor. In the midst of a terrible pandemic, they don't have health insurance, can't go to a doctor when they get sick. And what we are seeing today is a record number of Americans who are struggling, literally, with hunger, unable to feed their kids. I know in Vermont and all over this country there are lines of automobiles, cars of people--people who had never received governmental help--in line for emergency bags of groceries. That is what is going on in this country today. Now, back in March, in the beginning of the pandemic, this Congress came together--Democrats and Republicans and President Trump came together--and virtually unanimously passed the CARES Act, $2.2 trillion, which, among many other features, provided a $600 supplement to unemployment benefits for 4 months and $1,200 direct payments for every working-class adult in this country, plus $500 for their children. And here is the truth: That program, that CARES Program, saved lives, gave dignity to people who were at their wit's end, and saved this economy from further downfall. Well, today, we are where we are, which is at another terrible moment in this pandemic, and this Congress must act. We cannot leave here to go home to our families for the Christmas holidays while other families throughout this country, by the millions, are wondering how they are going to pay the rent or feed their kids. We cannot do that. And I am proud to say that Senator Hawley from Missouri and I have worked together on a pretty simple amendment that he will be talking about in a second, which says that we must include in any legislation that is passed a direct payment of $1,200 for adults and $500 for kids. We cannot, we must not leave Washington unless we do that. And next week I am going to do everything that I can to make sure that that happens. We cannot, we will not leave Washington unless we make certain that millions of families have the economic assistance that they need. So we are working on bipartisan legislation, and Senator Hawley has done a very, very good job on this, and I am proud to yield the floor to him.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Brenda Torpy, who is retiring this month after decades of service at Champlain Housing Trust. Brenda is not only a leader and ally in the fight for affordable housing, she is a longtime friend. When I was elected mayor of Burlington, VT, in 1981, I knew I had a unique opportunity to change the way things were done, and to serve working families and others who had been left behind by past administrations. My vision was for a municipal government that worked for every one and increased fairness and equity so that all Burlington residents could get ahead. At the time, far too many residents were struggling to keep up with rising housing costs due to gentrification and development, and owning their own home--a hallmark of the American dream--felt like an impossible goal. I wanted to change that. My vision for housing in Burlington could never have become a reality without Brenda and her work to establish a community land trust in Vermont. Brenda served as the city's first housing director in the newly created Community and Economic Development Office--CEDO--a role in which she demonstrated remarkable talent and dedication. It was Brenda and her colleagues who proposed the idea of a community land trust, which was a novel idea at the time. Thanks to their work with the Institute for Community Economics and their successful engagement with the community, this innovative model for affordable housing came to the city of Burlington and was established as the Burlington Community Land Trust, now the Champlain Housing Trust. The trust did something truly transformative: Through shared equity, it gave low- income people access to homeownership that was never possible before. Because the land trust remains affordable in perpetuity, the homes are still affordable today and will remain so long into the future. From her role at CEDO, Brenda went on to play a pivotal role in the Champlain Housing Trust's growth and success. She served as the first board president and, in 1991, became the executive director. Nearly 30 years later, the Champlain Housing Trust is the world's largest community land trust, with 2,600 affordable homes, including 566 designated for shared equity ownership; more than 6,000 members; and nearly $300 million in assets. The Champlain Housing Trust has not only benefited Burlington area residents and Vermonters. Brenda has used her talent and dedication to assist countless communities around the country interested in starting their own programs, making the work of the trust a national and international model, now established in it at least 23 States and 8 countries. Additionally, as an active member of the Neighborworks Alliance of Vermont, Brenda partnered with other housing organizations to assist Vermonters all across our State. I am extremely pleased to see community land trusts serving people worldwide, and remain incredibly proud that the model was spearheaded in my hometown of Burlington, VT. While much work remains to achieve our shared goal of making affordable housing a human right, I am enormously grateful to Brenda for her career-long dedication to achieving this vision. With Brenda's retirement at the end of this year, we will lose an exceptional leader in the housing community, but I am confident that her contributions will not be forgotten. The Champlain Housing Trust and its portfolio represent an impressive legacy, but perhaps even more impressive is the enduring positive impact her work has had on the countless lives changed thanks to affordable housing. Because of Brenda, older Vermonters on fixed incomes are able to stay in their homes; New Americans and refugees can provide stability for their families as they adapted to a new culture and community; single parents can rely on a safe, consistent home in which to raise their children; and young homeowners can break the cycle of poverty by purchasing an asset that will grow in value over time. Quite simply, Vermont and Vermonters are better off today because of Brenda. Becoming executive director of the Trust the same year I arrived in Washington, it is no exaggeration to say Brenda lent her expertise to me generously throughout my time in Congress. There was never an instance when my staff and I could not rely on Brenda to provide expert insights on the housing challenges we still face, and to put a human face on what can seem like abstract and intractable problems. She also brought great energy and innovation to this work, and her bold thinking--one of the qualities that made her indispensable in my municipal administration--will also be sorely missed. I count Brenda among my closest allies in affordable housing, and I have greatly appreciated working alongside her for nearly four decades. She has been a tremendous colleague and friend. I wish her all the best in her well- deserved retirement.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today as a result of the horrific pandemic and economic meltdown, the American working class is hurting in a way that they have not been hurting since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs. They have lost their incomes. They have lost their health insurance. They have depleted their life savings. They cannot afford to pay rent. They cannot afford to put food on the table. And they are scared to death that any day now they are going to get a knock on the door from a sheriff, evicting them from their homes and throwing them and their belongings out on the street. This is the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world. None of us--no man, woman, or child--should go hungry. None of us should have to live in fear of becoming homeless, and no one should be denied the healthcare that they need--especially during the worst public health crisis in 100 years. But that is precisely what is going on all over our country as we speak this evening. Just the other day, National Public Radio, NPR, released a survey on the unprecedented economic suffering facing the American people. That should shock everyone in the U.S. Senate and in our Nation. And here is what that survey found: 46 percent of Americans--over 150 million people--are now experiencing serious financial problems. Forty-one percent of Americans--over 134 million people--have used up all or most of their savings. Their savings accounts are now depleted. Thirty-three percent of American families have had someone in their household who has either lost a job, lost a business, or has been furloughed during the pandemic. This is an unprecedented moment in American history, and the Senate needs to take unprecedented action to improve the lives of the American people. Yet in the midst of all of this pain and suffering, what has the Republican-led Senate done over the last 5 months to address the economic concerns of the American people? The answer is nothing except pass a $740 billion budget for the bloated Pentagon and take an extended vacation. That is not something that anybody in the Senate should be proud of. The Senate is now back in session. Senate Republicans have introduced a so-called skinny relief bill that is totally inadequate in terms of addressing the crisis we are facing today. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for rent, nothing for mortgages, nothing for food, nothing for hazard pay, nothing for healthcare, nothing for public transportation, and nothing to prevent the mass layoffs of teachers, nurses, firefighters, and construction workers that will take place in cities and States as cities and States struggle economically. In other words, the same Republicans who had no problem voting for a trillion-dollar tax break for the top 1 percent large corporations 2 years ago are now telling 40 million Americans who are struggling to pay for housing that we cannot afford to help them pay their rent or mortgage. The same Republicans who just voted to provide $740 billion for the Pentagon and the military industrial complex to wage endless wars are now telling 30 million workers who lost their jobs that we cannot afford to continue the $600-a-week supplement they were receiving in unemployment benefits. The same Republicans who slipped $135 billion tax breaks for multimillionaires and billionaires in the last coronavirus relief package are now telling 29 million Americans who do not have enough food to eat that we cannot afford to help them feed their families. But if you are an executive in the coal industry, you are in luck. The Republican Senate bill provides your industry with $161 million in corporate welfare. That is right. The Republican Senate bill provides no money for working families to feed their kids, no money to house the homeless, no money to insure the uninsured--no money for them--but it does provide $161 million in corporate welfare for the coal industry during a climate emergency. That may make sense for the CEOs in the fossil fuel industry who are destroying the planet with their product, but it makes zero sense to me. Further, under the Senate Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy workplace, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus, but if you are an essential worker during this pandemic, you get nothing. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel more for hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Needless to say, I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican bill and am glad it was defeated earlier today. Instead of listening to the needs of fossil fuel CEOs, we need to listen to the needs of working-class Americans, the people who are hurting. Instead of providing more corporate welfare to billionaires and large corporations, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Nearly 4 months ago, the House of Representatives did its job by passing the Heroes Act, a $3.5 trillion bill. In my view, the Senate has to stand up and do its job and pass the Heroes Act or a bill that is even better than that legislation I received many, many thousands of letters, emails, and social media from constituents in the State of Vermont and, in fact, all over this country about how the economic crisis has negatively impacted their lives and what that $600 a week in unemployment benefits that expired in July meant to them. Let me read you just a few of the many thousands of stories my office has received. A constituent from North Chittenden, VT, wrote: I was laid off in March. Since the end of the extra $600 I've been able to eat because of the food bank. I wasn't able to get one of my prescriptions because even with insurance it was $88. I saved as much as I could during the extra $600 period, but I'm almost out of money now. Literally enough to make it about 10 days. Then what? I'm 65 [years of age]. An unemployed worker wrote: We can't pay our rent including car payment and car insurance, bills, feed our four kids, or buy necessities. We desperately need the extra $600 to stay afloat. If we don't get our money soon, we could lose EVERYTHING! Another unemployed worker recently wrote: My State benefit was $127 a week (I exhausted my available State funds last week). My rent is $1,200 a month. Without further congressional action, I will be unhoused within a month or two. A constituent from Danville, VT, wrote: That moment the government stopped the $600 a week they closed my benefits. I never saw anything other than that $600 and it went to bills and rent. Now I am behind on everything again. And on and on it goes. For millions of people, that $600-a-week check was life and death. Clearly, in the midst of this unprecedented crisis, the Senate must act and act now, not with a skinny relief bill that does virtually nothing to help working families in their time of need, but with legislation that responds to the unprecedented economic pain and suffering that the American working class is experiencing. We need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs--like the House passed over 3 months ago. This is absolutely essential. During this crisis, it would give families the income they need to live with it. We need to make sure that every working-class person in America receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can pay the rent and put food on the table. We need to expand Medicare to all the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Nobody should be unable to go to a doctor during this crisis because they don't have health insurance. In other words, we need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working families of this country and low-income people, not just the wealthy and well-connected. I know what my Republican colleagues will say--that it is too expensive, and we can't afford it. Maybe, just maybe, our Republican colleagues are so concerned about the deficit they might want to ask their billionaire campaign contributors to pay their fair share of taxes instead of giving them massive tax breaks. In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and the worst public health crisis in more than 100 years, I think most Americans would be shocked to learn that 467 billionaires in our country have seen their wealth go up by $800 billion during the pandemic. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by $800 billion during the pandemic. In my view, at a time of massive wealth and income inequality and when so many of our people are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits. Instead of more austerity for the working class of this country, we need to impose austerity on the billionaire class and on Wall Street. That is why I have introduced legislation to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during the public health crisis. According to the Americans for Tax Fairness, if we taxed 60 percent of the windfall gains billionaires made during the pandemic, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for everyone in America in the next 12 months. Yes, by taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 people during this horrific pandemic, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for an entire year for every man, woman, and child in this country. Billionaires would still be able to pocket over $300 billion in wealth gains during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. At a time of enormous economic pain and suffering, we have a choice to make. We can continue to allow the very rich to get much richer while everyone else gets poorer and poorer or we can tax the winnings a handful of billionaires made during the pandemic to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. It is time for the Senate to act on behalf of the working families of this country who are hurting like they have never hurt before and not just the billionaire class who are doing phenomenally well and have never had it so good. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I have one request for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 10, 2020, at 10 a.m., in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a committee executive business meeting.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, providing suffrage for all sexes in the Constitution of the United States. The amendment states that the right to vote ``shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' The suffrage Movement opened the doors to women's participation in the electoral process and contributed to equitable civic leadership and engagement. Today, I honor the historic milestone of the women's suffrage movement, and the contributions from my home state of Vermont, while acknowledging the barriers to voting that have harmed and continue to harm some of the most marginalized people in our country. Vermont's contributions to the suffrage movement ranged from participation on the local level to the national marches. Vermonters fought for women's legal civic participation in our schools, municipal offices, and our State legislature, along with the national right to vote. I am grateful to every Vermonter who fought a more equitable political system. Notable Vermont suffragists include Clarina Howard Nichols of Townshend, who fought for women's property rights. Annette Parmalee of Washington, one of the most outspoken suffragists in my State, who fought for suffrage locally, statewide and nationally. And Lucy Daniel of Grafton, who used civil disobedience to lend her weight to the fight. I am proud of every Vermonter's contribution to the movement and helping our country expand access to the ballot box. Suffragists were women of races, ages, and political backgrounds. Yet after the 19th Amendment, millions of women--particularly African- Americans in the Jim Crow South--remained shut out of the polls for decades. Many States and municipalities continued to ignore the 15th and 19th Amendments, effectively withholding voting rights from women, Black people, and anyone who was low-income or ``uneducated''. The harm was most profound at the intersection of marginalized groups. I find the efforts to stop people from voting to be deeply unpatriotic--then and now. In our long history, the United States has made it harder for some individuals to be civically engaged because of their gender identity, their income, or race. We know that the literacy tests kept those shut out of the education system from the electoral process. We know that poll taxes kept poor people from casting a ballot. And we know that barriers to voting still exist today. We have seen people from majority Black districts wait in line for double the amount of time as their neighboring white districts. We have seen eligible voters turned away because of inaccurate voting roll purges. From gerrymandering, to archaic voter ID laws, to limiting voter registration, discriminatory efforts still exist that harm our democracy and deprive Americans of a government that represents them. In my view, voting should be a simple process. We should be passing laws to make it easier to vote, not harder. First and foremost, we must reinstate the Voting Rights Act. We need to make election day a national holiday so that more people are able to get to the polls without losing time or wages from work. We need to expand automatic voter registration, early voting and vote-by-mail capabilities. We need to address voter suppression head on. And we must overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and reform campaign finance laws to prevent large corporations and billionaires from having an outsized voice in the electoral process. Today in honor of the centennial of the 19th Amendment, I call on Americans to pursue equity with the same vigor as the suffragists. Question rules and laws that obstruct political participation. Speak out against injustices. And continue to fight for policies that center our Nation's political process on ``we the people.''

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a- week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another $29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military- industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of- pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his support of our amendment, for his beautiful words on John Lewis, and for his insistence that this Senate makes sure that every American has the right to vote. That is not asking too much, and that is a bill we should deal with. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment I have filed for the National Defense Authorization Act to cut the bloated $740 billion Pentagon budget by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in savings to invest in human needs here at home. This amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Markey, Warren, Merkley, Wyden, and Senator Leahy and will receive a rollcall at 12:10 p.m. This amendment has been endorsed by more than 60 organizations representing millions of working people, environmentalists, and religious leaders, including Public Citizen, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. In America today, we are experiencing an extraordinary set of crises unprecedented in the history of the United States of America. We are in the midst of a public health crisis that is worse than at any time since the Spanish flu of 1918. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected more than 3.7 million Americans and caused nearly 140,000 deaths. We are in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 119 million Americans have seen a decline in their income--unbelievable. One hundred and nineteen million Americans have seen a decline in their income, 50 million have filed for unemployment, and American households have lost over $6 trillion in wealth. All over this country--in the State of Vermont and in every other State in America--people are going hungry in America. People are going hungry. And many, many people are frightened to death that they will soon be evicted from their apartments or will lose their homes to foreclosure. That is where the American people are today: loss of jobs, loss of income, hunger, eviction. On the other hand, there is another reality going on in America today. We don't talk about it much, but we should, and that is that 600 billionaires in our country have seen their wealth go up by $700 billion during the pandemic. So we entered this pandemic with massive income and wealth inequality since the pandemic, and the very rich have become even richer, while working people have seen a significant decline in their income and wealth. The current crisis, or series of crises, have revealed the extraordinary inequities in our economy. If people didn't know it before, they surely know it now. In the United States today, over half of our workers live paycheck to paycheck. Not surprisingly, when you live paycheck to paycheck, and the paycheck stops coming in, you are in financial distress. That means that your economic situation goes from poverty, which is low wages, to desperation, which is no income coming in at all. That means that you go hungry. It means that you may become homeless. It means that when you get sick, you no longer have health insurance or the income to see a doctor. What the pandemic has taught us is that a relatively low unemployment rate, which is what we had before the pandemic, does not adequately guarantee for the security and well-being of working families. When tens of millions of our people earn starvation wages, that is not a good economy. When 40 percent of our people do not have the savings to pay for a $400 emergency, that is not what I would call a good economy. When over half a million Americans are homeless and 18 million families spend at least half of their incomes on housing, that is not a good economy. When 87 million people are uninsured or underinsured, that is not a good economy. In other words, to create a good economy, we are going to have to do a whole lot better than that. Further, over the last few months, hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the streets to demand justice for the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and Ahmaud Arbery, among many others, and to end the rampant police brutality that we see in America today. These tragic killings of unarmed African Americans have highlighted the urgent need to rethink the nature of policing and to fix a broken and racist criminal justice system. On top of all of that--on top of a pandemic, on top of an economic collapse, on top of systemic racism--we have to address the existential threat facing this planet of climate change. A few weeks ago, temperatures in Siberia--the coldest region on Earth--topped 100 degrees, shattering records. If we do not get our act together and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into renewable energy, we will be leaving this planet increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable for our kids and future generations That is where we are today: hunger, homelessness, racism, a warming and dangerously warming climate. These are the issues that we have to focus on. Our attention must be on improving the lives of ordinary Americans--working people, lower income people--and doing what we can to work with countries around the world to help the billions of people living in economic distress. With that, I rise today to make it abundantly clear that if we are going to address those issues, if we are going to protect the working families of this country who are now under so much stress, it is absolutely imperative that we change our national priorities. The status quo and conventional wisdom that we see on TV every day and that we hear on the floor of the Senate is no longer good enough. History has overtaken us. Unprecedented crises have overtaken us. The status quo is not good enough. We must respond. We must finally have the courage to stand up to powerful special interests and all of their campaign money and understand that we cannot allow these people to continue to have so much power over the economic and political life of this country; that we must start developing policies that work for working families, not just the rich, not just the powerful, and not just those who contribute to super PACs. Fifty-three years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., challenged our country to fight against three major evils: ``The evil of racism, the evil of poverty, and the evil of war.'' That was what Dr. King said 53 years ago. And if there were ever a moment in American history when we need to respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand, as he stated, ``a radical revolution of values,'' now is that time. This is the moment for us to bring about what Dr. King called ``a radical revolution of values,'' whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, whether it is transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, whether it is ending a cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system, or addressing the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in our country, now is the time for change, real change. In my view, given all of the unprecedented crises our country faces, now is not the time to increase the Pentagon's bloated $740 billion budget, which is 53 percent of all discretionary spending in America. Let me repeat that. The military budget alone is 53 percent of all discretionary spending in this country. At a time when 28 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes, now is not the time to be spending more on the military than the next 11 nations combined. At a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs, now is not the time to be spending more on national defense than we did at the height--the height--of the Cold War or the wars in Korea or Vietnam. Let me repeat: spending more in real, inflation- accounted-for dollars today on the military than we did during the Cold War or the wars in Korea or Vietnam. At this unprecedented moment in our history, now is the time to provide jobs, education, healthcare, and housing in American communities that have been ravaged by the global pandemic, by extreme poverty, by deindustrialization, and mass incarceration. If this horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything, it is that national security means a lot more than building bombs, missiles, jet fighters, submarines, nuclear warheads, and other weapons of mass destruction. National security also means doing everything we can to improve the lives of our people, many of whom have been abandoned by our government decade after decade. The amendment that I am offering today would cut the $740 billion budget--Pentagon budget--by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities in every State in this country, communities that have been ravaged by poverty, mass incarceration, and other enormous problems. Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns would be able to use this $74 billion to create jobs by building affordable housing, new schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public hospitals, libraries, sustainable energy projects, and clean drinking water facilities. These communities would also receive Federal funding to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children, and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities, and trade schools. Over and over again, our Republican friends--my colleagues here--have told us we cannot possibly afford to address the enormous problems facing working families: We just can't afford it. We don't have the money to deal with homelessness and hunger and inadequate education. That is what they say every day. We have been told that we cannot afford to make public colleges and universities tuition-free or to provide a decent income for every man, woman, and child. But when it comes to spending $740 billion on the military, well, suddenly, hey, money is no problem; we can spend as much as we want. Hey, let's listen to all of the lobbyists from the military-industrial complex who flood Capitol Hill and tell us all their needs. We have to listen to them, but we don't listen to the children in this country who may not have enough food to eat or the workers in this country who are sleeping out in their cars. We don't listen to them, but when it comes to the military, hey, no end to the money that we can provide. To my mind, that is unacceptable. We don't need more nuclear weapons. We don't need more cruise missiles. We don't need more fighter jets. What we do need in this country, desperately, is more healthcare, more housing, more childcare, and better schools. Now is the time to fundamentally change our national priorities, and that is what this amendment is all about. This amendment in itself is not going to do anywhere near what we need to do as a country, but it is an important step forward in changing the way we think about our needs. Let me be clear. If we were to institute a 10-percent cut in military spending, that $74 billion could provide high-quality childcare to every family in America. Imagine that. We could solve the childcare crisis in America just by cutting the military budget by 10 percent. We could, by cutting the military budget by 10 percent, provide section 8 housing vouchers to all of the 7.7 million families in America who are paying more than half of their limited incomes on rent. A 10-percent cut to the Pentagon could provide a free college education for 2 million low-income students. A 10-percent cut to the Pentagon is enough to hire 900,000 teachers in the poorest schools in America. So I am a little bit tired about hearing that we don't have enough money for nuclear weapons, that we need more money for missiles and tanks and guns--that we need more for all of that, yet we are turning our backs on Americans who are hurting the most. I believe this is a moment in history when it would be a very good idea for all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to remember what former Republican--Republican--President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1953. I think we all recall that Eisenhower knew something about military budgets and the war because he was the four-star general who led the Allied forces to victory in Europe during World War II. He was not a passivist. He was not an anti-war activist. He was a four-star general. Dwight D. Eisenhower said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. Right now, when the world is searching for treatment of the coronavirus, when we are searching desperately and spending billions looking for a vaccine, maybe it might be a good idea to be educating our young people to figure out how we deal with disease--with cancer and schizophrenia and Alzheimer's and diabetes--rather than putting more and more scientists into figuring out how we can blow the world up a dozen times over. What Eisenhower said was true--profoundly true--67 years ago, and it is true today, maybe even truer today. When we analyze the Defense Department budget, it is interesting to note that the Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense Department that the Pentagon literally does not know what to do with it. Between 2013 and 2018, they actually returned more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury. They had more money than they could spend. In my view, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look not only at the size of the Pentagon budget but at the enormous amount of waste, cost overruns, fraud, and at the financial mismanagement that has plagued the Department of Defense for decades. Let's be clear. We don't talk about it, but let's be clear. About half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not our troops. Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the United States has paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while making huge profits on those government contracts. Virtually every major defense contractor has been found guilty of misconduct or fraud. Since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies have paid over $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct. Further, I find it interesting that the very same defense contractors that have been found guilty or reached settlements for fraud are also paying their CEOs excessive--excessive--compensation packages. Last year, the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman both made over $20 million in total compensation, while around 90 percent of these companies' revenue came from defense contracts. In other words, for all intents and purposes, these companies are basically government agencies. Ninety percent of the revenue coming in comes from the taxpayers of this country. Meanwhile, the CEOs of those companies make over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense makes. It is not too surprising, therefore, that we have a revolving door where our military people end up on the boards of directors of these major defense companies. Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in the Defense Department's acquisition budget that we continue to ignore year after year. According to the GAO, the Pentagon's $1.8 trillion acquisition portfolio currently suffers from more than $628 billion in cost overruns, with much of the cost growth taking place after production. A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon is the fact that the Defense Department remains the only Federal agency in America that has not been able to pass an independent audit. Many of us will recall what then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense--told the American people on the day before 9/11. It never got a lot of attention--the day before 9/11. Rumsfeld said: Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. I don't know that the situation has changed very much since 2001 and Rumsfeld's remarks. Yet, nearly 20 years after Rumsfeld's statements, the Defense Department has still not passed a clean audit, despite the fact that the Pentagon controls assets in excess of $2.2 trillion or roughly 70 percent of what the entire Federal Government owns. I believe in a strong military, but we cannot keep giving more money to the Pentagon than it needs when millions of children in this country face hunger every day and 140 million Americans cannot afford the basic necessities of life without going into debt. In 1967 Dr. King warned us that ``a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.'' I believe the time is long overdue for us to listen to Dr. King. At a time when, in the richest country in the history of the world, so many of our people are struggling, now is the time to change our priorities because, as Dr. King stated, we are approaching spiritual death. At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, at a time when 60,000 Americans die each year because they can't get to a doctor on time and 1 out of 5 Americans cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, we need to start focusing on those people, not on the military- industrial complex. At this moment of unprecedented national crisis--a pandemic, an economic meltdown, the demand to end systemic racism, and an unstable President--it is time for us to truly focus on what we value as a society and to fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing that money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let me conclude by once again quoting Dwight D. Eisenhower. I don't know that I have ever quoted a Republican quite as much as I have during these remarks, but he is somebody whom I respected very much. This is what Eisenhower said when he left office. This was back in 1961. He was out, and John F. Kennedy was coming in. This is what he said. I hope we can all remember this. He said: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Eisenhower was right then, and, if anything, the situation is worse today. Now is the time for us to stand up to the greed and irresponsibility of the military industrial complex. Now is the time to address the needs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. Let us vote for the Sanders-Markey-Warren-Merkley-Wyden-Leahy amendment to cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent and invest in human needs here at home.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1788, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the 10th annual ``State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows: Madelyn Trimpi, Woodstock Union High School, Junior Plastic is destroying the earth and a federal law to restrict single-use plastics must be developed. Plastic is a huge contributor to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the atmosphere. An article called ``How Plastics Contribute to Climate Change'' by Brooke Bauman from Yale Climate Connections states ``plastic originates as fossil fuels and emits greenhouse gasses from cradle to grave.'' At the beginning of its life cycle, gas and oil are fracked from the ground, then made into plastic releasing harmful pollutants like CO2 and nitrogen oxide that get stuck in the atmosphere and warm the earth. Along with greenhouse gas emissions, plastic pollutes the ecosystems by simply entering and never leaving. In the same article by Yale, scientists state ``plastics can break down into smaller pieces called microplastics through biodegradation or exposure to the sun, heat or water. These microplastics scatter to all comers of the globe and even to the depths of the oceans. Toxic chemicals can bind microplastics and create poison pills that marine animals eat'' When a foreign substance enters the ecosystem, it threatens all aspects of the life cycle; Including humans. Biodiversity is the root of life on earth and when exposed to something like plastic, everything feels an effect. For example, research shows that plastic has entered into the human body most likely through food like fish and other meats. Animals eat the microplastics thinking they are nutrients; we eat the fish, therefore consuming the plastic in them. This can lead to many health issues. Studies show that an average of 20 particles of microplastic has been found in 10 grams of human stool. ``If our findings are remotely representative, annual microplastic consumption could exceed several hundred thousand [particles],'' authors of the Environmental Science and Technology concludes. Even in cases when physical plastics pose little to no risk to human health, potentially harmful chemicals are added to plastics to modify appearance or functionality. Some of these chemicals include BPA and phthalates which have each been found to disrupt hormones in humans. BPA has been linked to increasing the risk of birth defects, metabolic diseases, and other health problems. Among other health risks, phthalate exposure has been found to reduce testosterone levels in male fetuses. Already, states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Oregon and Vermont--have successfully banned single-use plastic bags. In addition to banning plastic bags, Vermont's SB 113 will place restrictions on single-use straws and polystyrene containers. These few states are leading the initiative in a fight against an indestructible material. When it comes to plastic, there are plenty of realistic alternatives that we should be enforcing instead of fighting against it. Developing and making these alternative products affordable and more readily available is a necessary focus in working toward a more healthy environment. Plastic is a major contributor to climate change. A national ban on single-use plastic is a simple start and necessary step toward saving the future of our planet. Griffin Waryas, Bellows Falls Union High School, Senior Ninety-Seven years ago, Frederick Banting discovered insulin. However, he decided not to put his name on the patent; he believed it was against the Hippocratic Oath to profit at the expense of patients. So, his team sold the patent to the University of Toronto for a dollar, in hopes that anyone who needed the medicine could afford it. Yet, today, ninety-seven years since the patent was sold for one dollar, people are dying because they cannot afford the insulin they need to survive. Nicole Smith-Holt's son Alec died because of this. When his 26th birthday hit, he was no longer covered by his parent's insurance, and his monthly insulin costs skyrocketed to a staggering $1,300 a month. Alec could no longer afford his medicine and passed away shortly after. Unfortunately, this isn't an incredibly rare case. The costs of the most popular types of insulin have tripled over the past decade, the average cost per month has risen to $450 a month, and 1 in 4 diabetes patients now either is forced to take partial doses or skip over their life-saving medicine. Unfortunately, Insulin is not the only drug being used as a profit machine by corporate monsters. In 2007, Mylan bought the rights to the EpiPen device. At that time, the cost of a set of two injectors was $94. A little over a decade later, the cost is over $700. And with 3.6 million prescriptions being written last year, and the net price to make a set being $60, Mylan made about 2.3 BILLION dollars in profit. They know people will buy it regardless of price because they have to. This leaves the life of uninsured, poor individuals in the balance. To fix this, these large pharmaceutical companies need to be trust busted. They are buying off competition and abusing the broken American health care system to pad their pockets at the expense of the working class. Not to mention, they have teamed up with the insurance companies to ensure profit at every comer. While these companies are businesses and should be allowed to operate as such, there comes a time when the government must protect us from them. As the great Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.'' We need to employ the trust-busting laws set up in this nation to prevent these monopolies from preying on our citizens. To do this, we need to take the corruption out of Washington. In the time between January 1st, 2017 and October 16th, 2018, 34 lawmakers received at least $100,000 including the House Republican majority leader. Drug companies should be banned from funding campaigns to prevent the purchasing of their economic safety. Another law that should be employed is a Sensible Drug Pricing Act. This would allow the companies to continue to make money but also allow poor Americans access to drugs that are relatively cheap to make, with a control on the pricing. Kyle Wilkin, Missisquoi Valley Union High School, Junior Every day people experience struggle of some sort; they struggle in a class or have to work harder than anticipated to complete a goal, but some people struggle more than others. Working hard, people may find it impossible to improve; there may be something blocking their way or restricting their ability to complete a task. In situations like that people search for help; they turn to the people around them hoping to find support, so oftentimes people either find support, or they find indifference. When people's basic needs aren't met, they are left to fend for themselves. In the United States there are a total of 552,830 people were experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2018. People who are homeless are in need of people to support them. The first potential solution could be to allocate more money to fund social workers to help homeless people. Working with people who are homeless, social workers will be able to help them find housing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2018 $623 billion were spent on defense; if some amount of that money was given to the comparatively low amount of $93 billion spent on education, training, employment, and social services combined, more people could work with those who are homeless to find housing. By making more social workers available, people who are homeless will be able to more easily access support. The second solution would be to support Housing First. Housing First is centered on the belief that everyone can achieve stability in permanent housing directly from homelessness and that stable housing is the foundation for pursuing other health and social services goals. Housing First is a way to find people, who are in need of it, permanent housing while giving them the support they need. By helping people find permanent housing, they are able to continue their lives and pursue goals that will not be available if they did not have housing. The third potential solution is making mental health facilities more available for homeless people. According to a survey done in 2015 by The Department of Housing and Urban Development, 25 percent of the American homeless--140,000 individuals--were seriously mentally ill at any given point in time. Forty-five percent of the homeless--250,000 individuals--had any mental illness. A serious mental illness is defined as a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning by Merriam-Webster. By making mental health facilities more available and destigmatized for homeless people, they will be better equipped to live and be successful on their own. Homeless people need thy help and support of those around them; by giving people who are homeless options and the support they need they will be able to start to support themselves and find permanent.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the 10th annual ``State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows: Ethan Mello, Woodstock Union High School, Junior I believe that the most pressing issue facing our country today is the issue of affordable healthcare. This issue is unique to the United States among developed nations, but for years we have refused to take action. Not only could switching to a universal healthcare system lower costs, but could also ensure that, like the rest of the countries in the modernized world, the US insures all of its citizens as a human right. A universal healthcare system is a system where all of the inhabitants of a country are guaranteed healthcare at no cost. The government pays for all medical bills, and the system makes sure that even the poor can be helped when they get sick. Government paying for healthcare means higher taxes, but no deductible costs. This system is a staple in most European countries, as well as in Canada. The US is one of the only major countries to not yet adopt this system. In fact, out of the 33 developed countries recognized by The Balance financial website, 32 have universal healthcare. The UN has accepted universal healthcare as the best choice for countries, and has a goal of worldwide universal healthcare coverage by 2030. If the US keeps its current healthcare system, they are unlikely to meet this goal. In our country the healthcare system is structured so that private companies provide insurance. However, his insurance often doesn't encompass drug prices or certain other costs, and is not affordable by the poor. The US has a Medicaid system for some low income citizens, but this program does not apply to everyone who is unable to consistently pay for healthcare this has led to over 30 million Americans choosing not to purchase healthcare, a dangerous choice if they get sick or need emergency operations. Our system also allows insurance companies to jack up prices to make profit, and allows prescription drug companies to charge outrageous amounts for cheap pills. The US had the highest insurance costs relative to GDP in the world. This cost has not made our life expectancy better either, as in that respect we are still worse off than we should be as the most powerful country in the world. Universal healthcare has proven very effective when it has been used in other countries. Universal healthcare lowers healthcare costs, and eliminates administrative costs due to the fact that it is completely run by one entity, the government. In the United States this lower cost of healthcare could not only boost the economy, but also allow for more social mobility for the lower class, and less earnings for the billionaire drug company executives. Changing the healthcare system of the United States to universal healthcare will not be an easy task, but it is one that is necessary for the good of our country as well as the people in it. In the next election, we need to ensure we elect politicians who not only support universal healthcare, but are willing to fight for it. Salama Mbilizi, Winooski High School, Senior ``Why should we study for a future that is being taken away from us? We demand a safe future is that really too much to ask?'' asks climate activist Greta Thunberg. This young Swedish environmentalist has gained international attention for her concerns about climate change. I am a girl from Africa who came to the U.S. as a refugee and I don't want to become a ``climate refugee,'' like people in California who have lost homes due to fire. Climate change first created droughts in California, which lasted over a decade according to Climate Central. There is an 80 percent chance of a multi-decade-long drought by 2100. Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, cause climate change. Exhaust gases from cars, uncontrolled factory releases, burning of low-quality coal for heating, even airplanes and ships create air pollution. We should reduce the use of oil and gas, and use alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. The government should start investing more in public transportation, which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions because fewer people will have to drive and we can reduce air pollution. According to Energy News Network, ``Public transit produces significantly less air pollution per passenger mile than a standard car carrying a single driver. Buses emit 20% less carbon monoxide, 10% as much hydrocarbons, and 75% as much nitrogen oxides per passenger mile than an automobile with a single occupant.'' Smarter public transportation will increase ridership, cut the number of cars on the road, reduce traffic, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. We could also recycle more plastics and stop cutting down forests. Unless we change our behaviors, global warming will continue and we will continue to experience weather extremes, forest fires, and massive pollution. When 195 nations met in 2015, they agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of the landmark Paris Agreement. The United States later backed out of that agreement but states and cities are still interested. I call on Congress to pass and support legislation to help our environment by honoring the Paris Agreement! I have a personal interest because climate change affects my life as well as our planet. If we don't change our behavior, we will suffer and some of us will die. Already, animals are going extinct at an alarming rate, reducing the balance in our world and the quality of our life. Scientists say that if we don't stop pollution and greenhouse gases, Earth will be here for only a few hundred years. But if we can reduce greenhouse gases, Earth can remain okay for a million more years. Think about what will happen to us, your children and grandchildren. I want to be here for as many years as I can, enjoying this world I live in. Patrick Meskill, Essex High School, Junior Vaccines Cause Adults The law dictates a child as property until the age of 18. While this is usually for the good of the child, what does it mean for the fate of children with misinformed parents? Anti- vax is a deadly philosophy of being against vaccinations, a philosophy that gets children killed. While yes, children are protected from abuse and neglect under Child Protective Services, there is no law to protect them from their own parent's ideas. Parent's can avoid federally required vaccines under religious or superstitious reasons in 45 of the 50 states (NCSL). However, when the safety of the public is at stake, the anti-vax culture becomes a truly worldwide epidemic. The confusion comes from a defrocked former doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who first proposed the vaccine/autism connection (Ruth). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did an inquiry in 2001 to address the accusations, and found no connection to autism in vaccines. Another complaint isolated the mercury in vaccines. Vaccines contain small amounts of mercury to form thimerosal, a preservative. These small amounts aren't any more than the amount in 3 ounces of tuna fish. Nonetheless, the FDA attempted lowering the amount of mercury in vaccines, but still saw no relief in rising autism numbers. In 2004, 10 out of the 13 authors on Wakefield's paper retracted their hypothesis (Mayor). Then in 2010, the medical journal ``The Lancet'' retracted Wakefield's paper, calling several elements incorrect. America can now agree vaccines should be made mandatory (Dyer). Medical marvels have continued to raise humanity to higher levels of immunity, causing fatal diseases to go nearly extinct. These include measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox, and smallpox. However, they still remain only ``nearly extinct.'' Modern day preventable diseases have yet to fade from America due to anti-vax. One study performed in 1982, watched 25 vaccinated and 25 unvaccinated children for the first 5 years of their lives. The result? One vaccinated child had mild measles but didn't die, while the unvaccinated children saw 14 deaths by measles and one of tetanus (Epoke). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 2018 has had more measles outbreaks than any year this decade, and they typically start in unvaccinated groups (CDC). Vaccines should be mandatory. Schools have begun to act on this already by requiring their students to be vaccinated to attend. In Australia, parents will be charged every 2 weeks A$28 (roughly 20 USD) for having unvaccinated children, per child (Pasha-Robinson). These laws are something that should be present in the United States. The flu shot is already absolutely free with most health insurances, showing how recommended it is. This science has been around for a long time, and only recently, thanks to the internet's easily accessible misinformation, has it been verbally contested. We must make vaccines mandatory to protect our country from preventable diseases. Yours or someone else's life may depend on it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the 10th annual ``State of the Union'' essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows: Samuel Dooley, Milton High School, Senior The country that we live in today is plagued with fundamental problems. Ranging from political corruption to an inefficient healthcare system, yet the single most important issue facing our country today is nationwide environmental neglect. Without extreme actions being taken immediately, more irreversible damage will be done. In 2018, the United States emitted 6.5 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is an estimated 8.8% more than 1990. Between 1990 and 2010, the United States lost 949,750 acres of forest on average per year. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 1.9 million gallons of oil are spilled into U.S. oceans every year. Current studies show that the effects of climate change are more severe and are moving faster than was formerly predicted. What needs to happen is large scale environmental programs with legal incentives such as tax breaks, as well as punishments for not adhering to the plans like jail time and loss of government funding or subsidies. The most accurate proposal of recent years is the Green New Deal. This proposal called for a World War 2 type mobilization of the country to achieve 100% clean energy by 2030. This plan also looked to better the economy by creating jobs in sustainable industries, unlike jobs currently involved in fossil fuel industries, as well as investing in renewable public transportation and clean organic agriculture. The first step to combating climate change would be to immediately adopt this proposal, yet in March of 2019 the proposal was rejected by a Republican controlled Senate. The very first step that should be taken is the readmittance of the U.S. into the Paris Climate Agreement. It is the duty of the United States to set an example for the rest of the world about how to combat climate change. An important idea is to make environmental agencies as nonpartisan as possible, similar to the NLRB where the members consist of nearly equal Republicans as well as Democrats at all times. This would ensure that decisions are made based on science instead of based on party ties and political affiliations. The most important goal being to make the United States completely carbon neutral. A plan for most, if not all, energy produced to come from clean sources would be necessary to achieving that goal. Another necessity would be the implementation of programs designed to restore forests and wildlife. This would mean increased regulation on logging industries as well as oil industries. With an increased punishment for violating these regulations. These initiatives would be able to transition Americans losing their jobs in fossil fuel industries into clean energy industries, which would be a sustainable alternative. Green jobs would have higher job security than fossil fuels due to the fact that there is a finite amount of coal and oil available to be extracted, once the planet no longer has these resources available all of these millions of workers will lose their jobs with no replacement. With a program like the Green New Deal, these workers will have jobs that do not have an expiration date. It is important to remember that those first and most heavily affected by this crisis, are people with lower incomes. This is not only an environmental issue, but also a human rights issue. It is up to all of us now to be able to preserve this planet and create a stable system which will allow all generations moving forward to prosper in a healthy environment. Meredith Jackson, Burlington High School, Freshman One issue in Vermont that doesn't get enough recognition is the cost of eating healthy. It isn't affordable for many, and the expenses can even discourage people to eat healthily. If the prices are discouraging people to eat healthily, then they might resort to unhealthier foods because they are cheaper and in more of the average price range for most. Healthy Living and City Market both have a goal to provide local farm-fresh produce including prep items for healthy, nourishing, meals, and a selection of ingredients to cook vegan or gluten-free meals. Healthy living and City Market are great in that they provide fresh local produce, and for the quality that it is the prices make sense. On the Healthy Living website, the price for a container of raspberries can range anywhere from $4.29-$5.69. That may not seem like a lot but at McDonald's, you can get an entire meal for that much. That is just what many people choose to do, resort to cheaper options such as fast food. Unlike fresh produce and wholegrain-rich foods, fast food is quick, easy, and very cheap, making it ideal for people who can't afford to shop at places like city Market or Healthy living. According to Gallup, 80% of Americans eat fast food on at least a monthly basis, and 96% of Americans eat fast food annually. Fast food isn't bad unless a person has it often, say at least once a week. Eating unhealthy foods, too often, can cause people to become overweight or even obese. Over 99,000,000 adults in the U.S. are overweight and over 70,000,000 are obese. Obesity can cause many health issues that could have been prevented if that person were of a healthy weight. Some risks include high blood pressure, diabetes, gout, breathing problems, such as sleep apnea and asthma, Gallbladder disease and gallstones, Osteoarthritis, Heart disease, stroke, and even cancer. Maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle will reduce the risk of many of these health problems. It's not guaranteed that people become obese overtime because healthy food is too expensive, eating unhealthily isn't the only factor that causes obesity, but it could very well be. If healthier foods were cheaper, it would be an option for more people and would encourage them to eat healthier reducing the risk of obesity. Having the availability of healthy meals is important. A healthy diet is beneficial to your everyday life in so many ways. Some benefits to eating healthy are a maintained/ healthy weight, reduced risk of chronic illnesses such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, more energy, and an increase in happiness. Also, a recent study has proven that having a diet consisting of plenty of fruits and vegetables and limits highly processed food, can reduce certain signs of depression. This issue is very real and very important but thinking up solutions to this problem can be quite the challenge. There are a few solutions that seem doable and not too farfetched or unrealistic. First, expanding the fresh produce area in stores like Hannafords to give more options and kind of push out some of the unhealthy, overly processed items in the store. This wouldn't necessarily make it less expensive but having more options might encourage people to shop in that section more often. Second, doing some more advertising for the Farm Share Program. The Farm Share Program provides limited-income Vermonters with access to high-quality produce on a weekly basis. The program helps hundreds of families get access to a season's worth of farm-fresh produce by reducing the cost of the shares. The program itself is already a solution to this problem, but I feel like advertising would be good because it would inform more people that they have that option. All they have to do is sign up. Third, and last, is more of something people could do themselves or with a group of people, but people could start their own gardens or start a larger neighborhood garden. This would provide people with plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables. All they would have to do is chip in a little hard work and time, then they could have all the free produce that was grown. Eating healthy is expensive because a lot of work goes into growing, and getting, that local farm-fresh produce into stores. Farmers spend countless hours growing the crops from which it all comes from, people need to pick, sort, and wash everything, then, there is packaging and delivering. The list goes on. Another part is due to the fact that it is high quality, locally grown, and fresh. A lot of money goes into providing it, so a lot of money needs to be made in order for them to keep providing the produce to stores for everyone. The problem is big, the solutions are limited, but something needs to be done in order to provide farm-fresh products to the people of Vermont at a more reasonable and affordable price. Caleb Matosky, Rice Memorial High School, Junior As citizens of one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we have an inherent responsibility to set an example for others to follow. America has failed to take action and address what is perhaps the greatest threat our world has faced since the beginning of recorded history: climate change. If Americans continue to deny its effects, the future of our country will be put into jeopardy. Rising sea levels, more severe weather events, rampant wildfires, devastating droughts, and disappearing winters are just a few of the effects of climate change we are already experiencing. Skeptics and deniers might argue that America is taking enough action to fight global warming: this sort of lazy and selfish thinking is what has caused the American people and our government to allow climate change to occur uninhibited until the very end of the last century. If our government does not make drastic changes within the next several years, America as we know it could be forever changed. We have the money, we have the ability to implement changes, and all that remains is for lawmakers to place the future of our planet over their allegiance to fossil fuels. I propose widespread legislation to ensure that America is powered by 80% renewable energy by 2030, which would be a large step in the right direction for the future of our planet. We need to penalize those who profit off of destroying the environment through fossil fuels, as these energy producers produce more emissions per day than many people produce in a year. Through new laws which put a price on CO2 emissions, and government tax relief for those who produce renewable power, we can work to rid the earth of harmful coal burning. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal fueled power generation produces 1.15 billion tons of CO2 each year. It is also the most carbon rich fossil fuel, producing 2.5 tons of CO2 per ton of coal burned. Despite this, coal is still being used as the primary source of energy in America. This needs to change. Additionally, we need to take action to crack down on other nations who disregard the state of the world's climate, and ensure that nations such as China and India take responsibility for their role in the issue. The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world, and if only a fraction of our military budget was used to invest in the future of our environment, the future of younger generations and the future of our species as a whole we might be able to prevent many of climate change's worst effects. There is no time left to wait, or to deny the challenges before us: we must take urgent action and do everything we can to lower CO2 emissions before it is too late.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I would simply say to my friend, he is quite right-- unanimous consent gives every Member a lot of power, and I do not want to be objectionable, but I feel very strongly on this issue, and I hope we can work on something.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe is right. He and I have known each other for years and, I think, respect each other. We have very, very different philosophical leanings, but that does not mean we cannot respect each other. All I would say to my friend from Oklahoma is that the function of the Senate is for 100 Members to determine what is important, not just a few. What may not be important to me may be important to you, and what may be important to you may not be important to me. Yet I think, especially on a bill of this significance, the Members--Democrats and Republicans--have a right to come forward and bring forth amendments. If I don't like an amendment and you have brought forth the amendment, it is likely I am going to vote against it, and you are going to vote against my amendment. I get it. It is called democracy. It is the process we go through here. I just cannot understand why we are not voting on amendments. When we get back, I would rather see a process take place whereby dozens of amendments are brought up and debated and voted up or voted down. That is what, I think, this Senate is supposed to stand for.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, Jack Reed is a good friend of mine, and I know that you and he are working hard and well together. Yet you are two Senators, and there are 98 others of us, and on what you two may agree to be important or not to be important others may disagree. All I am saying to the Senator is to let people bring up their amendments. If the Senator doesn't like it and I don't like it, we will vote against it. I just don't know why we are restricting amendments in a Senate which is supposed to be one of the great deliberative bodies in the world. The world is supposed to look at us, but they are not looking well at us when a few people determine what is going to be voted on or not.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, since last week, the Senate--ostensibly one of the great deliberative bodies in the world--supposedly has been ``debating'' the $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act. It has been a very, very silent debate because of the 700 amendments that have been filed to this bill. There have been no rollcall votes on any of them. I do understand that in the managers' amendment, some of the noncontroversial, nonsignificant amendments have been accepted and absorbed, and that is fine. We have had a vigorous debate, but nobody in the world has heard that debate because there has not been one amendment here on the floor. Knowing the way the Senate does business, I worry very much--and I hope I am wrong, and I will do my best to prevent it, but I worry very much that we are supposed to be getting out of here for the Fourth of July break tomorrow night. Right now, it is a little after 2 p.m. on Wednesday, and we are out of here on Thursday. Given the fact that we are talking about 53 percent of the discretionary budget of the U.S.A., I am just a little bit worried about how many real amendments, significant amendments, are going to be offered. Let us be clear that over the last year, we have been part of what I consider to be the biggest do-nothing Senate in the modern history of this country. This country faces enormous crises in terms of the pandemic, faces enormous crises in terms of an economic meltdown, enormous crises in terms of racial injustice and police brutality, enormous crises in terms of being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right, and enormous crises that in Siberia last week, the temperature was 100 degrees, which is frightening the scientific community because they understand this is the tip of the iceberg regarding climate change. We have all these crises out there, and nothing much happens here in the Senate. Well, I think maybe it might be a good idea to start some real debate right here. I have introduced six amendments that are significant. I will discuss each of them. Other Members, Democrats and Republicans, have also introduced significant amendments. Given the fact we have done virtually nothing over the last year, I think it is not inappropriate to have some serious debate on one of the very major pieces of legislation we will be dealing with. We are talking about a bill that will spend some $740 billion. That is more money in terms of military spending than the next 11 nations combined. Does anybody have a problem with that? Some of us do. Maybe others don't. Let's debate it. We are talking about a bill that will be spending more money on the Pentagon than we did during the height of the Cold War and the height of the wars in Vietnam and Korea. Does anyone have a problem with that? Well, I do. Maybe some other people do. Maybe you don't. Tell me why you think we should be spending more money on the military today in terms of inflation than we did during the war in Vietnam. Let's debate it. We are talking about a bill that will provide 53 percent of the entire discretionary budget to the bloat and wasteful Pentagon at a time when the Defense Department cannot even pass an independent audit. We have a huge budget for the Pentagon. They cannot pass an independent audit, and the response of the Senate is, well, let's give them even more money. It may make sense to some people. It doesn't make sense to me. In my view, it would be rather disgraceful for us to leave town, recess the Senate for 2 weeks without getting a vote on a single amendment and then come back in a couple of weeks to pass a $740 billion Defense bill without any opportunity to amend that bill. If the horrific pandemic that we are now experiencing, where tens of thousands of people are coming down with the virus every single day--if the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that national security, the well-being of our people, and protecting our people is a lot more than just building bombs and missiles and jet fighters and tanks and submarines. Our people are in trouble today in an unprecedented way with the pandemic and with an economic meltdown in which tens of millions of people have lost their jobs over the last couple of months. We have to focus on how we protect those people. It is not just spending money on planes and guns and bombs. In order to begin the process of addressing some of the most important issues facing our country, I have introduced five amendments, all of which I think are important and all of which I believe need to have a vote and a debate. Let me very briefly explain what those amendments are and what they would do. The first amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities in every State in this country that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass incarceration, deindustrialization, and decades of neglect. It is no secret to anybody that the American people are hurting all across this country. We have communities where unemployment today is 20, 25, 30 percent, where people are sleeping out on the streets, where schools are underfunded, where decent-quality childcare is virtually not available, and where air and water pollution is rampant. It is time that we stop turning our backs on those communities. What we are doing right now is focusing attention on the fact that 40 million Americans are living in poverty. Half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. And maybe--just maybe--instead of investing more money in nuclear weapons and submarines and God knows what else, maybe we want to invest in our own people, in jobs and healthcare and education, so that they can live their lives with dignity and security. I believe right now, in the midst of all of the crises this country faces--the crisis of the pandemic, the crisis of the economic meltdown, the crisis of racial injustice, the crisis of 100 million people being uninsured or underinsured, the crisis of climate change--I think the American people want real transformation. They are tired of the status quo. They want a government that represents all of us, not the 1 percent and wealthy campaign contributors. I do understand that the people behind this military budget who love it so much are the military-industrial complex and the defense contractors. They are doing phenomenally well. It is a great budget for them. Their CEOs make tens of millions of dollars a year. They make huge profits every single year. It is a good budget for them. But maybe we may want to get our priorities right and have a good budget for working families and low-income families in America. That is what my amendment does. This amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Markey and Warren. It is also being supported by over 60 organizations throughout this country representing millions and millions of people, including organizations like Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Coalition on Human Needs. These organizations are saying that maybe--just maybe--instead of investing in weapons of destruction, instead of spending more money on the military than the next 11 nations combined, maybe we should invest in our people. What this amendment would do is provide funding, again, for 1,000 distressed communities, from Vermont to Oklahoma, which would receive Federal funding to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents, and offer free tuition to public colleges, universities, or trade schools. At this pivotal moment in American history, we have to make a fundamental decision that we want to continue spending billions on endless wars in the Middle East, on weapons of mass destruction--of which we have more than enough--or do we provide decent jobs and education and healthcare for millions of people in our country? Further, a major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon is, in fact, that the Defense Department remains the only Federal agency in America that hasn't been able to pass an independent audit, which deals with the second amendment that I have introduced. I don't think it is too much to say that the largest agency of the Federal Government has to pass an independent audit. There is nobody in the Senate who does not believe there is massive waste and fraud at the Pentagon. Defense contractor after defense contractor has pled guilty to fraud. We have massive cost overruns. In the second amendment that I am offering, which has been cosponsored by Senator Grassley, a longtime Republican leader here; Senator Lee, a Republican from Utah; and Senator Wyden, of Oregon, all that we are asking is that there be an independent audit of the Defense Department and that it be completed no later than fiscal year 2025. It is not a very radical idea. The third amendment I am offering is one that, I would hope and expect, would have wide support right here. I think it does have support among the American people, and it certainly has widespread support among the medical community and the epidemiologists of this country. Just yesterday, I was participating in a hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. We had the leading experts in this country, including several representatives of the Trump administration--Dr. Fauci and others--talking about the pandemic and what we could do about it. There was widespread consensus. Nobody, I think, has any doubt anymore, except maybe Donald Trump, that masks are a very, very important preventive measure. They are not going to solve all of the problems, but the evidence is overwhelming that the people who wear masks in public, when they are around other people, are less likely to transmit the virus or to receive the virus. Nobody doubts that anymore. So the question that we have to ask ourselves is this: How does it happen that, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world and with the strongest economy in the world, we have doctors and nurses today who are dealing with people with COVID-19 and don't even have the personal protective equipment that they need? How in God's name does that happen? We are spending 18 percent of our GDP on healthcare--twice as much as any other country. Yet we cannot provide a $1 mask to a doctor or to a nurse whose life is at stake. It is not only doctors and nurses. What a number of countries around the world are doing, which is very smart, is producing or acquiring large numbers of high-quality masks, and they are distributing those masks to all of the households in their countries. We should be making sure that every household in this country has the masks that each needs. That will save lives. There is an estimate from the University of Washington that it could save 30,000 lives during this pandemic if 95 percent of the American people were to wear masks. It would also save us a substantial sum of money because it is a lot cheaper to invest in masks than in the hospitalizations for those who have the virus. I should mention that other countries that are not as wealthy as we are--countries like South Korea, France, Turkey, Austria, and others--are doing just that. Again, this is an idea that has won support from not only Dr. Fauci but from other leading healthcare experts who testified before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions yesterday. That is the third amendment--making sure that we utilize the Defense Production Act to produce the masks that our medical professionals and the American people need. We can save tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars by doing it. The fourth amendment I have filed would prohibit funding for military aid and logistical support for the disastrous, Saudi-led war in Yemen. I believe it is past time that we put an end to our unconstitutional and unauthorized participation in this war. On this issue, I am certainly not alone. A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate has already voted three times--not once, not twice, but three times--to halt all U.S. military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. It is time for us to do that again--this time, not just in words but in action. We should have no money going toward U.S. participation in this horrible war, which is destroying a nation with some of the poorest, most desperate people on Earth. So that is the fourth amendment, and I think it would be hard for anybody here to deny that it is an important amendment. This has already been, in one form or another, passed three times. So let's get some teeth into it. The last amendment that I have filed would reduce the defense budget by one-tenth of 1 percent--not a lot of money--and use that money to make our Nation safer by reaching out to people throughout the world and expanding educational and cultural exchange programs. In other words, the theory behind this whole bill is that, by spending $740 billion on the building of planes and tanks and guns and the most sophisticated weapons of mass destruction in the history of the world, it will make us safer. Well, I am not so sure. Maybe what makes us safer is when we break down the fears and the hatred that exist between peoples all over the world. Maybe what makes us safer is when we get to know each other--that is, as human beings--whether we are Chinese or Russians or Iranians or Brazilians or Canadians. Maybe we all share the same human aspirations. Throughout history, it has always been easy to demonize people you don't know--always easy. That is what demagogues have always done. We are fearful of Jews, of Blacks, of the Irish, of Italians, and of gay people. It is so easy to demonize people with whom we are not comfortable and don't know. They are not in our communities, and we don't know anybody. Let's demonize the people of Iran, and let's demonize the people of China and Russia. This is not saying that I or anybody else here is in agreement with their policies, but are weapons the only approach we have toward them? Yes, we need a strong military, and I believe in a strong military. Do you know what I also believe? When we have kids from the United States who go to other countries and when other countries send their kids, their farmers, their doctors, their nurses to America and when we get to know each other, we have a shot at breaking down the irrational hatred which foments so many problems throughout the world. As a former mayor, I can tell you--and I am not alone--that this idea of sister cities is certainly not a radical idea. I suspect that almost everybody here in the Senate comes from a State in which a sister city program exists or that you have programs with cities in other countries. In Vermont, we have a number of them. I started several of them when I was the mayor of Burlington. It was a beautiful thing to see--kids from another country coming to our country and our people going to other countries and learning. All I am asking for is one-tenth of 1 percent--$7 billion--no, less than that. What am I talking about? All I am asking for is $700 million to encourage cultural and educational exchange programs. By taking this tiny fraction from our defense budget--one-tenth of 1 percent--and applying it to these exchange programs, we will send a message about the critical role these exchange programs play. They exist all over this country already, but I want to see them grow, in supporting not only American security but our common, global security. Therefore, I have listed and described five amendments Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc: Senate amendment Nos. 1788, 1920, 1789, 1919, and 1918; that they be reported by number; further, that there be 2 hours of debate on the amendments, equally divided and controlled by me or by my designee and by Senator Inhofe or his designee; and that, following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the adoption of the amendments, in the order listed, without intervening action or debate.

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