Bernie Sanders

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: Hussein Amuri, Winooski High School, Junior ``Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'' Emma Lazarus, a native-born American, included these sentiments in the sonnet ``The New Colossus'' engraved on the pedestal that supports the Statue of Liberty. The words and the statue embody the greatness and intellect of this country. I am a teenage immigrant from Tanzania, whose family fled the Second Congo Civil War to enter the ``golden door.'' Those words are not just words to me, they represent my reality. Yet, I think America is moving away from these values, dishonoring the hard-won identity of countless immigrants. I think America needs to reclaim these values because diversity forms this country's strength and its path to renaissance. People fleeing wars, persecution, and conflict founded the United States to build better lives. Our founders, like my family, arrived poor and desperate. Today, however, Americans attack newcomers, blame them for economic tribulations and cultural disruption. Do we steal jobs and fail to pay taxes? No, these so-called beliefs are myths. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, 55% of the country's $1 billion start-up companies-such as Uber, SpaceX, and Avant--had at least one immigrant founder and each start-up created more than 760 jobs. In my hometown of Winooski, we have popular ethnic restaurants like Pho Dang Vietnamese Cafe and Tiny Thai; grocery stores like Sagarthama Grocery and Asian Market; businesses built and owned by immigrants, the ``huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' Many people from around Vermont find job opportunities here, including myself. Native-born Americans come to shop and enjoy themselves at these shops and restaurants. In 2017, working immigrant households paid $405 billion dollars in taxes; DACAeligible residents paid $4 billion, according to the New America Economy Coalition. Legal and unauthorized immigrants pay taxes. Poor, ``wretched refuse,'' struggling in our home countries, we decided that America offered more opportunities, and brought our cultures, ways of life, and strong wills here. We enhance the economy and introduce new perspectives to American life. My beautiful mother hardly speaks English and works two jobs to support herself and my brothers. She pays taxes. We see her seldom because she's usually at work. From where we sit, she's contributing a lot to the economy. We are ``your tired, your poor.'' We are ``the homeless, tempest-tost.'' We are here today and contributing to this country. We are the New Colossus and represent the words engraved on the pedestal supporting the Statue of Liberty. Can we keep the legacy of this sonnet alive, a legacy that truly defines this country's strength, roots to renaissance, and diversity? Listen and acknowledge stories from my mother and thousands of other immigrants. Those stories are full of hardship and revitalization. In despair, we came to ``lift our lamps, beside the golden door,'' and we found hope for ourselves and the United States of America. Maely Brightman, St. Johnsbury Academy, Sophomore Today in many schools, students are receiving inadequet sex education and it's negatively impacting their health and well-being. In the United States only 24 states require public schools to have sex education and 20 of them require it to be medically accurate. The lack of coverage on subjects such as safe sex, LGBTQ topics, menstruation, and body image is damaging the well-being of today's youths. Research shows that having accurate comprehensive sex education classes leads to lower rates of teen pregnancy and contracting an STI. Teens understand the importance of using protection and contraceptives. In fact, NCLS states that people age 15-25 make up 25% of the sexually active population but the rate of them contracting is disproportionately high. By teaching teens accurate information, they have more knowledge to make safer decisions. Medically accurate information has been shown to have a higher influence than no sex education at all or abstinence-until-marriage education. It is also important that we do not just teach about heterosexual intercourse, but have an LGBTQ inclusive ciriculum. The lack of awareness and information about the LGBTQ community leads to teens and adults who don't know how to have safe same-sex intercourse. A surprising amount of people don't know what a dental dam is. It's a protection from STis when performing oral sex. Furthermore, teaching children about healthy, normal LGBTQ relationships would help normalize same-sex relationships and non-cisgender identities. It is an important component in supporting LGBTQ youth. In addition, accurate sex education would help defeat the stigma in teens, specifically boys, that surrounds menstruation and other natural things that happen to girls and boys during puberty. Because of society's influence, many people end up believing that normal, healthy processes are bad or gross. This can cause bullying, low self esteem, or abuse. Sex education would help normalize these natural occurances. That is why the government should require all public schools to have medically accurate sex education classes. While it would be a difficult and long process, the outcome would be worth the effort. Many people are against this idea, under beliefs that kids shouldn't be exposed to the world yet or for religious reasons, however by shielding them from the truth parents ensure that their children have less knowledge and information to rely on when they reach adulthood. Typically in schools that teach sex education, they start in middle school. I feel that it is a good starting point for schools. The law would have to be changed at a federal level, so that it affects the whole nation. This would be a tedious process, however I believe it would bring a much needed improvement for American youths. Isabelle Chen, Oxbow High School, Freshman As everyone starts to shift into the next decade, there is one prominent issue that can no longer be silenced. This problem not only applies to Americans but includes every living species who wanders this earth. Despite our state of ignorance, earth has continuously given us telltale signs that climate change is quickly altering our planet. Yet many of us still refuse to see the consequences that climate change has created thus far. Unstable air quality, increase in hotter temperatures, and the rise of sea levels are a few of the repercussions that mankind has generated. Before we can solve other pressing matters like gun control or inequality, we must make global warming our top priority, for it is destroying the very ground we stand on. According to NASA, the exploitation of fossil fuels is the main driving force in the production of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The action of burning fossil fuels leads to the consolidation of carbon and oxygen in the air to forge CO2. The depositing of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is solely based upon human activities. We lack the action needed from the government to prevent such happenings. Additional grants and federal funding should go towards companies whose mission is to use sustainable energy sources. Those companies will improve further with the increased funding and influence others to reject coal and oil for the more sustainable utilization of solar energy, geothermal energy, hydroelectric energy, etc. The cessation of fossil fuel use will decrease stock and mass production for oil and coal companies, ultimately weakening the usage of greenhouse gases. What also needs special attention drawn to is the deliberation of entering America back into the Paris Climate Agreement. The agreement states that all countries signed into the arrangement will focus their efforts on the prevention of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly 200 countries plus the European Union are currently in the agreement. If America joins back into the Paris Agreement, not only would we be establishing trust and a working relationship alongside other countries, but America would be delivering a message to all citizens living in it that fighting climate change is crucial to the outcome of our future. Not to mention, the United States is one of the most vigorous advocates for climate action. We must not abandon our efforts now in a time like this. The world cannot prosper with the threat of climate change looming over our heads. In the words of President Obama, ``Climate change is no longer some far-off problem; it is happening here, and it is happening now.'' Denial of the present and our own ignorance to believe the earth will fix itself will simply not stand. Acknowledging that climate change is legitimate would be an essential element in hindering the ongoing growth of global warming. Switching over to viable energy sources and providing government funding to sustainable corporations will decrease the advancements of CO2 emissions by a large sum. This is our planet, and we must protect our only home.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, in this unprecedented moment in American history, I think there is a crying out all across this country for us to rethink who we are as a nation and what our national priorities are. Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, whether it is the need to combat climate change and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, whether it is the absurdity of being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right, or whether it is the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality, where three people today own more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation, all across this country people are crying out for change--real change. When we talk about the need for real change, it is beyond comprehension the degree to which Congress continues to ignore our bloated $740 billion defense budget. We talk about everything. Democrats and Republicans disagree on almost everything, but when it comes to this huge budget, which has gone up by over $100 billion since Trump has been President, there is, unfortunately, a broad consensus, and that is wrong. Year after year, Democrats and Republicans come together with minimal debate to support an exploding Pentagon budget, which is now higher than that of the next 11 nations combined and represents some 53 percent of our discretionary spending. We are spending more on the military than the next 11 nations combined. That is Russia, China, UK, France, and you name it. That is more than all of them combined, and we are spending on the military budget over half of our discretionary spending. Incredibly--and I know we don't talk about this too much--after adjusting for inflation, we are now spending more on the military than we did during the height of the Cold War, when we were in opposition to the Soviet Union, a major superpower, or during the wars in Vietnam and Korea. After adjusting for inflation, we are spending more today than we did during the time of the Vietnam war. This extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only agency of our Federal Government that has not been able to pass an independent audit. It comes at a time when defense contractors are making enormous profits while paying their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages and when the so-called War on Terror will end up costing us some $6 trillion. This is an agency that has not passed an independent audit. I believe this is a moment in history when it would be a very good idea for the American people and my colleagues here in the Senate to remember the very profound statement made by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower back in 1953. I think all of us remember that Eisenhower was a four-star general who led the Allied forces to victory in Europe. He knew a little bit about the military. Eisenhower said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired 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. What Eisenhower said 67 years ago was true then. It is true now. If the 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, tanks, submarines, nuclear warheads, and other weapons of mass destruction. ``National security'' also means doing everything that we can to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country lives with dignity and security, and that includes many people and many communities around this country that have been abandoned by our government decade after decade. Without a moment's hesitation, we spend billions and billions on the military, while we come to work and step over people who are sleeping out on the streets and move away from communities where children are getting totally inadequate educations and where teachers are underpaid. I believe that the time is long overdue to begin the transformation of our national priorities, and I cannot think of a better way to do that than by cutting military spending. I have, for this bill, filed three separate amendments, and I would like to discuss them briefly. The first amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use the $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities around the country that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass incarceration, deindustrialization, and decades of neglect. We are proposing to transfer money from the military into distressed communities all over this country where people are suffering, where people are hurting, where people are unemployed, where people don't have any healthcare, where infrastructure is crumbling, where people need help. This amendment is being cosponsored by the Senators from Massachusetts--Senator Markey and Senator Warren. Importantly--and I hope my colleagues hear this--this amendment has the support of more than 60 organizations throughout this country, representing millions of workers, environmentalists, and religious leaders, including Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Greenpeace, and the United Methodist Church. At a time when more Americans have died from the coronavirus than were killed in World War I, when over 30 million people have lost their jobs in recent months, when tens of millions of Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes, when education in America, from childcare to graduate school, is in desperate need of reform, when over half a million Americans are homeless, when close to 100 million people are either uninsured or underinsured, now is the time to invest in our people, in jobs, in education, in housing, and in healthcare--not in more nuclear weapons, not in more tanks, not in more guns. Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every State in this country would be able to use these funds to create jobs by building affordable housing, building 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 schoolteachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents, and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities, or trade schools. This is a pivotal moment in American history, and it is time to respond to those crises that we are facing by transforming our national priorities. Do we really want to spend more--billions more--on endless wars in the Middle East, or do we want to provide decent jobs to millions of Americans who are now unemployed? Do we want to spend more money on nuclear weapons, or do we want to invest in a childcare system that is dysfunctional, in an education system where community after community lacks the funds to provide decent, quality education for their kids? Do we want to invest in affordable housing when half a million Americans are homeless and 18 million families in America are spending half of their incomes on housing? Those are the choices that we face, and I think the American people are clear that the time is now to invest in our people, not in more weapons systems. When we analyze the Defense Department budget, it is very interesting to note that Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense Department that the Pentagon literally does not know what to do with it. According to the GAO, between 2013 and 2018, the Pentagon returned more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury People sleep out on the streets, children go hungry, schools are crumbling, people have no health insurance, but we have given the Department of Defense so much money that they are actually returning some of it back to the government. 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 the financial mismanagement that has plagued the Department of Defense for decades. Let us be clear. About half of the Pentagon's budget--and people, I think, don't know this--goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not the troops. Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the United States has paid millions and millions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while making huge profits on those government contracts. This is at a time when we are not very vigorous in terms of our oversight. Despite that, since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies have paid over $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct--$3 billion. That is what they have been caught doing. That is what they have been found guilty of or agreed to in a settlement. God knows what else is going on that we still don't know about. Yet those same three companies received around $1 trillion in defense contracts over the past two decades alone. 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 compensation packages. Last year, the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman both made around $20 million in total compensation, while around 90 percent of the companies' revenue came from defense contracts. In other words, these companies--and I am talking about Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman--for all intents and purposes, are governmental agencies. Over 90 percent of their revenue comes from the taxpayers. Yet the CEOs of those companies made over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense. 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 have to address. According to 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. In other words, they quote a price, and then they come back after they get the contract and say: Oh, we made a slight mistake; you are going to have pay twice as much or 50 percent more, whatever it might be, for the weapons system you wanted. GAO tells us that ``many DoD programs fall short of cost, schedule, and performance expectations, meaning DoD pays more than anticipated, can buy less than expected, and, in some cases, delivers less capability to the warfighter.'' A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon is the fact that the Department of Defense remains the only Federal agency that hasn't been able to pass an independent audit. That is why I have filed an amendment with Senators Grassley, Wyden, and Lee that would require the Defense Department to pass a clean audit no later than fiscal year 2025. When you have an agency that spends some $700 billion, I don't think it is too much to ask that we have an independent audit of the Department of Defense Interestingly enough, many of us will recall what then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--not one of my favorite public officials--told the American people on the day before 9/11 about the serious financial mismanagement at the DOD. Here is what Donald Rumsfeld said. Needless to say, the following day was 9/11. That was the terrorist attack against the United States, so what Rumsfeld said the day before that never got a whole lot of attention. But this is what a conservative Republican Secretary of Defense said: Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building-- That is the Pentagon. because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. And yet, nearly 20 years after Donald Rumsfeld's statement, 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. The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded in 2011 that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste. Separately, in 2015, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects. More recently, an audit conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects. It is time to hold the Defense Department to the same level of accountability as the rest of the government. That is not a radical idea. And support for this concept is bipartisan. That is why I am delighted that this amendment is supported by Senators Grassley and Lee, as well as Senator Wyden, and we hope it will be supported by a strong majority of the Members of the body. I believe in a strong military, but we cannot continue to give more money to the Pentagon than it needs when millions of children in our country are food insecure--there are kids all over this country, in every State in this country, who are hungry--and when we have 140 million people who cannot afford the basic necessities of life without going into debt. Further, let us be very clear, when we are talking about the need to protect the American people, we are talking about the need to defeat our most immediate adversary right now, an adversary that has taken in recent months over 120,000 American lives, and that, of course, is the coronavirus. When we talk about defense, when we talk about protecting the American people, we must get our priorities right and do everything we can to protect the American people from the coronavirus. I don't think nuclear weapons are going to do it. I don't think tanks are going to do it. I don't think F-35s are going to do it. But we need to do everything we can to protect the lives and the health of the American people in terms of the coronavirus. What virtually every scientist who has studied this issue will tell us--and they just told me that this morning as a member of the HELP Committee--is that the most effective way to prevent the transmission of this deadly virus and to stop unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 is for everybody in this country to wear a mask. It is not rocket science, not very complicated, but if you wear a mask when you are in contact with other people, the likelihood that you will spread the virus or get the virus is significantly reduced. That is why I have filed an amendment which requires the Trump administration to use the Defense Production Act to manufacture the hundreds and hundreds of millions of high-quality masks that this country needs and to deliver them to every household in America. This is not a radical idea. It is an idea that is being implemented all across the world, in countries like South Korea, France, Turkey, Austria, and many other countries; that is, they are distributing high- quality face masks to all of their people for free or at virtually no cost. That is what I believe we have to do. There was a study that just came out from the University of Washington very recently, which suggested that if 95 percent of the American people wore face masks when they interact with others, we could save some 30,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. I think this is a commonsense amendment. It is beyond my comprehension how in the wealthiest nation in the world, with the strongest economy, we have not been able to produce the personal protective equipment--the masks, gowns, gloves--that our doctors and nurses and medical personnel need. We have to do that, but we also have to produce the masks that the American people need. As everyone knows, over the past 3 months, the coronavirus has infected more than 2.5 million Americans and caused nearly 130,000 deaths. More Americans have died from the coronavirus than were killed fighting in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined. Sadly, there is new evidence that this pandemic is far from over and may kill many tens of thousands more. In the past few days, new COVID- 19 cases in the United States have increased dramatically--jumping to their highest level in 2 months and returning to where they were at the peak of the outbreak. If we take bold action now, we could prevent tens of thousands of Americans from dying. That is exactly what we have to do. Unfortunately, the Trump administration continues to endanger millions of Americans by ignoring the most basic recommendations of medical professionals and recklessly downplaying the most effective tool we have to contain the pandemic; that is, simply wearing a mask. This amendment is nothing more than listening to science and saving lives. Again, this morning, I participated in a hearing with Dr. Fauci and many others from the Trump administration. They were very clear: Masks work. Social distancing works. And we should listen to the scientists. We are, as I mentioned earlier, at a pivotal moment in American history. We as elected officials have to respond in a transformational way. We have to stand up for people. We have to rethink the way we have done things in the past. The amendments I have offered begin the process of changing American priorities. I hope all three of those amendments will pass. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if there was ever a moment in American history to fundamentally alter our national priorities, now is the time. Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, ending a cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system, or addressing the grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality in our country, now is the time for change--real change. When we talk about real change, it is incredible to me the degree to which Congress continues to ignore our bloated $740 billion defense budget, which has gone up by over $100 billion since Trump has been in office. Year after year, Democrats and Republicans--who disagree on almost everything--come together with minimal debate to support an exploding Pentagon budget, which is now higher than the next 11 countries combined--now higher than the next 11 countries combined--and which represents more than half of our discretionary spending. Incredibly, after adjusting for inflation, we are now spending more on the military than we did during the height of the Cold War, when we faced a major adversary in the Soviet Union, or during the wars in Vietnam and Korea. This extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only agency of our Federal Government that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are making enormous profits, while paying their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages, and when the so-called War on Terror will end up costing us some $6 trillion. I believe this is a moment in history where it would be a very good idea for all of my colleagues and the American people to remember what former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1953. As we all recall, Eisenhower was a four-star general who led the Allied Forces to victory in Europe during World War II. He knew something about war and defense spending. Eisenhower said, and I quote--and this is a profound statement we should never forget--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. Dwight D. Eisenhower. What Eisenhower said was profoundly true 67 years ago, and it is profoundly true today. If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything, it is that national security is not just building bombs, missiles, jet fighters, tanks, 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. In order to begin the process of transforming our national priorities, I have filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act with Senator Markey of Massachusetts to reduce the military budget by 10 percent and to use the $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities all across our country--communities that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass incarceration, deindustriali-zation, and decades of neglect. At a time when more Americans have died from the coronavirus than were killed fighting in World War I; when over 30 million Americans have lost their jobs in recent months--30 million; when tens of millions of Americans are in danger of being evicted from their apartments or their homes because they no longer have adequate income; when education in America--from childcare to graduate school--is in desperate need of reform; when half a million Americans are homeless tonight; and when close to 100 million of our people are either uninsured or underinsured, now is the time to invest in our people--in jobs, education, housing, healthcare here at home--not more military spending for an already bloated military budget. Now is the time to get our priorities right. Under this amendment, distressed communities in every State in our country would be able to use this $74 billion in funding to create jobs by building affordable housing desperately needed in our country, by investing in schools when school budgets all over America are in desperate shape, investing in childcare facilities, community health centers, public hospitals, libraries, sustainable energy projects, and clean drinking water facilities. These communities will also receive Federal funding to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to our children, and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities, or trade schools. Mr. President, at this pivotal moment in American history, we have to rethink our Nation's priorities, and we have to make a fundamental decision about who we are as a people. Do we really want to spend billions more on endless wars in the Middle East, or do we want to provide good-paying jobs to millions of unemployed Americans at home as we rebuild our communities? Do we want to spend more money on nuclear weapons, or do we want to invest in childcare and healthcare for the American people who need it the most? When we take a close look at the Defense Department budget--I am sorry to say that I don't think we are doing that here in the Senate-- it is interesting to note that Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense Department that the Pentagon literally does not know what to do with it. Children go hungry in America, people sleep out on the streets, young people can't afford to go to college, but the Defense Department literally does not know what to do with all of the money Congress throws at it. According to the Government Accountability Office--the GAO--between 2013 and 2018, the Pentagon returned more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury. They couldn't spend the money that they had. 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. About half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not our troops. And I think I share the view with every Member of the Senate that we must protect our troops. I don't want troops and their families on food stamps. I don't want to see our military living in inadequate housing or lacking childcare for their kids. We must make sure that our men and women in the Armed Forces have as good a quality of life as we can provide. But let's again not forget that about half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not the troops. Over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the United States has paid millions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while making huge profits on those government contracts. Since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technology--some of the major defense contractors in America--have paid over $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct--over $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct. Yet those three companies received around $1 trillion in defense contracts over the past two decades alone. 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 compensation packages. Last year, the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman both made over $20 million in total compensation, while 90 percent of the company's revenue came from defense contracts. In other words, these companies--and it is important to note, and we don't talk about this often--for all intents and purposes, these companies are governmental agencies. They are receiving over 90 percent of their revenue from the Federal Government. Yes, they are private corporations, but they are essentially subsidiaries of the Federal Government. Yet, despite receiving over 90 percent of their funding from the taxpayers of this country, they are paying their CEOs over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense makes. And the Secretary of Defense does just fine, but the CEOs, on government revenue of the major defense companies, earn 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense. It is not, therefore, very surprising to learn that we have a revolving door where our generals and admirals and other officials in the military leave government service and then end up on the boards of directors of these major defense companies. Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive, massive cost overruns in the Defense Department's acquisition budget that the U.S. Congress must address. 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 costs taking place after production. In other words, they tell the government--they tell the DOD that they will produce a weapons system for X dollars. It doesn't mean much because the total amount ends up being Y after they get the contract. The GAO tells us also that ``many DOD programs fall short of costs, schedule and performance expectations, meaning the DOD pays more than anticipated, can buy less than expected, and in some cases delivers less capability to the warfighter.'' The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded in 2011, and $31 to $60 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan has been lost to fraud and waste--$31 to $60 billion. Separately, in 2015, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects. It just got lost. A few bucks here, a few bucks there? No, $45 billion of taxpayer money was lost and cannot be accounted for. More recently, an audit conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that the DOD could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects. That is what happens when you have a huge agency that is truly unaccountable. I believe in a strong military, but we cannot keep giving more money to the Pentagon than it needs when millions of children in our country are food insecure, when 140 million Americans cannot afford the basic necessities of life without going into debt, throwing billions after billions into the Pentagon and a few blocks away from here, in the Nation's Capital, people are sleeping out in the streets, children can't find a decent education, and young people can't afford to go to college. In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 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.'' Let me repeat that. Dr. King said 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.'' The time is long overdue for the U.S. Senate to listen to what Dr. King said. At a time when, in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people are struggling paycheck-to-paycheck; when over 40 million Americans are living in poverty; and when over 500,000 Americans are homeless, to quote Dr. King, we are approaching spiritual death. At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost every major country on Earth and when millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death. At a time when over 60,000 Americans die unnecessarily every year because they can't afford to go to a doctor when they need to go to a doctor and when one out of five Americans cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, yes, we are approaching spiritual death. Now, at this moment of unprecedented national crisis, it is time to rethink what we value as a society and to fundamentally transform our national priorities. The status quo is no longer good enough. Now, at this moment of national crises, a growing pandemic and economic meltdown, the demand to end systemic racism and police brutality, 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. With that, I yield the floor.

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 an extraordinary set of crises--crises that are unprecedented in the modern history of our country. Over the last several weeks, hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the streets and courageously demanded an end to police murder and brutality and to urge us all to rethink the nature of policing in America. In the midst of all that, we continue, of course, to suffer from the COVID-19 pandemic, which has taken the lives of over 115,000 Americans and infected over 2 million of our people. Then, on top of that, we are experiencing the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with over 32 million Americans having lost their jobs in the last 3 months. In the midst of all of that, enough truly is enough. The U.S. Senate must respond to the pain and the suffering of our constituents. Let us begin work today, not next week, not next month but right now in addressing the unprecedented crises our people are facing. If there is anything that the torture and murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police has taught us, it is that we have to fundamentally rethink the nature of policing in America and reform our broken and racist criminal justice system. Let us be clear--and I think everybody understands this--the murder of George Floyd is not just an isolated incident. It is the latest in an endless series of police killings of African Americans, including Rayshard Brooks, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Laquan McDonald, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Freddie Gray, Rekia Boyd, Walter Scott, and many, many others. The American people are rightly demanding justice and an end to police brutality and murder. And we have to hear that cry coming from all across this country, from large cities and small towns, and the Senate must act and act now. Here is some good news in the midst of a lot of bad news, and that is thanks to a massive grassroots movement, the Senate will finally begin to debate legislation dealing with the police. That is a good thing. The bad news is that the Republican legislation, at least what I have seen this morning, goes nowhere near far enough as to where we need to go. Now is not the time to think small or respond with superficial, bureaucratic proposals. Now is not the time for more studies. Now is the time to hold racist and corrupt police officers and police departments accountable for their actions. Now is the time to implement far-reaching reforms that would protect people and communities that have suffered police brutality, torture, and murder for far too long. Now is the time to act boldly to protect the First Amendment right to protest. Let me very briefly describe some of the areas in which I think the Congress should move with regard to police brutality and the whole issue of policing. First, and maybe most importantly, every police officer in our country must be held accountable, and those found guilty must be punished with the full force of law. That includes officers who stand by while brutal acts take place. Every single killing of a person by police or while in police custody must be investigated by the Department of Justice. We must create a process by which police departments look like the communities they serve and be part of those communities, not be seen as invading, heavily armed, occupying forces. That is not what police departments should look like. We must, therefore, prohibit the transfer of Department of Defense military equipment to police departments. Further, we need to abolish qualified immunity so police officers are held civilly liable for abuses. We need to strip Federal funds from departments that violate civil rights. We need to provide funding to States and municipalities to create a civilian core of unarmed first responders to supplement law enforcement. For too long, we have asked police departments to do things which they are not trained or prepared to do, and we have criminalized societal problems like addiction and homelessness and mental illness, severe problems that exist in every State in the country. But these are not problems that will be solved by incarceration. We are not going to solve the crisis of addiction or homelessness or mental illness by incarceration. We have done that for too long, and it is a failed approach. We need to make records of police misconduct publicly available so that an officer with a record of misconduct cannot simply move two towns over and start again. We need to require all jurisdictions that receive Federal grant funding to establish independent police conduct review boards that are broadly representative of the community and that have the authority to refer deaths that occur at the hands of police or in police custody to Federal authorities for investigation. We need to amend Federal civil rights laws to allow more effective prosecution of police misconduct by changing the standard from willfulness to recklessness. We need to ban the use of facial recognition technology by the police. Finally, and certainly not least importantly, we need to legalize marijuana. In the midst of the many crises we face as a country, it is absurd that, under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is at schedule 1, along with killer drugs like heroin. State after State have moved to legalize marijuana, and it is time for the Federal Government to do the same. When we talk about police department reform, we must end police officers continuing to arrest, search, or jail the people of our country, predominantly people of color, for using marijuana. We need to ban the use of rubber bullets, pepper spray, and tear gas on protesters. The right to protest, the right to demonstrate is a fundamental, constitutional right and a right that must be respected.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Glenn A. Dockham of Milton, VT. Glenn lived a life of service. He was a Peace Corps volunteer, a U.S. Customs officer, and the president of the National Treasury Employees Union--NTEU--Chapter 142. It was in his capacity as a labor leader that my staff and I had the pleasure of working with Glenn and came to greatly respect his perspective. I am proud to have called on his perspective on a number of occasions to discuss important labor issues. During one occasion, when I organized a panel to discuss labor concerns at the Department of Homeland Security, Glenn provided valuable insights as the voice at the table representing NTEU members. At this time, the Department of Homeland Security was still a relatively new agency, and Glenn helped us to fight for the needs of his members. I have always considered Glenn a fair and trusted voice in the labor movement and a tireless advocate for Federal employees. I was grateful for his leadership and the commitment that he demonstrated throughout his career. He set an excellent example in his professional life. In addition to his work, family was very important to Glenn. He leaves behind his wife, Lisa, and his two children, Marcy and Tim. He considered his greatest accomplishment to be raising his children. I have no doubt he set an equally powerful example of hard work, kindness, and service for them and others in his life. Please join me in honoring the life and legacy of Glenn Dockham.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, since 2010 I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont high school students. This contest gives students in my State the opportunity to articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States. This is the contest's 10th year, and I would like to congratulate the 536 students who participated. It is truly heartening to see so many young people engaged in finding solutions for the problems that face our country. To my mind, this is what democracy is all about. A volunteer panel of Vermont teachers reviewed the essays, and chose Isabelle Hiller as this year's winner. Isabelle, a junior at Woodstock Union High School, wrote about reforming our incarceration system. Lucas Whitaker, a sophomore at Hazen Union High School, was the second place winner. Lucas wrote about youth suicide and the need for comprehensive mental health care. Maya Marcy, a junior at Long Trail School, was the third place winner, with an essay on the cost of college. I am very proud to enter into the Congressional Record the essays submitted by Isabelle, Lucas and Maya: Winner, Isabelle Hiller, Woodstock Union High School, Junior, Education in Incarceration Our country's federal prison system is stuck in an ethical rut. We seem to focus on securing institutions and confining offenders like savage dogs in a pound to ``protect the public,'' and disregard the fact that 44,000 prisoners return to society each year. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) claims that public safety is the goal of detention, but without any mental shift in convicts, all we do is press pause on their potential harm to society until their release. Currently, we have one of the highest prison populations in the world. Unless we plan to incarcerate all convicts for life, our approach to detainment should shift from `prison' to `rehabilitation', focusing on equipping prisoners with the skills to be mentally stable and financially and lawfully successful. To do so, all prisoners should not only have access to academic resources, but be required to attend a set number of courses each year. Just a few decades ago, Finland had one of the highest imprisonment rates in Europe. Because of this, researchers started investigating its cause. They concluded that punishment does not help reduce crime. As a result, Finland began `decarceration,' which was better for the prisoners and crime rates didn't increase. Without teaching prisoners skills or continuing their education, we merely take them out of their lives and throw them back with no change, and no basis to be stable in any realm. In the United States, prisoners have a higher likelihood of returning to illegal markets and returning to prison. As of October 2017, the BOP found that only 32 percent of the entire designated inmate population was enrolled in one or more education or recreation programs. Furthermore, participation decreases 16 percent in the recidivism population. The only academic requirement in our federal prison system is that inmates without a high school diploma or a General Education Development have to enroll in a literacy program, and need to be successful for good conduct time. However, even for this requirement alone, there is a stoppage to access the program due to overflow of over 16,000 inmates--that's a lot of potential students. Plus, although mock job and resume builder courses are offered, inmates do not take advantage of them-even with the knowledge that occupational training program participants are 33 percent less likely to recidivate. By increasing funding of education, we ensure equal accessibility to all courses for those 16,000 or more inmates wanting to take courses. Consequently the recidivism rate will reduce, decreasing our total prison population, and lower the overall government spending on imprisonment as a whole. By treating inmates like humans in their time of rehabilitation, with a lower recidivism rate, we more confidently ensure public safety when 44,000 convicts are released each year, strengthening the Department of Justice's prison system core ideologies. Although we have the right end goal, we need to rethink the process by which we get there for the sake of the public's safety and security. Second Place, Lucas Whitaker, Hazen Union High School, Sophomore One of the biggest issues in America's society today is the mental health crisis in our youth, relating back to the lack of mental health services in our schools. In many cases, this leads to preventable death by suicide. According to a 2017 study by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, our country today faces an extraordinary set of crises--unprecedented, in fact--in the modern history of this country. Over the last several weeks, hundreds of thousands of Americans from one end of this country to the other, from big cities and small towns, have rightly taken to the streets to demand an end to police murder and brutality and, in fact, to rethink the nature of policing in America. In the midst of that--that rising up for police department rethinking and police department murder and brutality--our country continues to suffer from the COVID-19 pandemic, which, in a number of locations in this country, is actually getting worse and which has, up to this point, killed over 110,000 people and infected over 2 million Americans. Then, on top of all of that--the struggle for racial justice and dealing with a pandemic in the midst of all of that--we have the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the last number of months, as you know, over 32 million Americans have lost their jobs. In the midst of the struggle for racial justice, in the midst of this horrific healthcare crisis, and in the midst of this economic meltdown, the American people are demanding to know what their government is doing in response to these crises. We were elected as Senators and Members of the House to respond to the needs of the American people. All over this country the American people are looking around them. They see the struggle for racial justice. They see a pandemic. They see an economic meltdown. And many of them are asking what the Republican leadership here in the Senate is doing. There is crisis after crisis after crisis, and what is the leadership here in the Senate doing? Tragically, the answer is nothing--nothing. Historians have suggested that in the year 64 AD, while Rome was burning, the Emperor Nero played his fiddle. At least he did something. He provided entertainment to his court. But here, in the U.S. Senate, Republican Leader McConnell and his leadership team are doing nothing. Sadly, tragically, this is the worst do-nothing Senate in modern American history, and every Member of this body should be deeply ashamed at the degree to which we are failing our constituents. Enough is enough. The U.S. Senate must respond to the pain and the suffering of the American people. Let us quickly wrap up debate over the Land and Water Conservation Fund act, which is on the floor right now. Let us wrap up debate, and let us vote on this bill. It is a good bill. Let's pass it. Then, let us begin to work on the unprecedented crises that are facing our country. If there is anything that the torture and murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police has taught us is that we have to rethink the nature of policing in America and reform our broken and racist criminal justice system. Let us be clear. The murder of George Floyd is not just an isolated incident. It is the latest in an endless series of police killings of African Americans--including Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Laquan McDonald, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Breonna Taylor, Freddie Gray, Rekia Boyd, Walter Scott, and many, many, many others. If anyone thinks that these police murders have just begun to take place in recent years when people had cell phone cameras, you would obviously have been mistaken. This has gone on forever. The American people are rightly demanding justice and an end to police brutality and murder. The U.S. Senate has got to act now. We have to hear the cries for justice that are coming from the streets of this country, that are coming from the African-American community, from the White community, from the Latino community, and from all of our people. We must act and we must act now. Let me just suggest some of the items that must be in the legislation that we pass. This is a limited number. We can do more. In my view, every police officer involved in a killing must be held accountable, and those found guilty must be punished with the full force of law. That includes officers who stand by while these brutal acts take place. Every single killing of a person by police or while in police custody must be investigated by the Department of Justice. We must create a process by which police departments look like the communities that they serve and not look like invading armies. We need to abolish qualified immunity so police officers are held civilly liable for abuses. We need to prohibit the transfer of offensive military equipment to police departments. We need to strip Federal funds from departments that violate civil rights. We need to provide funding to States and municipalities to create a civilian corps of unarmed first responders to supplement law enforcement. For too long we have asked police departments to do things which they are not trained or prepared to do and have criminalized societal problems like addiction, homelessness, and mental illness. These are not problems solved by incarceration. We need to make records of police misconduct publicly available so that an officer with a record of misconduct cannot simply move two towns over and start again. We need to require all jurisdictions that receive grant funding to establish independent police conduct review boards that are broadly representative of the community and that have the authority to refer deaths that occur at the hands of police or in police custody to Federal authorities for investigation. We need to ban the use of rubber bullets, tear gas, and pepper spray on protesters. We need to make certain that when people go to the street to protest, they are not treated like criminals and their basic constitutional rights are not denied. The struggle for racial justice is just one of the crises that we have to address. Today, we are looking at a pandemic unprecedented in the last 100 years, and I would tell you that New Zealand, a very small country of about 5 million people, did something rather interesting--not surprising but interesting. They listened to their scientists. They acted boldly at the start of the pandemic, and they had political leadership trusted by their citizens. The result is that just the other day, New Zealand was able to announce that the COVID-19 virus was virtually eliminated in their country and they could reopen their economy safely--safely. On the other hand, in the United States, under President Trump, we have a President who downplayed the crisis from the very beginning, who ignored or attacked scientists, and who most people recognize is a pathological liar, not to be trusted. In New Zealand and in many other countries, bold and intelligent action saved lives, and in our country, incompetent leadership cost us lives. Well, we cannot bring back those who unnecessarily died or who have become ill, but what we can do is take action now to do everything possible to minimize unnecessary deaths and illness in the future. First and foremost, we need a national protocol based on science to address this pandemic and not have 50 States and hundreds of communities going forward in different directions. There is a way to effectively deal with this crisis, and that leadership should be coming from the Federal Government. What we are talking about is the need, among other things, for increased testing and how to best utilize that testing as we talk about opening businesses and schools. We need, through the Defense Production Act and any other approach, to make certain that all medical personnel have the necessary personal protective equipment that they need. Even today, months after the pandemic erupted, doctors and nurses still lack the equipment they need to protect themselves. I was on the phone just a couple of weeks ago with people in Vermont who work in clinics. They still do not have the protective equipment they need. We need to produce hundreds of millions of the most effective masks that we can so as to protect all Americans, above and beyond medical personnel. Masks are an important part of fighting this pandemic, and every American should be able to have the best quality masks possible. Working with the international community, we need to make certain that a safe vaccine is produced as quickly as possible and that it is distributed to every American for free. I have asked the Trump administration on several occasions. God willing, that vaccine will be produced soon--as soon as possible. We all want that. As you know, the Federal Government is spending billions of dollars to help develop that vaccine, giving money to the drug companies. That is fine, but after that vaccine is developed, it must be distributed to every man, woman, and child in this country at no cost. I don't want to see people dying because they can't afford to pay for a vaccine. I don't want to see the drug companies profiteering from this Federal investment. When we are talking about responding to the pandemic, we are talking about workers who are on the frontlines, whether they are medical professionals, workers in transportation, grocery stores, drug stores, meatpacking plants, or whatever. They must receive hazard pay for the dangerous work that they do. I get a little bit tired of seeing these TV ads from big corporations thanking the heroes who are out on the frontlines. Well, that is great. Thank them, but pay them. Pay them hazardous pay for the dangerous work that they are doing. We can no longer allow multi-billion dollar corporations like Amazon, Walmart, and Tyson Foods to treat essential workers like expendable workers-- like sacrificial workers. We can no longer allow multi-billion dollar corporations to run advertising calling their workers ``heroes'' while paying them starvation wages and treating them disrespectfully. It is not just the racial justice crisis we face, not just the pandemic we face, but we are in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis, and we must act boldly and aggressively to protect the American people in the midst of this crisis. As we speak, tens of millions of people have lost their jobs. They are worried about being evicted from their apartments. They are worried about losing their homes. They are worried about putting food on the table. In Vermont--and, I suspect, in every State in this country--there are people lining up at emergency food banks to get the food they need to feed their kids. Anyone who thinks that this is not a moment of urgency does not understand what the word urgency means. When people in America go hungry, we have to act. When people are being evicted from their apartments or losing their homes, we have to act, and we have to act now, not a month from now, not 2 months from now. No, President Trump, this is not a time to take a victory lap. The real unemployment rate remains over 20 percent, the highest it has been since the Great Depression. Unless we get our act together boldly, over half of small business owners in America will be forced to close their doors for good within the next 6 months. We need to respond vigorously to the economic crisis that we face and the pain and suffering of the American people. Now, what does that mean? Again, these are just a few of the provisions that have to be passed. We need to pass a paycheck security act which does what many European countries do, and that is to provide workers with 100 percent of the paychecks and benefits they previously received. According to a recent study from the University of California Berkeley, if we had adopted a paycheck guarantee program similar to the one in Germany, 24 million Americans would have a job today. Instead, we are seeing President Trump and Senator McConnell taking a victory lap because we created some 2 million jobs last month. That is good, but when we have 32 million people who have lost their jobs in recent months, we have to act, and we have to act boldly. In my view, during this crisis, we must make sure that every American gets the healthcare they need by expanding Medicare to cover the underinsured, the uninsured, and the needs of people who have private insurance but inadequate private insurance. In my view, in the midst of this crisis with so much economic suffering, we need to provide every working-class person in this country with a $2,000 emergency payment each and every month until the crisis is over, so that they can pay the rent, feed their families, and deal with their basic needs. Furthermore, as a top priority, we have to make sure that nobody in America goes hungry, and that means substantially expanding the Meals on Wheels program, the school meals programs, and SNAP benefits. Here we are. All over this country people are demanding an end to police killings and brutality and demanding racial justice in this country. All over this country, people are being infected with a virus and continue to die, and all over this country, people are wondering how they are going to pay their bills because they have lost their jobs and have, in some cases, no food in the cupboard. If there was ever a time in the modern history of this country that the Senate and the House are called upon to stand up for families, for the working families of this country, who are struggling, who are living in emotional anxiety, who are scared to death about what is going to happen in the future, and if we are to reaffirm faith in government in this country to know that we are seeing and hearing that pain, now is the time. So today, I just call upon my colleagues. I know we have disagreements, but let us understand the urgency of the moment. Let's deal with the pandemic. Let's save lives. Let's deal with the economic crisis. Let's put people back to work. Let's deal with the issue of racial justice. Let's fight to end racism in this country. There is an enormous amount of work to be done. Let's do it. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. No, not permanently but during the crisis, yes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me be very honest and tell you that there is much in this bill--and we have not yet seen the printout yet-- that I am concerned about. I am especially concerned that the administration will be able to spend $500 billion in virtually any way they want--any corporation they want--with virtually no strings attached. The American people, at a time of massive income and wealth and inequality, do not want more corporate welfare, and they do not want policies that will allow corporations in some cases to receive loans or grants and then do stock buybacks to enrich their stockholders, provide dividends, or maybe raise the compensation benefits of their already wealthy CEOs. What the American people want right now is for us to use our taxpayer dollars in every way we can to protect the working families of this country, to protect the middle class, to protect the 50 percent of our people who are living paycheck to paycheck. As we speak tonight, half of our people in this country--in the richest country in the history of the world--are living paycheck to paycheck. They wake up in the morning, and they are saying: Do you know what? I can barely make it on the paycheck I got because I am making 12, 13, 14 bucks an hour, and now that paycheck has stopped. How am I going to pay my rent? How am I going to put food on the table for my kids? How am I going to make sure the lights remain on? How am I going to pay my student debt? How am I going to pay my credit card debt? If somebody in the family gets sick, how am I going to pay for that? This bill has been worked on extensively in the last few days. There are elements in it that, in my view, are positive--don't go far enough by any means--but one of the things this bill does do is provide the largest expansion of unemployment benefits in history, expending about $250 billion of Federal funds. What it does, importantly, is the bill understands that for all kinds of absurd reasons having to do with the Republican attacks on workers for many years, fewer than 50 percent of American workers today are eligible for unemployment benefits. What this bill does, rightly so, is say that in the midst of this terrible economic crisis where some people--nobody knows--where some economists are estimating that by June, the end of next quarter, unemployment could be 20 percent or 30 percent--and what this bill does say is that whether or not you are eligible for unemployment today, you are going to get unemployment compensation. And that means many of the gig workers--people who drive Uber cars--many of the waitresses and waiters who make starvation minimum wages, many so-called independent contractors will be eligible for the extended unemployment benefits. And that is exactly the right thing. The other thing this bill does, which is right, is say: OK, we are in the midst of a horrific crisis, unprecedented in modern American history. Not only are you going to get your regular unemployment benefits, we are going to add another $600 a week to it. And now I find that some of my Republican colleagues are very distressed. They are very upset that somebody who is making 10, 12 bucks an hour might end up with a paycheck for 4 months that is more than they received last week. Oh, my God, the universe is collapsing. Imagine that. Somebody who is making 12 bucks an hour now faces, like the rest of us, an unprecedented economic crisis and, with the 600 bucks on top of their regular unemployment check, might be making a few bucks more for 4 months. Oh, my word, will the universe survive? How absurd and wrong is that? What kind of value system is that? Meanwhile, these very same folks had no problem a couple of years ago voting for $1 trillion in tax breaks for billionaires and large, profitable corporations--not a problem. But when it comes to low-income workers in the midst of a terrible crisis, maybe some of them earning or having more money than they previously made--oh, my word, we have to strip that out. By the way, when the McConnell bill first came up, unbelievably--and I know many Republicans objected to this--they were saying that we want to give--whatever it was--1,000 or 1,200 bucks, but poor people should get less. You said: Because poor people are down here, they don't deserve--they don't eat; they don't pay rent; they don't go to the doctor; they are somehow inferior. Because they are poor, we are going to give them less. That was addressed. Now everybody is going to get the $1,200. Some of my Republican friends have not given up the need to punish the poor and working people. You haven't raised the minimum wage in 10 years. Minimum wage should be at least 15 bucks an hour. You haven't done that. You have cut program after program after program, and now-- horror of horrors--for 4 months, workers might be earning a few bucks more than they otherwise would. Needless to say, this is an amendment that is coming up, but I don't think it is going to go very far. If it does go far, I will introduce an amendment to deal with the corporate welfare--the $500 billion in corporate welfare--which is, to me, a very serious problem. But I do not think they are going to get the 60 votes, and that will be the end of it. This bill also includes some $250 billion in one-time checks of $1,200 for adults and $500 for kids. I have a couple of concerns there. No. 1, I believe that in the midst of this unprecedented crisis we should make this a monthly benefit, not a one-time benefit. Depending on what happens--and I expect very much that this Congress will be reconvening because I think this coronavirus 3--the bill we are on right now--is going to be superseded by coronavirus 4. My strong guess is this does not go far enough. But the bill does include a $1,200 check for adults, $500 for kids. That will in the short term. We have to do a lot better than that. As many of you know, in countries around the world--UK, Denmark, other countries--the approach they are taking, which makes sense to me, is to basically say to employers: If you keep your workers on the job, even if they are not working right now, we will pay. The UK pays 80 percent of their salary; other countries are a bit higher. I think that is the direction we should have gone. This is a little bit more convoluted. What we do here is give $367 billion in loans to small businesses, and those loans could be forgiven if those small businesses don't lay off workers. I think, for a variety of reasons, that is exactly the right thing to do. The goal right now is to stabilize the economy by telling workers that they will have their jobs when they come back, when this thing is over, and in the meantime, they will have all or most of their income. That is my preferred approach. This bill provides $150 billion to States and cities. I can tell you that in Vermont--and I am sure in every other State in this country, States and cities are hurting because we all know there has been a major decline in tax revenue. That is an important thing do. By the way, in the midst of this crisis, a lot of the responsibility is going to fall on local and State government. One of the concerns, of many, that I have about this bill is that in the best of times, this bill requires an enormous amount of work by the Federal, State, and local governments. How do you get all these unemployment checks out? How do you deal with all of these small businesses that may apply for these loans? This is hard stuff. It becomes even more difficult when so many workers who work for local and State governments are not coming into work because of the coronavirus. One of the issues we are going to have to focus on big time is the implementation. If anyone thinks, just passing this bill, that tomorrow everything is going to flow smoothly, you are sadly mistaken. This is a complicated, multifaceted bill, and it is going to take an enormous amount of work to make sure that the money goes where it should go in a cost-effective way. This bill does a lot of other things, as well, that I think will help the American economy. To conclude, this is not the bill I would have written. Frankly, I don't think it is the bill most Americans would have written. I think most Americans are very apprehensive that one-quarter of this bill is going to go to large corporations with very little accountability. In a political season, let me make the radical suggestion that we have a President of the United States who may end up targeting some of this money to States that he needs to win. This bill has some good things. It has some issues of real concern. One thing we must not do is to punish low-income workers who might get a few bucks more than they had previously earned.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, today I would like to speak in opposition to two dangerous pieces of legislation that were considered in the Senate, both of which would severely undermine women's constitutional right to safe and legal abortions. One bill, S. 3275, the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act, would create a national 20-week abortion ban, while the other, S. 311, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would attempt to scare providers who perform abortions out of business by subjecting them to penalties or even prison. Let me be clear. These bills are not about protecting babies. These bills are about telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and making their own medical decisions for them. Today in the United States, we have some of the highest maternal mortality rates and infant mortality rates in the developed world. This crisis is only worsened by the racial and economic disparities many women face in our country, in addition to the reality that some 87 million Americans are either uninsured or underinsured. Instead of helping our Nation make progress toward eliminating these disparities, such as by guaranteeing affordable healthcare, including abortion, as a right, this legislation would bring us back to the dark ages when women in America did not have the right to control their own bodies. It is a simple reality that, if the Senate votes to deny women access to safe and legal abortion, many of them will suffer and perhaps even die. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 3275 and S. 311. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, an impeachment trial of a sitting President of the United States is not a matter to be taken lightly. A President should not and must not be impeached because of political disagreements or policy differences. That is what elections are for. Instead, an impeachment trial occurs when a President violates the oath he or she swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, there are two questions for me to answer as a juror in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump: whether President Trump is guilty of abusing his power as President for his own political gain and whether he obstructed Congress in their investigation of him. The first Article of Impeachment charges President Trump with abuse of power when he ``solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.'' Based on the evidence I heard during the Senate trial, Trump ``corruptly solicited'' an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son in order to benefit his own reelection chances. To increase the pressure on Ukraine, President Trump then withheld approximately $400 million in military aid from Ukraine. Finally, according to the charges, even when Trump's scheme to withhold aid was made public, he ``persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.'' So on this first Article of Impeachment, it is my view that the President is clearly guilty. The second Article of Impeachment asserts that Trump obstructed Congress in its investigation of Trump's abuse of power, stating that Trump ``has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its `sole Power of Impeachment.' '' According to the warped logic of the arguments presented by the President's counsel, there are almost no legal bounds to anything a President can do so long as it benefits his own reelection. If a President cannot be investigated criminally or by Congress while in office, then he or she would be effectively above the law. President Trump, who raised absurd legal arguments to hide his actions and obstruct Congress, is clearly guilty here as well. Now, frankly, while the House of Representatives passed two Articles of Impeachment, President Trump could have been impeached for more than just that. For example, it seems clear that Donald Trump has violated both the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses. In other words, it appears Trump has used the Federal Government over and over to benefit himself financially. In 2018 alone, Trump's organization made over $40 million in profit just from his Trump hotel in DC alone. And foreign governments, including lobbying firms connected to the Saudi Arabian Government, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at that hotel. That appears to be corruption, pure and simple. In addition, as we all know, there is significant evidence that Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice with regard to the Robert Mueller investigation by, among other actions, firing the FBI Director, James Comey. One of the difficulties of dealing with President Trump and his administration is that we cannot trust his words. He is a pathological liar who, according to media research, has lied thousands of times since he was elected. During the trial, I posed a question to the House impeachment managers: Given that the media has documented President Trump's thousands of lies while in office--more than 16,200 as of January 20, 2020--why would we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility? The answer is that, sadly, we cannot. Sadly, we now have a President who sees himself as above the law and is either ignorant or indifferent to the Constitution. And we have a President who clearly committed impeachable offenses. The evidence of Trump's guilt is so overwhelming that the Republican Party, for the first time in the history of Presidential impeachment, obstructed testimony from witnesses--even willing witnesses. It defies basic common sense that in a trial to determine whether the President of the United States is above the law, the Senate would not hear from the people who could speak directly to President Trump's behavior and motive. Leader Mitch McConnell's handling of this trial, unfortunately, was nothing more than a political act. Yet this impeachment trial is about more than just the charges against President Trump. What this impeachment vote will decide is whether we believe that the President, any President, is above the law. Last week, Alan Dershowitz, one of President Trump's lawyers, argued to the Senate that a President cannot be impeached for any actions he or she takes that are intended to benefit their own reelection. That is truly an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion. If Trump is acquitted, I fear the repercussions of this argument would do grave damage to the rule of law in our country. Imagine what such a precedent would allow an incumbent president to get away with for the sake of their own reelection. Hacking an opponent's email using government resources? Soliciting election interference from China? Under this argument, what would stop a President from withholding infrastructure or education funding to a given State to pressure elected officials into helping the President politically? Let me be clear: Republicans will set a dangerous and lawless precedent if they vote to acquit President Trump. A Republican acquittal of Donald Trump won't just mean that the current President is above the law; it will give a green light to all future Presidents to disregard the law so long as it benefits their reelection. It gives me no pleasure to conclude that President Donald Trump is guilty of the offenses laid out in the two Articles of Impeachment. I will vote to convict on both counts. But my greater concern is if Republicans acquit President Trump by undercutting the very rule of law. That will truly be remembered as a sad and dangerous moment in the history of our country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Orly Munzing, an extraordinary Vermonter and longtime advocate for family farms and resilient communities. Orly founded Strolling of the Heifers in 2002 in Brattleboro, VT, to help bring awareness to the plight of small dairy farms. During Orly's tenure as executive director of Strolling of the Heifers, she transformed a small town parade into a widely renowned event celebrating sustainable agriculture and family farms. I am proud to have marched in many of these parades over the last 17 years to celebrate our farms and our communities in Vermont and around the country. Under Orly's leadership, Strolling of the Heifers has continued to expand, now including the farm-to-table culinary apprenticeship program to provide underserved community members with the vital skills necessary for obtaining good quality jobs in the food sector. In addition to Strolling of the Heifers, Orly founded the nationally recognized Locavore Index, the first tool to measure the growth of the local food movement. She also created Windham Grows, a program to provide valuable skills and resources to farm and food entrepreneurs. Just this past year, Orly received the Innovation & Spirit Award from the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility as recognition of this work. Prior to all these important accomplishments, Orly worked for 24 years as a learning specialist in the public school system and consulted with teachers on cutting-edge educational techniques. For decades, she has been a truly tireless champion who has made significant strides to create more healthy and prosperous rural communities. At a time of increased recognition of the profound impact agriculture and food have on the vibrancy of rural lands, our health, and the health of the planet, it is heartening to know that dedicated, passionate people like Orly are making a real difference in our communities. Mr. President, I am not only enormously grateful for all of Orly's many contributions over the years, but I am also proud to call her a good friend. I wish her all the best in her retirement and know she will continue to fight for more environmentally sound and fundamentally just communities.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the NAFTA 2.0 trade agreement negotiated by President Trump. This agreement is opposed by labor unions like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, as well as by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. It is opposed by numerous environmental organizations, including the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, and virtually every major environmental organization in the country. Further, it is opposed by the National Family Farm Coalition, which believes it will lock in rules that have devastated family-based agriculture and expand corporate control over agriculture in North America. I am proud to stand with these labor unions, with the environmental groups, and family farmers against President Trump's NAFTA 2.0. I not only voted against NAFTA in 1993, but I marched against it. In 2000 I voted against permanent normal trade relations with China. I opposed the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and other trade agreements. The bottom line is that we need trade agreements in this country that work for workers, that work for farmers, and not just the CEOs of large multinational corporations. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to fundamentally rewrite our disastrous trade agreements and create and protect good-paying American jobs, and that we need trade agreements that will improve the environment and combat climate change, and we need trade agreements that end the destructive race to the bottom, where workers are forced to work for lower, lower wages. Unfortunately, this revised trade agreement with Mexico and Canada does none of these things. It must be rewritten. While NAFTA has led to the loss of nearly 1 million American jobs, this agreement does virtually nothing to stop the outsourcing of jobs to Mexico. Under this agreement, large multinational corporations will still be able to shut down factories in America, where workers are paid some $28 an hour, and move to Mexico, where workers there are paid less than $2 an hour. When Donald Trump was a candidate for President, he promised that he would stop the outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico, China, and other low-wage countries. That has not happened. The truth is, since Trump took office, over 170,000 American jobs have been shipped overseas. In 2018, we had a recordbreaking $891 billion trade deficit in goods, a $419 billion trade deficit with China, and an $81 billion trade deficit with Mexico. In 2018, for the first time in our history, manufacturing workers began getting paid less than workers overall. It used to be that manufacturing workers made really good wages compared to the rest of the workforce. It is not the case anymore. Today, manufacturing workers get $28.15 an hour, while the average worker makes 15 cents an hour more. Last month we lost 12,000 factory jobs, and despite Trump's rhetoric, we are in a manufacturing recession. There is a reason why virtually every major environmental group is opposed to Trump's NAFTA 2.0. This agreement does nothing to stop fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron from dumping their waste and pollution into Mexico and destroying the environment. In fact, it makes it easier for fossil fuel companies to bring tar sands oil into the United States through dangerous pipelines like the Keystone XL. This proposal does not even mention the word ``climate change.'' Imagine in the year 2020 that we have a major trade agreement that does not even mention the words ``climate change,'' the existential threat facing not only our country but the entire planet. This deal preserves the disastrous investor-state dispute settlement system for oil and gas companies, allowing them to continue to put corporate profits ahead of our air, water, climate, and health. At this pivotal moment in American history, it is not good enough to tinker around the edges. The scientific community has been very clear. If we do not act boldly and aggressively to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy, the future of this planet is in doubt, and there is no question but that the Nation and planet we leave to our children and to our grandchildren will be increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable. We have a major climate crisis and no trade deal should be passed that does not address that issue. In my view, we need to rewrite this trade agreement to stop the outsourcing of American jobs, to combat climate change, to protect the environment, and to stop the destructive race to the bottom. We have to stop large, profitable corporations that are outsourcing American jobs overseas from receiving lucrative Federal contracts. It makes no sense to me that you have large corporations shut down in America, go to cheap labor countries abroad, and then they get online and receive very large Federal contacts. We have to stop that. Further, we have to repeal Trump's tax giveaways to the wealthy, which have provided huge tax breaks to companies that shut down manufacturing plants in the United States and move abroad. Trade is a good thing done well, but this trade agreement does not accomplish that end.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend and the senior Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, for casting his 16,000th vote in the U.S. Senate. Since he was first elected in 1974, Senator Leahy has worked tirelessly for the people of Vermont, bringing to Washington, DC, Vermont values: a belief in justice, civic engagement, and the importance of community. Senator Leahy has long been a champion of human rights, a steward of the environment, and his efforts have brought important Federal resources to our State. I join with his wife Marcelle, his children and grandchildren, and Vermonters throughout our State in congratulating him on this milestone vote and thanking him for his 44 years of dedicated service. I look forward to continuing to work together to represent the people of Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this afternoon we voted on cloture to proceed to a budget resolution written by my Republican colleague Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. This is a budget that would lead to devastating cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and education, while paving the way for even more tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large, profitable corporations. Make no mistake about it: Senator Paul's budget is an immoral budget. It is bad economic policy. While I am confident that this resolution will be defeated in the Senate, let me be very clear. Nearly half of the Republican Caucus in the Senate voted to advance Senator Paul's budget, including some of the most senior members of this body. The vision of America this budget puts forward--balancing the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor in order to make the richest people in America even richer--is the vision of the Republican Party as a whole. So let me commend Senator Paul for being honest with the American people in terms of what he believes and for putting down on paper what the Republican Party and billionaire campaign contributors like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson believe. And this is what they want. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, Senator Paul and the Republicans who voted to advance this budget do not believe that it was good enough to provide nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations. The budget that we are debating would extend those tax breaks for the wealthy and the powerful. Two years ago, the Congressional Republicans came very close to passing a bill that would have thrown 32 million Americans off of health insurance. Senator Paul and those who voted to advance this budget believe that earlier effort did not go far enough. The budget we are debating would throw up to 40 million Americans off of Medicaid. A few months ago, President Trump proposed a budget calling for Medicare to be cut by nearly $845 billion. Senator Paul and the Republicans who support this budget do not believe those cuts went far enough. The budget we are debating would cut Medicare by up to $3.4 trillion over the next decade. At a time when 40 million Americans struggle with hunger, Senator Paul and the Republicans who vote for this budget want to cut the SNAP program by $223 billion, cutting 16 million people off of the program by 2029. Overall, Senator Paul's resolution calls for slashing the budget by more than 51 percent by the end of the decade. Not too long ago, if someone proposed cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition assistance in half so that billionaires could get a huge tax break, that would have been considered a radical and extreme agenda. Today, it is the mainstream position of the Republican Party in Washington. The reality is that Republicans in Washington have never believed in Medicare, Medicaid, Federal assistance in education, or providing any direct government assistance to those in need. They have always believed that tax breaks for the wealthy and the powerful would somehow miraculously trickle down to every American, despite all history and evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, and I am only speaking for myself, I have a very different vision of America. In my view, we need to create a government and an economy that works for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires. What does that mean? It means that, instead of giving trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large profitable corporations, we must demand that Wall Street, the billionaire class, and large, profitable corporations start paying their fair share in taxes. Instead of trying to abolish the estate tax, which impacts less than one-tenth of 1 percent, we must substantially increase the inheritance tax not only to bring in needed revenue, but to dismantle the oligarchs that now control so much of our economic and political lives. Instead of making it easier for corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in the Cayman Islands, we need to crack down on offshore tax haven abuse and use this revenue to create 15 million good paying American jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Instead of cutting Social Security, we need to expand Social Security so that every American can retire with the dignity and the respect they deserve, and we pay for that by making sure everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class. Instead of cutting Medicare, we need to guarantee healthcare as a right to every man, woman, and child in America through a Medicare for all, single-payer healthcare program. Instead of slashing Federal aid to education, we must make every public college and university in America tuition free, and we pay for that by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculation. If we could bail out Wall Street 10 years ago, we can tax Wall Street so that every American who has the desire and the ability can get a higher education regardless of their income. Instead of listening to the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and other multibillionaire campaign contributors, it is time to start listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans who want a government and an economy that works for the many, not just the few. Let us not only defeat the Paul budget, but let us have the guts to take on the greed of Wall Street, the greed of the pharmaceutical and health care industry, the greed of big oil, and the greed of corporate America and break up the oligarchy that is destroying the social fabric of our society.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, today I wish to recognize David Fitz-Gerald and congratulate him on his term as the chair of the ESOP Association. David has been committed to advancing the employee ownership model in Vermont and around the country. For the last 2 years, David served as chair of the association, working to promote the interests of employee stock ownership plan, ESOP, companies across the country. In my State of Vermont, we have seen firsthand the many benefits that employee ownership can bring to businesses and employees. Study after study has shown that employee ownership has been proven to spur employment, increase productivity, grow sales, and raise wages. During the last two recessions, companies with ESOPs were twice as likely to survive the downturn. David has been a vital ally in the efforts to expand broad-based employee ownership and bolster middle-class jobs in our communities. As chair, David advocated for the ESOP business model and the benefits of worker ownership all across the country. I know many in the employee ownership community are so appreciative of David's energy, motivation, and empowerment. Over the last 2 years, David dedicated much of his time and energy to expanding broad-based employee ownership to help create a sustainable economy that benefits all of us. In addition to his work as chair of the ESOP Association, David serves as a trustee for the Employee Ownership Foundation, working to promote employee ownership. He is a leader in the Vermont employee ownership community and has been a crucial ally in our fight to expand employee ownership in our state and throughout the country. As we continue to work together to help the employee ownership model realize its true potential, I know David will continue to be an invaluable partner.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me thank Senator Lee and Senator Chris Murphy for their outstanding and consistent leadership on this issue. At a time when the country bemoans the fact that there is not a lot of bipartisanship, this effort indicates that people with very different political philosophies can come together on an issue of enormous magnitude. I do want to thank Mike Lee for his great work on this. I rise today to speak in support of overriding the President's veto of S.J. Res. 7. On April 16, despite telling us that he is opposed to ``endless wars,'' President Trump used the second veto of his Presidency to reject S.J. Res. 7, which directs the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from the Saudi-led intervention in the Republic of Yemen, a war that began 4 years ago. The vote on that resolution that was passed here in the Senate was 54 to 46--all Democrats voting for it and 7 Republicans voting for it. The resolution passed the House on April 4 by a bipartisan vote of 247 to 175. The current situation in Yemen is the worst humanitarian disaster on Earth. In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammad bin Salman-- then Saudi Arabian Defense Minister and now the Crown Prince--a Saudi- led intervention in Yemen's ongoing civil war took place. According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe famine in more than 100 years, with some 14 million people--this is a small, poor country--some 14 million people now face starvation as a result of this war, this Saudi-led intervention we are supporting. According to the Save the Children organization, some 85,000 children have already starved to death, and millions more face death if the war continues. It gets much worse than that. A new United Nations-commissioned report, just published by the University of Denver, states that the impact of this war on civilians--particularly children--is actually far more serious than previously thought. If this war continues, the report estimates that by the end of 2019, it will have taken the lives of some 219,000 people in Yemen, including 140,000 children under the age of 5. According to this report, every 12 minutes, a Yemeni child is dying as a result of this war. The magnitude of the suffering in that country is literally unimaginable. We are talking about the possibility of millions of people starving to death and of hundreds of thousands of people dying by the end of this year. The fact is that the United States, with relatively little media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs the Saudi-led coalition is using. We have been refueling their planes before they drop those bombs. We have been assisting with intelligence. In many cases, our weapons are being used to kill women and children. Late last year, I met with several brave Yemeni human rights activists. They had come to urge Congress to put a stop to this war, and they told me clearly that when Yemenis see ``Made in the U.S.A.'' on the bombs that are killing them, it tells them that the U.S.A. is responsible for this war, and that is a sad and tragic truth. The bottom line is that the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy. Issue No. 1 is the horrific tragedy we are contributing to in Yemen. Issue No. 2 is equally important, and that is that the involvement of the United States in this war is clearly unconstitutional. I hear many of my Republican friends claim they are strict constitutionalists. If you are a strict constitutionalist, voting to override Trump's veto should be a no-brainer because this war has not been authorized by Congress. It is unconstitutional. Let me remind my colleagues who may have forgotten what is in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, section 8 states clearly that ``Congress shall have power to . . . declare war.'' While the President has the authority over the conduct of war once it has been declared, the Founding Fathers gave the power to authorize military conflicts to Congress--the branch most accountable to the people. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the assignment of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces to ``command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany'' another country's military during a war constitutes the introduction of the United States into a conflict. Our military involvement in the war in Yemen, which has included logistical and intelligence support, as well as aerial refueling of Saudi war planes, clearly meets this definition. For far too long, the Congress, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has abdicated its constitutional role with regard to the authorization of war. The historic passage of this resolution--the first time since the 1973 War Powers Resolution was passed that it has been successfully used to withdraw the United States from an unauthorized war--was a long-overdue step by Congress to reassert its constitutional authority. Finally, after years of abdicating that responsibility, Congress stood up, in the Senate and in the House, and said: Mr. President, you do not have the power to get U.S. troops involved in a war that we did not vote upon. And that is a big deal. Congress is finally doing what the Constitution of the United States mandates that it do. Within a half hour or so, the Senate must act to protect that constitutional responsibility by overriding the President's veto. I respect that there are Members of this body who voted against the initial resolution and that you support U.S. intervention in Yemen for one of a number of reasons, and I respect your point of view, but if you think the United States should be involved in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, bring that resolution to the floor of the Senate. Let's have that debate. You explain to the American people why we should be spending significant amounts of money and putting American military lives in danger and why you think it is a good idea. Come to the floor--that is what the Constitution says you should do--and let us vote that issue up or down. Maybe you win. Maybe you won't win. I think you won't win, but maybe you will. But let's have that debate. What is absolutely clear is that is the responsibility of the Senate and the House, and the President alone cannot decide when he wants to send American troops into conflict. The last point I want to make is that this vote this afternoon must make clear to Saudi Arabia that we will not continue to follow their lead into disastrous military interventions. Let us be very clear. Saudi Arabia is a despotic dictatorship that works overtime to prevent any movement in that country toward democracy. That is a country run by an incredibly wealthy family. I think Muhammad bin Salman has the distinction of owning both the largest yacht and the largest house in the world. They have endless wealth, and now they are using their wealth and power in a dangerous and irresponsible military intervention. Saudi Arabia is a nation that treats women not as second-class citizens but as third-class citizens. It is a nation that 7 months ago murdered a journalist in cold blood in its own consulate in Turkey and then dismembered his body. That was the signal to any dissident in Saudi Arabia that if you dare speak out against the royal family, that is what you have to look forward to--getting killed in cold blood and having your body dismembered. Dozens of people were recently executed in Saudi Arabia because of their opposition to government policy. The word has to get out to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that, no, we will not be following their lead and their interventions in wars that are only causing horrific pain in that region. In my view, what we should be doing in Yemen now is ending the bombing, supporting a diplomatic solution to the civil war there that finally brings peace to that region, providing immediate humanitarian aid, and helping the people, along with the international community, to rebuild their shattered economy, which is dysfunctional today. This is an important vote. It is an important vote that says the people of Yemen need humanitarian aid, not more bombs. It is a vote that says the Senate believes in the Constitution of this country, which says that it is Congress, not the President, that determines whether and when we go to war. It is a vote that tells Saudi Arabia we will not follow their lead in irresponsible intervention. I hope very much that the Members of this body summon up their courage and vote to override Trump's veto. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the tremendous work of Vermont's Meals on Wheels programs. Last year, Meals on Wheels prepared and home-delivered nearly 800,000 freshly cooked nutritious meals to more than 5,700 Vermont seniors. In our State the second oldest in the Nation, these meals are essential to helping ensure that older Vermonters, particularly those living in rural areas, have access to adequate nutrition. These meals are made possible by the hard work of hundreds of dedicated professionals and volunteers at Vermont's five Area Agencies on Aging, local Meals on Wheels providers, and senior centers. From the chefs who prepare the nutritious meals, to the senior center staff that coordinate deliveries, to the volunteer drivers who deliver the meals, Vermont's Meals on Wheels network is a critically important part of our social safety net for older Vermonters. Of course, Meals on Wheels is much more than just delivering a nutritious meal, as important as that is. Volunteer drivers also provide invaluable social interaction and companionship for the seniors they visit, which goes a long way to combat the effects of isolation that many older Vermonters face, especially if they live alone or in a more rural community. Without this social interaction, seniors are more likely to have feelings of loneliness and depression, which puts them at higher risk for dementia, chronic disease, falls, and hospitalization. The regular visits by Meals on Wheels volunteers serve another purpose, as well. The drivers check to make sure that the seniors are safe, secure, and warm. They know each person they visit and recognize immediately if something doesn't seem right. It is no exaggeration to say that Meals on Wheels volunteers have averted tragedies and even saved lives after finding seniors who have fallen or are in the midst of a medical emergency. Last month was ``March for Meals,'' when Meals on Wheels programs across the country commemorate the March 1972 signing into law of an amendment to the Older Americans Act of 1965 to create a national nutrition program for seniors 60 years and older. As we often do, many of my Vermont staff rode along with Meals on Wheels volunteers across the State to see the wonderful work they are doing and highlight the importance of Meals on Wheels in the lives of thousands of Vermonters. Let me end by thanking the Meals on Wheels staff and volunteers in Vermont for their remarkable work.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment provides an exception to this resolution in support of efforts to defend against threats to civilian population centers in coalition countries, including locations where citizens and nationals of the United States reside. But the President already has authority to support the defense of U.S. partners and U.S. citizens residing in those countries, so it simply duplicates the authorities the President already has. In the best interpretation, this amendment is unnecessary, but this amendment could also very easily be used by the administration as a loophole that will allow the Department of Defense to continue the unauthorized activities that the sponsors of this resolution are attempting to halt. This resolution is intended to end U.S. support for the Saudi war against the Houthis in Yemen, support that has not been authorized by Congress as the Constitution requires. Under the language of this amendment, the administration could continue to wage that war under different pretenses. The goal of this resolution is to get the United States out of a war. Senator Inhofe's amendment creates a pretext to keep the United States in that war. I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I move to table the Inhofe amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. We yield back time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senator Mike Lee and Senator Chris Murphy for their hard work on this important resolution--work which, in fact, has gone on now for several years. Today is an extremely important day. Today we in the Senate have the opportunity to take a major step forward in ending the horrific war in Yemen and alleviating the terrible, terrible suffering being experienced by the people in one of the poorest countries on Earth. Today, equally important, we can finally begin the process of reasserting Congress's responsibility over war-making. As every schoolchild should know, article I of the Constitution clearly states that it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to declare war. In their great wisdom, the Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of this country, gave that enormously important responsibility to Congress because the Members of the House and the Senate are closer and more accountable to the people of this country. Tragically, however, over many years, Congress has abdicated that responsibility to Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. Today we begin the process of reclaiming our constitutional authority by ending U.S. involvement in a war that has not been authorized by Congress and is clearly unconstitutional. Last December, this body made history for the first time since the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973. A majority of Senators--56 of us, in a bipartisan way--used those powers from the War Powers Act to end U.S. involvement in a war. Today we consider that exact same resolution once again in the new Congress. This time, however, unlike last session, this resolution will be brought to the House floor, and I strongly believe will be passed. Let me say a brief word about the war in Yemen. In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammad bin Salman, then Saudi Defense Minister and now the Crown Prince, a Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen's ongoing civil war. As a result of that intervention, Yemen is now experiencing the worst humanitarian disaster on the planet. According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe famine in 100 years, with some 14 million people facing the possibility of starvation. In one of the poorest countries on Earth, as a result of this war, according to the Save the Children organization, some 85,000 children in Yemen have already starved to death over the last several years--an unimaginable number, unimaginable suffering and destruction. If this war continues, what the experts tell us is that millions more will also face famine and starvation. Further, Yemen is currently experiencing the worst cholera outbreak in the world, with as many as 10,000 new cases each week, according to the World Health Organization. This is a disease spread by infected water that causes severe diarrhea and dehydration and will only accelerate the death rate. The cholera outbreak has occurred because Saudi bombs have destroyed Yemen's water infrastructure and people are no longer able to access clean drinking water. The fact is that the United States, with little media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs that the Saudi-led coalition is using. We have been refueling their planes before they drop those bombs, and we have been assisting with intelligence. In too many cases, our weapons are being used to kill civilians. In August, it was an American-made bomb that obliterated a schoolbus full of young boys, killing dozens and wounding many more. A CNN report found evidence that American weapons have been used in a string of such deadly attacks on civilians since the war began. This past weekend--this past weekend--at least 20 women and a child were killed in a Saudi-led airstrike on Yemen's northwestern Province of Hajjah, as they huddled in a house to avoid nearby clashes. As is so often the case in war, the innocent, the women and the children, pay the price. Late last year, I met with several brave Yemeni human rights activists. They had come to Congress to urge us to put a stop to this war. They told me clearly: When Yemenis see ``Made in America'' on the bombs that are killing them, it tells them that the United States is responsible for this war. That is the sad truth. The bottom line is that the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy. Some have suggested that Congress moving to withdraw support for this war would undermine the United Nations' efforts to reach a peace agreement, but the opposite is true. It is the promise of unconditional U.S. support for the Saudis that undermines those efforts. We have evidence of this. Last December, as we were preparing to vote on this same resolution, we received news that U.N. Special Envoy Martin Griffiths reached a breakthrough agreement for a ceasefire in the port city of Hodeidah. That ceasefire, which is being maintained today, is enabling food and increased humanitarian aid into the country. I have spoken to people at the highest level of those negotiations, who have made it clear that our actions here in the Senate played a significant role in pushing Saudi Arabia toward an agreement. That pressure must continue, and the resolution I hope we pass today will do just that. Our effort on this issue has clearly made a positive impact, and I thank all of the cosponsors of this resolution for their efforts and all of the civil society organizations--progressive and conservative organizations--that have worked so hard to raise awareness of this conflict and the constitutional implications. Above and beyond the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, this war has been harmful to our national security and the security of the region. The administration defends our engagement in Yemen by overstating Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Let me be clear. Iran's support for the Houthis is of serious concern for all of us, but the truth is that support there is far less significant than the administration claims. The fact is that the relationship between Iran and the Houthis has only been strengthened by this war. The war is creating the very problem the administration claims to want to solve. This war is also undermining the broader effort against violent extremists. A 2016 State Department report found that the conflict had helped al-Qaida and the Islamic State's Yemen branch ``deepen their inroads across much of the country.'' The head of the International Rescue Committee, former British Foreign Minister David Miliband, said in a recent interview that ``the winners are the extremist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS.'' Late last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that ``nearly two years after being driven from its stronghold in Yemen, one of al Qaeda's most dangerous franchises has entrenched itself in the country's hinterlands as a devastating war creates the conditions for its comeback.'' Here is something that should deeply concern us all. At a time when we are spending billions to fight terrorism all over the world, a February CNN report revealed that Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al-Qaida-linked fighters in Yemen. Does anyone here think it makes sense that U.S. weapons should be given to groups who have declared war against the United States? This war is both a humanitarian and a strategic disaster. Let us also not forget that this war is being led by a despotic, undemocratic regime in Saudi Arabia. The United States of America--the most powerful country on Earth--should not be led into a regional war by our client states that are trying to serve their own narrow and selfish interests. It should not be Saudi Arabia that is developing and implementing American foreign and military policy. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy controlled by one of the wealthiest families in the world--the Saud family. In a 2017 report by the Cato Institute, Saudi Arabia was ranked 149th out of 159 countries for freedom and human rights. Is this really the kind of country whose foreign policy we should be supporting with U.S. taxpayer dollars? For decades, the Saudis have funded schools, mosques, and preachers who promote an extreme form of Islam known as Wahhabism. In Saudi Arabia today, women are treated as third-class citizens. Women still need the permission of a male guardian to go to school or to get a job. They have to follow a strict dress code and can be stoned to death for adultery or flogged for spending time in the company of a man who is not their relative. Last year, Saudi activist Loujain al-Hathloul, a leader in the fight for women's rights, was kidnapped from Abu Dhabi and forced to return to the country. She is currently imprisoned, along with many other human rights activists. Human Rights Watch reported that imprisoned women activists have been subjected to torture, including electric shocks, and other forms of physical and sexual assault. The people of the entire world received a very clear understanding of the nature of the Saudi regime with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. All of the evidence suggests that the Saudi Crown Prince was directly responsible for that murder. Is that really the kind of regime whose leads we in the United States should be following? I believe the U.S. Congress has become far too comfortable with military interventions all over the world. We have now been in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years--the longest war in American history. We also have troops in many other countries around the world. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in determining when and where our country goes to war. This resolution provides that opportunity. I hope this body will do exactly as it did in December and, in a bipartisan manner, pass this resolution. The humanitarian catastrophe has only gotten worse in Yemen, and our intervention there is every bit as unconstitutional as it was when we passed this resolution in December. Let us bring this catastrophic war in Yemen to an end. Let us focus our efforts on a diplomatic resolution to end that war. Let us provide the humanitarian aid needed to protect the hungry and the sick in Yemen. In a historic vote 45 years after the passage of the War Powers Act, let us today reassert Congress's constitutional responsibility in terms of war-making. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Lawliss from my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day on S.J. Res. 7.